It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ashley Madison, infamous infidelity website, target of data hack

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


Here is a question for you...
What makes you think cheaters are going to be honest when asked why they cheated?


I'll take that question.

The researchers made sure they didn't have their fingers crossed when they answered the questions.

Really.

Why is this so hard for some to understand!


Researchers are cutting corners now, it seems.

Previously, questions that relied on truthful answers were prefaced with "I triple dog dare you to answer truthfully". It yielded a consistent truth rate of 99.8 percent.




posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
In a published and respected journal.


originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Thanks.


Your welcome Doctor Charles.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Since one or both of us have no understanding of the others point.


I understand your point quite well. You feel the site 'needs to be shut down' because it disagrees with your morality.

It is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.




edit on 20-7-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


Here is a question for you...
What makes you think cheaters are going to be honest when asked why they cheated?


I'll take that question.

The researchers made sure they didn't have their fingers crossed when they answered the questions.

Really.

Why is this so hard for some to understand!


Researchers are cutting corners now, it seems.

Previously, questions that relied on truthful answers were prefaced with "I triple dog dare you to answer truthfully". It yielded a consistent truth rate of 99.8 percent.


Triple dog dares were subsequently banned in the 90's when someone from the White House Press Corps tried to use it in an interview.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Go back to the beginning...

I never said it's never the case...

My argument is that it is not "the typical" reason as proclaimed.

And anyone who suggests so can only base that on the testimony of liars who have cheated because they didn't have the moral fortitude you have not to cheat...
& therefore it's a different argument (could have cheated as opposed to the current did in fact cheat) & their statement is still suspect.

While yours is similar as it could have been it is not equatable because it didn't happen.
edit on 20-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Klassified

This is not about broken hearts. This is about life long traumatic PTSD.

And I will let you tell my mother she needs to simply get over it and move on.

So it is personal(I thought so), and both of you are bitter. Yes, it is about broken hearts, and growing up. It's about learning to forgive, and move on with your life. I've been there. I've experienced the hurt firsthand. And no, I don't wish her any harm, or any jail time. Do yourself, and your mom a favor. Get counseling. I'm sorry you and your mom went through that, but like I said. Don't wanna get hurt? Don't have relationships.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
And you feel it should remain open. So you are supporting the activities, inadvertently or not.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

And you feel it should remain open. So you are supporting the activities, inadvertently or not.


I frankly do not care what a legal, private website does, it is not my concern since unlike you I am not the goddamn morality police.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Go back to the beginning...

I never said it's never the case...

My argument is that it is not "the typical" reason as proclaimed.

And anyone who suggests so can only base that on the testimony of liars who have cheated because they didn't have the moral fortitude you have not to cheat...
& therefore it's a different argument (could have cheated as opposed to the current did in fact cheat) & their statement is still suspect.

While yours is similar as it could have been it is not equatable because it didn't happen.
Ah I see, so my testimony is inadmissible because I didn't cheat.

But had I cheated, my testimony would be inadmissible because then I'd be a LIAR.

Your circular logic is astounding.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


For those of you cheering on the hackers due to morality I wonder what you will say if you get hacked over something you do that they find immoral in their viewpoint.

If an adult wants to piss away their relationship what the hell business is it of yours?


Ask me that question again when it's your sig other who winds being one of those adults pissing away his or her relationship. The point of the website is to be able to cheat and get away with it, so our sig others could be at it and we might be blissfully oblivious.

Now do I care about this? No, but I see why people don't like it and sympathize.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


Here is a question for you...
What makes you think cheaters are going to be honest when asked why they cheated?


I'll take that question.

The researchers made sure they didn't have their fingers crossed when they answered the questions.

Really.

Why is this so hard for some to understand!


Researchers are cutting corners now, it seems.

Previously, questions that relied on truthful answers were prefaced with "I triple dog dare you to answer truthfully". It yielded a consistent truth rate of 99.8 percent.


Triple dog dares were subsequently banned in the 90's when someone from the White House Press Corps tried to use it in an interview.


I was not aware of that fact. It could be a source of trouble as rumor has it that Trump will be using it if he is allowed into the debates nearer election time.

Anyway, I suspect many who lie quite often get lost in a state of mind where lies and truth are freely interchanged in their reality. Hard to believe anything said.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I am fine. I Simply think it should be and needs to be illegal.

But I am for democracy, so if you all (not you personally) want legalized infidelity then you can have it.

My mom does get help and has been doing so for over 20 years. It is not as easy for some as it is for others.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Go back to the beginning...

I never said it's never the case...

My argument is that it is not "the typical" reason as proclaimed.

And anyone who suggests so can only base that on the testimony of liars who have cheated because they didn't have the moral fortitude you have not to cheat...
& therefore it's a different argument (could have cheated as opposed to the current did in fact cheat) & their statement is still suspect.

While yours is similar as it could have been it is not equatable because it didn't happen.
Ah I see, so my testimony is inadmissible because I didn't cheat.

But had I cheated, my testimony would be inadmissible because then I'd be a LIAR.

Your circular logic is astounding.


Are you an ignoramus or did you miss the second line of that post???

I never said it never happens, I'm questioning whether it's the typical/usual/most likely cause!!!



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ask me that question again when it's your sig other who winds being one of those adults pissing away his or her relationship.


That would be her concern and mine, not a hacktivist group.


Now do I care about this? No, but I see why people don't like it and sympathize.


I understand why people do not like this site but they are still afforded all the legal protections of the law and so are their clients.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Go back to the beginning...

I never said it's never the case...

My argument is that it is not "the typical" reason as proclaimed.

And anyone who suggests so can only base that on the testimony of liars who have cheated because they didn't have the moral fortitude you have not to cheat...
& therefore it's a different argument (could have cheated as opposed to the current did in fact cheat) & their statement is still suspect.

While yours is similar as it could have been it is not equatable because it didn't happen.
Ah I see, so my testimony is inadmissible because I didn't cheat.

But had I cheated, my testimony would be inadmissible because then I'd be a LIAR.

Your circular logic is astounding.


Are you an ignoramus or did you miss the second line of that post???

I never said it never happens, I'm questioning whether it's the typical/usual/most likely cause!!!
I see. So because I didn't address the second line of your reply, my entire reply is considered moot?

That's not how you debate someone. Okay, I'll address your other point, then YOU can tell me how your circular logic is more valid than the study.

What other cause would you put forward as the most likely?

I'm curious now. If feelings of being unwanted or ignored are not the primary factor in cheating, what, in your opinion IS the primary reason?



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


Here is a question for you...
What makes you think cheaters are going to be honest when asked why they cheated?


I'll take that question.

The researchers made sure they didn't have their fingers crossed when they answered the questions.

Really.

Why is this so hard for some to understand!


Researchers are cutting corners now, it seems.

Previously, questions that relied on truthful answers were prefaced with "I triple dog dare you to answer truthfully". It yielded a consistent truth rate of 99.8 percent.


Triple dog dares were subsequently banned in the 90's when someone from the White House Press Corps tried to use it in an interview.


I was not aware of that fact. It could be a source of trouble as rumor has it that Trump will be using it if he is allowed into the debates nearer election time.

Anyway, I suspect many who lie quite often get lost in a state of mind where lies and truth are freely interchanged in their reality. Hard to believe anything said.


"Never trust anything you read on the internet."

-Abraham Loncoln



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


Here is a question for you...
What makes you think cheaters are going to be honest when asked why they cheated?


I'll take that question.

The researchers made sure they didn't have their fingers crossed when they answered the questions.

Really.

Why is this so hard for some to understand!


Researchers are cutting corners now, it seems.

Previously, questions that relied on truthful answers were prefaced with "I triple dog dare you to answer truthfully". It yielded a consistent truth rate of 99.8 percent.


Triple dog dares were subsequently banned in the 90's when someone from the White House Press Corps tried to use it in an interview.


I was not aware of that fact. It could be a source of trouble as rumor has it that Trump will be using it if he is allowed into the debates nearer election time.

Anyway, I suspect many who lie quite often get lost in a state of mind where lies and truth are freely interchanged in their reality. Hard to believe anything said.


"Never trust anything you read on the internet."

-Abraham Loncoln
Wow, Honest Abe really said that?

He seems to be trustworthy enough. I believe it.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


Here is a question for you...
What makes you think cheaters are going to be honest when asked why they cheated?


I'll take that question.

The researchers made sure they didn't have their fingers crossed when they answered the questions.

Really.

Why is this so hard for some to understand!


Researchers are cutting corners now, it seems.

Previously, questions that relied on truthful answers were prefaced with "I triple dog dare you to answer truthfully". It yielded a consistent truth rate of 99.8 percent.


Triple dog dares were subsequently banned in the 90's when someone from the White House Press Corps tried to use it in an interview.


I was not aware of that fact. It could be a source of trouble as rumor has it that Trump will be using it if he is allowed into the debates nearer election time.

Anyway, I suspect many who lie quite often get lost in a state of mind where lies and truth are freely interchanged in their reality. Hard to believe anything said.


It's okay; Lying has already been officially sanctioned by the U.S. Government:
"Read my lips: No new taxes!"

"I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

"If you LIKE your policy, you can KEEP your policy...PERIOD!"

edit on 20-7-2015 by IAMTAT because: order



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


For those of you cheering on the hackers due to morality I wonder what you will say if you get hacked over something you do that they find immoral in their viewpoint.

If an adult wants to piss away their relationship what the hell business is it of yours?


Ask me that question again when it's your sig other who winds being one of those adults pissing away his or her relationship. The point of the website is to be able to cheat and get away with it, so our sig others could be at it and we might be blissfully oblivious.

Now do I care about this? No, but I see why people don't like it and sympathize.


The website does nothing more than provide a platform to make it easier for someone who is most likely already a cheater and most likely will cheat with or without a website! Should we shut down bars as well?

Attacking a website, for the behaviors already inherent in an individual is pretty much the same as those who choose to blame guns instead of the "Behavior"???

I guess Political Correctness is now officially becoming a standard for all? Where will this end?
edit on 20-7-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Why have any laws? Are not all laws supposed to written based on a Moral Code?

The Law is the moral police. If you are not against something then you are for it, inadvertently or not.

It is my opinion that the website is a disgrace to humanity and the institution of Monogamous relatioships. It is that simple.

You are more concerned with privacy over morality.

Not the privacy one SHOULD have in thier own home, but the legalized profiting off of immorality in a public domain. I don't want to take my kids to the mall and have them see a booth for Ashley Madison. But you are ok with profiting off immorality, as long as no one infringers on your privacy, which according to the NSA you don't have anyway.

I don't care if you don't believe in Monogamous relationships. If you don't believe in them it is as simple as not entering into one. No one ever needs to cheat, nor should anyone do so. So a website that supports such activities supports immorality.

Profiting off immorality is wrong and should not be protected by law.


edit on 20-7-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join