[h4nnib4l]

Or to compare apples to apples - how would people have felt if he'd been forced to step down because, years ago, he had donated money to an organization that was fighting against prop 8? If the circumstances were flipped, how outraged would people be over that?

[depricated]

That's really the crux of it. He chose to resign rather than to recant or defend his position.

He was, indeed, pushed to act, but the action he took did not need to be resignation. He made that choice of his own volition. Not because there was a mob with torches and pitchforks. And I mean really, jon, torches and pitchforks? You use so much hyperbole you make Ayn Rand look milder than a Canadian. Lets see if I can match it:

Eich thought that it was morally correct to murder his LGBTQ employees and customers. I'm sure you'll say "no no that's not what he meant" but it is. It's exactly what he meant. Because if me saying "damn what a right cunt, I can't believe Mozilla would support a guy like that" is going to be taken down the slippery slope to torch and pitchfork carrying part of a mob, you must by logical necessity carry its counterpart to its logical conclusion. He supported legislation which made it illegal for homosexuals to marry - this means he agrees with having his morality enforced at the point of a gun. Any law is enforced at the point of a gun, as that is the final conclusion to disobedience. Ergo, he believes that his LGBT coworkers, employees, and customers all deserve to be shot if they don't conform to his will.

How could you possibly defend such a bloodthristy bigot?
Quick sidebar. Lets define bigot since you don't seem to know what it means.


from Merriam-Webster Online:

Quote

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

It does not describe a person who disagrees with a specific person, as you keep using it to describe. Notice how every time it's used to describe him it's because he's taken specific actions against a group of people, while every time you've used it is to describe a group of people who think he's a fuck head?

Moving on.

I can respect that his decision was based on pride. He didn't want to swollow it down and defend himself, no he's far too good for that. Much easier to walk away from a position and play the martyr, with the added bonus of getting a handy for his pride-on.

So you should too. You should respect that he made the decision he thought was best. He weighed his options and chose to resign rather than even try to deflect the issue.

This post has been edited by depricated: 07 April 2014 - 09:47 AM

[depricated]

h4nnib4l, on 07 April 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Or to compare apples to apples - how would people have felt if he'd been forced to step down because, years ago, he had donated money to an organization that was fighting against prop 8? If the circumstances were flipped, how outraged would people be over that?

this was answered on page 1 dude

depricated, on 03 April 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

Whether I agree or disagree with someone's personal views, the only time supporting the company becomes an ethical problem is when the company's money is being used, or policy set, in a way that agrees with or disagrees with my ethics.

That's politics. Welcome to it. An apolitical company will build a charitable name by donating to specific, wildly neutral causes like funding a cure for some disease or supporting schools and childrens programs in a local community. This changes when the CEO of a company makes a public statement about his firm Christian beliefs or turning around and handing money to the American Family Association, or giving money to the FFRF or helping fight prop-8. The image of a company rides on its CEO's actions. How many people hate Apple because Steve Jobs is a douche nozzle? Microsoft because Bill Gates is a software pirate? Linux because Torvalds is a self-righteous dick? The CEO is the face of the company, the same way the President is the face of the country.

When you set foot in the political arena, you are opening yourself up to political reaction. "Freedom of Speech" does not mean you are free from the repercussion of that speech. The result is that you will and you do have people who get upset over events like the above. However, they generally aren't the same people simply because it's (relatively) dichotometric. If you're upset that he supported prop-8, you would likely be pleased if he was anti-prop-8.

And I don't see why this is a problem. It's not incosistent, it's adherence to moral values.

[jon.kiparsky]

depricated, on 07 April 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

And I don't see why this is a problem.

No, guess you don't. This is part of why I don't bother arguing with you.

[depricated]

Right, standing up for what you believe is so dispicable.

[jon.kiparsky]

Another example of why I don't bother with you.

[depricated]

Because I call you out for all the logical fallacies you cling to?

Why would you open a thread to discuss a topic then refuse to discuss it?

[jon.kiparsky]

I don't think I can be accused of failing to engage in the discussion. I just don't see why I should bother with someone who doesn't understand basic civics, and seems quite proud of that.

[depricated]

Right, because I don't buy your Marxist dialectic I'm ignorant of civic theory?

Funny. I've managed all this time to only attack your arguments, I like how you can't rebut without attacking me. It shows your position is weak.

[modi123_1]

Okay dokey.. I do believe this thread has run aground.

Closing.




(seems I was a bit slow on the close)