D
davislane1
Yeah, I'm not surprised I missed the first reference. These politically charged threads move like a blitzkrieg...
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich steps down following same-sex marriage uproar
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
Yeah, I'm not surprised I missed the first reference. These politically charged threads move like a blitzkrieg...
G
Guest
Maybe that's why in Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren said this:
Are we not being intolerant ourselves by not tolerating the intolerant?
See I only ask because I can disagree with the lifestyle of people who smoke, for example, as something that is not a good thing, yet not want their death. I can support the anti-cancer associations, while living with those who promote cancer by smoking. I can actually be friends with that said person and still think and hold on dearly to the idea that their lifestyle is destructive. This does not make me an intolerant person, in fact - I am tolerating.
How is it that having a differing opinion from the masses likens us to those slavers or those who actively take part in violence towards the gay community. This is absurd, oppressive and very intolerant!
Again, marriage is not considered a right. Even if you take the government out of the equation, marriage was still not a right in most situations. In most family situations, the man could not marry the woman without permission from the family. Even to this day there is still a lot of tribes that have marriage rituals for the right to marry.
If you want to start changing the fundamentals of what is marriage, go right ahead. Still don't change the fact that marriage is not a right.
That's your opinion but that's not the way it is. Just like you don't have the right to drive, you don't have the right to marriage. I should have the right not to pay taxes
Having a right in this case is to be able to do something without limitations or restriction. I have a right to breathe without limitations or restrictions. Though we have a right to eat, in most cases we have limitations and restrictions.
G
Guest
Well time to uninstall Firefox after using it since the very beginning its going to suck I love this browser, but what they are doing is unethical and I will no longer support Firefox.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
What they are doing is bickering in-house, which shouldn't persuade you one way or the other as a consumer. Apple is far worse where ethics is concerned, I hope you are giving them equal consideration.
D
davislane1
I compare most debates that happen on the Internet to the children's section in Barnes & Noble. They generally have about the same level of intellectual rigor, but with twice the name calling and triple the irony.
G
Guest
Sorry guys, but he did this to himself. He donated money to keep a whole swath of people from having civil rights. If the group of people had been black or Jewish or women, no one would be advocating for his right to free speech that is free from people calling him out on his bigoted views.
R
Raoul Duke
No, he donated money to support legislation called proposition 8 that the majority of the people of California approved and voted into legislation to be overturned by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote. According to another poster a recent Gallup poll states that 47% of the population of the USA supports this position.
Yet in this forum the counter-argument to his view is it is equivalent to supporting child porn, racism, bigotry, misogyny, anti-semitism and that he is filled with hate. Rather than use the political process and the power of reason to convince the people to vote against prop 8, someone 'leaks' that years ago he made a political donation and lets slander, etc do the rest. Now who are the real 'haters'. The people that instead of convincing us of the rightness of their position by the brilliance of their rhetoric and the soundness of their logic instead indulge in sleazy tricks to remove anyone that doesn't think like them. History is full of examples of people like this, that as soon as they get in power, the first order of business is to round up and get rid of those that disagree. Let us all sing now "there are no lessons in the past, there are no lessons in the past"
So sad. the trolls won.
Nick_Knac
Posts: 18 +9
Well, it’s not very nice for me, a homosexual (please don’t call me gay), to use a product that is being guided and steered by a man ( Mr. Eeeek! Or is that the wrong spelling?) who might (I don’t know that he is) be ante homosexual. But then, there are also probably some homosexuals also working in Mozilla who I would like to support. In fact, Mozilla inc, is probably a mixed bag of nuts like most of human enterprises, so it seems silly to get worked up over one man’s view, and his right to hold it. This all sounds to me like a politically correct witch hunt whipped up into a froth of righteous indignation by twitter world, and we all know what idiocies political correctness can lead to. I haven’t got a clue what Ms Baker is gurning on about, perhaps there’s some sentences missing from this article that would explain but his removal, I suspect, is more to do with commercial considerations than moral concern. ‘OKCupid’ must have given themselves, for free, more publicity than they could ever afford. This whole affair looks like a pig fight in a sty from which all participants come out smelling of manure. I think it’s very contemporary and rather funny, though obviously the participants wont think so.
He can say what he wants. My problem he was in a position to change policy that would have hurt people he did not agree with. I will say again. If you are basing your opinion on this issue on what your God says. I reject you pushing your religion on me. I don't give a damn what your God says.
G
Guest
Yes he did.. but that expression of his own personal POV does not give someone else the right to in essence punish him for that opinion regardless of how much they disagree. (Personally I disagree entirely with BS like Prop 8 and no I'm not homosexual.)
Once again you need to learn from this:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire
Without support of that simply statement the 1st amendment means absolutely nothing of value.
G
Guest
He can indeed.. the same as you can and I can etc etc... and no he was not in a position to change policy in regards to prop 8 any more than anyone else of us "peons" per se.
I am agnostic btw (or pastafarian if you prefer) so no it's nothing about "what my god says". I don't give a **** someone is gay, lesbian. bi, straight etc.. unless they are directly involved with my own personal sex life then why the hell should I care? The same as I don't judge anyone for being black, white, pink with purple polka dots etc... I judge them on their actions and words not the color of their skin. No race or sexual preference has a monopoly on *******s.
As for rejecting pushing.. welcome to the club.. since freedom of religion is also freedom FROM.
The sad part there is many still fail to understand that and why there is to be and always must be separation of church and state!
G
Guest
Please learn from this and see my other posts (they should be easily enough to recognize by my words/style etc.)
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire
The failure to learn this does not fall to only those that are anti-homosexual by any means.
G
Guest
yes they most certainly are.. and we have the right to say that as well.. but we all must defend the others right to say such regardless of if we agree or not.. since it is either freedom of speech for all or for none. Anything less becomes "approved speech"
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Would you stop with the repeats. Saying it once is enough!
D
davislane1
But repetition ad infinitum is the only fashionable way to argue these days!
Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting the critical point where this strategy is developed to its logical and most efficient end. When that happens, comedy will ensue as all sides of the issue simply declare "You're wrong!", one after another, with any substance or variation consisting entirely of formatting choices meant to indicate just how wrong the other party really is.
PCNP543
Posts: 15 +22
Translation: You have to tolerate my intolerance of you, otherwise you're the intolerant one, not me.
You just have to love Conservative hypocrisy. Since it seems to be a concept utterly lost on you, let me try to explain cause and effect:
Cause: Mr. Eich's actively participation in the creation of a *new* law to withhold a right from a specific group of people. That action was based on a bigoted, intolerant viewpoint.
Effect: When appointed as the CEO of a company who supposedly prides itself on tolerance and diversity, Mr. Eich's demonstrated intolerant views stood at odds with those of Mozilla. This made him a poor fit for the position he assumed.
So here we see that the initial cause were the actions of Mr. Eich. You can not label a response to an initial intolerance as intolerant itself without giving justification for that initial intolerance. It would be akin to claiming a minority fighting for equal wages is being intolerant of his/her employer's right to discriminate. Discrimination should not be required to tolerate, and it's nothing short of tragic that so many in our society seemingly don't understand this.
G
Guest
Different view isn't intolerance. He is entitle to his opinion, he doesn't force you to change your view, just express his view. This is open censureship. You guys are gone so far as absurd! I am normally passive not in favor of homosexuality, but now I will consider active condemnation such anti culture trend.
Saintnsinner
Posts: 56 +11
Freedom is on life support in this country and political correctness is one of the killers. Politics are no longer a matter of personal choice but instead you are forced into conformity or else you may be subject to job loss and ridicule. Shame is all they have brought on their cause. I will never have another Mozzila product on any of my computers.
Similar threads
