Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[ncordless]

If we open the door to this, then anyone who give private individual money in support of a gun control law may be hounded for the same reason; anyone who votes to restrict drugs; anyone who votes to "deny the right" of another citizen for any reason.

Furthermore, if one argues this isn't unethical on the grounds that his campaign contribution constitutes free speech as an individual, then I don't see how one can argue for campaign finance reform. Speech is consummately protected. If that is perfectly analogous to speech, then the Kock brothers should be able to buy elections above ground...no need of Super PACs or fancy accounting.

Yet again, this unethical and it destabilizes the system.

Yep. I'd rather have my elections bought above ground than below. Super PACs and fancy accounting are the problem, not direct donations, which I can track and work up a boycott to punish.

And I'd be fine with people punishing companies that hire people who try to pass laws restricting my right to my gun, or whatever else, as well. If the CEO of S&W were to come out and say he thought guns should be banned, I'd expect him to be fired.

 

[ncordless]

I would say that the greatest example of hypocrisy and "convenient logic" (in terms of defining what "marriage" means) is actually being demonstrated by the proponents of same-sex.

Here's why:

On the one hand they reject, outright, the assertion that marriage either has been, traditionally, or in any way must be defined as a union involving members of the opposite sex, ie., a man and a woman.

On the other, when challenged on grounds that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples can/should immediately open the door to recognition of polygamous marriage, they counter that marriage must be defined as an institution involving no more than two people.

So, basically, the traditional marriage side is saying that marriage must be defined as existing between only two people - one male and one female. And the gay wedding'ers are replying, "Fully agree on the first point - but fuck you on the second, bigot."

And, ironically, from a historical, traditional/cultural standpoint it is only the second, opposite-sex assertion that even begins to have any leg to stand on.

Would enjoy hearing the strong gay marriage proponents in this thread try to reconcile this act of intellectual bed-shitting.

Straw man. I believe that both gay marriage and polygamous (between consenting adults) marriage is and should be constitutionally protected as a basic fundamental right to marriage to which equal protection principles apply.

Discrimination against polygamous marriage is similarly based on animus against religious minorities, and should be struck down.

 

[Jukai]

I'm not even against gay adoption. I think if all things are equal then we should put kids in a home with a mother and a father but I'm not against putting a kid in a home with a gay couple if the alternative is a fucked up traditional home or no home at all.

I think it's better to grow up in a traditional family too--- not for any biological reason, but because of the stigma on gay people.

But you put a LOT of fucking energy in proving that gay adoption is worse on a child, especially on that ridiculous thread, and I can understand why people feel you are disingenuous. It's weird to defend a position so hard but not really defend the other side that you believe in. No one plays Devil's Advocate THAT hard.

 

[Jukai]

If we open the door to this, then anyone who give private individual money in support of a gun control law may be hounded for the same reason; anyone who votes to restrict drugs; anyone who votes to "deny the right" of another citizen for any reason.

Furthermore, if one argues this isn't unethical on the grounds that his campaign contribution constitutes free speech as an individual, then I don't see how one can argue for campaign finance reform. Speech is consummately protected. If that is perfectly analogous to speech, then the Kock brothers should be able to buy elections above ground...no need of Super PACs or fancy accounting.

Yet again, this is unethical and it destabilizes the system.

It doesn't destabilize the system. This man was a public figure and he took a stance against a group of people. Why can't others take a stance against him? This is more of a populist issue--- if the face of a company does something unpopular, the company will suffer the consequences.

This is infinitely different than campaign finance reform, which is about one individual being able to sway the say from the majority by being able to donate unlimited money through his organization.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I thought there was a story about someone in the WR who wrote books, and someone contacted his publisher and got him in trouble or something... was before my time. That story seemed pretty crazy. I've been a little bit less forthcoming with my background since then.

There is an even better story than that. Think about someone putting too much info on the boards and then getting a phone call Scream style "do you like scary movies".

It happened.

Details?

And I hope that TCK doesn't think that LI disagreeing with him frequently and calling him out on dishonesty is equivalent to those things. Someone with extremely thin skin choosing to post here is like a hemophiliac going into MMA or a homophobe going into fashion design.

 

[Jukai]

let me tell you something, I want you to understand me without feeling the need to insult me. I think that a greater understanding of the person or people that you are talking to helps to make things clearer, but anyway.....here goes

Im not saying that my side is the right one, Im not one of those assholes that thinks that "my side" of the argument is the only way..believe it or not I have learned a lot from opposing view points, especially on here.

I might argue the toss with you and dochter but there is no "right and wrong" with absolute certainty in some of these discussions, its opinion, this is why I have a beef with atheists who act like asswipes when it comes to faith (oh! theres no god, really, well thanks for that, I guess I will just let go of the hope that I will see my loved ones again)

There is no right or wrong in this particular argument, I don't think so highly of myself that I think that anyone who disagrees with me is unintelligent, or bigoted or any of that, I trade barbs with barbs, and that's fine with me, that's how it was designed to be, I love the discourse

Rather than just sit there bothering my girlfriend with my opinions on shit she could never even comprehend, let alone participate, I now get to inflict them all upon you, and no matter what side of the argument you are on in this particular topic, I don't have it in me to build any real resentment towards you or anyone who opposes me

So, the only thing I need to "sit down and think about before It before writing it" is, am I too drunk and stoned to post?, and the answer is no. good game, and cheers!

While there is no "right or wrong" in any personal debate, I feel there is the need to stay true to your beliefs. I don't think you have done that in this thread. You invoke religion as a basis of your argument but you acknowledge that you'd tell a religious figure to fuck off if they preached something you don't believe in. You invoke tradition as a basis of your argument but admit that the definition of marriage has changed not even 60 years ago.
in the end, you should have led with "I am against gay marriage because I think gay sex is icky and when they icky gay people attacked the CEO, I feel like they are attacking me" and there wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

Although, I STILL would have been attacking you for shitting on gay rights groups for attacking the CEO but not attacking the CEO for shitting on gay rights.

 

[James Keith]

If we open the door to this, then anyone who give private individual money in support of a gun control law may be hounded for the same reason; anyone who votes to restrict drugs; anyone who votes to "deny the right" of another citizen for any reason.

Furthermore, if one argues this isn't unethical on the grounds that his campaign contribution constitutes free speech as an individual, then I don't see how one can argue for campaign finance reform. Speech is consummately protected. If that is perfectly analogous to speech, then the Kock brothers should be able to buy elections above ground...no need of Super PACs or fancy accounting.

Yet again, this is unethical and it destabilizes the system.

People need to get out of their echo chambers and get a friend who disagrees them on the issues so they can develop the capacity to see such people as actual human beings too.

 

[glennrod]

While there is no "right or wrong" in any personal debate, I feel there is the need to stay true to your beliefs. I don't think you have done that in this thread. You invoke religion as a basis of your argument but you acknowledge that you'd tell a religious figure to fuck off if they preached something you don't believe in. You invoke tradition as a basis of your argument but admit that the definition of marriage has changed not even 60 years ago.
in the end, you should have led with "I am against gay marriage because I think gay sex is icky and when they icky gay people attacked the CEO, I feel like they are attacking me" and there wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

Wrong, here was the original quote I responded to

"I did however when the priest, told my girlfriends daughter that we were living in sin because, we were not married and told him to go fuck himself"

I responded by saying that I would "do the same"

so let me get this right, if a priest went to my girlfriends daughter like a bitch and said that, I wouldn't be within my rights to tell him to fuck off?, since when did you have a respect for men of the cloth? and since when did they become "above" a good telling off?

If he would have approached ME and said that, I would have said "yes, I know", but going to my girlfriends daughter and saying that tells me he's a fucking punk, and deserves to be told to fuck right off.

Is this what you ceased upon, like it was worth anything?, what, because I said I believe in jesus Christ that I wouldn't, or couldn't verbally abuse a man of the cloth?

and yeah, I stand by my statement, the actual act of banging a hairy ass disgusts me, me and millions of other people, so what?, just because you can tolerate it doesn't make you the moral authority, it just means you can find some kind of beauty in a mans ass, that's fucking great.

 

[Jukai]

Wrong, here was the original quote I responded to

"I did however when the priest, told my girlfriends daughter that we were living in sin because, we were not married and told him to go fuck himself"

I responded by saying that I would "do the same"

so let me get this right, if a priest went to my girlfriends daughter like a bitch and said that, I wouldn't be within my rights to tell him to fuck off?, since when did you have a respect for men of the cloth? and since when did they become "above" a good telling off?

If he would have approached ME and said that, I would have said "yes, I know", but going to my girlfriends daughter and saying that tells me he's a fucking punk, and deserves to be told to fuck right off.

Is this what you ceased upon, like it was worth anything?, what, because I said I believe in jesus Christ that I wouldn't, or couldn't verbally abuse a man of the cloth?

and yeah, I stand by my statement, the actual act of banging a hairy ass disgusts me, me and millions of other people, so what?, just because you can tolerate it doesn't make you the moral authority, it just means you can find some kind of beauty in a mans ass, that's fucking great.

You sound like a textbook example of walking homophobia.

I'll give it to you, though--- maybe you are a by-the-book great Christian who follows whatever the Pope tells him. This would be a superior argument to hold onto, you should ditch the 'traditions' argument which has largely been explained is bullshit again and again.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Straw man. I believe that both gay marriage and polygamous (between consenting adults) marriage is and should be constitutionally protected as a basic fundamental right to marriage to which equal protection principles apply.

Discrimination against polygamous marriage is similarly based on animus against religious minorities, and should be struck down.

The fact that you, personally, appear to hold a consistent position on the issue does not make my previous argument a "straw man".

I have seen countless examples of gay marriage advocates, on the telly and in print, condemning, in no uncertain terms, any notion that polygamy should be recognized as a form of marriage by the state. They are as offended by a comparison between gay marriage and polygamy as Christians are by a comparison between traditional and gay marriage.

And it's simply not a morally credible stand.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

The fact that you, personally, appear to hold a consistent position on the issue does not make my previous argument a "straw man".

I have seen countless examples of gay marriage advocates, on the telly and in print, condemning, in no uncertain terms, any notion that polygamy should be recognized as a form of marriage by the state. They are as offended by a comparison between gay marriage and polygamy as Christians are by a comparison between traditional and gay marriage.

And it's simply not a morally credible stand.

People are hypocrites you say? Who'd have thunk it.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Details?

And I hope that TCK doesn't think that LI disagreeing with him frequently and calling him out on dishonesty is equivalent to those things. Someone with extremely thin skin choosing to post here is like a hemophiliac going into MMA or a homophobe going into fashion design.

Just calling a dishonest sack of shit for what he is...if that makes me a stalker I guess I'm a stalker. **shrugs**.

But I've wasted enough energy on this guy...we were having a pleasant conversation until he came along.

 

[glennrod]

You sound like a textbook example of walking homophobia.

I'll give it to you, though--- maybe you are a by-the-book great Christian who follows whatever the Pope tells him. This would be a superior argument to hold onto, you should ditch the 'traditions' argument which has largely been explained is bullshit again and again.

Holy shit, you are kicking your own ass here and im asking you to stop for your own sake.

"homophobe"

"by the book Christian"

"follows the pope" ?

See, to you these are insults, none of them true whatsoever, and even if they were true, they would be nothing to be ashamed of. and your explanation off "bullshit" as you put it has amounted to nothing more than the same crying I see in youtube video comments. pathetic. step up your game, it appears that I have greatly overestimated you

 

[Jukai]

The fact that you, personally, appear to hold a consistent position on the issue does not make my previous argument a "straw man".

I have seen countless examples of gay marriage advocates, on the telly and in print, condemning, in no uncertain terms, any notion that polygamy should be recognized as a form of marriage by the state. They are as offended by a comparison between gay marriage and polygamy as Christians are by a comparison between traditional and gay marriage.

And it's simply not a morally credible stand.

Polygamy and homosexuality are totally different. Polygamy has proven negative effects both personally (read and read) and societally (here as well). Gay marriage hasn't shown anywhere NEAR the negative impact.

But, that all being said, if the majority of society feels that polygamy should honestly be looked at, then we should honestly look at it. It's a SEPARATE issue.

 

[IDL]

Polygamy would cost too much to implement IMO. The software systems are not setup to handle multiple spouses.

Instead of Y2K, it would be Y2Wives

 

[Jukai]

Holy shit, you are kicking your own ass here and im asking you to stop for your own sake.

"homophobe"

"by the book Christian"

"follows the pope" ?

See, to you these are insults, none of them true whatsoever, and even if they were true, they would be nothing to be ashamed of. and your explanation off "bullshit" as you put it have amounted to nothing more than the same crying I see in youtube video comments. pathetic. step up your game, it appears that I have greatly overestimated you

I shouldn't have to look up words for you, Glennrod.
Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to (<----- note: you), or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
You get fucking FREAKED out when talking about any homosexual act. It's actually kinda unnerving how much detail and how much aggressive language you will use.

And why is "by the book Christian" or "following the pope" insulting? Those weren't meant as insults, you dope.

 

[Jukai]

Polygamy would cost too much to implement IMO. The software systems are not setup to handle multiple spouses.

Instead of Y2K, it would be Y2Wives

IDL said something that actually makes sense

 

[IDL]

IDL said something that actually makes sense

As long as we keep things simple for ya, eh?

 

[glennrod]

I shouldn't have to look up words for you, Glennrod.
Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to (<----- note: you), or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
You get fucking FREAKED out when talking about any homosexual act. It's actually kinda unnerving how much detail and how much aggressive language you will use.

And why is "by the book Christian" or "following the pope" insulting? Those weren't meant as insults, you dope.

Yeah, im just terrified of homosexuals jukai, yeah, give yourself a pat on the back.:icon_neut

I may be an arachnophobic and a little bit claustrophobic, and out of control mobs of people are fearsome, but being scared of probably the least imposing people in the history of man is definitely not "right up there" in my list of fears, but yet again you are resorting the good old liberal playbook where you have to smear.

Tell me, why do you feel the need to smear?, does it feel good to smear?. if you have ran out of legitimate criticisms then its probably best to just shut the fuck up, but then again, I suppose that's where the smear factor comes in?, is smearology a good substitute to just ...shutting up?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Yeah, im just terrified of homosexuals jukai, yeah, give yourself a pat on the back.:icon_neut

Read the entire definition again slowly. You may not be averse to the people but you are to homosexuality. That is pretty clear by your posts in this thread. No one is smearing you at all.