Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Strazdas]

If people can freely take their custom to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, then you have no reason to say a boycott is wrong, since a boycott is just a large number of people deciding to take their custom to whomever they wish for a reason they all agree on.

If that causes a company financial ruin, then that company needs to change. This is how the free market works.

If you don't want boycotts to be a thing, then you don't think people should be free to buy a product from whomever they want.

Just like your group of people decided to take their costum to whomever they wish for discriminatory reasons, i can just as well call you wrong for whatever reasons i want. freedom of speech goes both ways and i also have a right to call you a hypocrite about it. What i dont have a right to is demand that you be fired because of it. you know, something that was done to Eich.

There was nothing wrong with the company. thats like atheists boycotting wallmart because a cashier happens to be a christian. and thats wrong and discriminatory.

Oh, i do want boycotts to be a thing, i just want that people who boycott because they are hypocrites to be called out on being hypocrites. you know, if you want fair then be fair.

Yes Mr/Ms I-Don't-Get-It...Which was hyperbole on how I think you and your ilk consider the ones fighting for equality. I ain't advocating shit except making the world a better place. You're not. Easy as pie, yes?

Calling names and dsicrimination makes workd a better place? learn something new every day ech?

Yes, because a bunch of people prancing about in their birthday suits in front of children is perfectly family friendly... Got to love how you zoned in on that particular part and took it out of context. It's that sort of hogwash that diminishes your sad little point.

"Family friendly" is something thats made up by censorts and in part society of the past. Unless you got any definitive proof what is or isnt family friendly - you dont get to claim that.

Yea damn those social justice warriors for making homophobes (in this case) and the like feel bad for their bigoted opinions. How dare they. And damn them for their reprehensible tactics in doing so. Horrible things like publicly stating you don't want to use someone's product anymore, how extreme. I mean, if they'd just want to pass laws or something that legally & openly discriminate against others, that wouldn't be so bad, would it.
Because we all know the real victims are not gays, the people who are actually discriminated against, no, the true victims are the people who think of gays as less worthy (or worse) and want to deny them the same rights they enjoy themselves and are now increasingly critiziced for holding such opinions and acting on them.

Do you even know what homophobe means? Homophobe is somone that fears homosexuals. Therefore, its clearly evident that Eich is not a homophobe, since he does not fear homosexuals and even hires them in his company.
BUt then, you keep making false accusations all around in this thread so thats nothing new.
The rest of the post is not even worth rebutting, its so obviuosly false in this case its funny.

There you have it. Committing genocide is morally just as fine as not wanting to be exterminated, if only enough people believe it is. That's moral relativism pushed ot the extreme. I take it that you don't believe in the existence of fundamental human rights of some sort either?

I wonder though... Would you feel the same way though if you were at the receiving end of such discriminatory practices? What if the majority suddenly decided that you, Strazdas, don't deserve to live anymore? Would you still excuse them, because, you know, that's just the majority opinion and the majority is apparently always right?

Honestly, if all people thought like you the world would be a horrible place. It is not, though, because in the past, there were people who believed strongly that what the majority at that time thought was right was wrong, deeply wrong, and often risked their lives in fighting for what they believed in.

It is. you know why? because morals are meaningless. Morals are personal opinions that got out of hand and think everyone should follow them. morals should not even enter discussions that are seriuos to begin with.
All rights are created by humans. there is no existence of fundamental human rights. that would imply the existence of some force that created them (for example GOD). i do not belive such force exists. I believe humans create their own lives.

As for your attempt to use fallacy of personal involvement, personal opinion of mine would not matter. Not that you even understood that its not majority rule to begin with. Its not about majority, it never was. Its about efficiency, effectiveness, appeal to logic, fairness in expectance of fairness from others, plenty of things that do not involve majority rule. Morality, however, is not one of them. And no, i do not believe the world would be a horrible place if people would try to consider facts and reason before their own personal "morals". You may, and thats your opinion. you have a right to it and i have a right to mine.
Both universal morals and fundamental human rights are simply majority rule to begin with. Thats because majority decided that humans should act this way and not another. As you probably understand, majority is not always right. This is why morality or "fundamental human rights" are not always right as well.

So, let me sum up what happened:

wow, that was very comprehensibly put. thank you for this post and i hope more people read it.

If a member of the Nazi Party opens a bakery, is it wrong of Jewish members of the community to ask others not to go there?

If an atheist constructs a library, can a Christian not request their friends and family support other, more religious libraries?

Should a black man be forced to continue to support a member of the KKK should they discover they own a business they have been funding?

By doing that these people are discriminating against other beliefs. While they have a right to discriminate, that does not mean they can go around telling people how they fight agaisnt discrimiantion. If you want to fight against something first thing you need to make sure is that you are not doing it yourself, since then you will just be a hypocrite.

What for? Not only do you still equate past actions with "personal beliefs," you also rationalized that prop 8 didn't even suppress anybody's rights. Why would I want to waste time with someone so deep in denial?

Well, consdering how much falsehoods you have been posting in this thread i dont think your in any position to claim me being in denial. that is, unless you can actually prove me otherwise, which you didnt. or are you emploring the usual tactic "i got nothing to say so ill just call his points bullshit"

So if someone with a history of antisemitic discriminatory practices subsequently runs a business, during which he shows no sign of his past bigotry, would you then tell Jews protesting that business to bug off?

of course. why would they protest a business that does absolutely nothing against them?

unconstitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional

You know, it sounds like you hold the constitution as something infallible not unlike the street preachers holding out bible and shouting at passerby.

LGBTQIA.

LGBTQIA? Damn people just keep adding letters to that.... i jsut hope ill never ahve to pronounce that out loud.

Edit: Oh god the quotes.

Pft, wuss. I've had more quotes in one post than you so far.

not that it matters but i got more quotes than you all combined.

 

[goldenheart323]

My point is words mean things. Our society defines marriage as including 1 man and 1 woman. If you want to join 2 men, or 2 women, or any combination of 3 or more, than please use a different word for it if for no other reason than for clarity's sake

I'm not going to get involved in this beyond one post because this thread is long and involved enough without turning it into a debate on gay marriage as well, but isn't it clearer to have fewer constraints on the meaning of the word rather than more? So 'a legal union between two people' is a nice, clear, easy to understand definition which doesn't require any further discussion. 'A legal union between two people, one of whom must be biologically male and the other biologocally female - codicil 1: transgendered MTF people are considered 'male' for the purposes of the Act; codicil 2: a person born hermaphroditic is considered 'female' for the purposes of the Act' etc - I make this up but you get my point.

Marriage is a legal term and we change the meanings of legal terms all the time.

I'm thinking the opposite. The more constraints on the meaning of a word, the more information is conveyed by that one word, which leads to a better understanding of what is said. Yes, the definition of the word is longer, but things are simpler when that word is used. For instance, if we go with the traditional meaning, the statement "I'm married" tells people what gender my spouse is. If we have marriage include same sex couples, then when I say "I'm married," the listener no longer knows what gender my spouse is. My girlfriend's from India. There, they use the word "hand" to mean the whole arm and hand. "Leg" includes the leg as well as the foot. When she something about her leg or hand, I have to figure out what part she's talking about. The definition's simpler because it has fewer constraints, but it makes conversation more confusing sometimes.
As for changing the legal term, I just think it'd be both clearer and easier for society to accept if we just use "civil union" to mean same sex marriage.

Our society defines marriage as including 1 man and 1 woman.

Errm, [citation needed]

And no, I don't consider religious texts to be valid citations.

Also, please be aware of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

Citation? I'm talking about the common understanding of a word. Yes, those change, but I've never known a word to change meaning because a group of people push for it to change by passing a law. I'm not talking about "appeal to tradition" so much as "appeal to definitions of words".

I think the use of the word "marriage" is what's caused most of the resistance to it. People have an emotional connection to that word. Lots of people are married. It describes the most intimate, important relationship in their life. I think when they hear that homosexuals want laws passed so the meaning of marriage changes to include them, people have a gut, emotional reaction against that that may not even be logical, but it's a feeling they have and they don't like it. If they hear "the LGBT community wants a law passed to allow civil unions so they can..." people will start to tune out and not even care because civil unions have nothing to do with them.

 

[dystopiaINC]

In any case, it's not like he built Mozilla/FireFox from the ground-up, he's a business executive and will be able to get a job elsewhere in all likelihood.

Um Pretty sure he was a co-founder of Mozilla... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
At least that's what I thought ad wikipedia seems to think so too.

 

[CloudAtlas]

It is. you know why? because morals are meaningless. Morals are personal opinions that got out of hand and think everyone should follow them. morals should not even enter discussions that are seriuos to begin with.

Yea right. Do tell me: How do you intend to do about politics, about social matters and the like without referring to morality, explicitly or implicitly? How do you intend to decide about what is the right thing to do without thinking about what is the right thing to do? Do you even know what morality means?

How do you decide for yourself whether you think gays should have the right to marry too? Well, you could say, it doesn't harm me or anyone else, so there's no reason why not. You could say that all men are created equal, thus should have the same rights, thus they should be allowed to marry just the same. You could invoke the Golden Rule by saying, well, I wouldn't want to be banned from marrying the person I love, so neither should they. All of these are moral judgements about a cetain issue, derived from more fundamental principles.

 

[wulf3n]

I make a comment about how hard it is to find gainful employment, as opposed to the "still need welfare along with this paycheck" wages at Wal-Mart and fast food. And your mind jumps to Westboro. Because a small group based entirely on hate propaganda is the same as a larger employer like Apple, I guess? **shrugs**

You gave a hypothetical with no clear indication as to what, if any companies you were referring to. My Jump to Westboro was to give a clear example in which a moral/ethical dilemma is clear to the employee.

O~okay, so are you saying Mozilla employees didn't have a clear choice, but Apple employees did?

I honestly don't know if Mozilla employees had a choice, and I don't remember mentioning Apple.

And what about other smartphone companies? Or modern electronics in general? Where do you think they're all made these days?

Again, I don't have enough information to form an opinion.

Should we condemn all employees in the electronics industry?

I never said "condemn" simply bear some responsibility. The level of responsibility [obviously from my point of view, not a legal one] would be dependent on the employee and what the company is doing. A hard thing to express in hypothetical's

Where else could they put their skills to use and get paid a living wage without the baggage of directly or indirectly exploiting poor people in sweatshops? Seriously, what alternatives exist for them?

I wouldn't have a clue. That would all depend on their skill sets and the work opportunities around them.

Lemme cut-&-paste an example I made for kiri2tsubasa's consumption:

So if someone with a history of antisemitic discriminatory practices subsequently runs a business, during which he shows no sign of his past bigotry, would you then tell Jews protesting that business to bug off?

I would not tell them to "bug off" as I have not told the Mozilla boy-cotters to bug off. As for whether or not I would agree with their boycott, it would all depend on whether or not the antisemitic discriminatory practices are a part of the business or simply the actions of the individual.

Are you going to defend those employees, or insist they should've known better?

That would all depend on how reasonable it is to "know". If said individual has shown no sign of his past then I don't think they bear any responsibility.

Wait, I didn't even say what this hypothetical business was. Could it be a mom-&-pop sized operation, or a larger company? Is it a baked-goods manufacturer, a software firm, or does it really matter?

Perhaps, if the size of the business has a direct correlation to knowing the potentially discriminatory actions of the company.

I can keep this up for days,

I have not doubt, but alas I cannot.

or until you quit denying that demonizing people, not merely disagreeing but demonizing, for exercising their freedom of choice of which browser they use is hypocritical hyperbole.

I don't demonize them for exercising their freedom of choice, I demonize the choice itself.

You don't even have to swallow your pride and admit it. You can just stop.

This isn't about pride. I'm not trying to assert my position as the superior one, nor am I trying to achieve "victory", I'm just here to express my thoughts on the matter and explain why I hold them.

Or they could reject the stupidly broad use of the term bigotry

They certainly can.

and stab the bigot in the face along with all his bigoted friends.

uhhh... I think that would get them arrested for attempted murder.

Still against bigotry, just not in the sense that you can never treat anyone differently ever no matter what they do because that's wrong.

Again this isn't about treating everyone the same, and I'm not saying they're the same [unless of course they start stabbing people in the face,]. No what I'm saying that on the scale of "bad" the Bigot who is prejudiced for no reason is certainly at the worse end of the scale than those who are only bigoted towards bigots. However their actions are still on the scale of bad.

Being a partial bigot, where you hate actual bigots, doesn't seem so bad, nor does it seem like it'd be bad for the world.

It's certainly not the worst issue facing the world today, but It's not what I'd consider to be a "good" world.

 

[Strazdas]

Last time I checked, flashing your privates to children counts as indecent exposure. If someone walks around in the nude. They are usually arrested. So what makes it ok to do it in a pride parade?

Yep, looks like you finally got it. Its indecent exposure and not "not family friendly". Oh, and they cant do that in parade. Anybody that tried to walk naked got arrested here at least. Then again, not many tried. That does not mean they dont have a right to exist or have opinions though.

Wrong.

I stand corrected.

I have to wonder, with so many people arguing it is discrimination and bigotry to not give business to a man that supported an illegal prop, how many of them give money to the KKK? Honest question. If it is wrong to not support someone based on their political actions, such as Eich did when he donated to an illegal prop, surely no one here avoids dealings with Nazis, or NAMBLA.

There is no KKK branches where i live, but if we are taking a hypothetical situation here....
If there is a company whos products i buy that has policies that i like, and one of their workers have private opinions about something, i am not going to discriminate the company because of the workers private opinions. Even if those opinions are same as those of KKK, Nazis, Young Earthers or whatever else your going to come up with.

Its not always wrong not to support a person for his actions, but it is discriminatory to do so. Either way, this was not even the case, this was a case of discriminating a company for one of the workers private beliefs, and that is wrong.

ANd yes, i dont "Avoid dealing with nazis". Mostly because i dont even know if they are one. When i go to a restaurant i think what service im going to recieve, not what is personal beliefs of the chef making the food.

Sure you do. You can go down to my workplace and tell my boss that he should fire me because I don't want to support a bigot all you like. Nothing will come of it, but you still have the right.

No, i dont. That would be persecution.

No, that's like atheists boycotting Walmart because Walmart's CEO supported some laws that would make atheists unable to get married if they so chose. There's nothing wrong or discriminatory about not wanting to support somebody who wants to take your rights away.

and that does not change the point. CEO or cashier, its punishing a company for disagreeing with single employee. and thats discrimination.

That's fine. But first we need some people being hypocritical. I see none in this situation.

everyone who claims to fight against dsicrimination and then discriminate themselves.

Yea right. Do tell me: How do you intend to do about politics, about social matters and the like without referring to morality, explicitly or implicitly? How do you intend to decide about what is the right thing to do without thinking about what is the right thing to do? Do you even know what morality means?

How do you decide for yourself whether you think gays should have the right to marry too? Well, you could say, it doesn't harm me or anyone else, so there's no reason why not. You could say that all men are created equal, thus should have the same rights, thus they should be allowed to marry just the same. You could invoke the Golden Rule by saying, well, I wouldn't want to be banned from marrying the person I love, so neither should they. All of these are moral judgements about a cetain issue, derived from more fundamental principles.

With reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis. you know, things logical humans are capable of. "Right" and "Wrong" is just your opinion. we should decide what is beneficial to society, not whats "right" according to some moral code you made up.

No, all of those are logical judgements based on analysis. Moral judgement would be "i dont want gays marrying because thats repulsive". It looks like its in fact you who do not know what morality is.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Yea right. Do tell me: How do you intend to do about politics, about social matters and the like without referring to morality, explicitly or implicitly? How do you intend to decide about what is the right thing to do without thinking about what is the right thing to do? Do you even know what morality means?

How do you decide for yourself whether you think gays should have the right to marry too? Well, you could say, it doesn't harm me or anyone else, so there's no reason why not. You could say that all men are created equal, thus should have the same rights, thus they should be allowed to marry just the same. You could invoke the Golden Rule by saying, well, I wouldn't want to be banned from marrying the person I love, so neither should they. All of these are moral judgements about a cetain issue, derived from more fundamental principles.

With reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis. you know, things logical humans are capable of. "Right" and "Wrong" is just your opinion. we should decide what is beneficial to society, not whats "right" according to some moral code you made up.

No, all of those are logical judgements based on analysis. Moral judgement would be "i dont want gays marrying because thats repulsive". It looks like its in fact you who do not know what morality is.

No, that is not at all what morality, the study of morality is about. Have you ever heard about 'moral philosophy'? What is it that you think moral philsophers do all day long?
They think about morality. Analytical, with reason and logic. They attempt to derive their judgements, what is the right thing to do in this or that situation, from fundamental principles. Not unlike you. Unlike you, however, they don't pretend they are not talking about morality. They still call their judgements moral judgements because that's what they are.

 

[chikusho]

So if the facts don't work for you, you deem them ''crap'' and claim that they're made up. That ''crap'' is gonna stay and I'll keep smearing it all over this so called ''equality'' bullshit that so many of you hide behind.

I'm not even taking a stance on whether it's true or not. It's crap because it's completely irrelevant.

Want to know how many people fabricate a few of those ''attacks'' just to get there way?

Yes, I do want to know. Please show me a credible source that says attacks against LGBT people are made up. Please prove to me that the millions of people who are harassed all over the world on a daily basis are faking it for attention, and that the thousands of suicides by young LGBT people across the US is a false statistic. Go right ahead.

Actually, Gestapo is the perfect word to describe it. It's a term that I picked up from a bisexual friend. This might come as a shocker to you, but there are quite a few of the LBGT crowd who are just as miffed about the ordeal

Ok, let's get this straight. Protesting your new CEO for wanting to deny you your civil rights is treating him like someone who wants to cause genocide, and is wrong. But calling the protestors by the name of people who actually caused genocide is perfectly fine?

Like, are you even reading what you are typing?

You should probably ask yourself the same question.At this stage, I'm barely even reading any of the replies. The fact that people are still thick enough to think that marriage is a civil right is just laughable. The whole thing is just a repeat of Orwell's animal Farm.

Nice dodge. Avoiding direct questions and arguments, and refusing to follow up on your own statements, is a great way to hold your position in a debate.

Why should I ask myself the same question?

Also, I don't think you would call the Supreme Court "thick enough to think that marriage is a civil right".

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

 

[Strazdas]

No, that is not at all what morality, the study of morality is about. Have you ever heard about 'moral philosophy'? What is it that you think moral philsophers do all day long?
They think about morality. Analytical, with reason and logic. They attempt to derive their judgements, what is the right thing to do in this or that situation, from fundamental principles. Not unlike you. Unlike you, however, they don't pretend they are not talking about morality. They still call their judgements moral judgements because that's what they are.

And in the end of the day all they come up is their own opinions that they call morality. motality is not something that is overarching higher force. its just one of the things humans created to justify throwing thier opinions onto others.

You do in fact have that right. You have every right in the world to walk up to anyone in a store and demand they fire an employee. That is a fact. You are wholly, utterly wrong.

If you don't even understand your own fucking rights, how can any of us trust you to comment on the rights of others?

No i dont. And while its unlikely that they would call the cops on me any respectable company would throw me out for that. What i have a right to do is to tell them why are you unfit to do your work provided you actually are (or, of course, i could lie, but that opens a whole other can of worms).
Demanding to fire employees because you didnt like them outside of work is not something you have a right to.

 

[CloudAtlas]

No, that is not at all what morality, the study of morality is about. Have you ever heard about 'moral philosophy'? What is it that you think moral philsophers do all day long?
They think about morality. Analytical, with reason and logic. They attempt to derive their judgements, what is the right thing to do in this or that situation, from fundamental principles. Not unlike you. Unlike you, however, they don't pretend they are not talking about morality. They still call their judgements moral judgements because that's what they are.

And in the end of the day all they come up is their own opinions that they call morality. motality is not something that is overarching higher force. its just one of the things humans created to justify throwing thier opinions onto others.

They use "reason, logic, facts and benefit analysis" - to quote you directly - to arrive at their conclusions, just like you do. The only difference is that you refuse to use the word "moral".

Since you're probably still denying that, let me ask you: How exactly do you propose to determine the right course of action for a society without thinking about the (moral) value of the possible alternatives? I'm really curious to know.