If you shake someone's hand and risk bringing some respiratory disease back home then perhaps divorce is in order or maybe time spent with someone in the mental health industry. Have a Great Day ma'am.
Mostly true, but it's not that much more difficult for men. Those women are having sex with someone, after all, and I'm pretty sure it's not all the same guy. Be confident, but not a dick, a good listener, semi-romantic, don't waste time on girls who aren't interested, and you'll get more than enough. Most guys are their own biggest obstacle, particularly those who get hung up on "the one."
Based on your outrage, it seems like you've been cheated on in the past, and/or that you're very worried about it happening in the future. Why not talk about that instead of just calling everyone else out.
In my own experience, I was cheated on by the first girl I had slept with. I was hurt and outraged at the time, but in retrospect, I'm very glad I didn't end up with her, and I don't wish her ill will in her own life. It's over, we're not together, we weren't right for each other, and cheating was just a symptom of that. Maybe she could have dealt with it better, and I certainly could have, but it's not the end of the world, and she should not "fucking kill herself."
Sensitive much? The details of a relationship are between two people, not two people and drinkypoo.
Keeping a secret does not mean "they're not you're partner; they're someone you're taking advantage of," partly because taking advantage of someone and partnership are not mutually exclusive, but also because keeping a secret is not inherently taking advantage of someone.
How many people here tell their spouses their Slashdot username? Or about every post they've made online? Or about every snack they've eaten? People have lots of secrets; some benign, some not; some that would cause arguments, and some that would end them. I'm sure you have your own, because you're presumably a person, and that's what people do -- keep secrets. It doesn't make you an asshole to keep a secret, but it does when you judge other people for it.
Another simplistic argument. Many things are secret but not immoral, and some things are immoral, but don't need to be secret, and there's an argument to be made that harming a spouse through transparency is less moral than sleeping with someone else in the first place.
I'm not married, but if I did marry my current girlfriend, I have full confidence that she would expect fidelity, because she's already said so. Many of my past girlfriends haven't said that, and some have said "I won't ask, don't tell me, and don't let me find out." The details of any relationship are the agreement made between two individuals.
The site itself is not immoral for the service they provide; it's immoral because it's a scam. Some, many, or all of the people using it may be, or have been, behaving immorally, but we can't tell that without knowing more about their relationship, which is really none of our business.
Society as a whole has the same problem when they want to condemn cheaters and accept divorces. In both cases the same contract is being broken.
First of all, marriage is not a common contract, because it has very specialized consequences. But you already knew that, if you're a lawyer.
Second, There's a difference between unilaterally breaking a contract, and mutually agreeing to nullify a contract. But you also know that.
You're making a lot of contorted arguments to somehow tie morality to law, when the two are completely unrelated, and any overlap whatsoever is purely coincidental.
Ironically, there's nothing in a traditional wedding vow that says anything about monogamy. At best, people are breaking social expectations.
Would that make my poop a derivative work as well?
If inconveniencing a few million people is worth saving a few hundred lives, then inconveniencing a few hundred million people is worth saving tens of thousands of lives, yes?
So let's ban driving.
Shall we continue, or can we agree that line of reasoning would lead to all sorts of unintended consequences?
"National security," needs to be reserved for existential threats. Terrorism is not, and has never been, an existential threat, and it should be treated proportionally, as a crime.
People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected.
See: the military.
If you're not prepared to die in the course of your job, don't join the force. Other people will.
YouTube is asking people to prove a negative. Their system is set up for showing that the uploader owns the copyright on a work, but when no-one has that copyright it breaks down.
Exactly, and that's the opposite of reality. Everything is in the public domain unless someone asserts their copyright.
Not the OP, but subjective labels like "evil" are useless at best, and maybe even evil at worst.
Damn you and your fancy-pants reading comprehension!
*Markings* do not make something classified; the content does. The markings are just to make it easier to handle the content appropriately. If you've never worked with classified information, then kindly either educate yourself or refrain from posting misinformation.
Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"