Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A thousand dollars? That's all? Crap, that's chump change. It doesn't matter that he resigned. What matters is that he was pressured to resign over something so insignificant. What's next? Everyone who voted for the proposition is forced to resign too? That was the majority of the voters as I recall.
Sometimes a win isn't a win.
I'm sure he was quite jubilant the night of the big victory. He ain't so happy now, is he?
Look...He rolled the dice and lost. His lack.of self awareness got him in the end.
BTW...a thousand dollars isn't "chump change" in politics. While it's not in Koch Brothers territory, that's a big donation for a single proposition.
He spoke, they spoke. He lost. Take the L and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimkyler
What do you mean "most"? Prop 8 had 52% for yes and 47% for no. He was in the majority despite your claim otherwise.
Another one talking about the "majority" as if that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
The mistake he made was in stepping down.
He should have done exactly what Nick Cannon did when people jumped on him about his latest album: Laughed!
Idiotic organizations like Glaad survive only because we let them. Ignore them, laugh at them, stop feeding them, and they'll shut up and go away. Let the butt hurt screamers scream. When they don't get the attention they want, they'll move on.
I agree with this 1000%. If you're right on the issue, don't cave in and resign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoken
So, wait...the guy started Mozilla, and invented JavaScript, and I'm supposed to be worried about him?
This fundamentally misunderstands this society and the debate. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but the factual reality is that certain beliefs are deemed unacceptable by this society.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I was replying to a specific way that the sentence you posted could be construed. Hopefully, you don't disagree with what I wrote - but rather only disagree with its applicability to the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
conservatives have never stopped attempting to control women's access to birth control, and abortions.
But they have stopped attempting to deprive women of the right to vote, and have stopped attempting to deprive a mixed-race couple the right to marry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It is acceptable for them to voice just the same as it's acceptable for you to take the other side.
Let's integrate all the aspects together: Yes, it is acceptable for them to voice. Yes, it is acceptable for others to voice opposition. No, it is not acceptable to discriminate in housing, employment, or offering of a public accommodation (store, restaurant, hotel, gallery, museum, conveyance for hire, transportation center, etc.) based on what can be voiced in private or as a private agent in a public forum, nor is it acceptable for anyone to voice their perspective within the provision of such a public accommodation in a manner that would tend to intimidate or otherwise create a hostile environment toward others. Yet it is acceptable to discriminate in determining which public accommodations to patronize. And finally, public figures can be held by their employers to a higher standard with regard to their private representations when their notoriety adversely affects the value of the company.
Does that sound unfair to you? It isn't. It is fair, given the nature of the seller/customer arrangement and the nature of celebrity. It's uneven - not unfair.
It is about free speech. Who are you to decide what a thread I started is about?
You already told me that you don't think I have the 'right' to debate in this thread because you think I'm a 'foreigner'. Interesting concept of free speech you have.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I was replying to a specific way that the sentence you posted could be construed. Hopefully, you don't disagree with what I wrote - but rather only disagree with its applicability to the situation.
But they have stopped attempting to deprive women of the right to vote, and have stopped attempting to deprive a mixed-race couple the right to marry.
Yes, that is in part because, I think most conservatives are no longer against those ideas, meaning over the years most of their minds have changed.
But a huge part of the reason that their minds changed is because to be anti-interracial marriage or to be anti-women voting wasn't allowed to be seen as based on religious belief, even though on both of those issues conservatives attempted to make the religious belief argument to justify their objections.
In other words, conservatives didn't have the room culturally speaking to an express anti-interracial or anti-women voting viewpoint and not be seen as racists or sexist bigots.
But if society would have said opposition to interracial marriage can be based on religious belief and is not a sign of racial bigotry, then there would be a much larger share of religious conservatives who expressed negative views about interracial marriage and attempted to get it made illegal while hiding behind the shield of religious belief.
The same thing would apply women voting.
If those people who support homosexual marriage allow conservatives to say that being anti-homosexual marriage is not based on bigotry/homophobia, but on religious beliefs, then the fight over homosexual marriage will never end and conservatives will use the shield of religion to promote their anti-homosexual agenda.
I've been reading the comments in HuffPo about the "market" by liberals and they are both hilarious and uninformed. There is no way the "market" pushed him out in 5 days. The board probably didn't want to deal with all the liberal fanatics quacking and probably gave the guy some money to step down. All that this does is make gay people look like bullies. Congrats.
Heck he may have 'suggested' it ... he's a really smart guy. He might just take a few(?) mill$ and his brain from what was beginning to look like a struggling situation before this 'incident' (technically and competition wise that is ), and after a few weeks on some islands, will resurface... pick through a few appealing options in a less visible (for a while) capacity ...but doing something fun and rewarding. With his background and skills he can find work or start a company and remain low key if he chooses.
(BTW...Mozilla may have sealed its own fate by letting him go. People on all sides of the fence, and even those in the middle, will look again at their actions and for their own reasons (combined with the increasingly wobbly tech aspects) some, maybe many more, will move on or not return. Time will tell.)
conservatives have never stopped attempting to control women's access to birth control, and abortions.
Oh, please! Where have conservatives ever attempted to control a woman's "access" to birth control? Even Catholics, are not prevented from using it, even though the Church's position has not changed.
Abortion is another matter, as it takes a human life, and not only does it take a life, but has taken the lives of children well beyond what is the current "viable" age (such as the heinous practice of "partial birth abortion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
If those who want homosexual marriage to be settled, then logically they have to push to make the anti-homosexual marriage viewpoint be seen as one based on bigotry/homophobia and not religious beliefs.
This is why they have fought to change the definition of marriage, and separate it from any religious origins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Failure to do so will result in conservatives around the nation constantly attempting to role back homosexual marriage forever.
Homosexuality and so-called homosexual marriage is a perversion. It always will be, no matter how hard Leftists try to "normalize" it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
This is what conservatives are attempting to do right now which is carve out space for their anti-homosexual agenda to be considered ok and acceptable to voice.
Here we go again. Your opinion is that it is not acceptable to voice our view. How hypocritical! "Free speech for me, but not for thee." Right?
This goes beyond the debate over marriage, which is what I tried to point out in my original thread, before it was hijacked and added to this one.
This is a debate about whether we will continue to have Free Speech in America, which is something that Progressives would love to eliminate, as part of their campaign to get rid of the Constitution. It is a discussion that needs to take place, but again, was shut down on this forum when my OP was moved here, making it only about the Mozilla scandal.
Here we go again. Your opinion is that it is not acceptable to voice our view. How hypocritical! "Free speech for me, but not for thee." Right?
This is a debate about whether we will continue to have Free Speech in America, which is something that Progressives would love to eliminate, as part of their campaign to get rid of the Constitution. It is a discussion that needs to take place, but again, was shut down on this forum when my OP was moved here, making it only about the Mozilla scandal.
Of course free speech must be protected, but free speech comes with consequences. Do you not support Capitalism? If a person is considered representative of a company and exercises their first amendment rights and in so doing negatively impacts the business, you think the company should not be able to voice their concern? Wow!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CEO is stepping down.
