• 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]

austrianecon said:
So I am a bigot because I dislike AgentJ? So illogical..
Click to expand...

You must suffer from severe selective reading. a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

If you dislike Agent J simply because he exists then yes you are a bigot.
 
Cardinal said:
I use a mac, and I choose Mozilla over Safari in spit of Firefox's massive memory leak, mostly for the reason that Firefox isn't a giant anti-privacy monster.
Click to expand...

Chrome was great when I was on the platform. That hasn't changed again, has it?
 
Zinthaniel said:
You must suffer from severe selective reading. a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

If you dislike Agent J simply because he exists then yes you are a bigot.
Click to expand...

No, I do I strongly dislike Agent J and I get called a Bigot. Because that's the definition you are gonna use.. then EVERYBODY is a bigot and it's a null and void term for a debate. It's akin to calling someone a Nazi in a debate because they disagree with you. So the LBGT community are being bigots over Mozilla, right?


Bigot to me is a person who is WHOLLY devoted to prejudices. The fmr CEO of Mozilla was not a bigot. There is no evidence of him preventing anybody from the LBGT community from working at Mozilla or any evidence that he called anybody a derogatory name. So you have nothing on him but a moral opinion.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
It seems that this man is being punished for his opinion. Many expect absolute conformity of opinions now and if that doesn't happen, you will lose your job. Will it get better from here, or worse?
Click to expand...

I don't think that many really want conformity of opinion and I think they want safety from the actions that be come from those opinions.
 
Fiddytree said:
Chrome was great when I was on the platform. That hasn't changed again, has it?
Click to expand...

Chrome has an excellent engine (perhaps even the best). The privacy considerations of its add-ons are, however, utterly monstrous. The type of people who make add-ons for Mozilla tend to be more privacy-conscious.
 
Cardinal said:
Cute twisting of words. You said that gay people aren't even having rights denied. It's that ignorance which makes you fundamentally unqualified to discuss this issue, when you should be using this time to research the topic instead.
Click to expand...

Hey, I said that too! Please, please ban me too! But wait, I was following my heart! Last I heard, that seems to trump everything,
 
opendebate said:
I don't think that many really want conformity of opinion and I think they want safety from the actions that be come from those opinions.
Click to expand...

I believe many *think* they want conformity of opinion to ensure certain actions, but it's a big mistake. And giving money to a PAC is not an unsafe act.
 
austrianecon said:
It's this simple. I am actually arguing and pointing out removing the standard of marriage which one (LBGT community) wants and the other (straight community) wants to keep for themselves. Then replacing it with just plain old Civil Unions and stating the State (Government) will only recognize Civil Unions. For the part of my argument you aren't getting is Marriage won't exist as a legal accepted form of relationship. Only Civil Unions will.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that this compromise resolution to the issue is one that many would welcome. Unfortunately, I don't think the LGBT community would. This leads me to believe that their issue isn't the real one on their agenda, but rather window dressing to gain public sympathy for their 'cause'. Might it be the other side effects of SSM that are their real agenda? I wonder.
 
The Mark said:
If republicans stopped claiming such a high bar as their own, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, if we lowered our claimed moral standards to that of the Democrats, then we would certainly be caught much less often than we or the Democrats now are, violating our respective claimed standards.

But unlike those on the wrong, we on the right find more value in aspiring to higher standards, even if we occasionally fall short of them, than on setting our standards so low as to think that we needn't challenge ourselves at all to meet them. I think it is certainly clear which approach leads to better results.
 
austrianecon said:
No, I don't I strongly dislike him and I get called a Bigot. But if that's the definition you are gonna use.. then EVERYBODY is a bigot and it's a null and void term for a debate. It's akin to calling someone a Nazi in a debate because they disagree with you. So the LBGT community are being bigots over Mozilla, right?
Click to expand...

No it's not null and void just because you can identify a lot of people as being a bigot. You are being fallacious by trying to dismiss the term.

The lgbt community is upset because the CEO donated 1000 dollars to a proposistion that was going to legally deny them the right to marry who they love, that's not an unfair premise to judge someone.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
And Chick-fil-A.

I guess it goes back to that cliché that defines insanity as doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result.

The simple truth is that homosexuals will never be more than a very small, freakish minority, who can never rationally expect anything better than passive tolerance from society as a whole. Their recent effort to try to force society to redefine and alter some of its most essential institutions just to cater to them is not going to end well no matter how they conduct it; and as they engage in more and more antics such as this, which only antagonize mainstream society, they should expect that the tolerance that they now enjoy will be withdrawn.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it's not like the economy is bursting with jobs under this Moron-in-Chief. We can't really start putting more people out of work because of their beliefs on marriage. It's hard to imagine, but people here are supporting a person losing his job because of his support of this amendment. I can't believe it's just this one person that they want out of a job. You know, if they could have their way, they would threaten everyone of that belief with losing their job.

And that shows what they are really about. Control. They don't give a hoot about who wants to marry what. It's all about having the opposition crushed into admission. They want us to say 2+2=5, even though we both know it does not.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Well, yes, if we lowered our claimed moral standards to that of the Democrats, then we would certainly be caught much less often than we or the Democrats now are, violating our respective claimed standards.

But unlike those on the wrong, we on the right find more value in aspiring to higher standards, even if we occasionally fall short of them, than on setting our standards so low as to think that we needn't challenge ourselves at all to meet them. I think it is certainly clear which approach leads to better results.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting lowering the standards THAT far.

Just...not so "high" in certain areas.

Put it this way. I think republicans in general have unreasonably high requirements for acceptable behavior in some areas, whereas democrats in general have unreasonably low standards for acceptable behavior in some areas. Mainly religious/sexual in the former case and responsibility/capability in the latter case.

This is one of the reasons that I dislike both parties.
 
Zinthaniel said:
No it's not null and void just because you can identify a lot of people as being a bigot. You are being fallacious by trying to dismiss the term.

The lgbt community is upset because the CEO donated 1000 dollars to a proposistion that was going to legally deny them the right to marry who they love, that's not an unfair premise to judge someone.
Click to expand...

They are upset over a donations from 6 years ago and practicing McCarthyism today. It's 2014 today.. not 2008. LBGT got what they wanted and now they are being the bigots.
 
ecofarm said:
No, only stupid people disagree on what logic and reason say and they can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...

:lol: no. When it comes to social policy, very intelligent and well-meaning people disagree sharply on what logic and reason say.

So, you don't think he changed his mind. You think he covered his true feelings, for decades, just to unleash a fraud upon the American people when the time was right
Click to expand...

No, I think he wanted to win in 2008, and that required that he pose as a moderate. You may recall he also ran against George Bush's 'huge' $500Bn deficit, calling it "unAmerican" and promising to cut it in half in 4 years, promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone other than the top income brackets, etc. Then in 2012, he wanted to run and win, and that required that he revitalize his somewhat demoralized base. That created the venue to allow him to publicly state (again) what had been his position before he decided in 2004 to lie about it in order to successfully run for President in 2008.

This isn't exactly a right wing nutjob conspiracy theory - it's just the history of the man. Witness the fact that the typically left-leaning Politifact says the same thing.

...Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage before he was against it — and before he was for it again.

In 1996, as he ran for Illinois state Senate, Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire. Tracy Baim, the co-founder and publisher of Outlines, dug up a copy of the questionnaire in 2009, cataloging the president-elect’s shift.

He had written on the 1996 questionnaire, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."...
Click to expand...

Etc. so on and so forth. The man did, in fact, conceal his position in order to get hired.

Not that the CEO of Mozilla (to my knowledge) did so. As has been pointed out, he deliberately donated enough to be part of the public record, and "Are you now, or have you ever, been a member of a social conservative movement" wasn't, as far as I know, one of the questions the Board asked him when they hired him.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: no. When it comes to social policy, very intelligent and well-meaning people disagree sharply on what logic and reason say.



No, I think he wanted to win in 2008, and that required that he pose as a moderate. You may recall he also ran against George Bush's 'huge' $500Bn deficit, calling it "unAmerican" and promising to cut it in half in 4 years, promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone other than the top income brackets, etc. Then in 2012, he wanted to run and win, and that required that he revitalize his somewhat demoralized base. That created the venue to allow him to publicly state (again) what had been his position before he decided in 2004 to lie about it in order to successfully run for President in 2008.

This isn't exactly a right wing nutjob conspiracy theory - it's just the history of the man. Witness the fact that the typically left-leaning Politifact says the same thing.



Etc. so on and so forth. The man did, in fact, conceal his position in order to get hired.

Not that the CEO of Mozilla (to my knowledge) did so. As has been pointed out, he deliberately donated enough to be part of the public record, and "Are you now, or have you ever, been a member of a social conservative movement" wasn't, as far as I know, one of the questions the Board asked him when they hired him.
Click to expand...

A copy of a questionnaire?!

Guilty!

:roll:
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, and it's not like the economy is bursting with jobs under this Moron-in-Chief. We can't really start putting more people out of work because of their beliefs on marriage. It's hard to imagine, but people here are supporting a person losing his job because of his support of this amendment. I can't believe it's just this one person that they want out of a job. You know, if they could have their way, they would threaten everyone of that belief with losing their job.

And that shows what they are really about. Control. They don't give a hoot about who wants to marry what. It's all about having the opposition crushed into admission. They want us to say 2+2=5, even though we both know it does not.
Click to expand...

agreed.
could you imagine if he had contributed money to a pro-gay marriage group and THEN had been fired?! The liberals/gay community would be pouring gasoline on themselves outside the Mozilla Headquarters! The world would have come to a standstill. Yet they see this current situation and say he got what he deserved. It's impossible to argue with people who can rationalize ANYTHING that subverts their own arguments. amazing
 
Cardinal said:
Nice hysteria. Maybe you should throw the Holocaust into it while you're at it.
Click to expand...

what hysteria? you either believe in free speech or thought police which is it?

you believe in allowing someone to voice their opinion or you believe in silencing them with threat of force. which is it?
 
austrianecon said:
They are upset over a donations from 6 years ago and practicing McCarthyism today. It's 2014 today.. not 2008. LBGT got what they wanted and now they are being the bigots.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter when it was done, what matters is that it was done. Time doesn't change his adamant desire to deny a community their right. It's ridiculous that you think it should change things, that everyone should be like - "well it was so long ago let's just pretend it never happened." It did happen and it bit him in the ass 6 years later.
 
Zinthaniel said:
It doesn't matter when it was done, what matters is that it was done. Time doesn't change his adamant desire to deny a community their right.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to any comments you've made where you've called for the impeachment of President Obama for holding the same position?
 
RiverDad said:
Can you point me to any comments you've made where you've called for the impeachment of President Obama for holding the same position?
Click to expand...

I haven't participated in any thread discussing Obama. And knowing that you are a hateful, homophobic, and racist stormfront exile I don't really care to entertain any of your perceived injustices that you have seen in our president's stint in presidency.
 
Zinthaniel said:
No it's not null and void just because you can identify a lot of people as being a bigot. You are being fallacious by trying to dismiss the term.

The lgbt community is upset because the CEO donated 1000 dollars to a proposistion that was going to legally deny them the right to marry who they love, that's not an unfair premise to judge someone.
Click to expand...

At the time it was far from an unpopular position, one that was shared by a number of prominent politicians as other public figures. Even Obama held that position until he 'evolved', whatever that is supposed to mean.

So now, it's perfectly acceptable to force a CEO to resign from the company he founded because he supported which has only recently become politically unpopular?

Which previously unpopular political positions have you held over the course of your life? Should you be forced to resign your position because you've held those previous positions? Is this the new standard of compliance to political correctness? Are you sure you want to be supporting this? Both now and into the future?
 
Zinthaniel said:
I don't really care to entertain any of your perceived injustices that you have seen in our president's stint in presidency.
Click to expand...

IOW, you don't want to explain your hypocrisy because you can't. No one can concoct reasoning to explain feelings-based tantrums.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
--Andrew Sullivan:peace
Click to expand...
it MUST be remembered at the same time that the fanatic hatred against those that disagree with them is NEVER directed at...say...democrats that dare to believe homosexuality is wrong. Or pastors that happen to be...you know...black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom