Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#901

Post by smsm42 »

twoodfin wrote: post #281
andrewpi wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008; I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here, but the head of Mozilla doesn't?

I can understand why he gets a pass: He probably was only publicly against it in 2008 in order to win an election, and when it was politically convenient he had a "change of heart" and has repented. What I can't understand is why anyone who espouses the view that opposition to gay marriage is akin to the most heinous racial bigotry could possibly have voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm a pretty reliable GOP voter, b…

So, being against gay marriage is so despicable that you can't even use software that is associated with organization that is run by such a vile man. But if this vile act is performed in service of being elected president of the USA, that's completely OK. Not sure I get how that works out. To me it sounds like "Did you murder this guy? - Surely, yes. - You're going to jail! - But I'm a politician, I did it to get elected! - Oh! Why didn't you tell it from the start! It's completely different then, you're free to go."

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#902

Post by logicchains »

gfodor wrote: post #803
phaus wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there are people who simply have hangups about the word "marriage" vs "civil unions." And this 'hangup' is simply idiotic. Christians that speak of 'civil unions' are trying to hold homosexuals' rights hostage so they can pretend that they have carved out a small victory. Christianity invented neither the concept nor the terminology for marriage. Most of us at HN rave all day long about how stupid it is when a compa…

I agree that it's idiotic. But if someone feels this way, they are just an idiot (in that respect.) Most people are idiots in one way or another. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily a bigot or think gay people are subhuman, as has been accused of Eich. And we all know that having stupid, idiotic opinions never prevented anyone from being a CEO.

Yep. Some people might consider the design of Javascript to be idiotic, but nobody was calling for him to resign over that.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#903

Post by eropple »

wpietri wrote: post #755
Spooky23 wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says you. I would rather work with and disagree with someone who has the integrity to stand by what they believe. I work in a group with folks of Indian decent from different religious backgrounds (Islamic, Hindu, Catholic), an Orthodox Jew, a bunch of Irish catholic types (including myself), and a person from Nigeria. We are literally from many corners of the earth, with different backgrounds, traditions, etc. If we…

I don't think anybody's contesting Eich's right to not get gay-married. And likewise, nobody's contesting his legal right to try to strip a civil right from gay people through California ballot propositions. But I don't think one can to try to harm gay people and then expect to have no problem becoming the boss of a bunch of them. They have a right to express their opinions too. I also think your live-and-let-live st…

The normative nature that you touch on is particularly bizarre. All too often, "live and let live" is only something that must be respected when it's straight white men doing the living. (I'm a straight white male, and that bugs me.)

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#904

Post by serge2k »

pcvarmint wrote: post #763
dopamean wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Being for low taxes is a political view. Being for smaller government is a political view. Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomforta…

The problem is that the state has granted privileges to married people. If the state treated everyone equally without regard to marital status, then gays and straights could marry privately and it wouldn't become an issue. It's an issue because married gays want the same marriage privileges as straight couples. We need to separate marriage and state. Except for enforcing contracts that the married parties sign themse…

Shared health benefits? Child custody rights? etc...

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#906

Post by cookiecaper »

phaus wrote: post #889
cookiecaper wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that support for Prop 8 has been misrepresented as "hate" of gays, and that gullible young people have been tricked to support the gay agenda in the first place, and also to believe anyone who disagrees with that agenda is a "reprehensible bigot". If "gay rights" are really so self-evident, let's confront the haters and explain in a clear, concise manner why their beliefs are invalid. The thing is that…

>The problem is that support for Prop 8 has been misrepresented as "hate" of gays. I agree that many of the Christians that support Prop 8 don't know that they hate homosexuals, but the act of supporting Prop 8 is a hateful act. Whether they realize it or not, they are actively attempting to prevent their fellow Americans from being able to live as equals in our society. >If "gay rights" are really so self-evident, l…

>I challenge you or anyone else who feels up to it to present a logical, non-religious argument that illustrates why homosexuality is immoral. I'm pretty sure it can't be done.

See above.

>Its perfectly accepted among the overwhelming majority of Christians and non-Christians alike for a sexually active couple to refrain from having children, so it can't reasonably be considered an issue of morality.

It's actually not perfectly accepted among religious communities. Many believers have chosen to discard their religion's guidance on this topic, but most religions do not look kindly on contraception. The opinions typically range from "no, it's never ok to do that" to "you should think REALLY hard before you do that, and make sure you have a good excuse to present when God asks you about it later".

Fertility is never guaranteed in heterosexual unions, but infertile heterosexual unions are allowed and blessed anyway for a few major reasons. First, a happily married heterosexual couple supports and promotes marriage as the bedrock of social cohesion and encourages others to get married by example, whether children can be produced or not. Second, you never know when infertility will go away, and if the potential is there because the partners are heterosexual, it's worth it to wait and see. Third, the male-female sexual duality is still ideal for child-rearing and the stable married couple may be able to adopt an unwanted child and provide him with a normal and healthy upbringing where both sexes are represented and where marital protections are in place to safeguard the domicile.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#907

Post by cookiecaper »

twoodfin wrote: post #281
andrewpi wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008; I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here, but the head of Mozilla doesn't?

I can understand why he gets a pass: He probably was only publicly against it in 2008 in order to win an election, and when it was politically convenient he had a "change of heart" and has repented. What I can't understand is why anyone who espouses the view that opposition to gay marriage is akin to the most heinous racial bigotry could possibly have voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm a pretty reliable GOP voter, b…

Or maybe he didn't support gay marriage then and doesn't support it now, but is scared of a ravenously malicious committee of self-appointed witch hunters who are out to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with them on their pet cause. Or maybe he just did it because certain organizations or people would give him more money for his presidential library, and he still privately disagrees with it.

I'm not sure why we assume that he's not just doing this for political expediency now if we accept that he may have held the previous position for political expediency as well.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#908

Post by jrmcauliffe »

camus2 wrote: post #892
vacri wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently many Mozilla supporters... bully I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. Chrome is the most popular browser, not Firefox, and their other products aren't monopolies either. Of the several screeds I read against Eich, not one of them said "We currently use a Mozilla product and now no longer will".

I would wager that plenty of those opposing Eich don't actually use Mozilla products. but their relatives might use Firefox, and these relatives might listen those who oppose Eich because they are family...that's called social effect.

I would guess the proportion of non-tech family that equate firefox/'The Internet' with this set of circumstances approaches zero.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#909

Post by cookiecaper »

pcvarmint wrote: post #763
dopamean wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Being for low taxes is a political view. Being for smaller government is a political view. Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomforta…

The problem is that the state has granted privileges to married people. If the state treated everyone equally without regard to marital status, then gays and straights could marry privately and it wouldn't become an issue. It's an issue because married gays want the same marriage privileges as straight couples. We need to separate marriage and state. Except for enforcing contracts that the married parties sign themse…

I am against gay marriage and in favor of polygyny. I do not believe that we should get the state out of marriage. Marriage is nothing without effective legal protections and backing. Your position is the literal fulfillment of all those people who said that gay marriage would destroy real marriage. That is precisely what you are claiming should happen -- marriage should stop being a real thing, and if you feel like saying you're married, then go ahead and do it. I just wanted to point this out since many people say it's ridiculous that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage. You are explicitly endorsing said destruction.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#910

Post by obtorto »

wpietri wrote: post #740
gfodor wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support legalizing gay marriage. But two things, first, supporting prop 8 does not mean you "believe a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like others." It means you don't believe that the government should recognize same sex marriages as marriages. There are a large gradient of views here, and on one extreme are the bigots who hate homosexuals and on the other there are people who simply have…

Putting money behind Prop 8 helped strip a civil right from gay people. It's technically true that proves nothing about Eich's beliefs. Heck, maybe it was Eich's personal Opposite Day. But does it matter? Even the bible says, "You will know them by their fruits," meaning that it's reasonable to judge people by what they do. The pseudo-gotcha about tolerance is ridiculous, an accusation of hypocrisy based on a straw m…

Marriage is not a civil right. It is a pact between two people, rooted in long-standing tradition, to which the state associates a number of privileges.

Right off the bat, if we consider any of these privileges a matter of equality before the law, then it is the institution of marriage itself that is discriminatory. Why should an unmarried person pay more taxes than a married person for the same income? Why cannot they name a friend instead of a spouse as a dependent for health insurance? Etc.

But traditionally, these have not been seen as rights, but as privileges that the state grants, at a cost for the community, because these is believed to be a public interest in the promotion of marriage. If that is the case, it is entirely legitimate to debate whether this public interest exists both in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and furthermore, whether it even still applies in modern society. A lot of the traditional justifications for public support of marriage were based on strongly differentiated gender roles, and it should be clear that they are no longer applicable.

As for new rationales of public interest, none have been advanced, other than "discrimination" - which, again, would be an argument for abolishing marriage, not for extending it.

In any case, this is a matter on which there is ample room for debate amongst well-intentioned and rational people. I am appalled by the fact that so many people seek to nip any discussion on the subject in the bud when it's obvious that the have given the matter hardly any serious thought themselves.

Post reply on HN