Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla) • Hacker News Board

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#81

Post by ebfe » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 4:26 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #33

betterunix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do people lose their jobs for supporting LGBT rights. Yes." Which is as much of a problem as what happened to Brendan Eich. "If you think some people have less rights than other people just because of the way they were born, then you're a bad person." Careful with that; all it would take is some new research on sexuality and sexual orientations to completely undermine that point.

There's no evidence to support the idea that people are "made" homosexual. The only sane assumption to make is "Some people are gay, they're probably born that way." Some people have more pubic hair than others. We have to wait until puberty before we know which people will have lots of pubic hair and which ones wont. But by your logic, there's some external force that occurs during childhood that will determine how…

Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. That means one of two things- either there are social factors that influence homosexuality, or there are biological factors that can cause a child to be abused. Most of us consider the former to be more plausible than the latter.

The argument that some traits are influenced by socialization does not imply that all traits are influenced by socialization; your second paragraph is just inane.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#82

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 4:30 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #75

yummyfajitas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information, and other constitutionally protected acts. Would the attacks on them be acceptable? I don't chastise Scoble using his blog to express his opinions. Nor have I called for anyone curtailing the freedom of association. I'm merely calling out the gay activist move…

"Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence." And suppose unicorns had wings. You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Balderdash. And you're complaining about things being 'anti-intellectual'? How is this action against Eich as CEO anything different than a call for boycott, a boycott, and p…

You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative?

Yes - I'm attempting to figure out what principle is being applied. As a result, I'm trying to find real or hypothetical cases as close to the dividing line of that principle as possible.

So again, I ask: are legal attacks (e.g., photoshopping someone's head onto a porn star's body, releasing someone's address, encouraging people to shun them) without threats of violence something we should accept?

Perhaps opponents of sexual promiscuity can create a registry of the name, photo, address and preferred sexual position of promiscuous women? And of course, list the employer's phone number of such women, and encourage people to call and advocate for firing her. If you find one particular act I described unacceptable but all the others acceptable (e.g., publishing favorite sexual position is ok but employers phone number is not), please explain why.

Again, let me reiterate that I'm not asking whether this violates the US constitution. I explicitly stated in my first post that it doesn't. I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#83

Post by mkr-hn » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 4:45 PM UTC

ebfe wrote: post #81

tomelders wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence to support the idea that people are "made" homosexual. The only sane assumption to make is "Some people are gay, they're probably born that way." Some people have more pubic hair than others. We have to wait until puberty before we know which people will have lots of pubic hair and which ones wont. But by your logic, there's some external force that occurs during childhood that will determine how…

Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. That means one of two things- either there are social factors that influence homosexuality, or there are biological factors that can cause a child to be abused. Most of us consider the former to be more plausible than the latter. The argument that some traits are influenced by socialization does not imply that all traits are influenced by social…

Even the perception that you might be gay tends to draw abuse from family and peers. If there's a connection, it doesn't surprise me.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#84

Post by ebfe » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 4:54 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #83

ebfe wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. That means one of two things- either there are social factors that influence homosexuality, or there are biological factors that can cause a child to be abused. Most of us consider the former to be more plausible than the latter. The argument that some traits are influenced by socialization does not imply that all traits are influenced by social…

Even the perception that you might be gay tends to draw abuse from family and peers. If there's a connection, it doesn't surprise me.

What would create the perception that a pre-pubescent child is gay? And do you believe that this perception is an accurate predictor of actual homosexuality?

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#85

Post by mkr-hn » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 4:56 PM UTC

ebfe wrote: post #84

mkr-hn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the perception that you might be gay tends to draw abuse from family and peers. If there's a connection, it doesn't surprise me.

What would create the perception that a pre-pubescent child is gay? And do you believe that this perception is an accurate predictor of actual homosexuality?

Generally, any deviation from socially enforced gender roles. There are plenty of kids who were abused for it and didn't turn out gay.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#86

Post by tomelders » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

Fice wrote: post #71

tomelders wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some black people are racist towards black people. They're a minority though, so we don't let it muddy our definition of what racism means because that wouldn't be productive. The same holds true here. Homophobic is as homophobic does.

Did I say anything about homosexuals who are also homophobes? My point is that being against same-sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic.

So what does this sentence mean then?

Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it).

What's does the "even some gays are against it" mean?

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#87

Post by tomelders » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 5:07 PM UTC

ebfe wrote: post #81

tomelders wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence to support the idea that people are "made" homosexual. The only sane assumption to make is "Some people are gay, they're probably born that way." Some people have more pubic hair than others. We have to wait until puberty before we know which people will have lots of pubic hair and which ones wont. But by your logic, there's some external force that occurs during childhood that will determine how…

Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. That means one of two things- either there are social factors that influence homosexuality, or there are biological factors that can cause a child to be abused. Most of us consider the former to be more plausible than the latter. The argument that some traits are influenced by socialization does not imply that all traits are influenced by social…

> Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children.

Am I going mad? Is the whole tech community homophobic? That is an outright lie.

The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8%. However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimates given for child sexual abuse to be 16% for males and 27% for females in the USA (NRCCSA, 1994).

Therefore, if there is a causal link between childhood sexual abuse and identifying as GLBT later in life, then why aren’t the figures for the number of GLBT people in the population reflected by the abuse statistics? There are significantly more cases of sexual abuse than there are people that identify as GLBT (Macmillan, 1997), and furthermore, the vast majority of persons sexually abused as children are heterosexual (Keith, 1991).

In addition to this, virtually all statistics agree that females are more likely to be sexually abused in childhood than males are - and yet, and yet there are proportionally more men that identify as being gay than there are women who identify as lesbian (Hite, 1991; Janus, 1993, Jefferson, 2001).

http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#88

Post by ebfe » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #87

ebfe wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. That means one of two things- either there are social factors that influence homosexuality, or there are biological factors that can cause a child to be abused. Most of us consider the former to be more plausible than the latter. The argument that some traits are influenced by socialization does not imply that all traits are influenced by social…

> Gay folks are significantly more likely to have been abused as children. Am I going mad? Is the whole tech community homophobic? That is an outright lie. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8%. However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimat…

Your link contains nothing to refute the fact that gays are more likely to have been abused (which is true), just the idea that abuse is the singular, causal factor of homosexuality (which nobody is suggesting).

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#89

Post by Fice » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 5:20 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #86

Fice wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say anything about homosexuals who are also homophobes? My point is that being against same-sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic.

So what does this sentence mean then? Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). What's does the "even some gays are against it" mean?

Even some gays are against same-sex marriage. And that does not mean that they are also homophobes.

Re: Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

#90

Post by ebfe » Sat, Apr 05, 2014, 5:20 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #85

ebfe wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would create the perception that a pre-pubescent child is gay? And do you believe that this perception is an accurate predictor of actual homosexuality?

Generally, any deviation from socially enforced gender roles. There are plenty of kids who were abused for it and didn't turn out gay.

But you believe that most kids who deviate from standard gender roles are gay? If not, there's no reason to believe that gays would be overrepresented in abuse statistics if this deviation was the cause of the abuse.