|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mozilla CEO Steps Down Because He is Anti-Same-Sex Marriage
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
Tortuf wrote:
quote:
Y'all are upset and hold the view that this person should be deprived of a way of making their living.
Not one bit. He's free to make his living without my support.
Any business depends on the good-will of both customers and employees.
As a customer, I avoid buying Shell gasoline -- at a vulnerable point in my life, they sent an unsolicited, already active, credit card to me. I returned it, cut up, to the president of the company and told them they'd lost my business forever.
Am I somehow outside my rights to do that? Or is it the rights of the Shell president I'm stepping on? What they did was legal at the time. If I'd had the Internet, and the energy, I might have encouraged others to do the same, and perhaps we'd have had an effect on the company.
When I was out of work, I made a conscious decision not to work for a lottery company. Their business is legal; their employees are happy; it was a job in my area of expertise when I didn't have one. But it felt wrong to me to support a business that sucks money out of poor people, and I said no.
Did that company have a right to expect me to work for them?
As I see it, Eich (or the Mozilla board) made a business decision, based on customer and employee feedback. Nothing more. Do we have more to lose from alienating this part, or that part, of our customer and employee base?
Eich and Mozilla had choices. They could have taken the approach of Hobby Lobby and decided the minority opposing them was noisy, but harmless to their bottom line. As others have suggested, he could have repudiated his position, based on what he's learned in the last eight or so years. He could have taken the position that his opinions haven't changed that much, but he's willing to listen, and formed a committee to work through the issues. And I'm sure there are other approaches to take.
Instead, he (or they) decided that stepping down was best for the company.
How, exactly, is this wrong? Moreover, how is it "our" fault? Are we not free to take our custom where we want?
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Are we not free to take our custom where we want?
Clearly many think you are not, Tortuf being one of them. How dare you spend your money, or give your volunteer hours, as you see fit, rather than according to some other criterion?
[ 05. April 2014, 15:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Tortuf,
It has been said in several different ways, but let me repeat it:
Eich failed in part of his job.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Then fire him for that. If it is worth firing someone over.
The world can actually function in ways of which we do not approve and it is still OK.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Then fire him for that. If it is worth firing someone over.
No one fired Eich. He resigned. More specifically he made a blog post about how he was willing to do the hard work to win people's trust and then quit in a snit when people had the temerity to keep asking questions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Then fire him for that. If it is worth firing someone over.
The world can actually function in ways of which we do not approve and it is still OK.
Further point. Eich felt it OK to step into other people's business. So they had a right to step in his. Stops being just about POV when the checks get written.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Before stumbling on this thread, I had just read Brendan O'Neill's "Gay marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?" That's worth a read for youse, I reckon.
I'd also like to briefly applaud orfeo for not losing his head over his genitals, even though he's now going to be considered an "Uncle Tom" over his lack of zeal, as is apparently Andrew Sullivan. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You couldn't make this up, really...
Anyway, I probably won't hang around. I just don't feel heroic enough right now to play heretic to this new orthodoxy. But I wanted to briefly single out this gem:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So we all know that a CEO who said something like "I think black people are no better than animals and shouldn't be allowed to breed" is guaranteed to get fired within the week.
This is just so sweetly ironic... Let me give you a hint, Starlight. Out here among traditional Catholics, the primary purpose of marriage is what? Procreation. That's sophisticated talk for breeding. And what is it that gay people cannot do, even in principe? Breed. Well, at least not with their same-sex partner, that is. So, however animal-like gay people may be, the traditional take is not that gays are "denied" marriage because they "shouldn't be allowed to breed", as your analogy suggests, but rather that they cannot marry because they cannot breed (with each other), even in principle.
You've basically just ranted yourself right into the traditional argument. Well done. While you are here, you could perhaps manage to realise that all this talk about justice, equity, fairness and so on can only apply if one is not comparing apples and oranges. The modern redefinition of marriage that makes procreation a separate lifestyle choice to marriage is just not accepted by all. Yet. And while I also believe that "gay sex" is morally wrong, that's not really the reason at all why I don't believe in "gay marriage". I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other). Now, of course society can redefine, and perhaps has redefined, "marriage" as something else. In that case "gay marriage" become something we can argue about in terms of emotions, law, and economy. And I may even be convinced that it would be prudent to allow it. Whereas I will then call the thing which has as its primary aim procreation something else, say "wedlock". And if you then come after me claiming "wedlock" for the gays, I will call it "matrimony". And if there's to be gay matrimony, then I'll have to invent some other term. Humpty-Dumpty can only redefine words, not realities. And that thing which I (still) call marriage (so far) gays cannot have. Not because I unjustly deny it, but simply because they are not using their sexual organs in a way that could potentially produce kids. Nothing can ever change this, unless you change human nature itself.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To further that point, marriage is not even a sacrament to everyone.
Why should I care what the RCC think and why should they have the right to tell me what I should think and do?
[ 05. April 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But IngoB, marriage has been redefined over the last decades. A whole raft of issues have changed it in society's view entirely - things like divorce, cohabitation - the 70% of the UK population who lived together before marriage in the 1990s is a sign of normalisation of that change. And that is probably tied into other changes like the lack of influence of religion on people's lives, isn't it only 10% who now go to church?, the contraceptive pill and the greater independence of women, from the things I can think of off the top of my head.
Marriage has already changed entirely except in a few situations, and I would suggest the RC Church is one of these minority conclaves.
The changes that triggered the developments in marriage are, many of them, extremely good things for most people. Whether the cumulative changes are so great doesn't mean that particular genie (that marriage should be defined as the RCC does) can be put back into the bottle.
From the Brendan O Neil article, those who refuse to recognise legal situations such as the florists refusing to create floral arrangements for gay weddings, or in the Eich case, actively campaigning to deny legality to existing marriages, are not demanding tolerance for a differing view, they are demanding a right to be intolerant and complaining when that's not granted.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Y'all have fun.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Let me get this right. Someone holds views that are different from yours. That someone is running a private company, not a public government, and there is no particular evidence that person has let their political views affect the way the company is run.
Y'all are upset and hold the view that this person should be deprived of a way of making their living.
You are entitled to punish this person for their point of view.
You are entitled to be upset because this person holds a point of view that you see as incorrect.
That about right?
Why stop at making him leave his job? Why not make him go to jail for a while? That will teach him to hold wrong points of view.
I mean, you know, losing a job might just make him bitter against liberals and gay activists; motivating him to take further action. If you keep him in jail he won't have the capacity to publicly express his odious point of view. He sure won't have the money to donate to bad people any more.
You guys just don't go far enough. Lets get real here. After all, there are no better things to get upset over than one guy spending money he earned supporting a point of view that is wrong.
While we are at it, why don't we make every Republican businessperson resign for having hateful points of view? That would show those sons a bitches.
No. You are completely ignoring every single point in this argument in favour of a strawman.
Eich was not CEO of a private company. He was CEO of a non-profit. A charity other words. That's your first misrepresentation.
Eich is not being denied his livelihood. He was CTO of Mozilla before this and there wasn't an outcry of this size over this. That's your second misrepresentation.
Your third misrepresentation is thinking that Eich resigned because of external pressure. He resigned because of internal resignations, both at board level and massively so among the volunteers. The attitude is that you are entitled to refuse to volunteer for people you agree with. Do you disagree with this?
Your fourth misrepresentation is that this is about views rather than actions. Donating $1000 to a hateful campaign that runs lies to destroy marriages is an action.
So you haven't got a single premise right. And the second half of your post is entirely made up of straw men. I would suggest you educated yourself but I see after misrepresenting everything that has happened and being called on some of it you've flounced out of the thread.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I don't think I've ever been to an RC wedding, so I'd be interested to know what the wording of the liturgy is. Certainly, in the modern CoE service bearing children is hardly mentioned. It's there as the third, and least important, purpose of marriage, the first two being growing together in love and having sex. Otherwise it's only there in one of the optional prayers, which is frequently omitted as many people get married and explicitly don't want kids these days. Is childbearing stressed as the main purpose of marriage in the modern RCC service?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other).
I'm pretty sure a CEO who advocated dropping spousal benefits for couples with no children and disallowing adopted dependents would also get in a similar form of trouble.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Before stumbling on this thread, I had just read Brendan O'Neill's "Gay marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?" That's worth a read for youse, I reckon.
I'd also like to briefly applaud orfeo for not losing his head over his genitals, even though he's now going to be considered an "Uncle Tom" over his lack of zeal, as is apparently Andrew Sullivan. You couldn't make this up, really...
Anyway, I probably won't hang around. I just don't feel heroic enough right now to play heretic to this new orthodoxy. But I wanted to briefly single out this gem:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So we all know that a CEO who said something like "I think black people are no better than animals and shouldn't be allowed to breed" is guaranteed to get fired within the week.
This is just so sweetly ironic... Let me give you a hint, Starlight. Out here among traditional Catholics, the primary purpose of marriage is what? Procreation. That's sophisticated talk for breeding. And what is it that gay people cannot do, even in principe? Breed. Well, at least not with their same-sex partner, that is. So, however animal-like gay people may be, the traditional take is not that gays are "denied" marriage because they "shouldn't be allowed to breed", as your analogy suggests, but rather that they cannot marry because they cannot breed (with each other), even in principle.
You've basically just ranted yourself right into the traditional argument. Well done. While you are here, you could perhaps manage to realise that all this talk about justice, equity, fairness and so on can only apply if one is not comparing apples and oranges. The modern redefinition of marriage that makes procreation a separate lifestyle choice to marriage is just not accepted by all. Yet. And while I also believe that "gay sex" is morally wrong, that's not really the reason at all why I don't believe in "gay marriage". I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other). Now, of course society can redefine, and perhaps has redefined, "marriage" as something else. In that case "gay marriage" become something we can argue about in terms of emotions, law, and economy. And I may even be convinced that it would be prudent to allow it. Whereas I will then call the thing which has as its primary aim procreation something else, say "wedlock". And if you then come after me claiming "wedlock" for the gays, I will call it "matrimony". And if there's to be gay matrimony, then I'll have to invent some other term. Humpty-Dumpty can only redefine words, not realities. And that thing which I (still) call marriage (so far) gays cannot have. Not because I unjustly deny it, but simply because they are not using their sexual organs in a way that could potentially produce kids. Nothing can ever change this, unless you change human nature itself.
If I were on the board of Mozilla, I'm not sure if I would have been among those saying that it would have just been better for Eich to resign, especially early in the process before things started looking really bad for Mozilla's business. So I'm not sure what orthodoxy you are talking about.
Furthermore, without an RC anthropology it does not make sense to many people to say that sex between a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy "can potentially produce children" so they can have "real" marriage but sex between two women or two men cannot.
Also, RC and other strains of Christianity have accepted "Josephite" marriages where there is no sex and therefore no intent of conceiving children as valid - the most famous being that between the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. Now, the RCC has a way of explaining that such a marriage is valid because it's still between two people with complementary genders and there is no sex. However, people who do not agree with all of the philosophical premises of the RCC would fail to see how, if the procreative end of marriage is met in such a union, and how it is not met in the union of two women or two men.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Backing up stonespring, while attempting to answer my own question I came across the site. It includes this statement: quote:
The following question may be omitted if, for example, the couple is advanced in years. Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
If a couple "advanced in years" can still be legitimately married, why not other couples who are not going to have children?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
On IngoB's tangent about the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to redefine marriage so the post-menopausal can no longer get married, there's a simple reason why the belief as to the appropriateness of gay marriage has changed quite so fast. The map was redrawn by the first legal civil union/civil partnership. Once they became legal and it became obvious that the sky wasn't falling and that the doomsayers were full of it there became no argument at all that anyone could offer that wasn't purely religious in nature.
[ 05. April 2014, 22:20: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But 'marriage' does not belong to the RCC. It is a sacrament of creation, not the church.
Precisely! Of course, what word you associate with this sacrament of creation - or its restoration in the fallen world through Christ - is basically arbitrary. It used to be called "marriage" in English, but then people started calling other things "marriage" as well. But as you say, it is written right into creation and people cannot change what it is any more than they can change the nature of gravity.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To further that point, marriage is not even a sacrament to everyone. Why should I care what the RCC think and why should they have the right to tell me what I should think and do?
Take a deep breath and think. Is there really anything in what I've said that you do not agree with? Are you actually going to claim that I cannot distinguish between the kind of intimate relationship that can produce children, and the kind that cannot? Basic biology will tell you that I sure as heck can. Are you actually going to claim that I cannot associate some sequence of sounds - a word - to one kind, and another sequences of sounds - a different word - to the other? Basic linguistics will tell you that that is easy enough. Is it not true that until recently the word that was associated with socially accepted intimate relationships that can produce children was "marriage"? Basic history will tell you that this indeed is so. There's just zero purchase in any of this, it's simply basic facts.
Where this whole things gets interesting, and leaves the realm of facts, is rather on the question whether society and churches should privilege the sort of relationships that used to be called "marriage", or not. That's really all that requires discussion. All this absurd ado about gay marriage is really just the most elaborate way of answering "no" to that question.
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Is childbearing stressed as the main purpose of marriage in the modern RCC service?
Not so much in the service, as in the wedding preparation without which you cannot (or should not) be married. You get interviewed (separate from your partner) and usually sign your name to answering "yes" to this question: "Do you intend your marriage to be for the procreation and education of children?" See this pre-nuptial for as typical example.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure a CEO who advocated dropping spousal benefits for couples with no children and disallowing adopted dependents would also get in a similar form of trouble.
The bit about adoption is a regrettable cheap shot. But otherwise this is exactly the discussion that is worth having, namely what sort of thing we as society (or in a smaller circle, we as a church) wish to privilege - for example, by providing financial perks. I for one am very much in favour of moving as many benefits as possible from the "married" state to children, and the parents of children. If we are in the business of differentiating between marriage and procreation, then let's do that consistently. And I would say that for the most part it is not my concern who sleeps with whom, regularly. Give people the legal means of providing for each other, and then let them take care of their "significant other" as they wish. But society has a vested interest in seeing the next generation born and raised well. Give people who do that some benefits, I'm all for that.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Furthermore, without an RC anthropology it does not make sense to many people to say that sex between a man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy "can potentially produce children" so they can have "real" marriage but sex between two women or two men cannot.
Oh, pretty please. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) This is exactly like saying that I cannot tell that a cheetah is built for running, whereas a fish is not, because if I chop off the legs of the cheetah it doesn't run any faster than the fish. Yeah, duh. Do you need a degree in biology to figure out what is wrong with that logic? No, you don't. Neither do you need an advanced degree in anything to figure out that "penis in vagina" sex is special as far as making babies goes, even if a particular penis in a particular vagina is not about to make any babies.
Once more, the only non-stupid issue here is what we privilege. Do we privilege only procreational success (actual babies)? Do we privilege the sort of long-lasting intimate relationships that can lead to babies, even if it potentially or predictably doesn't do so in individual cases? Or do we privilege any sort of long-lasting intimate relationship?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Eich is not being denied his livelihood. He was CTO of Mozilla before this and there wasn't an outcry of this size over this. That's your second misrepresentation.
That's precisely one of the bits of this that exasperates me. Apparently it's okay to have one extremely important job in this organisation, but not the next one up the ladder. The glass ceiling is alive and well.
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?
Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it.
This case proves it. Volunteers weren't dropping like flies when this guy was CTO, but when he became CEO, they started abandoning ship. What more proof do you want?
quote:
And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?
This isn't an a priori science. We won't know until it comes up. You probably could create a poll to ask the volunteers who do the work at Mozilla. Knock yourself out.
quote:
Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?
Again, nothing has been marked off. You miss the entire point. This isn't some decision that someone has made in some dark back room. This was an open decision made by volunteers working for the company. You apparently would force them to keep volunteering for the company because it's so homophobophobic for them to quit over this hater becoming CEO. Real people don't work that way.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is there really anything in what I've said that you do not agree with?
Marriage, as an official act, came about because of property. Poor people just shacked up. The RCC took a thousand years before it really started caring. Likely property again.
If marriage is about procreation, infertile people should be disallowed. Period. If God wants to create a miracle, she can, but the previously infertile person needs to prove it before signing any papers.
Sex is about procreation, marriage is about assets.
Don't care if you accept it or not, life progresses. You can eschew the automobile for your buggy, just don't let your horse shit on my lawn.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?
Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?
The CEO really is the face of the company. The CTO is not.
Once again, it is not about his opinions, it is about him actively seeking to negatively affect his employees lives and then giving a fauxpology for it.
If he had donated to the Klu Klux Klan, would you be as blasé?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Before stumbling on this thread, I had just read Brendan O'Neill's "Gay marriage: the fastest-formed orthodoxy ever?" That's worth a read for youse, I reckon.
I agree it's worth a read. I think it also has some big flaws:
I would point out though that it over-exaggerates the swiftness of growth in support for gay marriage. With regard to the US, Gallup has a nice graph which shows a trend of gradual and linear increase in support over time for gay marriage... and it looks almost identical to their graph of support for interracial marriage which shows the same linear trend and an almost identical slope. So the change in viewpoint on the same-sex marriage issues among the total US population does not appear to be significantly swifter nor any less linear than it was for interracial marriage. The same kinds of social forces (older bigoted people dying off, the younger generation growing up, people slowly changing their views) can be used to explain both graphs equally.
The article is very selective in its choice of UK opinion statistics which make it sound like the UK has seen a massive change of opinion within a couple of years. However looking at a wider variety of poll results, shows that actually support has risen fairly gradually in the UK and that individual polls have huge margins of error. So the article appears to be lying through it's teeth about an exponential rise in support.
What I suspect has actually happened which has spooked the politicians, is that the support has crossed the 50% threshold such that nearly all polling now reports majority support for same-sex marriage in the UK. Politicans are suckers for anything that has majority support, and 90% of politicians tend to support anything that has 51% public support... it's kind of an inherent flaw in how our democracies work. So as the public support has moved from 51% against gay marriage to 51% supporting it, suddenly a whole lot of politicians have flipped at a speed so fast it has caused a sonic boom. But that's politicians for you, and simply how they always respond to changes in popular opinion.
I think the article is confused about why the social change is occurring. It tries to lay blame on the media for this (wrongly perceived as) 'high-speed' change in the public's views -apparently the author thinks the population are mindless sheep who will follow any whims of the media at the speed of light. But the article then still struggles to understand the intensity of the opposition to anti-gay views.
What it's missing is that the major driving source of change here is not people changing their views on gay marriage (that does happen, but it's a secondary effect), it's people who have always held pro gay marriage views getting old enough to be surveyed. Every survey has consistently found a massive rate of support (>80%) for gay marriage in the millennial generation (people born in 1980 or after, so currently under 35), and the younger you survey within that group the higher the support rate gets at a linear rate up to 100% for the youngest demographic. This group of people haven't ever in their lives changed their minds on the subject of gay marriage, they have always held the same views. What's happened over the last decade is that they have got old enough to show up more and more as a significant proportion of the voting population.
Now it is an interesting question to ask "what social forces have shaped the values of the millennial generation?" And that question probably has an extremely complex answer. But regardless of whatever complex social forces have shaped the values of this generation, it is an observable fact that this millennial generation does have a set of values which they hold very strongly and which are very different to the values of their parents and grandparents generations.
One of the values that millennials hold strongly is a absolute loathing of discrimination, and a "kill it with fire" type mentality to dealing with discrimination whenever they encounter it. They also lack respect for self-proclaimed authorities and institutions (such as churches and religions). Whatever the social forces are that have shaped the younger generation, they have instilled in them en masse these values, which are very different than values of the generations that came before them.
So when the article naively wonders where "the stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance" for anti-gay marriage views is coming from, the answer is millennials, who are now old enough to be represented in significant numbers in politics and society. It's not a matter of the population's views being "changed so suddenly" - it's people who have never changed their views on the matter being increasingly represented as part of the population sample. It's not that the media have somehow done a masterful job of brainwashing the population in the space of a year to make them go from opposing gay marriage to persecuting those who oppose gay marriage. It's that an entire generation who have always wanted to persecute those who oppose gay marriage is now beginning to get the power to do so.
Whereas those supporters of same-sex marriage among the older generation don't tend to be nearly as vehement about it, and show much greater tolerance towards those who are against same-sex marriage. In the minds of the older generations, being against same-sex marriage is perceived as a valid view, regardless of what the individual thinks. Churches are perceived as valid sources of moral authority and generally respected even if an individual is not religious. So there is a high level of generosity and tolerance among the older generations towards those who are anti same-sex marriage.
By contrast, the millennial generation by and large, doesn't view being anti same-sex marriage as a valid viewpoint. They don't respect the church or view it as a valid source of morality. They consider being anti-gay a grave and serious offence of the most heinous kind, comparable to slavery and apartheid, and a serious violation of human rights and on the border of being a crime against humanity. The spectrum of losing your job through to prison time is viewed as valid punishment for advocating anti-gay views.
So when the article asks where did the tolerance for anti-gay views go, the answer is that it was never there among the younger generation and that they don't share the tolerance of the older generation. The media haven't stolen it (well, not in the last two years at least, you could reasonably suspect that the media has had a multi-decade role in the formation of the views of the younger generation). It's just that the high level of tolerance among the older generations' peers for anti-gay viewpoints has never been present in the younger generation and now the younger generation is getting the chance to put their views into practice.
quote:
Out here among traditional Catholics, the primary purpose of marriage is what? Procreation.
Who cares?
quote:
And what is it that gay people cannot do, even in principe? Breed. Well, at least not with their same-sex partner, that is. So, however animal-like gay people may be, the traditional take is not that gays are "denied" marriage because they "shouldn't be allowed to breed", as your analogy suggests, but rather that they cannot marry because they cannot breed (with each other), even in principle.
There's plenty of biology research being done into the creation of eggs from males and sperm from females (news article). It seems like it will be about 10-20 years before the scientists can successfully splice the DNA properly and allow a same-sex couple to have children that are genetically theirs. Thus, presumably, a lot of same-sex couples currently getting married will indeed be able to have biological children of their own together in the future.
But even today, if a lesbian couple got sperm donated from one woman's brother to inseminate the other woman with, then you'd get a baby that shared genetic material with both mothers (50% with one mother and 25% with the other instead of the normal 50%/50%) and was 100% the genetic grandchild of both sets of grandparents, no science necessary. So you can get at least 75% of the way towards having the 'right' genetics for a biological child of both parents already.
quote:
You've basically just ranted yourself right into the traditional argument.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't believe in gay marriage because a proper definition of marriage includes procreation as primary aim and gays just can't have kids (with each other). Now, of course society can redefine, and perhaps has redefined, "marriage" as something else. In that case "gay marriage" become something we can argue about in terms of emotions, law, and economy. And I may even be convinced that it would be prudent to allow it. Whereas I will then call the thing which has as its primary aim procreation something else, say "wedlock". And if you then come after me claiming "wedlock" for the gays, I will call it "matrimony". And if there's to be gay matrimony, then I'll have to invent some other term. Humpty-Dumpty can only redefine words, not realities. And that thing which I (still) call marriage (so far) gays cannot have. Not because I unjustly deny it, but simply because they are not using their sexual organs in a way that could potentially produce kids. Nothing can ever change this, unless you change human nature itself.
You are free to not believe in Gay Marriage. You're also free to not believe in internal combustion engines either. Do try and stay out of the roadway now, for some reason those new horses are very fast and don't seem to sense you being in front of them.
Marriage is a state defined activity and the common terms for it are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Earlier on this thread, there was talk about what analogy to use. I still favor inter-racial marriage because it has a lot of points in common. It was illegal, it was made legal in the United States by legal action, culminating in a Supreme Court case and there was widespread prior theological arguments that it was not what God wants us to do. It is also something that has been very controversial in the United States, and not so in some other countries, e.g. Brazil.
When I say this is a fruitful analogy I'm not trying to create a hierarchy of oppression but to see if one can see possible futures.
One of the transitions that happened slowly in my youth was that tolerance for people in favor of segregation and disapproval of interracial marriage slowly melted. Older people who would proclaim that things were better in the old days when everyone stuck to their own kind became an embarrassment to their younger descendants. It didn't all vanish at once, and it's still there, but it's become furtive or antagonistic as those who hold those views know that they are in a minority.
I can easily see that happening with the conservatives who oppose allowing same-sex marriage. Someone who has friends who are of a different race don't want to hear their parents spouting quaint views about how happy the minorities were in the good old days. This is going to accelerate as there are more same sex couples who are work and social acquaintances of openly gay people and their children.
Going back to the inter-racial analogy, after the civil rights movement won legal rights, the churches that had opposed it have slowly fallen in line. Bob Jones University went from not allowing inter-racial dating to losing a court case on tax exemption to a formal apology for racism in not much more than a decade. The Southern Baptists and the Mormons have also changed their official positions in the last decade. I'm sure there are still muttering old people who complain that they should not have caved in, but in general, any Church that opposes interracial marriage or advocates segregation, and is widely opposed by other churches who used to also champion segregation.
It will be interesting to see this happens with same-sex marriage and gay rights. It may be that it's a much smaller battle because people have voted with their feet and simply left religion behind. But I think the possible next step will be for those denominations that now support same sex marriage to stop tolerating homophobia in sister denominations.
It's going to be interesting.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's precisely one of the bits of this that exasperates me. Apparently it's okay to have one extremely important job in this organisation, but not the next one up the ladder. The glass ceiling is alive and well.
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?
Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?
I blame Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for helping to create the cult of the CEO as the genius of the corporation. This persists because it's colorful fodder for media and simple for those pouring money into the high tech stock market to enjoy it. If you think it's exasperating to watch from the outside, it's even more irritating to work for a company where the accomplishments of a lot of engineers are attributed to a few flamboyant executives.
It's not just CEO that are part of these dramas. You might want to read the scandal sheet valleywag.gawker.com blog for a week or two to see a lot of people who are trying to push themselves onto the public as legends. It's not pretty at all.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Palimpsest,
I think the similarities in future between how society reacts to gay marriage compared to interracial marriage will probably get modified by two factors. One is that liberal Christians are less and less bothering to stay part of churches. So churches are swinging more fundamentalist because of the disappearance of a counter-balancing liberal group within them. Second is that the millennials have much less tolerance for discrimination than past generations. So in contrast to the interracial social changes, I think we're going to see the religious group get increasingly zealous and shrill and less self-censured than they were for interracial acceptance, and we're going to see a much greater willingness on the part of the wider society to act against them for their views and punish them for them.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it. And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?
No worries! I've given up in the face of your superior debating powers.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I agree it's worth a read. I think it also has some big flaws:
I would point out though that it over-exaggerates the swiftness of growth in support for gay marriage. With regard to the US, Gallup has a nice graph which shows a trend of gradual and linear increase in support over time for gay marriage... and it looks almost identical to their graph of support for interracial marriage which shows the same linear trend and an almost identical slope. So the change in viewpoint on the same-sex marriage issues among the total US population does not appear to be significantly swifter nor any less linear than it was for interracial marriage. The same kinds of social forces (older bigoted people dying off, the younger generation growing up, people slowly changing their views) can be used to explain both graphs equally.
The article is very selective in its choice of UK opinion statistics which make it sound like the UK has seen a massive change of opinion within a couple of years. However looking at a wider variety of poll results, shows that actually support has risen fairly gradually in the UK and that individual polls have huge margins of error. So the article appears to be lying through it's teeth about an exponential rise in support.
Thank you ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
What it's missing is that the major driving source of change here is not people changing their views on gay marriage (that does happen, but it's a secondary effect), it's people who have always held pro gay marriage views getting old enough to be surveyed.
Thank you again. This is true as well.
quote:
One of the values that millennials hold strongly is a absolute loathing of discrimination, and a "kill it with fire" type mentality to dealing with discrimination whenever they encounter it. They also lack respect for self-proclaimed authorities and institutions (such as churches and religions). Whatever the social forces are that have shaped the younger generation, they have instilled in them en masse these values, which are very different than values of the generations that came before them.
And here I'm going to start to disagree with you. I don't believe that Generation X are exactly known for their respect for authority. Neither of us are the Boomers or the so-called Greatest Generation.
quote:
So when the article naively wonders where "the stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance" for anti-gay marriage views is coming from, the answer is millennials, who are now old enough to be represented in significant numbers in politics and society.
Personally, I'd have said that the "stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance" for anti-gay marriage views" came from a mirror. Yes, you can find some people on the pro-gay marriage side who have less respect from the opposition than the average anti-gay marriage proponent. But the entire article is trying to claim a false equivalence. A neutral position on the topic of gay marriage is to allow it - to live and let live. A position that lacks charity, magnanimity, and tolerance is to try to prevent people marrying the people they love. Boycotts come hard and fast from the anti-gay marriage lobby - but when people who want gay marriage to be legal try any of those tactics, suddenly it's toys out of the pram and people claiming to be victims. When people try comparing gay sex to bestiality and paedophilia that's SOP. But as far as I know people who are in favour of gay marriage don't compare people they dislike to kiddy fuckers.
The Millenials don't put up with this double standard. And quite right too!
quote:
It's that an entire generation who have always wanted to persecute those who oppose gay marriage is now beginning to get the power to do so.
This is nothing but slander so far as I can tell. Find me this persecution! Refusing to volunteer for an organisation headed by someone is hardly persecution.
quote:
By contrast, the millennial generation by and large, doesn't view being anti same-sex marriage as a valid viewpoint. They don't respect the church or view it as a valid source of morality. They consider being anti-gay a grave and serious offence of the most heinous kind, comparable to slavery and apartheid,
One out of two. The slavery comparison doesn't hold water. On the other hand homophobia is directly comparable to racism.
quote:
The spectrum of losing your job through to prison time is viewed as valid punishment for advocating anti-gay views.
Again, this reads like paranoid ramblings that do not reflect reality. Find me the people advocating prison time.
quote:
So when the article asks where did the tolerance for anti-gay views go, the answer is that it was never there among the younger generation and that they don't share the tolerance of the older generation.
This again is true. Millenials are no more tolerant of people being against gay marriage than Generation X is of people referring to niggers. And generally believe it should be dealt with by similar methods. Donating to support Prop 8 is treated as about equivalent to donating to support the KKK. Would any new head of a charity remain if they donated to the KKK and it was made public?
And when you talk about the tolerance of the older generation you fundamentally misunderstand tolerance. Tolerance isn't a "Do what you like" sign. It's a "No kicking" sign that can, if necessary, be enforced by the application of hobnailed boots to people who break the peace. The older generation is tolerating those standing on other peoples backs to hold them down. To Millies that counts as kicking.
And Orfeo, the CEO is different. The CTO's job is to make technical decisions and keep up technically. The CEO's job is to be the face of the company. The Mozilla CEO's job was to be the face of a charity relying on volunteers. As the results prove, they are different things. It's not a matter of how high, but what sort of position. CEO isn't a step up from CTO or CFO, it's a fundamentally different job. Eich isn't just a homophobe, he's politically tone deaf as his notpologies demonstrate.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
the common terms for [Marriage] are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.
This is a very worthwhile point. I'm not a Catholic and never have been, but I've used the word "marriage" all my life. So when someone comes along and says essentially "we Catholics own the definition of the word marriage and you're using it wrong" I'm left wondering whether to snigger at their supreme arrogance and their presumption that they have the authority to tell me what the words I use mean, or whether I should just tell them to fuck off. What they really mean is, as you point out, that their church has a theology that they have developed about something that is essentially a "Catholic Procreative Contract". They should just call it that and not cause themselves confusion by using the term "marriage" that everyone else in the world uses to mean something different to that. It's breathtakingly arrogant that they think they can steal a common word from our language and try and tell the rest of us what it "truly" means.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Starlight,
I'd agree that a number of people will solve the difference between the intolerance of their church and their tolerance of same sex couples by leaving the church. That's what I tried to say about voting with your feet.
There will also be group that squeeze out the liberals and become more extreme as you suggest.
There's another path; some of these who were in churches that were homophobic forget that they were homophobic and now oppose other churches being homophobic. Again this is going by the analogy of racial toleration. Or to cite another example, very few today remember how anti-Semitic mainstream American churches were a century ago. These same churches now oppose anti-Semitism and have limited memory of their own history.
So it will be interesting to see if extremism triumphs, or institutional change and amnesia allow a change.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
I'm going to pass along to the several childless-by-choice straight couples I know that they aren't really married (especially the ones who entered marriage with the specific intention not to have children). When they ask why they're not really married, I'll explain that the Catholic Church says so. I'm sure that will impress them!
[ 06. April 2014, 02:02: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
There is also the interesting aspect that the various US states view first cousin marriages differently. Some allow it; some forbid it completely; a few allow it but only if the couple can't procreate (or very unlikely to do so because of age). So some states have written into their law that they do not consider the possibility of procreation an essential part of marriage.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm going to pass along to the several childless-by-choice straight couples I know that they aren't really married (especially the ones who entered marriage with the specific intention not to have children). When they ask why they're not really married, I'll explain that the Catholic Church says so. I'm sure that will impress them!
Oh foolish one, according to IngoB, they are still married they could produce a child. Even childless by sterility opposite sex couples are OK, because God could produce a miracle and make them fertile. Though the all-powerful being can't do it otherwise. Or won't. which would make God a homophobe, in spite of actually making homosexuals.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't believe that Generation X are exactly known for their respect for authority.
Sure. A lot of the values that are strongly held by millennials are present in weaker amounts in generation X, and vice versa. There's definitely overlap between those two generations.
quote:
Personally, I'd have said that the "stunning lack of charity, magnanimity and tolerance" for anti-gay marriage views" came from a mirror. Yes, you can find some people on the pro-gay marriage side who have less respect from the opposition than the average anti-gay marriage proponent. But the entire article is trying to claim a false equivalence. A neutral position on the topic of gay marriage is to allow it - to live and let live. A position that lacks charity, magnanimity, and tolerance is to try to prevent people marrying the people they love. Boycotts come hard and fast from the anti-gay marriage lobby - but when people who want gay marriage to be legal try any of those tactics, suddenly it's toys out of the pram and people claiming to be victims. When people try comparing gay sex to bestiality and paedophilia that's SOP. But as far as I know people who are in favour of gay marriage don't compare people they dislike to kiddy fuckers.
I agree. The conservatives have fought viciously on this one and cry foul when even a tiny fraction of their tactics are used on them... which is typical.
quote:
This is nothing but slander so far as I can tell. Find me this persecution!
Again, this reads like paranoid ramblings that do not reflect reality. Find me the people advocating prison time.
To be clear, I'm a millennial (and am pro-gay) and am trying to explain what I perceive to be the social trends of my own generation. I'm not a paranoid old conservative who's feeling persecuted. I'm trying to predict the future by looking at the attitudes of my peers. And I presume that prison time is a possible outcome for Scott Lively's trial, and am sure that there's a lot of millennials (myself included) who would love to see people like that imprisoned.
quote:
Millenials are no more tolerant of people being against gay marriage than Generation X is of people referring to niggers. And generally believe it should be dealt with by similar methods. Donating to support Prop 8 is treated as about equivalent to donating to support the KKK. Would any new head of a charity remain if they donated to the KKK and it was made public?
I agree, and think those are good comparisons. I've personally used the KKK comparison in the past.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
There's plenty of biology research being done into the creation of eggs from males and sperm from females (news article). It seems like it will be about 10-20 years before the scientists can successfully splice the DNA properly and allow a same-sex couple to have children that are genetically theirs. Thus, presumably, a lot of same-sex couples currently getting married will indeed be able to have biological children of their own together in the future.
Sure. And if we attach robotic legs to a fish, and power them with a fat ass motor till that fish outruns a cheetah, then we have proven something. I'm not quite sure what though, but probably not that fish are meant to run like the wind...
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
But even today, if a lesbian couple got sperm donated from one woman's brother to inseminate the other woman with, then you'd get a baby that shared genetic material with both mothers (50% with one mother and 25% with the other instead of the normal 50%/50%) and was 100% the genetic grandchild of both sets of grandparents, no science necessary. So you can get at least 75% of the way towards having the 'right' genetics for a biological child of both parents already.
The level of not getting this is just plain ... staggering, and not a little sad. Now we are doing DNA stats for what purposes precisely? Anyway, that child has the 50%/50% DNA share that any healthy child has. It's just that the father has a novel excuse for not doing his share of parenting.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are free to not believe in Gay Marriage. You're also free to not believe in internal combustion engines either. Do try and stay out of the roadway now, for some reason those new horses are very fast and don't seem to sense you being in front of them.
As terribly flawed analogies go, I'm not in the business of denying any car. I can see full well what society in general and gays in particular are doing. I'm in the business of saying "Well, you say so-and-so many 'horsepower', but there is no 'horse' in that engine of yours. Why don't you say kW?"
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Marriage is a state defined activity and the common terms for it are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.
Don't worry, we'll be getting there. My bet would rather be on "holy matrimony" though. That has a nicer ring to it. However, all this going on about the RCC trying to impose a definition is of course just silly. The "gay marriage" stuff has become mainstream in perhaps the last decade or so. And the final detachment of marriage from procreation is about fifty years old. More or less all that time before then, marriage meant various things, but all had to do with sex between a man and a woman and making babies. OK? The people who have been doing the redefining is your side, not mine. You can perhaps accuse the RCC of stubbornly clinging to things beyond their due by date, but you can hardly accuse her of creating these concepts out of thin air.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
First of all, bullshit that the RCC is using some "original" definition. Marriage has been defined with different parameters in different cultures. The RCC redefines marriage as different to biblical marriage, even.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The level of not getting this is just plain ... staggering, and not a little sad.
Yup. First you say "they cannot marry because they cannot breed (with each other), even in principle."
So I point you to two different ways gay couples can have biological children.
And your response is this gobbledygook:
quote:
And if we attach robotic legs to a fish, and power them with a fat ass motor till that fish outruns a cheetah, then we have proven something. I'm not quite sure what though, but probably not that fish are meant to run like the wind...
Wow dude, robotic fish outrunning cheetahs? I dunno what drugs you're on but it's obviously good stuff - can I have some?
If gay couples can have biological children then your argument of "they cannot marry because they cannot breed" obviously fails hard.
I guess spluttering in outrage at the total failure of your argument is a valid reaction on your part. I guess that explains the word-vomit above about robotic fish and cheetahs. Either than or hallucinogenic drugs do.
quote:
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
I'm going to pass along to the several childless-by-choice straight couples I know that they aren't really married (especially the ones who entered marriage with the specific intention not to have children). When they ask why they're not really married, I'll explain that the Catholic Church says so. I'm sure that will impress them!
You've got to bear in mind that the Catholic Church gets to use a special type of logic just as it gets to use special types of meanings for words. Just as it can use the word "marriage" without actually meaning marriage, it can also use its own type of logic rather than your pathetically true and trustworthy human logic. Instead it uses a special type of inaccurate godly church logic, which reasons with vague generalisations instead of accurate specifics. So because females in general are often capable of having a child with males in general, then a male-female union can be a marriage, regardless of whether in any specific case the particular female is fertile or willing to have a child. What matters in inaccurate godly Catholic church logic land is vague and retarded generalisations, not silly things like actual facts of the matter or truth.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are free to not believe in Gay Marriage. You're also free to not believe in internal combustion engines either. Do try and stay out of the roadway now, for some reason those new horses are very fast and don't seem to sense you being in front of them.
As terribly flawed analogies go, I'm not in the business of denying any car. I can see full well what society in general and gays in particular are doing. I'm in the business of saying "Well, you say so-and-so many 'horsepower', but there is no 'horse' in that engine of yours. Why don't you say kW?"
Except you're claiming not to believe a marriage of two people of the same sex by the state is a marriage. Not agreeing it's a correct thing for state to do is one thing, not "believing" it is a Humpty Dumpty form of denial.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Marriage is a state defined activity and the common terms for it are not exclusive property of the Catholic Church. If you want a term that you can used to exclude whoever you want, try trademarking a new one like "Catholic Procreative Contract" and no one can define the way it is used but you.
Don't worry, we'll be getting there. My bet would rather be on "holy matrimony" though. That has a nicer ring to it. However, all this going on about the RCC trying to impose a definition is of course just silly. The "gay marriage" stuff has become mainstream in perhaps the last decade or so. And the final detachment of marriage from procreation is about fifty years old. More or less all that time before then, marriage meant various things, but all had to do with sex between a man and a woman and making babies. OK? The people who have been doing the redefining is your side, not mine. You can perhaps accuse the RCC of stubbornly clinging to things beyond their due by date, but you can hardly accuse her of creating these concepts out of thin air.
Not OK and very sloppy.
"more or less all that time" starts with at least 3 or 4 millennia where marriage was often defined as between a man and all the women he could afford, not just a man and a women and with divorce and remarriage allowed. After that time the definition has changed multiple times, including the RC one you're so fond of claiming was the original eternally unchanging one which has existed for a couple of millennia in parallel with other definitions. And while the RC is entitled to create its own definition, it doesn't get to prevent society from continuing to change the definition of marriage in many ways. The Church has tried that and failed.
I don't worry much but I'd suggest you add the word Catholic to your term "Holy Catholic Matrimony" or you're going to suffer from the messy confusion between your Holy Matrimony and the Holy Matrimony of other religions who do allow same sex marriage or marriages between people who can't procreate. Sadly, not only do you not own the word marriage, you don't have exclusive rights to the word holy. A pre-emptive trademark is also cheap and handy for claiming ownership of your new term and controlling how it is used.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And before Dubious Thomas turns up again to say 'but a CEO is different', I'll say: prove it. Don't just assert it.
This case proves it. Volunteers weren't dropping like flies when this guy was CTO, but when he became CEO, they started abandoning ship. What more proof do you want?
quote:
And is it just the CEO, or are the directors and chairman of the board covered as well?
This isn't an a priori science. We won't know until it comes up. You probably could create a poll to ask the volunteers who do the work at Mozilla. Knock yourself out.
quote:
Exactly which jobs have been marked off as acceptable for homophobes? And are they open to blacks and Jews as well?
Again, nothing has been marked off. You miss the entire point. This isn't some decision that someone has made in some dark back room. This was an open decision made by volunteers working for the company. You apparently would force them to keep volunteering for the company because it's so homophobophobic for them to quit over this hater becoming CEO. Real people don't work that way.
I suppose my mistake is that I've been looking for some kind of rational basis for the decision, instead of just shrugging my shoulders and accepting that someone's ability to be employed should be dictated by the feelings of others.
It continues to worry me, precisely because a lot of our anti-discrimination law (including anti-discrimination law in employment, which we've recently noted in other threads is a lot patchier in the USA than elsewhere in the West) is about telling people that employment is a field where they're not allowed to act on their personal feelings, but that employment decisions have to be made on the basis of more objective assessments about performance and suitability.
While I live in a pretty left-wing city where the risk of me encountering a problematic homophobe is fairly low, I'm still quite happy that there are laws saying that my job security is dictated by my ability to do the job, not by what someone thinks about my sexuality. Some of my colleagues may be similarly pleased that there are laws to say that their gender, race, disability or age aren't pertinent. All of those laws are about the same thing: focus on performance and suitability.
[ 06. April 2014, 10:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Palimpset: quote:
I don't worry much but I'd suggest you add the word Catholic to your term "Holy Catholic Matrimony" or you're going to suffer from the messy confusion between your Holy Matrimony and the Holy Matrimony of other religions who do allow same sex marriage or marriages between people who can't procreate. Sadly, not only do you not own the word marriage, you don't have exclusive rights to the word holy.
To avoid all confusion I think the phrase should be, "Holy Roman Catholic Matrimony". However, now I can't imagine anyone except Burt Ward saying it.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jane R, I'm afraid that you have completely misread my post, and it's necessary to fine you. Please send 6 bottles of La Tache '93 by the end of next week.
Orfeo, just picking up on the last sentence of your post. No matter what else in the person's cv, his private donation, even allowing for its age and so forth with the accompanying public outcry shows that he was now longer suitable for the position. And his performance would have been hampered by the continued need for him to deal with the dispute and any subsequent boycott of Mozilla's products.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
orfeo
It's not a mistake. Eich's ability to sustain the CEO role was crucially compromised because he lost the confidence of the volunteer base. I guess there was some orchestration of that, but that's the goldfish bowl at work.
A co-operative like Mozilla has to live with such real life factors, as does anyone who leads it. Pissing off a sizeable proportion of your volunteer and stakeholder base is quite easily done in these tetchy times. Recovering from that is a big leadership challenge, as is recognising that you can't.
But I think the principle of assessment based on work performance is the right one. Moral outrage doesn't allow a lot of space for a considered view. Historically, gay people have been on the receiving end of discrimination in the work place for reasons other than their ability to do the job. Some of that has also been fuelled by a kind of misplaced moral outrage. That's worth remembering. Moral outrage can be manipulated in favour of mob rule.
[ 06. April 2014, 11:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suppose my mistake is that I've been looking for some kind of rational basis for the decision, instead of just shrugging my shoulders and accepting that someone's ability to be employed should be dictated by the feelings of others.
Why do you have the continual need to ignore what is being said in this thread, Orfeo?
Someone's ability to be employed should be based on their competence at the job. When a charity has three board members and dozens of volunteers resigning specifically because of the CEO then the CEO is not able to do the job. Which part of this is hard to understand?
It's also not about making sure he can't do any job. Everyone who resigned was there while he was CTO. It's about him not being suitable for this job.
quote:
All of those laws are about the same thing: focus on performance and suitability.
In the brief time he was CEO three board members and dozens of other volunteers resigned. How is this not a performance issue for the CEO?
In the brief time he was CEO he offered multiple notpologies that showed nothing more than that he had a politically tin ear and was either unwilling or unable to engage with the concerns of the members of the organisation. How is being a political incompetent who is either unwilling or unable to engage with wider concerns not a suitability issue for the CEO?
Eich resigned over some spectacular performance and suitability issues.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First of all, bullshit that the RCC is using some "original" definition. Marriage has been defined with different parameters in different cultures. The RCC redefines marriage as different to biblical marriage, even.
Of course the RCC defines a specific ideal case as marriage that is significantly different from all sorts of other historical conceptions of marriage, including the ancient Jewish one. Famously so. That was not at all the point. The point was that across history marriage is universally about intimate and long-lasting relationships between men and women, with typically the express aim - or at least the very clear expectation - of the begetting and raising of children through this relationship. Through all the many socio-cultural variations, that is the core of what used to be called "marriage". Everywhere, and at all times, by the vast majority of people. Yes, it is a catchall term, but not that would have been seriously extended to gay relationships at a society level - until very recently in the West. And while there simply cannot be a doubt that this is a redefinition against the global and historical usage, I don't even have to argue that for the point I was making. Our culture at very least was dominated until recently (say a hundred years ago) by a specific conception of marriage, against which this is a clear redefinition. So it's absurd to accuse the RCC of redefining anything there. She just isn't. She is simply hanging on to what used to be the widely understood meaning of "marriage", for better (I say) or worse (you say). That was my point.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If gay couples can have biological children then your argument of "they cannot marry because they cannot breed" obviously fails hard. I guess spluttering in outrage at the total failure of your argument is a valid reaction on your part. I guess that explains the word-vomit above about robotic fish and cheetahs. Either than or hallucinogenic drugs do.
So just for clarification, if you see a fish rushing about on robotic legs, and exclaim "A fish that runs!" what do you mean? 1) By the marvels of human ingenuity (and indeed, possibly the use of psychoactive substances), engineers have made an animal run that neither could do so without technical props, nor was "made for" doing so (by evolution and/or God). 2) Fish have joined the class of animals that are "made for" (by evo/God) roaming around on land on legs, as evidenced by the fact that you have just seen one run by. Fish, rabbits, cheetahs - as far as the ability to run goes, they are now one and the same sort of thing.
It's a simple binary choice, 1 or 2? And yes, it does answer your claim that "gays will be able to breed soon by fantastic progress in medical technology." If you still can't figure out why, I'll tell you. But first let's hear what you choose there.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
You've got to bear in mind that the Catholic Church gets to use a special type of logic just as it gets to use special types of meanings for words.
Unfortunately, that's becoming a kind of half-truth. Though it remains the case that people become incapable of elementary "logic" (reasoning, really) in particular at rhetorically convenient points in time, just to have their abilities restored to them when not busy spouting ideology.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Instead it uses a special type of inaccurate godly church logic, which reasons with vague generalisations instead of accurate specifics. So because females in general are often capable of having a child with males in general, then a male-female union can be a marriage, regardless of whether in any specific case the particular female is fertile or willing to have a child. What matters in inaccurate godly Catholic church logic land is vague and retarded generalisations, not silly things like actual facts of the matter or truth.
Yes, whatever will these benighted zealots think of next? Will they claim that eyes are for seeing? Have they never seen a blind person with eyes? Will they claim that ears are for hearing? Have they never seen a deaf person with ears? Everybody knows that hearts are not for pumping blood, for there are heart attacks. Legs are not for walking, for there are quadriplegics. Birds do not use wings for flying, for there are penguins and ostriches. Rain does not come from clouds, for we see clouds that do not rain. Soldiers are not for war fighting, for some of them desert. Fireman do not extinguish fires, for some even burn things. Air is no good for breathing, as demonstrated by fish. The sun does not give us light and warmth, as every fool knows who has seen an eclipse. One does not read books, for some wipe their arses with their pages. Rubber balls do not bounce, just cool one down with liquid nitrogen and you will see. Money is not for paying things, just wait for the next hyperinflation.
Anyway, I could go on with these examples of outlandish RC "logic", but it should be self-evident that no right thinking person could ever say anything about how things are unless 100% of all observable cases follow exactly and precisely one specific pattern. Also, I really am wondering whether I should be typing this. On a keyboard. But there are keyboards with broken keys. I've seen them. So have I not given in to this devilish RC "logic" in practice? Am I not invalidly generalising that keyboards are for typing by, well, typing on one? This is such a dilemma, in order to tell the world about this Romish corruption of the intellect, I have to abide by it? What to do, what to do?
Here's an idea. Maybe I just use that sort of "logic" when it is convenient to me practically speaking, like say 99% of the time, but when it becomes inconvenient to me in the other 1% of cases I will denounce it loudly as illogical nonsense. Now, that's a plan! Of course a computer screen is for looking at things, though some screens remain dark, but marriage is not for procreation, because some couples never have kids. Consistency, I hear you mumble? Oh please, that's just more of this illogical RC stuff. Shame on you for even thinking of it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
orfeo
It's not a mistake. Eich's ability to sustain the CEO role was crucially compromised because he lost the confidence of the volunteer base. I guess there was some orchestration of that, but that's the goldfish bowl at work.
A co-operative like Mozilla has to live with such real life factors, as does anyone who leads it. Pissing off a sizeable proportion of your volunteer and stakeholder base is quite easily done in these tetchy times. Recovering from that is a big leadership challenge, as is recognising that you can't.
But I think the principle of assessment based on work performance is the right one. Moral outrage doesn't allow a lot of space for a considered view. Historically, gay people have been on the receiving end of discrimination in the work place for reasons other than their ability to do the job. Some of that has also been fuelled by a kind of misplaced moral outrage. That's worth remembering. Moral outrage can be manipulated in favour of mob rule.
It's precisely the 'mob rule' aspect of this that is troubling me.
And you're absolutely right, it is the goldfish bowl at work. And a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason he can't do his job is because enough people decided he can't do his job. Based, it seems, more on what they thought he might do in the job rather than what he actually did do in the job. Alternatively, based on stuff that wasn't ever part of his job.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
IngoB,
I really hope that whichever gay rights organization you're working for is paying you well for your service to the cause! Your arguments here are really helping the case for equal marriage. Thanks!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Someone's ability to be employed should be based on their competence at the job. When a charity has three board members and dozens of volunteers resigning specifically because of the CEO then the CEO is not able to do the job. Which part of this is hard to understand?
The part that leaps from the subjective opinion of three board members and dozens of volunteers that they don't like the CEO into the realm of an objective fact that the CEO cannot do the job.
I understand PERFECTLY WELL that the
perception of him made his position untenable. Okay? But you're glossing over the fact that the reason they are resigning isn't because of a lack of competence on the CEO's part. They are resigning because they don't like something else about him.
Yes, okay, sure, he cannot do the job in those circumstances. But don't ignore the REASON he can't do the job. It isn't because he's lost his technological know-how, or because he's shown an inability to handle the finances, or because of any other factor that actually pertains to his skills.
It's because the other staff don't like him.
If you want to live in a world where someone isn't able to be employed in a position just because other staff don't like something about him, then you should be very, very concerned about the consequences. I know I would be.
Can you imagine what this story would be like if people resigned because they refused to work with a gay person? I can. It would look a hell of a lot like the World Vision thread where a whole pile of people are chewing out conservative Christians for withdrawing their VOLUNTARY SUPPORT at the prospect of gay people working for the organisation. And chewing out World Vision for capitulating and saying gay people can't work there.
But hey, over here in this thread we're all just peachy with a company saying someone can't work here because other people don't like it.
In my opinion you can't have it both ways. Either it's okay for someone to be forced out on account of others threatening to pack up and go home, or it's not okay. Either a company should stand up for the disliked employee, or they shouldn't. Which?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
From what I've read here, folks believe that Eich had some chance of keeping his job by saying that his support for Prop 8 was a mistake and apologising for the hurt done by the passage of that proposition.
I'd rather he only said it if he believed it. Given the subsequent legal arguments, it seems perfectly possible to hold, personally, to the traditional man/woman view of marriage and at the same time recognise that support for the Proposition was an error. But I don't know if Eich agrees with that.
Eich's silence on his continuing personal views about Prop 8 support was not smart. I agree with Justinian. It didn't say much about his leadership skills. If anything, it fuelled the existing suspicion. He wasn't addressing the central issue of his credibility problem.
[ 06. April 2014, 13:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So just for clarification, if you see a fish rushing about on robotic legs, and exclaim "A fish that runs!" what do you mean? 1) By the marvels of human ingenuity (and indeed, possibly the use of psychoactive substances), engineers have made an animal run that neither could do so without technical props, nor was "made for" doing so (by evolution and/or God). 2) Fish have joined the class of animals that are "made for" (by evo/God) roaming around on land on legs, as evidenced by the fact that you have just seen one run by. Fish, rabbits, cheetahs - as far as the ability to run goes, they are now one and the same sort of thing.
It's a simple binary choice, 1 or 2? And yes, it does answer your claim that "gays will be able to breed soon by fantastic progress in medical technology." If you still can't figure out why, I'll tell you. But first let's hear what you choose there.
I'm smiling at your apparent obsession with trying to reason based on the alleged "purpose" of things. I am reminded of the famous quote that "if humans were meant to fly, then God would have given us wings", which shows how absurd it is to reject scientific advancement based on the perceived purpose of biological parts.
With regard to your question, I would favour option one as the answer, but I would note that the fish that was not originally 'made for' running has, in your example, now been 'made for' running by the scientists who have altered it. Previously the fish couldn't run because it wasn't 'made for' it, and now it can run because it's been deliberately altered in order to be 'make to be' able to run. You seem to falsely suppose in the way you've phrased the question that things can never be used for new purposes and imply that a person can't deliberately alter the purpose for which a thing is being used or alter a thing so that it can be used for new purposes. Your 'logic' looks in danger of leading to the view that we should all abandon all scientific endeavours since everything in nature does what God "made it" for, and thus by artificially altering anything in the world or inventing new things and new purposes other than what God made we must be all thwarting God's plan... so I guess let's all abandon cars, planes, trains, and use our feet that were 'made for' transporting us and possibly horses that were 'made for' our use? I think that's the sort of absurdity that trying to run any argument of this type ultimately leads to.
You're also overlooking my other point that in the present, without any near-future science, a lesbian couple can use one of their brothers as a sperm donor in order to have a child who shares DNA with both lesbian parents. I regard that as the couple being quite successful at "breeding" as you called it. It also has the bonus of keeping both sets of grandparents happy by giving them a child that is 100% their biological grandchild.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Someone's ability to be employed should be based on their competence at the job. When a charity has three board members and dozens of volunteers resigning specifically because of the CEO then the CEO is not able to do the job. Which part of this is hard to understand?
The part that leaps from the subjective opinion of three board members and dozens of volunteers that they don't like the CEO into the realm of an objective fact that the CEO cannot do the job.
I understand PERFECTLY WELL that the
perception of him made his position untenable. Okay? But you're glossing over the fact that the reason they are resigning isn't because of a lack of competence on the CEO's part. They are resigning because they don't like something else about him.
Yes, okay, sure, he cannot do the job in those circumstances. But don't ignore the REASON he can't do the job. It isn't because he's lost his technological know-how, or because he's shown an inability to handle the finances, or because of any other factor that actually pertains to his skills.
Technological know-how is primarily the responsibility of the CTO. He wasn't unqualified there. But there are plenty of CEOs who can barely turn on a computer. That isn't a CEO's core responsibility - it's why the position of CTO even exists. Likewise finance. There are plenty of CEOs who can't balance a budget. That's why the position of CFO exists. So the CEO doesn't have to deal with that shit and can instead deal with their own job.
The CEO's job, especially in a volunteer organisation is political. And by his response to the outcry he showed himself to have the political sensitivity of a three day dead fish.
quote:
It's because the other staff don't like him.
Bullshit. It's because he did something bad - and then refused to apologise. As CTO that wasn't the problem. As CFO that wouldn't have been a problem. As CEO he was showing himself to be a political incompetent.
CEO isn't just one step above CFO and CTO. It's its own job with its own skill set. And Eich showed himself to not be fit for purpose.
quote:
Can you imagine what this story would be like if people resigned because they refused to work with a gay person?
And now you are inventing strawmen. People aren't refusing to work with Eich. If they were refusing to work with Eich, they'd have refused to work with him as CTO. Eich on the other hand had been at Mozilla since the start, and that he had donated to Prop 8 had been known for a couple of years.
Any attempt to say that the people who resigned are people who would not work with Eich is demonstrably, objectively false. Every single person who resigned had been working with Eich. They just refused to work for Eich.
But throughout this thread you've been attempting to muddy the water here. You've been claiming that people who worked with Eich would not work with Eich. You've been claiming that what qualified as CTO should qualify you as CEO despite the fact they are two different jobs.
Why have you been doing this?
quote:
I can. It would look a hell of a lot like the World Vision thread where a whole pile of people are chewing out conservative Christians for withdrawing their VOLUNTARY SUPPORT at the prospect of gay people working for the organisation. And chewing out World Vision for capitulating and saying gay people can't work there.
I'm not chewing out Conservative Christians for dropping their support for World Vision. I don't give a damn about World Vision as an organisation. Where I give a damn is the consequences and the methods. If Mozilla were to shut down tomorrow, the consequence would be that Firefox, Thunderbird, and the spinoffs would not get updated any more. A pity. But the overall cost would be minimal. The Conservative Christians on the other hand literally held 10,000 children to ransom assuming that World Vision has the impact it claims. World Vision caved - and I don't blame them.
I don't care about the boycott of charities you disagree with. I do care about holding childrens lives to ransom.
So once again you are creating false equivalencies.
quote:
But hey, over here in this thread we're all just peachy with a company saying someone can't work here because other people don't like it.
Once more you are lying. Why do you do this?
Eich had been working at Mozilla since Mozilla was founded. Eich was CTO of Mozilla. Your statement is demonstrably false. Eich was unfit as CEO of Mozilla.
quote:
In my opinion you can't have it both ways. Either it's okay for someone to be forced out on account of others threatening to pack up and go home, or it's not okay. Either a company should stand up for the disliked employee, or they shouldn't. Which?
When your opinion bears more resemblance to reality than the average creationist's does on the subject of paleontology then it will be worth something. However you seem determined to make up facts in order to give yourself a soapbox.
Was Eich qualified as CTO for Mozilla? Definitely. And it stood beside him. He was CTO from 2005 to 2014 despite all this coming out in 2012. Did this make him qualified as CEO? No. And all his statements since becoming CEO of Mozilla demonstrated just how unqualified he was as CEO and how the CTO and CEO roles are very different.
[ 06. April 2014, 13:45: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
