• 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]

It does matter. Are you calling for the impeachment of President Obama who held the same belief? That President Obama was running around California and Florida in 2008 supporting Prop 8 within the African-American and Hispanic Community. Nah.. but it was widely known and nobody went after him... wonder why?
Yes Obama once held a bigoted view of marriage while in senate. His comments back then where heard and filled the lgbt with disgust. It was never tolerated or ignored. He since changed his views. He went from bigotry to a proponent of gay rights.

Did anybody ask Eich if his opinion evolved? Nope, so it was a witch hunt which wasn't afforded to others who supported Prop 8, starting with the Democratic Party..
With all this media fire why wouldn't he just say so? That makes no since. If he no longer believes in his action from 6 years ago, why wouldn't he clarify that?
 
A copy of a questionnaire?!

Guilty!

:roll:

:shrug: is that your way of conceding? You had a dumb point that turned out to be wrong in multiple ways. Sorry - it happens.
 
Evelyn Beatrice Hall the author of her biography of Voltaire entitled, 'The Friends of Voltaire' (1906).

Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
 
If Eich apologizes for donating a 1000$ towards legislation that oppresses the rights of the lgbt then I would no longer think he is a bigot. He hasn't. He's made no comment. I'm sure he is angry that the gays have the nerve to be upset about his just reasoning for wanting to ban them from marriage. What evidence do we have that shows us he is no longer of that bigoted opinion?

No, somehow I don't think he's a bigot at all, and I think he has apologized, in public, in writing no less.
A number of Mozillians, including LGBT individuals and allies, have stepped forward to offer guidance and assistance in this. I cannot thank you enough, and I ask for your ongoing help to make Mozilla a place of equality and welcome for all. Here are my commitments, and here’s what you can expect:

  • Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
  • Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
  • My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
  • My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.
I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

Mozilla is a movement composed of different people around the world, working productively together on a common mission. This is important to our ability to work and grow around the world.

Many Mozillians and others know me as a colleague or a friend. They know that I take people as they come and work with anyone willing to contribute. At the same time, I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability. No leader or person who has a privileged position should. I want to be held accountable for what I do as CEO. I fully expect you all to do so.

I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.

You will see exemplary behavior from me toward everyone in our community, no matter who they are; and the same toward all those whom we hope will join, and for those who use our products. Mozilla’s inclusive health benefits policies will not regress in any way. And I will not tolerate behavior among community members that violates our Community Participation Guidelines or (for employees) our inclusive and non-discriminatory employment policies.

You’ll also see more from Mozilla under my leadership in the way of efforts to include potential contributors, especially those who lack privilege. This entails several projects, starting with Project Ascend, which is being developed by Lukas Blakk. I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.

/be
Inclusiveness at Mozilla | Brendan Eich

If there's an appology that needs to be made, I think it should be coming from the people that unleashed this faux controversy and who are portraying all this faux outrage.
 
If Eich apologizes for donating a 1000$ towards legialation that oppressing then I would no longer think he is a bigot. He hasn't. He's made no comment. I'm sure he is angry that the gays have the nerve to be upset about his just reasoning for wanting to ban them from marriage. What evidence do we have that shows us he is no longer of that bigoted opinion?

Why doesn't he have to apologize to you or anyone? I sure as hell don't apologize to anyone for my opinion and I am sure you don't as well. So let's just toss this one to you doth protest to much.
 
:shrug: is that your way of conceding? You had a dumb point that turned out to be wrong in multiple ways. Sorry - it happens.

You're gonna have to do better than a copy of a questionnaire claimed by whom?

Let me guess... Dan Rather?
 
Yes Obama once held a bigoted view of
marriage while in senate. His comments back then where heard and filled the lgbt with disgust. It was never tolerated or ignored. He since changed his views. He went from bigotry to a proponent of gay rights.


With all this media fire why wouldn't he just say so? That makes no since. If he no longer believes in his action from 6 years ago, why wouldn't he clarify that?

No, he didn't chnage his views, he only CLAIMED to change his views because it was politically expediant.

He wanst bigoted back then and he still wouldn't be bigoted now if he hsd the character to stand up for what he believed in.

But I encourage the left and activist groups to continue down this path od McCarthyistic behaviour.

The growing backlash will be a great reminder how much of a minority these activist groups actually represent.
 
Summary:
Tarnished by their own behavior - yes
Whites deciding where they want to live - yes
I see no greater hating of diversity than those who claim that as their goal, as they generally don't accept diversity in opinion or position, and do all they can to promote theirs over all others
Homosexuals suffering from depression - no idea

Tarnished by their own behavior? And what about every other race? Sand hooks, batman massacre, columbine high school, The list goes on. White people commit crimes too? Are they tarnished. Are they by default mass murderers until proven otherwise? It makes no since. To apply such logic to only the black community shows an extreme amount of delusion.

White do have the right to choose where they want to live. What does that have to do with the point I brought up? Whites can choose to move, but if they are moving because they don't want to be near blacks, because they assume all blacks are bad and dangerous, then that is racism.

- I was talking about riverdad as his own exact opinion on diversity. He is a white nationalist.

- Homosexuals are not the cause of their own depression, society is. Captain Courtesy, who is a professional in this field, not only provided riverdad with the studies that proved this, but also shared his own insight. Riverdad stubbornly clung to his bigoted position.
 
I believe many *think* they want conformity of opinion to ensure certain actions, but it's a big mistake. .

That's what I was getting at. They don't understand that what they really fear is what those opinions bring, so in reality it's the acts they prompt not the opinions themselves.

And giving money to a PAC is not an unsafe act
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that those who oppose his opinion should not be threatened by his financial contribution ?
 
Yes Obama once held a bigoted view of marriage while in senate. His comments back then where heard and filled the lgbt with disgust. It was never tolerated or ignored. He since changed his views. He went from bigotry to a proponent of gay rights.

Make no mistake. That Obama being politically expedient. If you expect that he's had some sort of revelation that's changed his mind, I'm afraid that you'll be sorely disappointed. The man is a politician, after all, above all else.

With all this media fire why wouldn't he just say so? That makes no since. If he no longer believes in his action from 6 years ago, why wouldn't he clarify that?

Please see my post of Eich's blog post above.
 
Why doesn't he have to apologize to you or anyone? I sure as hell don't apologize to anyone for my opinion and I am sure you don't as well. So let's just toss this one to you doth protest to much.

I never said he had to apologize to me. What is you problem? You can't even follow your own discussion. You asked me why do I still believe he is still bigot. I replied with he has not apologized for the donation or stated that he no longer holds that position. So for all we know he is still a bigot when it comes to rights and the lgbt community.
 
A point.

"Civil unions" Could, in theory, be made entirely equal to "marriages" in the legal sense - apart from having a different name, which might defeat the whole thing....

What you can't control is the non-legal aspect of things - even if you, legally, require that marriages be considered equal no matter what sex the two parties are, were, or will be...

Someone will disagree, and, at least informally, consider the two separate.

I will agree that creating something that is identical except for it's name means it's not identical, and infact I think doing so would reinforce separation between the two.


Now, if the state (in both the actual state and the federal sense) decided to rename all marriage documents and whatnot as "civil unions", that would be another thing entirely - everyone would be treated equally, so I wouldn't see an issue with it.


Edit: That was way more than 1 point, sorry.

not interested in controlling the non-legal part

but that aside all you have to do is factually explain how now using facts and LEGALITY. Ill wait.

dont forget about things like how a HUSBAND/WIFE become one person legally and cant testify against each other, also while you do that explain how you make the decades and decades of legal precedent concerning MARRIAGE apply to civil unions?

then lastly if it would be even possible to waste all that time and money and go through the whole process, WHY on god green earth would we do something so stupid and mentally retarded?
and why would this NOT be giving into to the bigots and discriminators?


what if when Obama became present he was told, good job, you won, but listen. Theres lots of people that dont want a black president. They have "deep feelings" about this. They feel its a very "sacred" thing and theres never been a black president before. SO since theres so much "tradition" we decided we just cant make you president. We cant use that "word" for you because it could hurt peoples feelings. SO we are going to call you the CEO of AMerica. Now of course youll have the same power as the president before you and hold the same office they did but we just cant call you president. But it will be equal "wink wink" Now eventhough many people before you were president and got that right you wont. Yull be among the first to go by this NEW title we simply made up cause well you are black and that hurts peoples feelings. This doesnt violate you rights . . . right?

sorry nobody buys that complete crock of **** lol

its not equal and i dont see how the legality is possible and nor would anybody buy it to be anything more then letting the bigots win.

Maybe women shouldnt be called bosses and CEOs etc when they got thier rights? we should have made up a NEW term
maybe minorities or more specifically in this county blacks shouldnt have been called persons in the legal sense when they got their rights, we should have made up a NEW term

Now im not attacking you cause im not saying you support this, im just asking you to back up your claim and support why it would even be tried and how anybody honest would think of it as anything more that a slap in the face to peoples rights.

Sorry while ill need proof its possible which i dont see how, i cant do nothing but laugh at the pure absurdity of intellectual dishonesty of it and people completely mock this idea for how mentally retarded it is lol
 
That's what I was getting at. They don't understand that what they really fear is what those opinions bring, so in reality it's the acts they prompt not the opinions themselves.

I guess, I see what your saying. Most opinions are a matter of free speech to a certain point. I don't take that as leading to a necessary action, only the desire.


Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that those who oppose his opinion should not be threatened by his financial contribution ?

I'm saying his financial contribution is an extension of his opinion, and not an unethical or illegal act. It can easily be countered by similar contributions for SSM.
 
I never said he had to apologize to me. What is you problem? You can't even follow your own discussion. You asked me why do I still believe he is still bigot. I replied with he has not apologized for the donation or stated that he no longer holds that position. So for all we know he is still a bigot when it comes to rights and the lgbt community.

yep theres currently ZERO facts or evidence that say otherwise . .. zero
 
the definition of the word bigot makes him one.

in fact until there's NEW evidence showing he isnt theres no reason to think otherwise unless of course one wants to ignore evidence and definition of words.
Ill stick with the evidence, facts and definitions.

Fact and definitions as you see them. Actions speak louder than words. Eich's actions appear to be LGBT friendly policies and atmosphere Mozilla, yet you find it more fair and founded in facts and definitions and continue to call him a bigot?

What of the evidence of the culture that Eich lead and promoted at Mozilla? This counts for nothing in your opinion?
 
not interested in controlling the non-legal part

but that aside all you have to do is factually explain how now using facts and LEGALITY. Ill wait.

dont forget about things like how a HUSBAND/WIFE become one person legally and cant testify against each other, also while you do that explain how you make the decades and decades of legal precedent concerning MARRIAGE apply to civil unions?

then lastly if it would be even possible to waste all that time and money and go through the whole process, WHY on god green earth would we do something so stupid and mentally retarded?
and why would this NOT be giving into to the bigots and discriminators?


what if when Obama became present he was told, good job, you won, but listen. Theres lots of people that dont want a black president. They have "deep feelings" about this. They feel its a very "sacred" thing and theres never been a black president before. SO since theres so much "tradition" we decided we just cant make you president. We cant use that "word" for you because it could hurt peoples feelings. SO we are going to call you the CEO of AMerica. Now of course youll have the same power as the president before you and hold the same office they did but we just cant call you president. But it will be equal "wink wink" Now eventhough many people before you were president and got that right you wont. Yull be among the first to go by this NEW title we simply made up cause well you are black and that hurts peoples feelings. This doesnt violate you rights . . . right?

sorry nobody buys that complete crock of **** lol

its not equal and i dont see how the legality is possible and nor would anybody buy it to be anything more then letting the bigots win.

Maybe women shouldnt be called bosses and CEOs etc when they got thier rights? we should have made up a NEW term
maybe minorities or more specifically in this county blacks shouldnt have been called persons in the legal sense when they got their rights, we should have made up a NEW term

Now im not attacking you cause im not saying you support this, im just asking you to back up your claim and support why it would even be tried and how anybody honest would think of it as anything more that a slap in the face to peoples rights.

Sorry while ill need proof its possible which i dont see how, i cant do nothing but laugh at the pure absurdity of intellectual dishonesty of it and people completely mock this idea for how mentally retarded it is lol
Damn, talk about a rant.

Sure, there are some people who would claim they changed word just so they could get away with not allowing "gay marriage" while still allowing it, under a different name.

It's a cop-out, really, but it would still technically be "equal rights". Then everyone could continue calling it "gay marriage" instead of "marriage", much like they will anyway.

You can't legislate thought, but that's beside the point.

I'd accept changing all "marriage" documents to "civil unions" if it meant gay people could get married in the legal sense. Which is the only thing that can be moderated legally in any case.

Insisting on the use of the word marriage seems kinda ironic though, when one of the "arguments" against same-sex marriage is that the word doesn't mean that. "words mean things, etc, etc., and all that bs".
 
Yes Obama once held a bigoted view of marriage while in senate. His comments back then where heard and filled the lgbt with disgust. It was never tolerated or ignored. He since changed his views. He went from bigotry to a proponent of gay rights.

You don't get it do you.. same opinions and you treat Obama as untouchable. LGBT community should have called for him to resign as President or face whatever. Did they? No. So that's a double standard by the LGBT community starting right there. If you have a standard for one person (Obama) you need that same standard with all. Right? ****ing hypocrites are what they are.


With all this media fire why wouldn't he just say so? That makes no since. If he no longer believes in his action from 6 years ago, why wouldn't he clarify that?

What media fire? You mean a few thousand twitter tweets and a website called OKcupid..
 
1.)Fact and definitions as you see them.
2.) Actions speak louder than words. Eich's actions appear to be LGBT friendly policies and atmosphere Mozilla,

3.)yet you find it more fair and founded in facts and definitions and continue to call him a bigot?

4.)What of the evidence of the culture that Eich lead and promoted at Mozilla? This counts for nothing in your opinion?

1.) 100% wrong. Facts and definitions cant be changed by how i see them. Lets review them, he donated money to try and stop people from having equality and rights, that fits the definition of bigotry :shrug:
2.) so it was HIM who designed/wrote and enforced this LGBT friendly policies and atmosphere Mozilla?
also what did they involve?
did they only exist because of him or were they in place before him?
are these policies just in accordance to LAW?

please answer these questions

3.) nope not "fair" just going by FACTS, fair has nothing to do with it

until there's new facts and evidence why would i ASSUME differently?

4.) no it counts for absolutely nothing LMAO why would it
again back to the culture/policies unless his idea, he wrote it, made sure it was enforced, didnt excist before he got there and it wasnt inspired by law and rights that already exist.

if that happen THEN ill change my opinion


say a cop is a bigot against <insert group here> and he donated money to not grant them rights or to a hate group against them or was leader of a hate group against women or blacks or Christians etc etc

BUT

while he was a cop he never unjustly arrested one of said group and followed the law and practiced god job duties

whould that stop him from being a bigot?


nope. lol


so as soon as you have something that shows he isnt ill stick with facts and definitions
 
It's more than an emotional buy issue. It's a performance and features decision, at least for my part, in that IE still doesn't work as fast a Firefox, and with the open ended add-in development environment with a rich set of additional features and capabilities that IE can't match. The market has produced a superior product to Microsoft's offerings.

Personally, I prefer opera on the sheer compatibility side. I tend to see fewer bugs with opera and better web page rendering.
 
Tarnished by their own behavior? And what about every other race? Sand hooks, batman massacre, columbine high school, The list goes on. White people commit crimes too? Are they tarnished. Are they by default mass murderers until proven otherwise? It makes no since. To apply such logic to only the black community shows an extreme amount of delusion.

Per capital percentage wise, it is far more likely that someone of African-American decent be involved in violent crime. A rather starling conclusion drawn from crime statistics.

No one said anything that whites do not commit crimes. They do. At a significantly lesser extent than African-Americans.

Fact are facts.

White do have the right to choose where they want to live. What does that have to do with the point I brought up? Whites can choose to move, but if they are moving because they don't want to be near blacks, because they assume all blacks are bad and dangerous, then that is racism.

No, I never made the leap that assuming all blacks are bad and dangerous, that's your claim of another's position, so that'd be a second hand opinion. I think that there's no problem at all provided that the values and behaviors are more similar than different (note, I did not say identical).

Calling people who move out from, or disagree with, people that have vastly different value systems racist is firstly not accurate, and secondly not realistic.

Who's to say why whites decide to move out of a house.

- I was talking about riverdad as his own exact opinion on diversity. He is a white nationalist.

- Homosexuals are not the cause of their own depression, society is. Captain Courtesy, who is a professional in this field, not only provided riverdad with the studies that proved this, but also shared his own insight. Riverdad stubbornly clung to his bigoted position.

Everyone has their burdens they have to carry through life. It's kinda how it works, the human condition and all.
 
1.)Damn, talk about a rant.
2.)Sure, there are some people who would claim they changed word just so they could get away with not allowing "gay marriage" while still allowing it, under a different name.
3.)It's a cop-out, really
4.) but it would still technically be "equal rights".
5.) Then everyone could continue calling it "gay marriage" instead of "marriage", much like they will anyway.
6.)You can't legislate thought, but that's beside the point.
7.)I'd accept changing all "marriage" documents to "civil unions" if it meant gay people could get married in the legal sense. Which is the only thing that can be moderated legally in any case.
8.)Insisting on the use of the word marriage seems kinda ironic though, when one of the "arguments" against same-sex marriage is that the word doesn't mean that. "words mean things, etc, etc., and all that bs".

1.) lol no rant just wanted to show how dumb the idea is with examples
2.) that wouldnt be a claim that would be a fact
3.) yes it would be a cop out to call it somethign else
4.) you say that but still havent proved it
5.) dont care what people call it just like people dont call many marriages today real marriages, interracial, inter-religious, remarriages etc etc
6.) correct it is beside the point and not the goal
7.) Id accept it to IF it was possible, really equal and wasnt a cop out ot let the bigots win
8.) it would be interesting IF this wasnt a new argument to hide bigotry and there was a very simply way to grant factual equal rights besides using the word.

the word is only important because its the only honest and factual way to grant equal rights.

IF there was another honest, factual and equal way id be all for it but there isnt
 
If he
is no longer of the opinion that I don't believe he is a bigot. However, sometimes our actions, no matter how long ago, come back to haunt us.

It's naive considering his personality disorder to think he sincerely changed his opinion.

His first opinion was sincere.

So anyone targeted by the LGBT activist for suppprting Prop 8 should be given a pass if they just claimed they had evolved since 2008 ??
 
If he is no longer of the opinion that I don't believe he is a bigot. However, sometimes our actions, no matter how long ago, come back to haunt us.

To forgive is divine. Yet there is no forgiveness for Eich? After all, he did apologize, in public, in writing.
 
It's naive considering his personality disorder to think he sincerely changed his opinion.

His first opinion was sincere.

So anyone targeted by the LGBT activist for suppprting Prop 8 should be given a pass if they just claimed they had evolved since 2008 ??

That's unrealistic to say someone didn't change their position or opinion. The percentage of people that are for SSM has changed dramatically, since that time in the polls, so a lot of other people have changed their minds.
 
Back
Top Bottom