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

Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#51

Post by Potando »

b08aa8b0dcfce wrote: post #27
Potando wrote: post #9

He seems to mainly be talking about discrimination against gays, though doesn't say it directly. I wonder if he really means it that Apple won't discriminate against pedophiles, incestuous couples or the grey areas on the boundaries of age of consent? Or is it like the old "universal suffrage" that turned out only to be universal to men, and not women?

what

What sexualities do you think he's talking about? Surely not all of them. But he doesn't explicitly say which groups, if any, he supports discrimination against.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#52

Post by kimdouglasmason »

xnull2guest wrote: post #33
ubernostrum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun story: There's a thing you can do with real estate called a "restrictive covenant". Basically this means that as part of the agreement to sell a piece of property, you attach a rider like "but the purchaser isn't allowed to do X with the property, and must pass this restriction on to future purchasers". This is pretty basic and pretty well established to be legal. For example, people sometimes use restrictive cov…

That is a fun story, and a great example of a deeper analysis of the sort you aren't going to get from Cook. Thank you for sharing it. :) It would be interesting to see whether there is an application of this to hiring practices (I don't see a clear way this could be done).

"a deeper analysis of the sort you aren't going to get from Cook"

It's nice to see that you're now putting words into (or removing them from) people's mouths. How presumptuous.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#53

Post by kimdouglasmason »

xnull2guest wrote: post #46
threeseed wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.

Yes they do. It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.

You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they are wrong.

Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#54

Post by xnull2guest »

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #52
xnull2guest wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a fun story, and a great example of a deeper analysis of the sort you aren't going to get from Cook. Thank you for sharing it. :) It would be interesting to see whether there is an application of this to hiring practices (I don't see a clear way this could be done).

"a deeper analysis of the sort you aren't going to get from Cook" It's nice to see that you're now putting words into (or removing them from) people's mouths. How presumptuous.

This is a prediction - Cook can prove the statement wrong. I did not add nor remove words from anyone's mouth.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#55

Post by generic_user »

greglindahl wrote: post #5
krisgenre wrote: post #2

I am a strong believer of "With great power comes great responsibility" and many times have been pretty disappointed that celebrities, CEOs and the super rich have largely been silent. Its great to see Tim Cook voicing his opinion on stuff that does not concern Apple.

Laws that encourage discrimination against employees do concern companies. Apple has historically cared about this stuff; here's an example[1] from 1993 of a Texas county getting upset about Apple's tolerant HR policies... Apple stood their ground and won. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-retreats-o...

I find wealthy public figures using there power and influence to push personal vanity causes in the public square as rather cheap and selfish. Not just Cook but in general. You do not magically gain moral or ethical credentials simply because you have managed to become extremely rich selling cellphones.

The tone of the piece simply echoes the Anti-Religious Freedom talking points that have made the rounds in the liberal press. Which have been rather cheap and inaccurate. that ruined its authenticity. its calculated and agenda driven. much like groups that try to sue little old lady bakers into bankruptcy because they feel that baking cakes for homosexual 'marriages' violates there religious vows. Its all rather cheap and hypocritical.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#56

Post by xnull2guest »

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #48
xnull2guest wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said Tom Cook was enlisted? That's not a very charitable interpretation... Here's the interpretation. Tom Cook has ideas. They aren't particularly interesting ones (they aren't 'idiotic', rather they seem mundane). Tom Cook made statements including his ideas. He is nobody's patsy. WP made an appeal from authority in its article about Tom Cook. It implied that his ideas were interesting somehow because he is an a…

Did they? It's in their 'opinions' section; it's an op-ed. The headline is "Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous". I honestly don't know how a newspaper can make it more clear that something is the opinion of an individual person. If this is an appeal from authority, then so is every op-ed written by every powerful or popular person ever.

The opinions of powerful people are indeed appeals from authority by the media that (selectively) publish them.

So I would agree with this, sans the universal (there are powerful people who are experts in an area of law as a counterexample).

How could a media outlet make it more clear something is an opinion? They could put it in the title and in the body of the article as a start. They could add content to contextualize the opinion and remind the reader that the opinion maker holds no authority on the matter. They could link to opinion holders with opposing views but equal status. There are a myriad of ways they could do this - some of them very minimal ("Tom Cook opinion: Pro-discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous").

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#57

Post by xnull2guest »

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #53
xnull2guest wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they do. It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.

You keep saying this over and over... that they are not 'new', or that they are 'mundane'. I don't see a whole lot of explanation from you as to how they are wrong. Edit: as for your 'appeal to authority' idea, it's an opinion piece, and clearly marked as such by WaPo. By your standard, every opinion piece ever written by anyone powerful or popular is an appeal to authority.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9288099

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#58

Post by xnull2guest »

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #49
xnull2guest wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's going on here. The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away. Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.

Essentially: Because it isn't news if it isn't 'new'.

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#59

Post by [deleted] »

kimdouglasmason wrote: post #49
xnull2guest wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's going on here. The Washington Post is making an appeal from authority based on the headline alone. The WP readership is going to understand that as "Person I look up to says something I might agree with". No one can pretend that away. Then, the argument itself isn't anything particularly deep - and of course it isn't. Cook doesn't have the credentials to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Why does the argument have to be 'new' or 'deep'. Many of the best arguments are extremely old (perhaps timeless would be a better way of saying it), and are also very simple in their logic.

[deleted]

Re: Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous

#60

Post by threeseed »

xnull2guest wrote: post #46
threeseed wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business leaders have every right to comment on issues that affect their employees for whose health and safety they are legally responsible for.

Yes they do. It doesn't mean that their comments are interesting. The headline is an implication that Cook's ideas on the issue are interesting. They aren't - they are mundane. But Cook is looked up to. So it is an appeal to authority - it is his authority that gives his ideas weight; not his ideas that give themselves authority.

You live in a fantasy land if you think his comments aren't interesting.

Most ordinary people are very interested in what Apple's position on issues given how popular and progressive they are. Politicans would be even more interested given that (a) most states would love to be the next home of a manufacturing/data center, (b) Tim Cook is widely respected and is in a position to influence other CEOs.

Whether YOU think his comments are interesting or not is irrelevant.

Post reply on HN