Tim Cook Speaks Up • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#991

Post by _ls7m » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 6:57 PM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #909

wtbob wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reg…

> 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. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't , tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid tradition…

Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#992

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 7:03 PM UTC

_ls7m wrote: post #991

mkr-hn wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I bet you're hard at work trying to deny infertile couples the ability to marry. Even if you were right, which you aren't , tradition is not a compelling argument. We've done away with a lot of stupid tradition…

Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.

How about birth control? Marriage? These are ignoring the very human impulse to procreate constantly and with many people. Are they wrong too?

That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer and dryer than we 'naturally' would have been. This is what it means to be human, too.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#993

Post by _ls7m » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 7:17 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #992

_ls7m wrote: post #991

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once we get to the point of calling basic human anatomy 'baseless', we've definitely gone off the deep end as a society. This is not about infertility due to medical conditions or age and it's not about tradition - it's about the fact that a man and a woman having sex is the way that human beings are produced. Everything else is an attempt to ignore reality to suit our our personal desires.

How about birth control? Marriage? These are ignoring the very human impulse to procreate constantly and with many people. Are they wrong too? That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer a…

Yeah, I would argue that yielding to the impulse to 'procreate constantly' outside of marriage would be equally as harmful as following any other sexual desires (homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc) that doesn't line up with how sex and marriage are meant to work - that is one man marrying one woman and them having sex.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#994

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Nov 03, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

_ls7m wrote: post #993

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #992

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about birth control? Marriage? These are ignoring the very human impulse to procreate constantly and with many people. Are they wrong too? That procreation argument is silly. Human beings order themselves into societies, and not as some sort of procreation machine. But instead to encourage kindness, cooperation, happiness. We have laws to keep from harming one another, and roofs over our heads to keep us warmer a…

Yeah, I would argue that yielding to the impulse to 'procreate constantly' outside of marriage would be equally as harmful as following any other sexual desires (homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc) that doesn't line up with how sex and marriage are meant to work - that is one man marrying one woman and them having sex.

"Meant to work" is very strange here. First monogamy it supposed to be a natural state. Now its an artificial social construction? Then what's so precious about it? Versus the other states that people are, and have been, living in for centuries?

Oh I get it - argue whatever it takes to make male-female marriage sacred and anything else wrong. Ok. I see.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#995

Post by spencSD » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 6:11 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #794

downandout wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that stifling political discourse by firing people (or forcing them to quit) - as long as you really, really, disagree with them - is acceptable. Got it. For the sake of yourself and your loved ones, I hope you never voice an unpopular opinion.

Eich was not fired or forced to do anything else. Here's what often gets missed in this debate: Eich's handling of the outrage, demonstrated incompetence at his job . An exec is a leadership position by definition - the entire Mozilla thing showed us that Eich is not fit to lead.

this comment begs the question... what is leadership? It does not seem like Eich did anything that impinges or diminishes his ability to lead. it seems that Eich acted in a way that was consistent with his personal beliefs (donating money to a cause he believes in) and at the same time in the best interests of Mozilla (resigning so public outcry against him did not damage the company). It seems like he has integrity, which in some circles is considered a invaluable quality of leadership.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#996

Post by Karunamon » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 6:23 PM UTC

spencSD wrote: post #995

Karunamon wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich was not fired or forced to do anything else. Here's what often gets missed in this debate: Eich's handling of the outrage, demonstrated incompetence at his job . An exec is a leadership position by definition - the entire Mozilla thing showed us that Eich is not fit to lead.

this comment begs the question... what is leadership? It does not seem like Eich did anything that impinges or diminishes his ability to lead. it seems that Eich acted in a way that was consistent with his personal beliefs (donating money to a cause he believes in) and at the same time in the best interests of Mozilla (resigning so public outcry against him did not damage the company). It seems like he has integrity,…

When evidence of behavior proving a conflict of interest appears (conflict: personal beliefs demonstrably incompatible with stated position of company), the correct action to take is not to downplay that conflict with transparent and inane language.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#997

Post by anonbanker » Tue, Nov 04, 2014, 8:05 PM UTC

thisisdallas wrote: post #521

anonbanker wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in Leviticus 18:25, Man laying with another Man is an "abomination". right before that, in Leviticus 18:19, "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." and right before that, in Leviticus 17:15, "'Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremoniall…

>That Cotton-Polyester blend you're wearing? You might as well be having gay sex, as far as The LORD is concerned. That's a pretty intense bastardization of biblical theology. It's fun to snicker and say things like that but your logical gymnastics are quite embarrassing to those who understand the correlation between Christ, the Old Testament, and covenant theology.

I invite everyone to read Leviticus and not laugh at the things that are hell-worthy. They shouldn't take my, your, or any other logical gymnastics as their opinion; reading the book is sufficient to determine how insane these trespasses really are.

But speaking to the correleation between Jesus and the Old Testament, everyone should also read Isaiah 52:13 through 54. This is the savior foretold in the old testament, and where matthew/john/paul/ringo draw most of their confirmation of Jesus' credentials. Does this sound like the Jesus we all know?

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#998

Post by srean » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 1:37 AM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #987

srean wrote: post #963

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in complete agreement with the views you have expressed about the state of affairs of Indian legal system and the practices and have upvoted your comments. However, when you say that the textbooks paint Hinduism as worst savages, I have to call out that hyperbole. That is a ridiculous exaggeration. In fact I am in complete agreement with the following characterization, quoted from the wikipedai page you linked t…

Yes Thanks. The worse part is that the right wing politics in India has never invested much into intellectual efforts to highlight these important aspects of Hinduism. Instead they have resorted to sloganeering. Only handful of people like Dr. Arun Shourie, Sitaram Goel, Ram Swarup and Rajiv Malhotra now a days seem to have put some efforts.

In agreement again.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#999

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 1:48 PM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #895

facepalm wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_ soci…

Its about building a family, which is more than one person. To call its purpose child-raising is silly; folks stay married after the kids are gone. A family can be a grandmother and a grandkid; a Mom and a child and a grandchild; three kids raising one another after the folks die in an accident; two Moms and three adopted kids (like my cousins are). Its arrogant and small-minded to reject any family that doesn't look like yours, and worse yet to try to legislate other families out of existence.

In fact, if marriage is 'almost destroyed' as you posit, then we need more, new styles of family if kids are to have a chance to grow up fed and clothed and loved enough.

Re: Tim Cook Speaks Up

#1000

Post by anonbanker » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 3:21 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #825

anonbanker wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one that always finds it funny when athiests (myself included) use the name of a religious deity when making an exclamation? That being said, it is really difficult for most people to get past the cognitive dissonance that comes from being mass-denied "salvation" by the followers of a religion (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism) for being a homosexual, and yet, still believing in the invisible man in the sk…

It's funny on the surface, but really a lot of it is just another form of profanity: something you say when exasperated or surprised. I have an agnostic friend, not religious in the least, who is always saying 'good lord!'. He's not actually invoking jesus in any way, it's just a saying that sound good to him. Dara O'Briain says in one of his stand-up events that "catholicism is the stickiest religion in the world. I…

First they came for the Raisin God believers, and I said nothing, because I do not believe in the Raisin God....

I think we know the rest of it. suffice it to say that I react violently to a censorship of belief, even if I do not share them. I'm a little saddened to think that I might be in a minority.