• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

You're the one being the least objective.

It's fine if he wants to support certain political issues, regardless of how unpalatable. It's also the right of the company to fire him. But it is nutbar to claim it's all fair, good and equitable. The sensitivity needle is WAY too high for public image anymore.


You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.
 
If it was a religious company and the CEO turned out to be a drag queen, all the conservatives would be screaming about failure to disclose and fraud.

I'm I the only objective person here?

Not all of'em.
 
Not all of'em.

Any company that does not require full personal disclosure from a CEO is moronic and will soon go broke.

Oh, you meant the other part. I never intend to use absolutes. Even if I use a word that is an absolute, exceptions are presumed. I don't believe in absolutes.
 
Last edited:
You're asking the wrong question. The real question is should customers be allowed to care about those things?

If the shareholders lost discernible profit as a result, then it's something considerable. I personally would not care enough about one CEO's slight political leaning. I don't like FOX News's position on many issues, I still watch them for overall coverage, because CNN is fanatical about tragedies.
 
You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.

You don't seem to understand "equal rights".
 
I don't think so. A CEO, as -the- representative of the company, paid millions, is subject to far greater scrutiny of personal life.

And he's definitely required to disclose. A cashier is not required to disclose non-criminal.

Anyone can be considered a "representative" of the company.
 
Anyone can be considered a "representative" of the company.

But the CEO is different. Do you deny this?


You don't seem to understand "equal rights".

You don't seem to understand million dollar positions and the requirements therein.
 
If the shareholders lost discernible profit as a result, then it's something considerable.
Or if the board of directors expects a loss of discernible profits. Which they did expect.

I personally would not care enough about one CEO's slight political leaning. I don't like FOX News's position on many issues, I still watch them for overall coverage, because CNN is fanatical about tragedies.
And for some reason you don't feel as though you are infringing upon the rights of CNN's CEO by not watching.
 
Anyone can be considered a "representative" of the company.

Yes, just not even remotely at equal levels. Why didn't you answer my earlier question?
 
Any company that does not require full personal disclosure from a CEO is moronic and will soon go broke.

Oh, you meant the other part. I never intend to use absolutes. Even if I use a word that is an absolute, exceptions are presumed. I don't believe in absolutes.

Don't speak in absolutes, then. ;)
 
I did give you an answer.

If you did, it was vague as hell. So you agree that voters don't have a right to vote out a politician for holding beliefs that aren't representative of their own?
 
Only stupid people don't say what they mean.

It takes an idiot to expect someone to stop using hundreds of words just because morons presume absolutes.
 
It takes an idiot to expect someone to stop using hundreds of words just because morons presume absolutes.

It takes an idiot to believe that absolute terms mean anything but, absolute.
 
It takes an idiot to expect someone to stop using hundreds of words just because morons presume absolutes.

Consider the source. He believes that if a politician contributes to the Nazi Party his constituency has no right to vote him out in the next election.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong about public opinion on same sex marriage



looks like the younger generations on all ideologies are shifting towards acceptance. Younger folks being the most tech oriented, it was a good move on mozilla's part.


Yep, oh I am well aware, how could they not move towards tolerance? They're stupid kids, just like you and I were at one time. They are constantly bombarded with rhetorical accusations of homophobe or bigot and as a result completely unarmed when it comes to countering that time tested tactic. Not to mention that they're not getting the truth, and I mean the whole truth about the debate from their schools, or their other peers. They're being force-fed propaganda and eventually like we all know, effective propaganda will win out. My God Hitler used it to turn an entire nation on the only people that were responsible for keeping their economy afloat, and they turned their blind eye to the mass extinction of these people all because of a few well placed, and well timed propagandized hit pieces. People believe what they're told, mostly, and only the inquisitive and not lazy one's seek the truth for themselves. Now, I've had my say about homosexuality and this topic ad infinitum and I do not care to waste anymore time discussing with you. Turning to the OP, and like I said, regardless of what the true numbers are, the fact is that a great many people choose one ideology over another, and to some, like me, have both the conviction and the well withal to make buying choices based on the behavior of companies that I deem are behaving cowardly, or hypocritically. If companies want to keep that trend up, we'll all be shopping on different sides of the street.

Tim-
 
Not at all. For example, I would say that everybody is accountable, just not to everybody. Eich was accountable to his company's image.



Try me.

It would seem that Eich was held accountable to a set of opinions. Nothing more. That the PC police have established new ground rules doesn't change the dangerous nature of the precedent they have decided to establish.

As to your shoe issue, why would I want to point to something in history based on a statement you made I don't agree with? You wrote I am advocating no accountability and requested I show a point in history where no accountability existed. I rejected your point, and I guess had fun with the eat your shoe offer.
 
I just find it funny that a thousand dollar contribution to an anti same sex marriage campaign could culminate into some dude taking a web browser off his computer. What a strange world we live in today.

Why? That a $1000 campaign contribution could result in the effective termination of a person isn't equally laughable? Boy you have it backwards, CT, but you're gay so I suppose selective tolerance is always the par for the course with you types.

Tim-
 
Yep, oh I am well aware, how could they not move towards tolerance? They're stupid kids, just like you and I were at one time. They are constantly bombarded with rhetorical accusations of homophobe or bigot and as a result completely unarmed when it comes to countering that time tested tactic. Not to mention that they're not getting the truth, and I mean the whole truth about the debate from their schools, or their other peers. They're being force-fed propaganda and eventually like we all know, effective propaganda will win out. My God Hitler used it to turn an entire nation on the only people that were responsible for keeping their economy afloat, and they turned their blind eye to the mass extinction of these people all because of a few well placed, and well timed propagandized hit pieces. People believe what they're told, mostly, and only the inquisitive and not lazy one's seek the truth for themselves. Now, I've had my say about homosexuality and this topic ad infinitum and I do not care to waste anymore time discussing with you. Turning to the OP, and like I said, regardless of what the true numbers are, the fact is that a great many people choose one ideology over another, and to some, like me, have both the conviction and the well withal to make buying choices based on the behavior of companies that I deem are behaving cowardly, or hypocritically. If companies want to keep that trend up, we'll all be shopping on different sides of the street.

Tim-

I am sure they will stay off your lawn.
 
It would seem that Eich was held accountable to a set of opinions. Nothing more. That the PC police have established new ground rules doesn't change the dangerous nature of the precedent they have decided to establish.

No, he was accountable for a set of opinions. He was accountable to his company.

It's all really silly, though. As I've said before I believe he could have diffused the situation easily. One political contribution years ago is not the end of the world, but he blew it up with an "eat me" approach when he was well aware that his beliefs ran contrary to the image the company was trying to project.
 
Consider the source. He believes that if a politician contributes to the Nazi Party his constituency has no right to vote him out in the next election.

Normally, I would presume someone is misconstruing another's words with such a claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom