Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
§ 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty.
Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
Code 1950, §§18.1-187, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Thinking Reasonably?
()
Date: August 20, 2015 06:08AM
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
"the burden of proof is on him who declares, not on him who denies" - Innocent until proven guilty
---
In light of all of this Ashley Madison bullshit, let's not forget about presumption of innocence. I know the majority of you already have your torches lit and your pitchforks sharpened, but what crime has been committed thus far?
Accessing a website?
Last I checked, that's not a crime.
So before we get all high and mighty and start waving the morals flag, let's take a step back and look at the situation.
1. Did these people commit adultery?
Maybe. But let's be serious: Just being a member of a "dating" site doesn't guarantee you get dates.
2. Is what they did morally wrong?
Maybe. That depends on your moral compass and what (to you) is right or wrong.
3. Should these people have to answer to anybody for what they did?
Maybe. Every situation is different. From the list I've seen, there's all sorts of domain names that raise eyebrows (.mil, .gov, .edu, etc.). If employees of local/state/federal government are accessing this stuff from their work computers on my dime, yes, they should be held accountable. However, if the mayor wants to get his dick wet behind his wife's back, and he does so from his laptop in his man cave, I see no issue with that.
To me, that's a lot of maybes.
All I'm saying is, let's put away the pitchforks and torches for a little while. I know that the people here on FFXU love a good lynching, but let's let this play out a little bit and see how this all pans out on it's own. Who knows, we may be seeing some unexpected/abrupt turnover in the gov't a little sooner than expected.
"the burden of proof is on him who declares, not on him who denies" - Innocent until proven guilty
---
In light of all of this Ashley Madison bullshit, let's not forget about presumption of innocence. I know the majority of you already have your torches lit and your pitchforks sharpened, but what crime has been committed thus far?
Accessing a website?
Last I checked, that's not a crime.
So before we get all high and mighty and start waving the morals flag, let's take a step back and look at the situation.
1. Did these people commit adultery?
Maybe. But let's be serious: Just being a member of a "dating" site doesn't guarantee you get dates.
2. Is what they did morally wrong?
Maybe. That depends on your moral compass and what (to you) is right or wrong.
3. Should these people have to answer to anybody for what they did?
Maybe. Every situation is different. From the list I've seen, there's all sorts of domain names that raise eyebrows (.mil, .gov, .edu, etc.). If employees of local/state/federal government are accessing this stuff from their work computers on my dime, yes, they should be held accountable. However, if the mayor wants to get his dick wet behind his wife's back, and he does so from his laptop in his man cave, I see no issue with that.
To me, that's a lot of maybes.
All I'm saying is, let's put away the pitchforks and torches for a little while. I know that the people here on FFXU love a good lynching, but let's let this play out a little bit and see how this all pans out on it's own. Who knows, we may be seeing some unexpected/abrupt turnover in the gov't a little sooner than expected.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Ying Ko
()
Date: August 20, 2015 08:53AM
you seem guilty.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
mjs
()
Date: August 21, 2015 10:51AM
if someone wnats to get strange... have at it...
but not on my taxpayer's dime. IE use you own goddamn email address, use your own goddamned credit card.
and when you wife wants a divorce since you'd been activily searching for strange, be ready to pay though the nose.
but not on my taxpayer's dime. IE use you own goddamn email address, use your own goddamned credit card.
and when you wife wants a divorce since you'd been activily searching for strange, be ready to pay though the nose.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Truth Hurts
()
Date: August 21, 2015 11:23AM
§ 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty.
Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
Code 1950, §§18.1-187, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Truth Hurts? Evidence Matters.
()
Date: August 21, 2015 12:26PM
Truth Hurts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> § 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty.
> Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall
> have sexual intercourse with any person not his or
> her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable
> as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
>
> Code 1950, §§18.1-187, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358;
> 1975, cc. 14, 15.
PROVE to me that each person on that list had "sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse" and thus is guilty.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
The fact of the matter is: The truth DOES hurt, but you don't know what the truth is. All you know is that a bunch of people used their credit card to access a website.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> § 18.2-365. Adultery defined; penalty.
> Any person, being married, who voluntarily shall
> have sexual intercourse with any person not his or
> her spouse shall be guilty of adultery, punishable
> as a Class 4 misdemeanor.
>
> Code 1950, §§18.1-187, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358;
> 1975, cc. 14, 15.
PROVE to me that each person on that list had "sexual intercourse with any person not his or her spouse" and thus is guilty.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
The fact of the matter is: The truth DOES hurt, but you don't know what the truth is. All you know is that a bunch of people used their credit card to access a website.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Good luck with that
()
Date: August 21, 2015 03:27PM
Truth Hurts? Evidence Matters. Wrote:
--------------------------------------------
> Go ahead, I'll wait.
Don't hold your breath.
--------------------------------------------
> Go ahead, I'll wait.
Don't hold your breath.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Oh ya you did
()
Date: August 21, 2015 03:35PM
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Jared from Subway
()
Date: August 24, 2015 08:53AM
Thinking Reasonably? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All I'm saying is, let's put away the pitchforks
> and torches for a little while.
Damnit, OP - I just spent all weekend sharpening ol' "trusty rusty!"
-------------------------------------------------------
> All I'm saying is, let's put away the pitchforks
> and torches for a little while.
Damnit, OP - I just spent all weekend sharpening ol' "trusty rusty!"
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Jerry Springer...
()
Date: August 24, 2015 09:09AM
The whole pathetic affair is just another Romper Room ruckus. It's like sharks being drawn to the scent of blood, except that actual sharks would be a whole lot smarter than the assorted squid swimming around this ridiculous AM thing.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Diego de Deza Tavera
()
Date: August 24, 2015 09:43AM
Thinking Reasonably? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, if the mayor wants to get his dick wet
> behind his wife's back, and he does so from his
> laptop in his man cave, I see no issue with that.
While in theory, it is every person's right to act as they please, I would reserve the right to say I actually would "have an issue" with this. It is my experience that folks with no moral compunction to cheating on their wives are frequently also missing a moral compass in business/professional dealings as well.
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, if the mayor wants to get his dick wet
> behind his wife's back, and he does so from his
> laptop in his man cave, I see no issue with that.
While in theory, it is every person's right to act as they please, I would reserve the right to say I actually would "have an issue" with this. It is my experience that folks with no moral compunction to cheating on their wives are frequently also missing a moral compass in business/professional dealings as well.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
bahahahaahahaha11
()
Date: August 24, 2015 10:06AM
They got busted, they have some splainin to do! LOL
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Attention, dopes
()
Date: August 24, 2015 12:49PM
"Busted" would be getting caught actually doing something.
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
Louis Responds
()
Date: August 24, 2015 07:08PM
In the words of Louis C.K....
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
BS Detector
()
Date: August 24, 2015 07:45PM
Jerry Springer... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole pathetic affair is just another Romper
> Room ruckus. It's like sharks being drawn to the
> scent of blood, except that actual sharks would be
> a whole lot smarter than the assorted squid
> swimming around this ridiculous AM thing.
Bullshit. This is a perfect example of you reap what you sew! These cheaters had it coming!
-------------------------------------------------------
> The whole pathetic affair is just another Romper
> Room ruckus. It's like sharks being drawn to the
> scent of blood, except that actual sharks would be
> a whole lot smarter than the assorted squid
> swimming around this ridiculous AM thing.
Bullshit. This is a perfect example of you reap what you sew! These cheaters had it coming!
Re: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Posted by:
and it COULD be worse
()
Date: August 24, 2015 08:15PM
IN Japan, all 37 million subscribers would be expected to commit sepuku.