• 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]

tacomancer said:
That's how I see the Eich case. Free speech does not inhibit reactions from society. I don't understand why people don't get this. Speech is still free even if its used in ways someone doesn't like and for ends someone doesn't like so long as it follows first amendment rules which have been laid out. In this case, it happened that way.
Click to expand...

Which parts of Eich's speech do you disagree with?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The point is people do all the time.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how this makes anything aspect of this situation any better, nor excuse anything either. Just because . . . . You gonna jump off a cliff too? As the old mother's saying goes.
 
BobbyO said:
Nobody is claiming that Eich's rights were violated.
What is being claimed is that this is not an exercise of free speech ie. the supporters of gay marriage in this company were not allowing Eich to have a dissenting opinion-- he MUST support gay marriage else he is out the door,
Click to expand...

Jack Hays made that very claim!
 
BobbyO said:
Nobody is claiming that Eich's rights were violated.
What is being claimed is that this is not an exercise of free speech ie. the supporters of gay marriage in this company were not allowing Eich to have a dissenting opinion-- he MUST support gay marriage else he is out the door,
Click to expand...

Eich and Mozilla could have stood firm if they wanted to. They were not prevented by anone from making difference choices in light of this controversy than were made and possibly they would have become the darling of the right like Chick Fil A or that duck guy did.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is, but many violations of free speech are not illegal.:peace
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind when you violate the free speech of people like Michael Mann.
 
BobbyO said:
Nobody is claiming that Eich's rights were violated.
What is being claimed is that this is not an exercise of free speech ie. the supporters of gay marriage in this company were not allowing Eich to have a dissenting opinion-- he MUST support gay marriage else he is out the door,
Click to expand...

Bull****. People have been claiming that for more than 100 pages now.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
This question needs to be taken up with the private workplace. That is where he step down. The reality is that in private place of work people can lose their job very easy for political or nonpolitical reasons alike. People cannot and do not have free speech rights in at will work places.
Click to expand...

So people in private workplaces have fewer rights and it's OK to abridge them? That doesn't sound right (accurate/lawful) to me.
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)On the contrary, I think people on all sides of this question should simply be let alone so long as they don't act against the rights of others.
2.) I myself support SSM.
3.) I was not aware you asked a question. I only heard the shouting. What was the question?:peace
Click to expand...

1.) well then you should be fine with this because nobody acted against the rights of others
2.) meanignless to the topic but that nice that you support equal rights
3.) i only referred to it the last 3-4 posts lol

and all you should have heard is laughing but that further explains why your posts are failing. The debate you are having in your head and anything i am actually saying is different.

go back a couple posts youll find them
 
Deuce said:
I'll keep that in mind when you violate the free speech of people like Michael Mann.
Click to expand...

In fact Michael Mann is suing someone else for speaking freely. That's hardly a good example.
 
Grant said:
Which parts of Eich's speech do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

None, I was referring to the furor over Mozilla as a result (at least this was the audience I was attempting to speak to). My personal view is what Eich did was not my business, but irregardless of that, when looking at what I see as the rules that govern society and social dynamics (including legal ones) I see no gross violation from anyone or any group either.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The point is people do all the time.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't make it any more just. Just means that there is more unjust in the world.
Legislating it away? I don't know if that's even possible.
 
AGENT J said:
translation: when you disagree with others opinions they shouldnt use their freedom of speech, it should only be used when you agree with it

got it
your ready to answer my question or you still gonna dodge
Click to expand...

Eich used his freedom of speech-- he took "actions." remember? You said that about 20 minutes ago. He should have stayed quiet.
Now you are complaining about what this actually means in practice. A quick learning curve, it seems.
 
BobbyO said:
Nobody is claiming that Eich's rights were violated.
What is being claimed is that this is not an exercise of free speech ie. the supporters of gay marriage in this company were not allowing Eich to have a dissenting opinion-- he MUST support gay marriage else he is out the door,
Click to expand...

And, this has been my point each time I have responded to you. People in private business fire people for having dissenting opinions all the time.
 
I love that free speech bothers people only when they dont agree with it

and the question a couple people keep running from because nobody can answer it

what is the solution?

very telling nobody showed any integrity and answered that, they only want free speech to be in place when it suits them

west boro has free speech just like us all, you may not like it but its the only way it works :)
 
AGENT J said:
1.) how was he "punished"?
2.) again nobody was punished everybody's rights remain in tact
3.) another posted lie lol
i support his right 100% and he still has that right and it was never taken away

do you have any facts that support this lie

facts win and your post fails again

so what yous solution?
Click to expand...

Being forced by an angry mod to resign isn't punishment.
How about an angry mob circles your workplace, demanding your job?
Or how about an angry mob circles and boycotts an LGBT's workplace and demands their job.

Make it any better? That'd be OK too? Somehow I doubt it.
 
Eich could have stayed on the job. He was not fired, and to be honest I haven't read a word that indicates he was asked by the board to resign (the business decision they made was accepting his resignation). He must have felt that he wouldn't be able to live down the donation with his co-workers. This is not a free speech issue and never was.
eohrnberger said:
Being forced by an angry mod to resign isn't punishment.
Click to expand...

He wasn't "forced" to do anything.
 
BobbyO said:
Eich used his freedom of speech-- he took "actions." remember? You said that about 20 minutes ago. He should have stayed quiet.
Now you are complaining about what this actually means in practice. A quick learning curve, it seems.
Click to expand...
no complaint lol please stop making stuff up it donest help your failed arguments

im fine with him using his free speech just like i am with others using thier also, thats the fact you leave out

some only one the CEO to have free speech and nobody else, not me
your post fails again and facts win again

hopefully you caught up to the curve now
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
And, this has been my point each time I have responded to you. People in private business fire people for having dissenting opinions all the time.
Click to expand...

Do they? That must have been your experience but I've never heard of that from anyone I know.
 
eohrnberger said:
1.)Being forced by an angry mod to resign isn't punishment.
2.) How about an angry mob circles your workplace, demanding your job?
3.) Or how about an angry mob circles and boycotts an LGBT's workplace and demands their job.

Make it any better? That'd be OK too? Somehow I doubt it.
Click to expand...

1.) link? proof? fact?
does he still have is rights? were any laws broken? then NOT in a legal sense no punishment was given out.

if somebody calls their bf or gf a bad name and they hold out sex for a day or two thats "technically" punishment that doenst mean its illegal of infrings on rights lol

2.) again freedom of speech sorry this bothers you
3.) see #2

your post fails again
 
Deuce said:
Jack Hays made that very claim!
Click to expand...

But it's true.
There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor.
. . . .
This is a repugnantly illiberal sentiment. It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.
Click to expand...
The Hounding Of A Heretic, Ctd « The Dish
 
AGENT J said:
1.) its fully 100% in tact
2.) nope did you miss the fact its 1100% in tact
3.) another posted lie i never lebeld him a bigot because of that. But the DEFINITION of bigot makes him one as soon as he donated and tried to deny others rights
4.) seems to me your post failed again, facts won again and the lies you posted were proven wrong again

free speech for all not just those YOU choose
Click to expand...

The same standards Eich was held to, Obama nor Hillary could be the CEO to Mozilla either because of their stance on gay marriage 4 years ago. What this does is show the hypocritical double standards of the left under flood lights for all to see.
 
solutions to free speech?

anybody?
anybody?

bueller?

bueller?
 
eohrnberger said:
I fail to see how this makes anything aspect of this situation any better, nor excuse anything either. Just because . . . . You gonna jump off a cliff too? As the old mother's saying goes.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it going to get better unless people want to do something about it. It's this selective outrage that is strange. Instead of people being hyper focused on this CEO, they should be concerned about the lose of free speech right at private businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom