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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#981

Post by wpietri »

uchi wrote: post #977
wpietri wrote: post #963

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. And I hope people were weighing that. It definitely meant something to me. But Eich promising to only work against gay people's civil rights in his off hours wouldn't strike me as enough if I were a Mozilla employee. It's not the kind of promise I'd fully trust. Really, I feel for Eich. If I had to guess, he's somebody who grew up around a lot of religiously-driven intolerance of gay people. And, like many smar…

>But Eich promising to only work against gay people's civil rights in his off hours wouldn't strike me as enough if I were a Mozilla employee. Do you actually have a source of him saying that? Or are you basing it solely on his political donation? If that's the case, you're engaging in nothing more than pointless conjecture.

He previously worked against gay people's civil rights. When questioned about that, he promised that at work he wouldn't do that. But he has conspicuously avoided any substantive statement about his donation or whether he'd do something similar in the future. So there's no conjecture here, just a rephrasing.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#982

Post by clyderadcliffe »

arrrg wrote: post #396
muyuu wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should he apologise if he believes he's in the right? That's just pushing hypocrisy.

He shouldn’t apologise if he didn’t actually change his opinion – but then you can also not make the argument that he made a mistake. Mistake sort of implies that he acknowledges he made a mistake – which he doesn’t. You can’t forgive someone if they aren’t asking for forgiveness.

Forgiveness is really about being open hearted and keeping no record of wrongs. On the cross Jesus said:

"Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing"

Jesus had the perfect right to be angry, but he wasn't. He forgave while people were mocking him and killing him. Stephen to first martyr said the same thing while he was being stoned to death.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#983

Post by dnr »

clyderadcliffe wrote: post #980

Really sad to see Brendan go, I work full time as JavaScript dev. So to a certain extent I owe my livelihood too him. Really sad to see him lose his livelihood. Sad for Mozilla too, in their time they did a lot of good. I am thankful for the work they did in setting the Internet free from IE. I don't believe in the kind of freedom Mozilla now stands for. I do not know Brendan's religious views. But I am a Christian,…

The wonderful thing about living in a country with a separation of church and state is that you don't have to change your views! You're welcome to believe whatever you want, and even to talk about it! The only thing you have to do is not try to turn your beliefs into laws that affect other people, like people that don't share your religion.

--

And for the record, many Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of lots of other religious do support gay marriage. Please don't attempt to speak for billions of people all at once.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#984

Post by phaus »

katbyte wrote: post #974
phaus wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sorry, you're just wrong. There is no language in prop 8 that has to do with the concept of civil unions. Let me start by saying that I find both scenarios (pro-civil union/anti gay marriage and plain old anti gay marriage) equally reprehensible, but your logic is flawed. I'm an atheist married to a young-earth Christian, so I get to hang out with quite a few other young-earth Christians. The logic behind prop 8 is…

> The logic behind prop 8 is that if you clearly define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, with no exceptions, then you are leaving homosexuals with no other alternative than to form some kind of alternate terminology, such as the civil union. I just don't get this, so please explain if you can as you seem to have some insight here: why does marriage have to be between a man and a women? Why can't gay…

>why does marriage have to be between a man and a women?

You're misunderstanding me. I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I was illustrating the rationale behind proposition 8. Its supporters knew that they didn't have the support that was needed in order to outright ban homosexual unions, and so they wanted to at least prevent them from calling those unions 'marriages'. If they were successful in excluding homosexual relationships from their constitutional definition of marriage, then they would have successfully forced homosexuals to call their marriages something else.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#985

Post by adamwong246 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #909
pcvarmint wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The notion that the state should lord over the private consenting adults is bizarre and unsettling.

One would think that, as a proponent of polygyny, you would realize just how unfair your position is. Personally, I can't imagine anything scarier than the government controlling love, sex and reproduction. As a fellow citizen, I have no objections to your romantic choices or with whom you can form a legal contract. Why do you persist in objecting to mine?

I support your rights because they are my rights as well. If your camp could reciprocate, maybe we can legalize polygamy, not just polygyny, so that we might all live in a maximum of happiness and freedom.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#986

Post by cookiecaper »

adamwong246 wrote: post #985
cookiecaper wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The notion that the state should lord over the private consenting adults is bizarre and unsettling. One would think that, as a proponent of polygyny, you would realize just how unfair your position is. Personally, I can't imagine anything scarier than the government controlling love, sex and reproduction. As a fellow citizen, I have no objections to your romantic choices or with whom you can form a legal contract. Wh…

Ah, the rub is that some people don't believe it maximizes happiness or freedom to legalize any kind of sexual activity as long as a vague notion of consent is present. Consent isn't the only thing that matters in law.

I hope we never legalize polygamy in general, but I hope we do legalize polygyny. I see polygyny and same-sex marriage as polar opposites; polygyny represents maximal social good, and same-sex marriage represents maximal social chaos, almost to the point where one has to admit that society is already practical disintegrated. I see polyandry as less bad than gay marriage, but also majorly problematic.

Gay rights supporters would rather nobody ever express this opinion because they think it is bad. They have just now kicked Brendan Eich out of his job because they believe that strongly no one should ever be allowed to believe things they don't believe. Why can't we have a truly free dialogue on these issues? Why can't people say what they believe? Is there any meaningful dialogue at all if half of the populace is terrorized out of expressing their true beliefs?

I'm all for correcting incorrect things and I am beyond happy to acknowledge when I've been misled or when I need to change my mind. I am all for teaching other people to see things more correctly. I just don't think we need to do that by shame, humiliation, demagoguery, and persecution.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#987

Post by adamwong246 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #986
adamwong246 wrote: post #985

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that the state should lord over the private consenting adults is bizarre and unsettling. One would think that, as a proponent of polygyny, you would realize just how unfair your position is. Personally, I can't imagine anything scarier than the government controlling love, sex and reproduction. As a fellow citizen, I have no objections to your romantic choices or with whom you can form a legal contract. Wh…

Ah, the rub is that some people don't believe it maximizes happiness or freedom to legalize any kind of sexual activity as long as a vague notion of consent is present. Consent isn't the only thing that matters in law. I hope we never legalize polygamy in general, but I hope we do legalize polygyny. I see polygyny and same-sex marriage as polar opposites; polygyny represents maximal social good, and same-sex marriage…

Is this not a meaningful dialogue? I'm afraid the answer is "No." What can be gained by engaging in conversation a person who believes that I am, at my very core, evil and destructive?

But by all means, lecture me on "shame, humiliation, demagoguery, and persecution" that you have endured!

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#988

Post by timtas »

mercurial wrote: post #899
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…

Look at it this way. If at the time of the invasion of Iraq, people suddenly noticed Eich had donated to an anti-war cause, or maybe mentioned in private that he thought 9/11 was a consequence of US foreign policy, how many red-blooded, freedom-fries eating Americans would have asked for his head because he held an unpopular opinion?

You seem to intend this as a rhetorical question, but I think it's an excellent literal question. Did this happen? Perhaps you will cite some cases.

Re: Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

#990

Post by forgottenpass »

peterashford wrote: post #582
forgottenpass wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have agreed years ago, but consider me jaded. All it says to me is "Yep, you're reading Hacker News."

Thank you for saying so. I find the moral compass of a lot of HN posters rather baffling sometimes. Nice to know I'm not the only one :o)

Totally, I often feel the same way and like I'm on my own, these posts are the way I vent.
Post reply on HN