181–190 of 258 posts
Good luck finding a browser where the ceo or vps behind it agree 100% with anyone's views. Unless you can point out that his (asshole, imho) views affected how he worked for Mozilla, than doing what you are doing is as bad as people that fired or did not purchased from companies supporting gay rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are moral fashions. But this isn't one of them, because it's far from arbitrary. We aren't going to have some sort of sudden fashion back the other way, where people are suddenly against interracial marriage, or against black people voting, or against women voting. They also aren't shunning him for his views. They're shunning him for his actions . He tried to hurt them; it is not unreasonable of them to refuse…
Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry. There is no two ways about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Society has shifted on this issue, such that the traditional is considered unacceptable to hold; you're ostracized with negative labels should you hold the unfashionable position..." Couldn't you say the same thing about civil rights? Slavery? Colonization? At some point these ideas were considered 'OK' by society and then at some point they were considered 'Not OK'. Are these simply 'fashions' to you? I think PG's…
Yes, they are fashions. Some of them may be good, some may be bad, but they are fashions. It is conceivable that if we find a planet with alien life, there will be calls for colonizaton, for instance. And it could be a good thing. Let's play an intellectual game. Is it possible to imagine a sensible reason for Eich to hold the view he and others hold? If you are unable to imagine such a reason, it is because you are…
Why is it that we have to imagine their reasons, when they cannot bother to imagine our reasons?
*I can actually "imagine" some of their reasons, my dad is a rabid fundamentalist and is very anti-gay, I just don't propose they are valid reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority / minority argument does not hold. Oppressed minorities are not always in the right. Arguments around gay marriage / politics / Brendan need to step back and argue the issues , not the size or relative social power of the groups involved. I happen to agree with your side of the issue, but let's talk about the issue, not make it a David and Goliath straw man debate. The term "witch hunt" may or may not ap…
We can call this a witch hunt when same-sex-marriage proponents start guillotining the opposition in public squares, then ;) More to the point, the David/Goliath straw man occurs at the point that someone says "witch hunt", invoking ideas of a prosecutorial mob hunting an innocent scapegoat down. Addressing the inappropriateness of the term directly is not a strawman (and additionally, I specifically addressed the co…
"By using Arabic numerals you are helping terrorists." As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?
> What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? So only people who pay for their rights deserve them. Noted.
Bang on, you read my mind.
I don't know what it is about gay marriage that draws people in to this ridiculous witch hunt. I'm neutral on the issue because I feel it's complicated like every other polarizing topic, but to a lot of folks it's solid black-and-white, good-vs-evil. But the pro-gay-marriage crowd seems to go beyond that. To them, it's so black-and-white that one's not even allowed to hold the other view. These people don't even ackn…
Thought experiment: imagine a law that severely limited the power and abilities of straight white men, white men, or even just men . Imagine that law severely impacted your ability to participate in some major institution or process. Maybe you couldn't start a business. Maybe you couldn't pee standing up. Hell, pick anything . Imagine there were people who felt so threatened by your starting a business or pissing sta…
They don't even have to argue. Just ask questions. Questions that are meaningless. Or pose hypotheticals. Or pick at that one sentence and one word in that sentence that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Or they'll just reply with your question with a lie...
> Would you argue with every idiot who presented an objection?
Why of course I would. Because I am right, because by answering this question in the affirmative, I've proven you wrong, which makes me right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends entirely on his contract - I'd expect most CEOs to have a clause about their conduct causing harm to the organisation. Even if not, it's legal to convince someone to leave, which is what usually happens in public embarrassment cases.
It's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political stance. Nothing you can say will ever change that.