Tim Cook Speaks Up • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#801

Post by Karunamon » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 1:41 AM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #146

wozniacki wrote: post #52

One has to wonder how - in this world filled with anonymity enabling services like Tor or even Pastebin - it is still possible to hide a secret, out in the open. This is old news. Felix Salmon spelled it out in no uncertain terms when Mr.Cook was first named CEO, in 2011. [1] The best place to hide something - not that Mr.Cook himself wanted his sexuality hidden; he merely did not want it to grab all the attention, a…

Huh! What reason would you have to find even this observation disagreeable?

Probably because you bring Wikileaks to an unrelated Apple article. There is a time and a place for discussing the failings of the world's governments. A thread discussing a CEO who is able to come out of the closet is not that time or place.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#802

Post by notjackma » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 1:42 AM UTC

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #776

notjackma wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to have to agree to disagree - I think 834 people is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions. Btw, if the campaign for "marriage equality" were truly about equality, it would also include polygamous heterosexual families in Utah looking for recognition in law, as well as religions where marriage partners can be under 18. Thus the campaign for "marriage equality" has a narrow definition of equality…

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Spend a few minutes reading about polling methodologies and playing around with a sample size calculator. California's number of registered voters was around 18.25 million in 2012. Put in 19 million if you're feeling generous to your own opinions. Also, all 50 states allow minors to wed with parental consent. http:/…

So you can get married without having to ask for anyone's permission.

Yet individuals who are 16 or 17 years old, need parental consent, before getting married.

How is this "equal"?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#803

Post by delecti » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 1:44 AM UTC

jshevek wrote: post #780

delecti wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one truly considers their god to be the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe, its rules, and everything in it, then it is an inescapable conclusion that the sexuality of every being in the universe is something that It allowed to come to be.

Would that line of thought not also apply to murder, rape, genocide, etc etc ?

Yes, absolutely. Typically that's explained away with "free will", which doesn't apply to things you're born with (sexuality).

In case it weren't clear, I don't believe in any of that.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#804

Post by crystaln » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 1:46 AM UTC

science636 wrote: post #361

GuiA wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you will possibly be downvoted, but not because your opinion dissents with the majority. There are plenty of dissenting opinions on HN who get upvoted to the top, as long as they're well argued and informed. You will be downvoted because your comment has no substance to it. The only claim you make is "we know that homosexuality is a destructive force in society", and it isn't backed up by any meaningful conversa…

Male-male homosexual intercourse significantly increases your chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. Is that destructive?

Male-female intercourse significantly increases your chance of dying in childbirth. Is that destructive?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#805

Post by throwaway344 » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 1:51 AM UTC

general_failure wrote: post #778

otterley wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing self-evident about that at all. All species of animals have a homosexual population; this has been observed in the wild as well as with domestic species (dogs, etc.). To be sure, it is a minority behavior, but "contrary to nature" is stretching it.

Interesting. Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#806

Post by nknighthb » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 1:57 AM UTC

notjackma wrote: post #715

jackmaney wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. No, he was not. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.

I can't believe that anybody would be so naive to believe that Brendan wasn't forced out. Every single day, there is an employee going to work in a hostile environment, shunned by co-workers or left to sit in an empty room with no work to perform. Eventually they'll be forced to resign in order to save their own sanity.

People keep claiming Mozilla employees weren't hostile to him, and wanted him to stay. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#807

Post by chenster » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:00 AM UTC

Did Steve Jobs know about it?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#808

Post by ScottBurson » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:06 AM UTC

prewett wrote: post #381

Arnor wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"

I'm not sure who "they" is talking about in this thread, so I might be a little off here, but it definitely goes beyond acknowledging existence. People have acknowledged homosexuality for thousands of years (that's why there is a word for it). What the LGBT community wants is acceptance that it is a acceptable form of sexual expression. I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone…

> For people who view LGBT as unhealthy sexual expression, the net effect feels a lot like "pushing homosexuality" on us.

I suppose it does. But if one of your children should happen to be gay, you've left no question, from what you've written, that you won't hesitate to push heterosexuality on them.

We care more about them finding a path to self-acceptance than we do about your prejudice.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#809

Post by jshevek » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:06 AM UTC

anextio wrote: post #738

jshevek wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing made great contributions, and had a great mind. But we did not need him, or any other particular individual. What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born? Perhaps we would never have had a single individual who contributed as much, all at once, as Turing did... but the sum total of his contributions WOULD have been made by other people, eventually.

> Turing made great contributions, and had a great mind. But we did not need him, or any other particular individual. > What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born? And yet, he was born, and he did contribute, and we remember him for that, and we remember what his peers did to him in response. And we learn a lesson from that. Why is this controversial?

Why is what controversial? Your preceding sentence? It isn't. Why do you think its controversial? And why do you think its related to my sentences?

The only thing which might be controversial (but really shouldn't be) is the observation that people make foolish and illogical claims when they let their passions drive them to hyperbole. For example, claiming that computer science NEEDED Turing. That without Turing, we would not have computer science.

Its simple. Worship him all you want for what he actually did, but please don't fall prey to the belief that "without so-and-so, X would NEVER have been developed". Or "without so-and-so, we would still be doing Y".

Nonsense. Some other person or group of people would have made those contributions.

This has nothing to do with how horribly he was treated. And if you want to highlight the sickness of the world by pointing out the genius of one of the victims of our diseased culture, that's cool, but we can do that without going off into a fantasy land where some individual was uniquely, in all the world, uniquely capable of making the contributions they made.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#810

Post by ScottBurson » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 2:10 AM UTC

stephencanon wrote: post #311

socialist_coder wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Thank God it's not raining" is completely different from saying "... the greatest gifts God has given me." The first is just a frivolous small talk type comment. Non-religious people would say this. It's part of the common US vocabulary. The second is much more serious, and the speaker is actually thanking God for how he is. A non-religious person would never say it. Religious people do this type of thing all the ti…

> The amount of American pro-athletes who are religious is astounding. Many athletes will seriously thank God after doing something well in a sporting event. This is just a very clever thought pattern to confirm the American mythos of the self-made man and avoid giving credit to teammates, coaches, etc. "God made me great" is a way to take credit for yourself while maintaining the appearance of humility (no one can r…

I don't think athletes, or anyone else, who express religious feelings are necessarily doing what you say, but I've upvoted you because I agree that some of them are.