Hmmmm would I rather buy "the gay cure" app or buy "Born This Way" on itunes.
awesome party music wins every time.
awesome party music wins every time.
Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not Apple's biggest fan, but they have every right to censor content produced on their platform - that is the business model they've adopted, and the one you subscribe to if you produce said content.
Of course, you'd have to be pig ignorant to think homosexuality is a disease, or can be treated as any other kind of affliction. As prejudice goes, homophobia is up there with racism.
However, if Apple were a government, or began to intervene in other areas of media, then they would be overstepping their bounds. Legislating against freedom of expression where there is no obvious intent to incite violence has to be watched carefully.
Of course, you'd have to be pig ignorant to think homosexuality is a disease, or can be treated as any other kind of affliction. As prejudice goes, homophobia is up there with racism.
However, if Apple were a government, or began to intervene in other areas of media, then they would be overstepping their bounds. Legislating against freedom of expression where there is no obvious intent to incite violence has to be watched carefully.
Wait, what? When did this happen?Simalacrum said:
I'm thinking the idea of homosexuality being a "disease" that needs to be "cured" is really the only problem here. Having an app that supposedly turns homosexuals straight wouldn't cause any commotion, or at least not any valid commotion, because then whoever uses it is doing so of their own volition. Poor wording is poor, in this case, but I can't disagree with the basic functionality.
"Discrimination of thought and belief obstructs essential dialogue and authentic diversity." He actually said this about the gay cure app being taken down. The hell. He doesn't realise that the idea of a gay cure app is entirely against this statement.
the exodus group fails to realize that calling homosexuality a disease makes them bigots and apple was wrong to allow it in the first place.If left then it would open up letting the KKK or Islamic Hate groups to allow their message of hate to be allowed as an app on the iphone cause they would have had a leg to stand on.I salute apple for removing it, I don't speak highly of apple often either
Well, as 'sex' is such a taboo subject in society it is common to see sex everywhere, and to mentally compare everything in a sexual way. Whether dry or wet, thick or thin, large or small, there is also a word you could associate with your [ahem] little friend.CannibalRobots said:
"Oh no, my freedom is being oppressed!" doesn't work when you're using it in reference of something that crushes someone else's freedom. "Lack of freedom" doesn't come into the equation of why homophobic content was removed, since the content was aimed to crush the freedom of people with alternative sexualities.Greg Tito said:
Directly it doesn't, but indirectly it encourages the idea that the freedom of people with alternative sexualities should be reduced. After all, why let diseased people do what their condition makes them do? It puts them in the same category as people with schizophrenia, people with a condition that must be treated.TU4AR said:
While believing homosexuality is a disease is prejudice, through-out the app in question clearly referring to homosexuality as a disease to be treated is discrimination. Sure, it's at worst virtual discrimination/prejudice, but it's like, as someone mentioned before, making an app that blacks should be slaves. The act it's self doesn't inflict harm on the freedoms of black people, but it encourages a racist ideology. No one is worried that this game will kill homosexuals or force them into insane asylums, but a lot of people are worried about the possible indirect events of publishing it.TU4AR said:
However, one thing is incredibly important: Apple is a corporation and not a government body or a charity. It can portray any view it wants, even if it doesn't reflect an equal ground for all their customers. If it doesn't want a particular ideology to slide in and interfere with their business, then it is allowed to do that by any means necessary. If they feel something they are doing may lose customers needlessly, they will stop it. Even if the developers (who personally, I feel are people should keep their opinions to themselves) could prove that Apple diminished their freedom to sell something on their online shop that is perceived to be contradictory to what Apple wants to allow to be sold, they can take it off. Which they have, most likely because the amount of problems that would occur in allowing this to happen would outweigh the benefits of letting it be sold. Minority groups are usually sensitive about material that they perceive to be discriminative against them, so Apple most likely perceived the possibility to lose sales over this. So, because they own the shop, they got rid of it. They don't need to justify themselves since it is borderline impossible to argue that it was in prejudice against a particular group.
I tend to look at forums for the wisdom of their denizens. You bring up a point that scares me. America is currently in the process of gutting its education programs. If not immediately it will be soon.Exterminas said:
For example, my current home state of Iowa is opting to pass tax cuts rather than ensure that teachers can teach. While this might seem off topic, I assure you that the topic is a river and this a tributary that runs into it.
The grand issue with a democratic society is that it MUST, at some level, keep its people educated so as to make that democracy work. Add to this the fact that its citizens must also have a drive to participate in that country in order to ensure that it is better... add to that the citizens in a democracy must be able to think beyond and outside of themselves...
Well, this is where the water begins flowing faster. Iowans are not stupid, I think. Perhaps myopic, but not stupid. Yet we have those that stand for the citizens voting for tax cuts rather than education. Without education, the citizens of a democracy cannot as efficiently serve their purpose. But what can we do?
Similarly dying is objectively bad.Mad World said:
It's something that any sane person knows.
I think Chris Rock said it best, though he was talking about racism.
Just be second...
Keep in mind I'm white, and straight for that matter. Just to set some groundwork.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_L7qoP17-w[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_L7qoP17-w - Since I apparently don't know how the youtube tag works >_>.
It's basically how I feel about this.
It's a matter of insane people being treated as if their views of life and the treatment of others is sane. Not that I'm saying you are insane. But anyone who would view homosexuality as a disease is indeed insane.
They is nothing beyond superstition to support the claim.
It is also anything but harmless. Modern politics and the actions taken against whatever race or creed of people we are actively at war with are great examples of how a certain phrase, or idea, said enough times will motivate people to do absolutely insane things.
There are quite a few evolutionarily strong reasons why homosexuality is natural. It's a trait that does not require either parent to be gay (because it only needs them both to have the gene for it to be passed on) and in pre-modern times it was an incredibly helpful factor in a family construct.Imat said:
Having active members of your society that are not also with child would have meant you had extra hands to help with tasks and to carry the load.
I am not saying that gay people never have kids, when I say pre-modern I'm pointing at pretty far back.
There are plenty of wonderfully written books and case studies on the topic that would do this much more justice than my butchering of the data :/. Basically there is no scientific reason to be surprised that it's around, no environmental reason that it wouldn't exist, and no rational reason why it should be considered something that needs fixing.
There is nobody of sound mind, at all, harmed by this. This isn't pedophilia, this isn't rape, this isn't something where a person is taken against their will or without proper understanding of the situation, these are sane people with a perfectly understandable genetic makeup carrying on perfectly sane lives.
The (general) reality that folks don't ask why their friends chose to be straight is enough to note a deep level of cognitive dissonance on this topic. If you don't have to choose to be any particular sexuality why would you assume that you had to choose to be any sexuality?
But generally speaking gender roles, sexuality, and anything involving these topics is pretty badly butchered in the states. We are still suffering from our puritan undertones. I'm sure globally you'll find most "gay is a disease" regions being similar in that respect (though I suspect we'd call them fundamentalists).
In your example I don't think them being gay is the problem they need to overcome.chronobreak said:
Similar to how prince's hips are giving out and he's only able to walk with a cane because his faith dictates that he cannot get a blood transfusion.
If people are willing to go out of their way to hurt themselves by taking something very real and sacrificing it for something that...well I don't want to say unreal because thoughts are real in many contexts...but hopefully you can find the word that I'm looking for, but regardless that particular choice is one that should probably not be so easily applauded.
At least not before there is any strong evidence that such a thing is positive.
Keep in mind as a fiction writer I really love fantasy. I'm not saying fantasy is a bad thing. But I also don't think folks should tattoo a serpent on their arm in hopes of joining Voldemort. That's probably again...a bad example...but I'm tired and I hope you can parse the point from this hogwash (or should I say hogwarts SNARF...no more posting while that OST is going).
edit:Mad World said:
I'm tempted to just be excessively dismissive here, but I realize that Exodus and similar groups are able to brainwash folks into genuinely believing what they say, as horrible as it is.
That said, I don't think it's an argument that supports your cause any more than if you were arguing that the existence of feral children means you can "successfully change" a child to be an animal. The fact that you can abuse someone's sexual proclivities out of them is at best irrelevant. To put it another way: If I'm able to convince someone he's a teapot, that's not evidence supporting the idea that non-teapotism is a disease that needs curing.
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm on the fence, yet I'm leaning on the side of Apple.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Here's my initial take:
It's not so much that his right to platform us being smothered, but in that he is selling a product which is preying upon a social group in the form of an interactive product. Sexuality is a very sensitive issue and is one of the key pillars of an individual's identity; it is also a very hard thing to come to terms with. This is where 'discrimination' comes in.
This man is using his position of privilege to discriminate against those who don't conform to his personal beliefs/lifestyles and fallaciously claim his freedom is on the line when he is actively trying to manipulate the lives of others.
I don't care if Chambers is against 'homosexuality'. He most likely has a flock he can preach to. However, Chambers has created a product which interferes with other individual's liberties and preys upon insecurities.
Also, dogma is not a sufficient grounding for discrimination.
You mean in the same way 'Christian' groups here in Australia took Aboriginal children from their families and 'convinced' them that their skin color and culture were inferior?Mad World said: