[deleted]
Tim Cook Speaks Up
881–890 of 1001 posts
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#882Strange, all this debate about homosexuality. I wonder what the conversation would be like if the truth was known about it...
Epigenetics is the science of how our genes express themselves. They can be altered by many factors. Environmental, even certain strains of bacteria.
So being gay is actually not the intent of genetics, but an error in the expression on the sexual orientation gene. This will become very public and irrifutable in the next decade.
There will literally be a pill that will turn a gay person straight. Where will the debate lead then? It doesn't really matter. Within two generations, there will no longer be gay individuals (from erring epigenetics) in first world countries.
There is a second means of being gay. Neurol pathways are formed which redirect certain thoughts and impulses in a different way. These are strictly experience based anomalies, usually caused by trama or desperation/rationalization. These comprise only a very minor number of the homosexual population.
Does this change your opinion on anything?
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#883Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. If he had donated to a liberal cause and was forced out because conservative employees had a problem with it, the entire media would have come down on Mozilla like a ton of bricks. Instead his resignation was celebrated. Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods…
The premise that fundamental rights for minorities is or could be the subject of reasonable political debate is preposterous and disturbing. The cause he donated to was not merely "conservative" and was not decried because it was insufficiently liberal. It was cruel and wrong.
> The cause he donated to was not merely "conservative" and was not decried because it was insufficiently liberal. It was cruel and wrong.
No, it wasn't. Proposition 8 did not ban civil unions; it did not ban any marriage-like accommodation for same-sex couples (that would have been cruel).
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#884Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion. After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.
Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality. There's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion, but I think there is something wrong with that. And I suspect you would too if it were you whose rights were being taken away. Edit: Eich supported Proposition 8 which was _ruled unconstitutional_ for violating the Equal Protection Clause. Yes, his support w…
> Brendan Eich donated money with the sole goal of denying equal rights to people based on their sexuality.
You know, I'm sick and tired of this lie. A homosexual has exactly the same right to marriage as a heterosexual: a gay man is exactly as free to marry any unmarried consenting woman as a normal man and a lesbian is exactly free to marry any unmarried consenting man as a normal woman.
The essential confusion regards the nature of marriage. It's not about a couple (or group) and their feelings towards one another; it's about the formation of a family and the production of a new generation.
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#885Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion. After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.
Eich didn't just "have an unpopular opinion", he actively contributed against civil rights for LGBT people. He is part of a dying breed, and he cannot possibly fade into obscurity quickly enough.
> Eich didn't just "have an unpopular opinion", he actively contributed against civil rights for LGBT people.
Nonsense; he did not take any action to remove any of their civil rights. One doesn't have a right to say '2 + 2 = 3' and have the state pretend that it's true.
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#886Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that he didn't actually limit their rights, correct? He cast a dollar vote in support of a proposition, same way any of us could give campaign donations to a candidate we liked. He participated in the political framework in a widely-accepted way , and the system failed to effect the outcome he seems to have voted for: democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. You might as well round up…
> democracy prevailed, the system worked, nobody was harmed. That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8. It was judicially overturned, not democratically so. He actually did limit their rights.
> That's not true. For several years, people in California were denied marriage rights because of Prop 8.
No, they weren't denied their marriage rights: under Prop 8, any unmarried lesbian was free to marry any consenting unmarried man, and any unmarried homosexual was free to marry any consenting unmarried woman.
The state did not recognise 'marriages' between men or women, but that's not denying anyone's rights, nor is it harming anyone. Pope Francis is not harmed if the State of California doesn't recognise him as the Vicar of Christ.
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#887Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
I doubt anyone can do anything to change a paraphilia; pushing normative sexuality on someone is unlikely to be productive.
But I don't think self-acceptance is a good goal either. There are many unhealthy things in each of us; we shouldn't accept them, but rather should fight against them. I'm naturally lazy; I like to eat a lot; I'm selfish; I talk over others—I have to struggle against each of those deficiencies.
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#888Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
It's not that easy though. 'Marriage' has stopped meaning 'a lifelong union for the goal of producing and raising children, breakable only under certain very constrained circumstances, and therefore upon which spouses, children and society may rely as a foundation' and has started meaning 'legal recognition of the fact that two people currently enjoy one another's company and wanted to have a big party.'
Due to this change in society, it is difficult and becoming more so to marry in the older sense. The more people who adopt the latter meaning, the fewer will retain the older. And even those who think they do are inevitably influenced by the rest.
I don't care much more about two homosexuals claiming to have married one another than I do about someone claiming to be a prophet or the reincarnation of Galileo; what worries me is the continued removal of any meaning from marriage.
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#889Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual answer is "yes", but am I correct in assuming you think it's "no"?
I don't know. I don't think so ~ what's the rationale? How do you know that perfect equality presents as perfectly equal percentages of any given profession? I wonder what the ratio of male/female food servers is? If they are roughly equal, would you say we have true equality among food servers or is something else going on?
> How do you know that perfect equality presents as perfectly equal percentages of any given profession?
It almost certainly does not present as "perfectly equal percentages", but such radically unequal percentages are at least suspicious, especially because the professions you listed pay unusually poorly compared to jobs of similar skill and education levels.
Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up
#890Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd instead make damn sure I didn't carry any Apple products in public for fear of some stranger connecting the dots and bullying me. This makes little sense in a world where every second device you see is an iDevice.
The key word in my sentence that I believe you overlooked is fear. Fear is often irrational. I can guarantee, however, that there's some bully somewhere using the fact that some poor kid owns an iPod as today's premise for insinuating that his victim is [insert homophobic slur here]. More than likely, this is happening in my home town. (Fuck that place.)
[deleted]