It's not pedantic, it's quite pertinent to the discussion.
Do you believe in immunity to the consequences of expressed views?. (with legal bounds such as boycotting?).
whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance
- Thread starter unwashed potato!
- Start date
Do you believe in immunity to the consequences of expressed views?. (with legal bounds such as boycotting?).
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
I recognise your name from other posts discussing gay issues and your views on the matter, it's hardly an unfounded accusation considering your posting history and the tone of your post calling homosexuals deviants.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I don't want to have to close this thread but people are getting petty. It needs to stop.
Attacking bigotry is never wrong. Homosexual marriage has absolutely no impact on anyone apart from those who are offended by the idea of two people of the same sex loving each other. Be offended. But don't dare try and deny people the same rights you have just because they're gay. Because that's just plain old bigoted hatred and homophobia. And if you're donating to an organisation that's promoting bigoted politics, expect to be held to account for it. It wasn't too long ago blacks couldn't marry whites in the US because of racist and ignorant bigoted hatred from folks that called themselves "god fearing christians".
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
I'm not questioning your authoritah!...............but who is being petty?
Surely you have to give some leeway considering the charged nature of the topic?
Surely you have to give some leeway considering the charged nature of the topic?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
What is unfounded? You're still failing to explain what your point was. Come on, spit it out.
It wasn't due to personal beliefs. It was due to attempting to inflict those beliefs on others through monetarily supporting a discriminatory legal proposition.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I was referencing the character attacking rather than sticking to arguing the actual point.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
Fair enough I apologise.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This made me laugh. Elmarko but you are always wanting to use the state to enforce your views no to other people. Whenever we have had discussions in the past you are always one of the first to defend using the state to enforce social policy. It just seems hypocritical to me that now you think that it is only wrong because he used the state to enforce his views on to other people.
Were the policies he was espousing entirely discriminatory in nature?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
This is one of the most interesting points to me. People would do well to remember that believing that being gay is fine, or believing that it's not fine, is just a point of view, an opinion.
To me, a deliberate movement to change public opinion is far more sinister than being astonished by a man wanting to marry another man.
All you attention seeking "oh my god, it's a homophobe, quick to the batmobile" people should remember that your grandparents probably thought that gays were hellbound deviants and the majority of societies throughout history have discouraged it, often with extreme prejudice. And while I appreciate we live in a society where everyone is always right and nobody could possibly know better, the hysterical reactions to people who don't hold the same opinions as you are a bit pathetic.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
The problem in this case is that the guy is running a company that prides itself on equality and diversity, I don't think its a hysterical reaction to call the guy out on his donations and backing of anti-gay politicians.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
When it comes to non universals then discrimination is subjective. So yes he was advocating social policy that was discriminatory against certain people, just not him.
The message is strong and clear, its ok to use the state to enforce your opinion on to other people as long as that opinion is what you agree with.
How about monetarily supporting an attempt to change the law to persecute a minority group? That a bit sinister too? More or less sinister than getting upset at someone doing such a thing?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
As I said above you are missing the point, the problem in this case is that the guy is running a company that prides itself on equality and diversity, I don't think its a hysterical reaction to call the guy out on his donations and backing of anti-gay politicians.
It was only ever going to end one way.
No one is saying he can't think the way he thinks and can't donate to who he wants but he has to live with the consequences.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
I think it's hysterical. Were he shouting "death to the gays!" and firing a six-shooter into the air, maybe it'd be relevant, but no, it looks like a bandwagon to me.
Yup, that sounds pretty sinister too. Are you having trouble figuring out what's sinister or not? Maybe some sort of elementary English lessons or something?
I don't know the past debates you are referring to, and wouldn't want to take things off-topic by going in to them. But, to be clear, discriminatory policy is where certain people or groups of people are excluded or disadvantaged for simply belonging to said group. I suspect you are using a rather different interpretation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Am I missing something? The Mozilla Foundation don't mention equality or diversity anywhere in their manifesto. It doesn't appear to have been a major consideration when they established their business.
Of course all companies declare somewhere that they are all in favour of equality, since they believe it is good business. Profit making companies rarely espouse controversial opinions.
This doesn't mean they actually care about it...
Did you know political donations in Northern Ireland are anonymous. Because in some places political donations and the agenda they push can get you, or other people killed. Switch being Protestant or Catholic for being gay or straight. Which of course brings us to the paradox of tolerance. "Should we tolerate the intolerant"?