• 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]

And if conservatives are going to boycott Mozilla, as Charles Krauthammer called for, then LET THE BROWSER WARS BEGIN.

get
 
The Mark said:
Everything is controversial. Well, nearly everything.

I would suggest that political views are not a valid reason to either hire or fire a person. On the other hand, arguments could be made for firing a person if their presence is disruptive enough.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are at will, and you are a detractor to the business, then I understand. In this case, it was the left, the oh so tolerant left, being completely intolerant bigots and going out of their way, demanding a person be let go because of their perfectly legitimate beliefs. Mozilla made a knee jerk reaction, instead of doing the right thing. Hopefully, they will see a worse backlash for being cowards.
 
Kobie said:
Did you read the NYT story I linked to earlier? Or is that all just damage control in your cynical eyes?
Click to expand...

Post-hoc rationalizations are efforts to write history a particular way. If there really was an "all hands on deck" effort to keep Eich in the job, then that would have been evident DURING the battle. Doesn't that make sense to you?
 
Grant said:
I believe you're right. Getting to the top of a multi billion dollar corporation like that suggests he is no fool. Mozilla will lose all the way around.

His successor better be sure that any past donations somehow remain hidden from Leftists. Most other people wouldn't care where any donations may have gone..
Click to expand...

They should probably hire an "undocumented worker". That way, he can't be touched.
 
RiverDad said:
Post-hoc rationalizations are efforts to write history a particular way. If there really was an "all hands on deck" effort to keep Eich in the job, then that would have been evident DURING the battle. Doesn't that make sense to you?
Click to expand...

The battle wasn't particularly high profile until after Eich stepped down. The board was already in turmoil after his appointment.
 
RiverDad said:
Come on, be the sophisticated thinker you claim to be. These are post-hoc rationalizations/statements and this is standard for every organization. It usually involves the departing executive choosing to spend more time with his family. You know that to be true.

If the board was standing with Eich then we would have seen all of the board members making statements of support while the crisis was brewing. They would not tolerate his leaving. They would attack the accusers for being unjust. That indicates support.

What's going on now is a salvage operation to make Mozilla appear to be fair and the good guy and this even applies to the individual reputations of the board members.
Click to expand...

Maybe the question that you should really be asking is why you are so willing to accept the idea that Eich was forced out.

He didn't just step down as CEO, he left the company entirely. Even the original people who criticized him within the company did not want to see him go.

A Sad 'Victory' - rarebit

It sounds like he left on the principle of his beliefs.
 
ludin said:
He was forced to resign what difference is there. you either resign or we vote you out is the same choice. so yes in essence he was fired.
it isn't a lie. forced to resign fired pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...
Was this multi-year-ago donation the cause of said forcing (if indeed such occurred) or simply the finial straw? Or was it even a factor at all?

I don't know the details, but there's a difference in my mind between "he was forced to resign due to a political donation years ago" (which would be bull****) and "he was forced to resign because he had pissed off nearly everyone in the company".

If it wasn't a factor, then Mozilla's sense of timing really needs some work...
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, if you are at will, and you are a detractor to the business, then I understand. In this case, it was the left, the oh so tolerant left, being completely intolerant bigots and going out of their way, demanding a person be let go because of their perfectly legitimate beliefs. Mozilla made a knee jerk reaction, instead of doing the right thing. Hopefully, they will see a worse backlash for being cowards.
Click to expand...
But how do you know that things happened in that way?
 
Ahlevah said:
You say the problem applies to everyone, and yet you're highlighting a bill that applies only to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That fact seems to belie your intent.
Click to expand...

That is because the bill has to do with the specific topic but it does not need to stop in any particular place. Some states do have laws in place to protect all workers in private businesses to have freedom of political expression without fear of reprimand or loss of job as long as it isn't interfering with the job. Many states do not and people can lose their job for both on and off the job political expression and beliefs even if it has no interference with the job whatsoever.
 
The Mark said:
Using your analogy:

If I tell you your mother is a ********ing whore, that's free speech.
If I pay a band to compose a song about your mother being a ********ing whore, that's ridiculous overkill but also free speech (I think?). And I didn't actually say anything to you personally.

That's why I'm not seeing the disconnect between a political donation to promote a cause vs saying something to promote a cause.

Different forms, same intent.
Click to expand...

no the INTENT is clearly different

just feeling marriage is man/woman has ZERO intent
donating money to try and stop others from having that right has an intent of denying others rights

you just answered your own question
 
AGENT J said:
no the INTENT is clearly different

just feeling marriage is man/woman has ZERO intent
donating money to try and stop others from having that right has an intent of denying others rights

you just answered your own question
Click to expand...
I did not make that analogy.
 
Kobie said:
Tyranny? You people are insane.

Civil rights should not be left to the will of the masses.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about the genuine right to keep and bear arms, as explicitly affirmed in the Constutution; as you do about the inaginary “right” to radically redefine the concept of marriage into something that is only a sick mockery of what marriage has always been held to be?
 
AGENT J said:
no

think
feeling
saying
teaching your own
preaching

that gay marriage is wrong or being gay is wrong is not bigotry

trying to deni them rights or treating them as leasers is bigotry

theres a HUGE difference.

there are lots of people that feel marriage is a man woman thing personally but they fully support equal rights because they respect peoples rights
Click to expand...




j-mac said:
1.)OK, I got ya, I think....So, people that disagree with the LGBT agenda are free to have those beliefs, as long as they don't speak them publicly, or donate anything to opposition of them, or else they open themselves to harassment, and attack to the point where they are forced to resign from their job...And this isn't fascism? I mean I get that people are passionate about this issue, but how is it that any squelching of LGBT voicing their agenda in the public square, ie protest, or donation, or what ever would be seen by advocates as a stomping on the free speech rights of the LGBT community, and would be met with ramped up vitriol, and cries of fascistic suppression. However, because it is aimed not AT the LGBT community, but rather at an individual that did little more than donate years ago to a cause on a ballot up for referendum by the people, and chose what is perceived by the passionate as "the wrong side", well, then he must be 'isolated, destroyed, and marginalized' in the purest form of Alinski style debasement.

2.)How is it that the supporters of these memes cant see how it is that they are carrying out what they claim to be attacking? I just don't get it I suppose.
Click to expand...

1.)this isnt even close to anything i said. Please dont make up lies and try to seel them as mine
you asked what makes one a "bigot"

I answered

now you are on some NEW rant about what people can do or freedoms which i never comment on. Nice strawman but its a HUGE failure.


how did you even read my post and see the parts I highlighted above and then proceed to HONESTLY accuse me of saying they cant speck thier views publicly, holy cow could your post be more dishonest?

now to answer your questions since you dont seem to understand rights

free speech is for EVERYBODY, so people are free to say whatever they want and others are allowed to say things in return

your meaningless hyperbolic opinion of "attacking and harassment" is meaningless unless you have proof of broken laws. To use your failed starwman others could EASILY argue the opposite that trying to deny rights is extremely harassing and attacking. BUT im not using that argument just point out the HUGE hypocrisy in your failed argument. If you dont like free speech thats your issue.

maybe make a better argument next time with bigger more emotional words to describe free speech.

are seriously implying that only the CEO has free speech? i hope not

well number one of yours got easily destroyed and proven wrong. now number 2

2.) more hypocrisy. Its free speech from both sides you simply dont like one side.

also be more specific with what you are claiming is being supported.


so now in your next post you can stick to the original question i answered and not deflect and try to move the goal posts or we can continue with this new path and explain why you only think free speech you agree with is ok.
 
Jack Hays said:
None was offered. Is your self-esteem really so tied up in this forum?:peace
Click to expand...

still cant defend your failed argument of "decent" huh? lol let me know when you can
 
The Mark said:
I did not make that analogy.
Click to expand...

you mentioned intent and now you see how they are clearly different.

feelings marriage is the man woman is nothign like donating money to try and make that law. Theres no logic out there to call them the same.
 
AGENT J said:
yep

SOME people simply dont care about rights and freedoms that exist in this country. They dont care about their fellow americans one bit. Its pure hypocrisy as an american.
SOME people want less government and talk about rights and constitution BUT that stuff only matters for what THEY want lol. Its only matters for THEIR rights, in their views the hell with everyone else.

But luckily equality is winning and bigotry and discrimination is losing and its awesome. Its hilarious to see the fear and angry equal rights inspires in some and how many lies they will try to sell to. Nobody honest, educated and objective buys their false claims.

its always funny to see somebody claim they are being forced when equal rights forces nothing on them it just allows others to have the same rights they do and their way would be to DENY others rights.

Well they dont have long to try these desperate, hateful, last minute, hell marys because its the 4th water and gay rights will be national soon

but until then the hyperbolic, mentally inane, BS crying about rouge judges, force, tradition, sanctity, morals, bestiality, pedophilia, saying its just the left/liberals that support equal rights, history of marriage, dangers of the icky gays etc etc and all the other failed and proven wrong fallacies will continue to entertain educated and honest righties, lefties and independents alike :) Its comic gold!

AGENT J said:
id like to add the failed fallacy of "double standards" to the list.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

now id like to add

Tyranny and decency

to the list of failed arguments
 
Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about his opinion on gay marriage.

However, I am VERY alarmed that this type of coercion and censorship would be allowed in our country.

Accordingly, I have removed Firefox (I've used it for 5 years) from my machine, and will go to another browser.
 
can anybody answer the question yet?


ANYBODY?


who has the answer to FREE SPEECH?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Do you feel the same way about the genuine right to keep and bear arms, as explicitly affirmed in the Constutution; as you do about the inaginary “right” to radically redefine the concept of marriage into something that is only a sick mockery of what marriage has always been held to be?
Click to expand...

This is not a gun thread. My stance on guns is well documented elsewhere on this forum. I will not contribute to turning this thread into another firearms wank. I'll just ignore your hateful anti-gay rhetoric.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Do you feel the same way about the genuine right to keep and bear arms, as explicitly affirmed in the Constutution; as you do about the inaginary “right” to radically redefine the concept of marriage into something that is only a sick mockery of what marriage has always been held to be?
Click to expand...

That's funny, "radically"? Sorry but it is allowing two people of the same sex to marry, nothing "radical" about it.

Here's the record for the assholes that want the SSM ban kept in place.

#1 Being gay is not illegal.
#2 Being in a gay relationship is not illegal.
#3 Gays living together is not illegal.
#4 Gay sex is not illegal.
#5 Gays raising children is not illegal.

Sorry but allowing them to marry is not "radical" given the score card I just laid out above. The only "radical" ones are those that want the SSM ban kept in place.
 
GBFAN said:
Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about his opinion on gay marriage.

However, I am VERY alarmed that this type of coercion and censorship would be allowed in our country.

Accordingly, I have removed Firefox (I've used it for 5 years) from my machine, and will go to another browser.
Click to expand...

ROFL! And you call yourself a right wing Libertarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom