whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

How is that even offensive. AIDS is rampant in africa, that is fact. How is it even racist, there are white people with aids in africa. There is nothing wrong with boycott in principle it is a fundamental part of the free market but this new craze of publicly shaming people who holds an opinion that they disagree with is of poor taste and has possibility to get out of hand. It is group think at its finest, they assume that because there is enough of people to agree with them that it must be universal like ending slavery. People discriminate every day based on all types of factors, it just an obsession of the left with discrimination that makes it seem like a big issue affecting our society today. But in reality we live in multicultural societies relatively peacefully and without much trouble. I do wonder what is next after gay marriage, what is the next injustice against the homosexuals that needs to be defeated MLK styles.
 
anything I don't mind said:
How is that even offensive. AIDS is rampant in africa, that is fact. How is it even racist, there are white people with aids in africa. There is nothing wrong with boycott in principle it is a fundamental part of the free market but this new craze of publicly shaming people who holds an opinion that they disagree with is of poor taste and has possibility to get out of hand. It is group think at its finest, they assume that because there is enough of people to agree with them that it must be universal like ending slavery. People discriminate every day based on all types of factors, it just an obsession of the left with discrimination that makes it seem like a big issue affecting our society today. But in reality we live in multicultural societies relatively peacefully and without much trouble. I do wonder what is next after gay marriage, what is the next injustice against the homosexuals that needs to be defeated MLK styles.
Click to expand...

That says it all really....:rolleyes:

The problem is that the assumption that everyone in africa has AIDS and the flippant way she said it. Unless she has unprotected sex what are the chances of her catching AIDS on a business trip?

Discrimination is a big freaking issue, whether it be racism, sexism, or based on sexual orientation/preference no one deserves to be marginalised because you personally think the "cause" isn't worth it or isn't a big enough problem. Do you think it's acceptable that people don't get served because of their sexual preference, don't have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, or even beat up and murdered just because they are gay?
 
Last edited:
If you are concerned that the marriage to your wife will suddenly mean less as soon as 'the gays' are allowed to do it then you must live the most horrible loveless existence that it's possible to lead.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
That says it all really....:rolleyes:

The problem is that the assumption that everyone in africa has AIDS and the flippant way she said it. Unless she has unprotected sex what are the chances of her catching AIDS on a business trip?

Discrimination is a big freaking issue, whether it be racism, sexism, or based on sexual orientation/preference no one deserves to be marginalised because you personally think the "cause" isn't worth it or isn't a big enough problem. Do you think it's acceptable that people don't get served because of their sexual preference, don't have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, or even beat up and murdered just because they are gay?
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
That says it all really....:rolleyes:

The problem is that the assumption that everyone in africa has AIDS and the flippant way she said it. Unless she has unprotected sex what are the chances of her catching AIDS on a business trip?

Discrimination is a big freaking issue, whether it be racism, sexism, or based on sexual orientation/preference no one deserves to be marginalised because you personally think the "cause" isn't worth it or isn't a big enough problem. Do you think it's acceptable that people don't get served because of their sexual preference, don't have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, or even beat up and murdered just because they are gay?
Click to expand...

I never said that everyone in africa has aids, i said that it is rampant. That is not just semantics. There is a big difference between saying everyone in africa has aids and saying i hope i don't get aids. From my perspective the statement she made was inappropriate but it is was not offensive. It is inappropriate because she is insinuating that she is going to have sex and is worried about the risk of picking up a std. Not because its racist or offensive.
 
This is going to be controversial but I don't think Gay marriage should be allowed. After your partner and parents children are the next most important thing. People don't consider the fact that in a gay marriage they cannot have children. Yes they can adopt but it isn't the same.

But I don't let this dictate my browser choice. I use Chrome.
 
Last edited:
Eurofighter said:
This is going to be controversial but I don't think Gay marriage should be allowed. After your partner and parents children are the next most important thing. People don't consider the fact that in a gay marriage they cannot have children. Yes they can adopt but it isn't the same.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that marriage is not marriage for infertile couples? Or do they get points for effort? What about those who choose not to? Hell, rumour has it that there is even such a strange beast as a celibate couple (through choice or otherwise). Perhaps contraception should not be allowed, at least until pregnancy occurs?

Children are optional and not always possible, no matter the combination of genitals, yet couples can still be married.
 
Eurofighter said:
This is going to be controversial but I don't think Gay marriage should be allowed. After your partner and parents children are the next most important thing. People don't consider the fact that in a gay marriage they cannot have children. Yes they can adopt but it isn't the same.
Click to expand...

So you are against infertile couples marrying and women past child bearing age marrying too?
 
Zethor said:
Great news. Any public figure should twice before supporting regressive legislation.
Click to expand...

I gather to consider something "regressive", it primarily needs a sufficiently vocal opposition?

The simple fact is that voters in a democracy do not have to be right to exercise the rights granted by that system. Changing people's opinions is not always easy, no matter how noble the cause. I'm my mind, seeking revenge on those who have previously crossed you is not conducive to getting people on board with your way of thinking, it simply scares others into toeing the line at best.
 
DangerMoose said:
I gather to consider something "regressive", it primarily needs a sufficiently vocal opposition?

The simple fact is that voters in a democracy do not have to be right to exercise the rights granted by that system. Changing people's opinions is not always easy, no matter how noble the cause. I'm my mind, seeking revenge on those who have previously crossed you is not conducive to getting people on board with your way of thinking, it simply scares others into toeing the line at best.
Click to expand...

No, to consider something regressive it needs to actually be regressive. Democracy doesn't mean the view of the majority has to be decisive all the time. If that had been the case, women or blacks would have never got equal rights in the 20th century or they would have been teaching "Creationism" in many US states. A democracy means more than the dictatorship of the majority.

This isn't about revenge, it's about the equality principles. Most major companies pride themselves with following this set of principles so when a major figure in their leadership acts against these them, their image is tainted, making the departure of the individual inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Gilly said:
Regardless, people being offended on behalf of other people is one of the main problems modern society faces.
Click to expand...

OK, so why then when someone famous dies and an 'RIP' thread is started, why are any jokes deleted by mods? Unless you were a close family member of the deceased then you are getting offended on the behalf of others are you not?

The idea that you can only be offended by direct personal attacks is just stupid, of course you can be offended by racism, sexism, homophobia regardless of whether the attack is aimed at you personally or not.

Being offended 'on behalf of others' is not one of the main problems society has. In fact the opposite is true, if we only cared about issues that affected us an an individual directly and did/said nothing about injustices around us, that would be a much worse society to live in.
 
Eurofighter said:
This is going to be controversial but I don't think Gay marriage should be allowed. After your partner and parents children are the next most important thing. People don't consider the fact that in a gay marriage they cannot have children. Yes they can adopt but it isn't the same.
Click to expand...

You sir are homophobic, you just don't like homosexuality and it has nothing to do with marriage.

I'm not saying that because it's an easy way to shut down debate like 'racist' is shouted in any immigration debate. I'm saying it because what you've said is not consistent. You are special pleeading.

You have not said that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, or post-menopausal women. What about people who've made vows of celibacy?

You see because you seemingly have no problem with heterosexual, but infertile, couples getting wed it heavily suggests that having children is not your problem, but rather two people of the same sex loving each other.

If you're opposition to gay marriage was genuine, you wouldn't be arguing against it specifically but rather against any couple who can't or won't have children from getting married. You would be calling for a law that any marriage that didn't result in the birth of a child with 10 years should be annulled etc.
 
Last edited:
Eurofighter said:
This is going to be controversial but I don't think Gay marriage should be allowed. After your partner and parents children are the next most important thing. People don't consider the fact that in a gay marriage they cannot have children. Yes they can adopt but it isn't the same.

But I don't let this dictate my browser choice. I use Chrome.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise one had to be married to have kids, is that part of the biological process?

Pretty sure cavemen didn't have marriage but we are all here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom