The Yale Problem Begins in High School

Post by kafkaesq » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #446

ta0o0o0 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed. [1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO

It's now about repenting and wearing sackcloth. And it isn't even about Eich. People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. The message they were trying to send was simply, "we're really tired of this shit, and we want it to stop." [1]…

Post by ta0o0o0 » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #512

ta0o0o0 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's right there in your comment. You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold. But even removing that point from my comment the rest stands. You wrote that people were "sick of hearing" about his views on gay marriage. Well all they had to do to stop hearing about it was to stop asking him about it.

You said "Love the sinner, hate the sin" was not considered an acceptable viewpoint for him to hold. No, that's not what I said. Or even close to what I said. I'd continue with you further on this, but it seems there's been a lot of gratuitous word-bending and insinuation in what you've been saying of late. That's not my style of communicating, and I don't see what I can learn from it -- but if you want to continue t…

  People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the 
  pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't 
  want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, 
  by having him at the head of an organization they were a 
  part of.

  [1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

Post by ta0o0o0 » Sun, Nov 29, 2015, 12:55 AM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #514

ta0o0o0 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is what you wrote. People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. [1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Can you please explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "The CEO of Mozilla must not hold the viewpoint 'Lov…

Nobody protested Eich for privately "holding" a particular point of view. Their concern was around his donating money (and implicitly, legitimacy) to groups they felt were engaged in various harmful activities (running TV ads with derogatory rhetoric, for example). The two phenomena are very different. You understand this - yes?

Post by moistgorilla » Mon, Nov 30, 2015, 5:43 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #507

moistgorilla wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under the framework of cold rational logic. In what ways could Eich's actions be construed as morally positive without resorting to superstitions and other faulty logic? Yeah that isn't an ethical framework. You were judging his actions under the framework of moral utilitarianism. The flaws with this can be found in a google search. His actions could be construed as moral under a rule-utilitarian moral framework an…

Hilariously, the two justifications for Eich as you've presented them would paint Hitler as moral. As Feynman was fond of reiterating, there is a vast difference between naming something and understanding something, and you've illustrated his point perfectly. As you're no doubt well aware, marriage rights encompass many other legal rights, and denying those rights is granting gays a form of second-class citizenship.…

Post by nickbauman » Mon, Nov 30, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #474

fleitz wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The foundational principles are usually logically inconsistent with each other. Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?

"Please explain how you proceed logically from the position that eating from the tree of knowledge is sin?" This doesn't seem hard. Apologist hat on. It wasn't the knowledge that was bad, it's that the knowledge was attained by doing what God said not to. Certainly, we can condemn things done in pursuit of knowledge - Mengele being probably the easiest example. That hat fit kinda funny.