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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#891

Post by sarciszewski »

jshevek wrote: post #663
sarciszewski wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, I'll translate: Admirable is a moral judgment. Admired means that "the others" have drank the kool-aid. (Sheeple, etc. etc.)

Do you consider Nike admirable? Would you eagerly link 'evidence' trying to prove that Nike is one of the most 'admirable' companies out there? If yes, well... okay then. I don't understand you, and I'll stop here. If no, then maybe you can see how maybe you've not fairly contextualized the conversation? This list of 'admired' companies does, indeed, completely miss the original posters point.

Fuck Nike, fuck Apple, and fuck every other soulless corporation.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#892

Post by alexbecker »

exodust wrote: post #834
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. Stepping back a bit, in nature there are all sorts of variation and swings in numbers from one characteristic to another. Nobody wants women to be pushed out by force or denied opportunity to reach their deserved position. But is that really happening whenever we see more of one gender in a particular role than another? I don't think so. I remember in highschool (20 years ago), only 2 girls were in my electr…

> It was simply how the cards fell for that class due to most girls in the school NOT being interested in electronics.

It seems likely that the fact that so few girls expressed an interest in electronics is a result of differences in the way society treats men and women. Whether or not this is inherently a bad thing is something I think can be reasonably debated (and at great length), but ultimately I think it is.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#893

Post by tripzilch »

tn13 wrote: post #876
avinassh wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In metros you would find gay pubs and bars, open kissing on the streets among gay partners with no one bothered a bit I really doubt this. Kissing in public is highly frowned upon for heterosexuals only and there will be a shitstorm if gay couple found openly kissing. Take this incident, happened in September 2014 in Mumbai/Bombay, two couples were harassed by police just because they hugged publicly[0]. Police har…

India is a complex country. I can confirm that Gay parties are pretty common where I live. Just the way white people saw native Indians as Savages it is easy for western eyes to perceive India as a very bad land but that is not the case, despite its flaws it is an extremely tolerant society with ability cope with very diverse way of living. Before the savages of west discovered that the idea of gender is not binary a…

> Just the way white people saw native Indians as Savages it is easy for western eyes to perceive India as a very bad land

While I somewhat agree with the gist of your post, you might want to reconsider this broad brush with which you're painting both modern "western eyes", and particular bunches of white people who genocided nearly an entire continent a few centuries ago.

Substitute nazis/jews/"German eyes" if you don't get what I mean (going to assume I'm excused from Godwin's law when the implied atrocity was in fact larger than the Holocaust).

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#894

Post by barking »

"I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I don't like that statement.

Replace gay with one of white, male or straight and see how it sounds.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#895

Post by wtbob »

facepalm wrote: post #314
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?

Sorry, I have to write a second reply because it really makes me think: what would a possible moral stance against gay marriage even be? I can't imagine a reasonable moral argument against gay marriage? Unless you think homosexuals being together is immoral, but then marriage would be irrelevant (if that was somebody's opinion, they would probably fight on a lower level, like putting gays into jail or whatever, not p…

The State has no business being involved in morality, so outlawing homosexual activity is outside the State's remit.

The moral argument against homosexual pseudomarriage is that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage. Marriage is not about a couple's (or a group's) feelings about one another. It's not a way that society shows approval. It is, rather, the formation of the most basic unit _of_ society (I'd argue that the individual is not really a unit of society), and is the means by which children are produced and brought up.

(And yes, there's plenty of heterosexual pseudomarriage too)

But, given that these are all moral arguments, my preference is for the State to absent itself entirely rather for it to take a side and do further damage to an almost destroyed institution.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#896

Post by lotsofmangos »

wtbob wrote: post #888
lotsofmangos wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Marriage becoming more like "legal recognition of the fact that two people currently enjoy one another's company and wanted to have a big party.", is nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. That social aspect has been picking up steam for centuries. You might as well blame 1960's Hollywood or even Henry VIII, for that one.

Also, the lifelong nuclear family is something that only really appeared after the wars. Pre-war there was no antibiotics and the rates of female death were so high that single parent families were much more common than they are today. If your worries about developments in marriage are that it will reduce the stability for the upbringing of children, I would like you to consider which eras you are choosing for comparison, as we are now living in an era that supports longer childhoods than seemingly at any other point in history.

edit - for the complaint that it is difficult to find more traditional people as spouses, may I point out that there are a number of other people who seem to be making that complaint. Presumably you could find their parental address, so that you can appear in person to make a formal request to their father to begin courting. Oh, and remember to bring some cattle.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#898

Post by dysfunction »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #869
mercer wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Maybe I misunderstand you, but every single Dutch person I know refers to mixed race as 'halfbloed', which means half-blood, which, now that I think of it, sounds rather racist.

And yet, you've got Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, a pretty modern book. Of course, that's from the UK, which may have the more classical interpretation of half-blood. Bloodlines sound more like something from royal families and the aristocracy, of which we still have a select few in NL. Baronesses and whatnot. Kinda posh.

I'm pretty sure the 'Half-Blood Prince' thing is supposed to sound racist in-universe, as that's someone of mixed heritage (magic and non-magic) referring to himself self-deprecatingly in a universe where racism against non-magical heritage is very much a real thing and a term like 'mudblood' is considered an extremely offensive racial slur.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#899

Post by rmc »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #210
rsynnott wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should just come out and say Jesus never existed as well Most historians are of the opinion that Jesus DID exist (though, obviously not that he was the son of God).

Which ones? There was a meta-research done the other day, where the works of 130+ historians from that era was analyzed; only one made note of even the existence of Jesus, and it's pretty certain that that section wasn't put there by the original author (different writing style, sudden change of topic, etc).

Modern historians.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#900

Post by wuliwong »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #719
V-2 wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of. Really? Quite a lot of people think so.

Maybe, but only out of guilt, as a reaction to what has occurred throughout history. Not 'just because' they're white.

It is not only out of guilt. In sports or music, many people are ashamed of being white. In the U.S. it is nearly a foregone conclusion that you will not be a good musician or athlete if you are white. White kids who desire to pursue those things definitely can feel shame which has no feeling of guilt attached to it. I'm not trying to make some grand statement about racism or the effects, just giving a pretty cut and dry counter point to the idea that white people never feel shame about their skin color aside from guilt.
Post reply on HN