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

Tim Cook Speaks Up

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#261

Post by ptx »

LesZedCB wrote: post #143
pionar wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Indeed, the mark of a well thought out and carefully crafted message that's not just personal, but also about necessary PR. If that's what it takes to get people on-board this generation, I don't mind. But I hope lines like that can be omitted one day. Doesn't it just look incredibly silly? Maybe he didn't want to omit it. Maybe it's not PR, but instead his actual feelings. Maybe he is religious. So, it's all cool a…

He's saying he hopes one day it's not a culturally jarring thing to say "I'm gay and I'm religious." That should just be normal and accepted.

Or maybe that one day it will no longer be necessary to follow "I'm gay" or "the earth revolves around the sun" with "...but don't worry, there exists an interpretation of your ancient books according to which I would still be compliant with the commands of your God!"

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#262

Post by kyrra »

wmt wrote: post #76
super_mario wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God himself. Read your bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

I don't see anything about any Gods hating gays. Levictus compares men having sex with other men being as big of a sin as cursing your parents or having sex with a woman during her periods, and later in Sodom God decides to murder a town for their lack of charity. I guess you could reach and say that God hates sinners and homosexuals are committing a sin, but that's pretty silly at least in Christianity everyone is a…

(This is from my understanding of this, which is pretty limited)

I think this is an important point about Christianity and homosexuality. While the bible states homosexuality is a sin, it says a lot of things are sins. But it doesn't have some scale of REALLY BAD sins vs tiny sins. Sins are sins when it comes to Christianity. And the only way to salvation is through Jesus.

A church that would reject members based on sinful behavior would have no members. Where I think it gets tricky is that being a good Christian means that you try to overcome your sins as best as you can (you will never be sin-free), so embracing a sin (such as homosexuality) isn't considered being a good Christian.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#263

Post by simonrobb »

adrianb wrote: post #176
Mahn wrote: post #8

I wish we lived in a society where people weren't pressured into "publically acknowledge" their sexual orientation just because it's different than the norm. You don't see heterosexual CEOs publically acknowledging they are banging their wife, why should it be different for other sexual orientations? Just let everyone be.

Heterosexual CEOs have wives...

Um. Women can be CEOs too.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#264

Post by mikeash »

dsjoerg wrote: post #242

The shocking news here is that Tim Cook is religious.

Indeed. Oh, he's gay, we all knew that. Wait, the CEO of Apple is a Christian? That I did not know. Judging by the comment thread here, it seems to be new to a lot of people. It's not a big deal, but it did surprise me. It's easy to assume that a gay man living in the Bay Area is going to be an atheist.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#265

Post by facepalm »

king_jester wrote: post #249
facepalm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for?

Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory?

I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all?

Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not?

Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about.

I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#266

Post by mikeash »

king_jester wrote: post #249
facepalm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

It is inherently discriminatory. But people will go out of their way to rationalize their position, whatever it takes. If one is convinced that gay marriage is bad and that discrimination against gay people is also bad, one will come up with some way to explain how the two are not in conflict.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#267

Post by wtbob »

king_jester wrote: post #249
facepalm wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me.

There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue.

You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a difference.

My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#268

Post by super_mario »

uid wrote: post #233
super_mario wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know I don't really care if people are literalist fundamentalist bible thumpers or unitarians, muslims or even deists. They are all wrong, and they all believe in things unsupported by evidence or completely debunked lies. I only care about what is true, and I don't have any reservations about telling people what they believe isn't true, esp. when they bring it out to the open and implicitly invite the discussion…

It doesn't surprise me that you also make an assumption about what I believe, considering you sprayed a dozen comments of bile about what Tim Cook believes based on almost nothing. How about you drop the faux intellectual superiority and just accept what others choose to believe - be it their religious beliefs, political or sexual orientation? That is the very definition of tolerance - and, ironically, the exact thin…

I don't make any assumption about what you believe. When ever I say "you" in the text above you could replace it by "religious people" and this is the intended reading (if you believe X you are doing Y). Of course I accept what others choose to believe, how could I not. I have to hold people to their word. But of course this is not what you are really saying, you are really saying why don't you stop criticizing what people believe, because their irrationality and superstition is just as good as your reason. Of course everyone is free to believe what they want to, but we are also free to criticize them and ridicule stupid beliefs.

Tim Cook on the other hand is a Christian of the Southern (Alabama) brand.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#269

Post by tommorris »

ForrestN wrote: post #235

I am incredibly grateful to Cook for this, not least because of how it will affect young gay people. When I was a child, I felt generally good about myself. I was reasonably smart, well-spoken, curious, and so on, and I wanted to do something important with my life. Some nagging part of me suspected I was gay from very early on, but I resisted it intensely. I wasn't really afraid of being mistreated, although I proba…

Agreed.

After I came out, one of the best things was getting an email from an 18-year-old guy who had read my blog saying that he'd never spoken to or read anything from a gay person in technology and it was cool to read something from someone who as a programmer and geek came from the same perspective as him. He then said he'd gotten the courage to tell his parents from that.

Which left me feeling amazing for about a week.

Tim Cook's article will do the same for young gay techies but on a much grander scale. :)

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#270

Post by dagw »

robin_reala wrote: post #234
cronin101 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrelated clarification but, judging by the lutefisk, the shop owner is actually Norwegian and not Swedish. Just a heads up so you don't make the mistake in less forgiving Scandinavian company next time ;-)

What’s the differences between lutfish in Norway and Sweden? I’ve eaten it in southern Sweden with it presented to me as traditionally Swedish.

The main difference is that Swedes spell it Lutfisk and Norwegians Lutefisk. Lutfish is just as traditional and (un)popular in both Norway and Sweden, and as far as I can tell the base recipe is basically the same in both countries. The only difference between the regions are the condiments and side dishes it is served with.
Post reply on HN