Ashley Madison (cheating / affair website) hacked

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, you are clearly not among them... The evolving theory in law is that marriage is a contract? John Locke is a major source of modern legal theory? What on Earth am I reading?

You appear to have no understanding about the respective roles of common law rules and legislation, for a start, and I'd suggest you stop digging because this is now two threads where everyone is now looking at you like a crazy guy in a restaurant who suddenly started yelling at his surf & turf.

No, I'm not. I was at one point a published political scientist with a focus in political philosophy. I tend to lightly play around with some of the issues I used to write about on here without going full blown political science. For the record, my SSM comments aren't crazy but we're pretty much paraphrased from Scalia's minority dissent.

I always found most lawyers to be on a different page, and also mostly wrong. But then you would come at it a different way. My concerns are theoretical and yours aren't.

And instead of talking out of your butt, I would like you to show me how modern law has deviated from the social contract theorists so significantly that it has absolutely nothing to do with modern legal theory. Keep in mind, all Charter rights in Canada are framed in Lockean terms, so is a lot of Constitutional law.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, I'm not. I was at one point a published political scientist with a focus in political philosophy. I tend to lightly play around with some of the issues I used to write about on here without going full blown political science. For the record, my SSM comments aren't crazy but we're pretty much paraphrased from Scalia's minority dissent.

Granted, I don't know much about American law, but I think that this is where you went wrong. As far as I can tell, Justice Scalia is crazy and his dissent is crazy.

Originally Posted by peter12

And instead of talking out of your butt, I would like you to show me how modern law has deviated from the social contract theorists so significantly that it has absolutely nothing to do with modern legal theory. Keep in mind, all Charter rights in Canada are framed in Lockean terms, so is a lot of Constitutional law.

There is little doubt that the theory of a social contract underpins much of Canadian law. For example, Chief Justice McLachlin refers to it in order to bolster her decision regarding the voting rights of federal inmates in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2002 SCC 68:

31 Denying penitentiary inmates the right to vote misrepresents the nature of our rights and obligations under the law and consequently undermines them. In a democracy such as ours, the power of lawmakers flows from the voting citizens, and lawmakers act as the citizens’ proxies. This delegation from voters to legislators gives the law its legitimacy or force. Correlatively, the obligation to obey the law flows from the fact that the law is made by and on behalf of the citizens. In sum, the legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law flow directly from the right of every citizen to vote. As a practical matter, we require all within our country’s boundaries to obey its laws, whether or not they vote. But this does not negate the vital symbolic, theoretical and practical connection between having a voice in making the law and being obliged to obey it. This connection, inherited from social contract theory and enshrined in the Charter, stands at the heart of our system of constitutional democracy.

That said, social contract theory is a foundation, not walls. And, obviously, the nature of the "social contract" has changed immensely as we have moved from Locke's industrial society to Canada's post-industrial society. For example, Locke's understanding of the institution of marriage is, in my view, simply irrelevant to the contemporary institution of marriage in Canada.

[corporatejay]

I sincerely hope you guys don't talk like this at your respective firms. I suspect it would impress your summer students and no one else.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I sincerely hope you guys don't talk like this at your respective firms. I suspect it would impress your summer students and no one else.

I never impress our summer students.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, I'm not. I was at one point a published political scientist with a focus in political philosophy. I tend to lightly play around with some of the issues I used to write about on here without going full blown political science. For the record, my SSM comments aren't crazy but we're pretty much paraphrased from Scalia's minority dissent.

I always found most lawyers to be on a different page, and also mostly wrong. But then you would come at it a different way. My concerns are theoretical and yours aren't.

And instead of talking out of your butt, I would like you to show me how modern law has deviated from the social contract theorists so significantly that it has absolutely nothing to do with modern legal theory. Keep in mind, all Charter rights in Canada are framed in Lockean terms, so is a lot of Constitutional law.

Ranchlandsselling: You're a published political scientist with a focus in political philosophy. You just got finished reading some Marxian Historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna' be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you're gonna' be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna' last until next year, you're gonna' be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talking about ya know, the Pre-Revolutionary utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization.

Peter12: Well, as a matter of fact I won't because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social...

Ranchlandsselling: (interrupting) Wood drastically... Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers. "Work in Essex County", page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that you thing, you come into a thread, you read some obscure passage, and then pretend, you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some posters and embarrass my friend? You see, the sad thing about a guy like you is that in 50 years, you're gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped way too much money on all your shoes that you could have gotten for a few bucks at payless.

[troutman]

Locke is ok, but Hammurabi is where it is at.

[CaptainYooh]

Cocky young lawyers sparring about nothing... Booooring...

[Cappy]

Back on topic

Leaking this sort of information is illegal, regardless of the intent of the website. Cheating is not illegal, and more people do it than would care to admit.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I sincerely hope you guys don't talk like this at your respective firms. I suspect it would impress your summer students and no one else.

Please.

This could maybe impress a first year law and society major...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I sincerely hope you guys don't talk like this at your respective firms. I suspect it would impress your summer students and no one else.

Anonymous internet condescension! My favourite.

[Erick Estrada]

What ever happened to the actual thread topic? People cheat. Always have. Always will. Get over it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by troutman

Locke is ok, but Hammurabi is where it is at.

How does this not have more thanks?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Anonymous internet condescension! My favourite.

We have the same job. I've just been doing it longer.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Hmmmm... I'll go ahead and guess... BJ's?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Back on topic

Leaking this sort of information is illegal, regardless of the intent of the website. Cheating is not illegal, and more people do it than would care to admit.

Correct, but I still don't feel bad for anyone involved if their info gets leaked. I hope the hackers get caught at precisely the moment they release the info, destoying both the company and the personal finances of all involved. I like it when bad things happen to bad people.

1) Cheating is gutless and cheaters are terrible people. I don't care that 'more people do it than are willing to admit', it doesn't justify it. I'm not up for a morality debate, that's just how I see it. No it's not murder or something terrible like that, but it still signals to me that you are a worthless piece of #### if you do it.

2) Don't put so much personal info on the web where you can be burned by malicious hackers. I use prepaid credit cards for online purchases and never put personal info out there (if I have to it's never fully correct). Seriously, it's like people don't even know what the internet is.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hmmmm... I'll go ahead and guess... BJ's?

You talking Ashley Madison or law firms?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Ba-zing!

... I mean, probably both, right?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Correct, but I still don't feel bad for anyone involved if their info gets leaked. I hope the hackers get caught at precisely the moment they release the info, destoying both the company and the personal finances of all involved. I like it when bad things happen to bad people.

1) Cheating is gutless and cheaters are terrible people. I don't care that 'more people do it than are willing to admit', it doesn't justify it. I'm not up for a morality debate, that's just how I see it. No it's not murder or something terrible like that, but it still signals to me that you are a worthless piece of #### if you do it.

2) Don't put so much personal info on the web where you can be burned by malicious hackers. I use prepaid credit cards for online purchases and never put personal info out there (if I have to it's never fully correct). Seriously, it's like people don't even know what the internet is.

While I agree with you, not everyone on that site is married or looking to cheat. Being the other man/woman someone uses to cheat on their SO with is a different morality debate. Could be argued they're not in the wrong at all. In a scenario without Ashley Madison, there would be instances of cheating where the other person wouldn't even know the person their with is married. There would probably be people who would lie about that even on the site. And, has been mentioned before, this doesn't account for people who have open marriages. How people view that is up to them, but if both party's are in agreeance with that type of thing, who's to say otherwise?

If the hackers issue is the sites existence in general, hack the company's financials. Expose them for their practices. But as mentioned many times, if your goal is to social justice their way to eliminate cheating from the world, good luck. As reprehensible as we find cheating to be, it's purely a personal matter and is the business of no one but the people involved.

I wonder how many people who want to see all the Ashely Madison members tarred and feathered for cheating feel about me driving the speed limit in the left lane to prevent someone from breaking the law and speeding. It's my understanding that people hate that.

[AcGold]

Depends which left lane. Streets, roads and avenues left lane is the same as right lane and pushy dbags in the left lane should be fined because it makes the road more dangerous.

On major highways where there are no left turn designations left lane slow pokes make the road more dangerous. It's not just going slow in the left lane is bad, depends if there are intersections and left turns.

[ken0042]

While it makes sense that people might have multiple accounts, I also wonder if there are a certain number of accounts from people who signed up not knowing what the site was about. I had seen the commercials on TV with the zombies, and took it as a site where you could order lingerie and stuff like that from. (To add life to your marriage.)

The reason I think of the multiple accounts, I think of a room mate I used to have. He always had several girls on the go. It was to the point I had to program my own phone in my room with their phone numbers so I could keep them straight. That was in the early days of call display, where it only showed the number and not the name. If you had a certain phone you could assign names to the numbers, so I could see it was "Lisa" calling, and not "Jennifer."

I could see somebody who was into cheating needing multiple accounts to make sure there wasn't cross referencing between the cheatees.