Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act

[elistan]

Er ... the bleeding heart meme doesn't work on me.

There is a slight difference between me thinking along those lines and deciding to use charity to alleviate such a situation, versus having my money stolen from me by fiat.

Indeed. In my mind, one is very effective at improving my well-being, the other is not.

I don't advocate for helping others based on a bleeding heart, I want everybody to be forced to help others because it promotes a living situation that benefits ME. And not in the too-lazy-to-work sense, which is probably what comes to mind first for some, but in the sense of not having to worry (much) about crime, not having to worry at all where my next meal will come from, not having to worry about who will have enough money to buy products from the company I work for, not having to worry about the entirety of my assets getting wiped out if I get cancer...

In a truly every-person-for-themselves setup like you seem to advocate for, I bet I'd have less income than I do now but would have to spend more than I do now for protection and basic services and such. I don't mind my money being stolen from me by fiat if I get back value greater than that money.

Here's how I look at it - I get a paycheck every two weeks. After deductions and whatnot, about 20% of that goes to the feds. 2% to sales taxes, about 3% to property taxes. So 25% is "gone." Which is what people advocating for reduced taxes and government are probably thinking they'd simply get to keep themselves, and they can buy 33% more stuff, whether it's retirement savings or cars or whatever. But I think they'd have to actually spend MORE than 25% of their old income to maintain their lifestyles, not to mention they'd possibly have less income to begin with.

Efficiency is good. I'd love to see increased efficiency and accountability in the spend of tax money at all levels of government. There's even some things I think shouldn't get spent on at all. And of course there's some things I think should get MORE spending.

But I don't for a minute think that "everybody for themselves" would produce a living situation that only but the very, very few would enjoy. Giving women, and men, time off for family benefits me and you. Enforcing equal opportunity employment benefits me and you. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits me and you. Social Security and gay marriage benefits me and you.

 

[OLDCODGER]

It seems age doesn't breed maturity. Anyway you missed several of my points entirely. Regarding hunting I pointed out that we do not prepare children for a life outside modern society. Beyond that I never denied the issue of death. I said that no one is going to support a law to turn away people at the ER. I went on to say that preventative care is administered in an inefficient manner, even for those with insurance policies. There's no way to even guarantee continued coverage, regardless of if you began your policy while healthy.

There's your problem, right there. "Provide" means to look after your own responsibilities - sadly lacking lately.

ER is precisely that - emergency ONLY. Its abuse is no reason to steal my money to pay for its upkeep. This, and inefficient of medical services is a matter for health professionals to sort out. Again, throwing other people's money at it is no way to fix the problem (If we only had more money, we could fix X, seems to be the mantra of the Left).

----------

Indeed. In my mind, one is very effective at improving my well-being, the other is not.

I don't advocate for helping others based on a bleeding heart, I want everybody to be forced to help others

I stopped reading right there. Compulsion is evil - period!

 

[snberk103]

...
Opinions have little to do with logic. It's a matter of ability to apply reason without distorting the situation.

Actually, I think we more or less are thinking along the same lines, and are just arguing about a bit of semantics taken out of context.

They are entitled to their opinions, even if the logic escapes me. Their opinions do not hurt me as long as they are not advocating hate and/or actions that are harmful.

If they believe in banning gay marriage, then that is their opinion and I will respect their right to have it… though I may choose to have a civilized debate with them, and to counter their opinion with my own. However if their actions (or if they advocate for actions) that infringe on human rights then I will act.

... Again, throwing other people's money at it is no way to fix the problem (If we only had more money, we could fix X, seems to be the mantra of the Left)….

You keep ignoring my point… moving medical care away from a free-market model has - in every instance - meant less money 'thrown' at the problem, and in the mature social democracies meant better outcomes. You get more for less in other words. In a free-market model a huge amount of the funds 'thrown' at it go to profits for companies, paying lawyers, and paying for a huge administrative overhead to push paperwork around and to bill patients and their insurance companies for every little thing.

About a decade and a half ago they compared two mid-sized hospitals - one in BC, Canada vs Washington State. This is all from memory now… but the billing department for the Washington State facility was something like 10x the size as the BC facility. The patients who use that facility are paying those salaries. Anyone with a private insurance plan is paying for those salaries. That money is definitely being 'thrown out', imho…

Then there are all the billing inventory clerks who have to track which patient uses which supplies so that the billing department can bill correctly. A job that doesn't even exist in a BC hospital.

Though I suppose it does keep a lot of people employed doing wasteful stuff… and isn't that what right-wingers most fear? That the Socialist Left exists to pay people to do wasteful things? Ironic, eh?

 

[elistan]

I stopped reading right there. Compulsion is evil - period!

No. Letting people suffer is evil.
Compelling a child to take their medicine is not evil. Compelling a selfish person to help others is not evil.

 

[OLDCODGER]

You keep ignoring my point… moving medical care away from a free-market model has - in every instance - meant less money 'thrown' at the problem, and in the mature social democracies meant better outcomes. You get more for less in other words. In a free-market model a huge amount of the funds 'thrown' at it go to profits for companies, paying lawyers, and paying for a huge administrative overhead to push paperwork around and to bill patients and their insurance companies for every little thing.

Though I suppose it does keep a lot of people employed doing wasteful stuff… and isn't that what right-wingers most fear? That the Socialist Left exists to pay people to do wasteful things? Ironic, eh?

Why not just say that you want single payer, and be done with it? It's still theft, of course - the money has to come from somewhere.

Knowing where the money went is never a wasteful exercise - the waste comes in when no improvements are made to lower the outflow. In that case, yes, it is a waste, supplying "make work" for no good reason.

----------

No. Letting people suffer is evil.
Compelling a child to take their medicine is not evil. Compelling a selfish person to help others is not evil.

Oh, yes it is! You would be denying free will to a segment of a population. You are attempting to force your opinion onto others - that's tyranny.

 

[lifeinhd]

I have a family member who was blatantly discriminated against, fired for being female (her supervisor said wonderful things like "women shouldn't work out in the plant") and she's still suing. So this mystic land where companies just fold every time is a laughable one.

You're only helping to prove my original point. If your family member's company knows that people like your family member can and will sue on the basis of discrimination, do you think they'll be more likely or less likely to hire women in the future? Clearly, people like your family member are a liability.

 

[snberk103]

Why not just say that you want single payer...

Sure… single payer. It is still not total free-market.

It's still theft, of course - the money has to come from somewhere.

Depends on how you define 'theft'. If you want to call taxes that support a societal benefit 'theft' … in the same way that taxes that support the fire department, the police department, and the armed forces. No argument that the money is coming from the citizens - one way or another. The problem is where is going. Free market model siphons a huge amount off to pay for things that have nothing to do with keeping you healthy. For the most part the extra costs (the 'fat' that needs to be trimmed when applied to public servants) are the profits sent to big private companies, including bonuses for the executives. And of course the salaries to the not so well paid employees who are required for the money to be sent to the big private companies (and executives).

But I suspect you know all this and are posting to push buttons.. I'm not really trying to change your mind, I just want to get an alternative vision down for the record.

 

[skottichan]

And bugger his beliefs, right?

Stupid question, why should my sexuality and what I do outside of work, qualify my employment?


I acted flattered when the drunk guys hit on me, I didn't have sex with waitresses on the bar. Outside of a Stonewall pin on my purse for the month of July, he only knew I was gay because he saw me with my girlfriend outside of work.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Sure… single payer. It is still not total free-market.
Depends on how you define 'theft'. If you want to call taxes that support a societal benefit 'theft' … in the same way that taxes that support the fire department, the police department, and the armed forces. No argument that the money is coming from the citizens - one way or another. The problem is where is going. Free market model siphons a huge amount off to pay for things that have nothing to do with keeping you healthy. For the most part the extra costs (the 'fat' that needs to be trimmed when applied to public servants) are the profits sent to big private companies, including bonuses for the executives. And of course the salaries to the not so well paid employees who are required for the money to be sent to the big private companies (and executives).

But I suspect you know all this and are posting to push buttons.. I'm not really trying to change your mind, I just want to get an alternative vision down for the record.

The free market, for all its faults, is optional. Its customers agree to enter into a contract, knowing the costs, benefits, etc. (or should, at least).

I want military defence, etc, therefore I must be prepared to pay for it. What I don't want is money taken from me for the express purpose of benefitting others - if they can't afford it, they can't have it.

----------

Stupid question, why should my sexuality and what I do outside of work, qualify my employment?


I acted flattered when the drunk guys hit on me, I didn't have sex with waitresses on the bar. Outside of a Stonewall pin on my purse for the month of July, he only knew I was gay because he saw me with my girlfriend outside of work.

Because you brought something into his life that he did not want. All he did was remove it again.

In cases like this, someone has to lose, but why should it be the owner of a business that may be the greater part of his life?

 

[Happybunny]

The free market, for all its faults, is optional. Its customers agree to enter into a contract, knowing the costs, benefits, etc. (or should, at least).

I want military defence, etc, therefore I must be prepared to pay for it. What I don't want is money taken from me for the express purpose of benefitting others - if they can't afford it, they can't have it.

----------



Because you brought something into his life that he did not want. All he did was remove it again.

In cases like this, someone has to lose, but why should it be the owner of a business that may be the greater part of his life?

WOW, I was going to write a reply.

But if you really are as old as you say, the march of time will solve all.

Your bitter and petty ideas are of the past, and the world is moving to the future, where there is a place for everybody to be treated as equals.

 

[OLDCODGER]

WOW, I was going to write a reply.

But if you really are as old as you say, the march of time will solve all.

Your bitter and petty ideas are of the past, and the world is moving to the future, where there is a place for everybody to be treated as equals.

Even when they are clearly not?

 

[Happybunny]

Even when they are clearly not?

On this matter, Your opinion doesn't really count.

Back in the 1950's in Little Rock, some children wanted to go to school. Some old white men in the State Government, said that they couldn't. A certain President called in a complete Airborne Division, and guess what, those children went to school.

Time marches on.

 

[OLDCODGER]

On this matter, Your opinion doesn't really count.

Back in the 1950's in Little Rock, some children wanted to go to school. Some old white men in the State Government, said that they couldn't. A certain President called in a complete Airborne Division, and guess what, those children went to school.

Time marches on.

And that, too, was tyranny. Oh, how the world turns!

 

[skottichan]

The free market, for all its faults, is optional. Its customers agree to enter into a contract, knowing the costs, benefits, etc. (or should, at least).

I want military defence, etc, therefore I must be prepared to pay for it. What I don't want is money taken from me for the express purpose of benefitting others - if they can't afford it, they can't have it.

----------



Because you brought something into his life that he did not want. All he did was remove it again.

In cases like this, someone has to lose, but why should it be the owner of a business that may be the greater part of his life?

Well, I appreciate your honesty.

Fortunately now, my current employer doesn't care. As long as I can hit a deadline (which I do better than my male counterparts), and cover when they are late, they don't care who I sleep with.

I should be more angry at the homophobia, sexism and racism I see on this thread, but, I'm just too tired to be angry. I'm sorry that you're angry/afraid that your privilege is fading before your eyes, but trust me, the world will be better for your descendants. I'm sure of it.

 

[OLDCODGER]

the world will be better for your descendants. I'm sure of it.

I can only hope - I have trained them as best I can. Fortunately, so far, they seem to have a good grasp of right and wrong.

 

[Happybunny]

I can only hope - I have trained them as best I can. Fortunately, so far, they seem to have a good grasp of right and wrong.

Using the word training while writing about bring up children, seems a strange choice of words?

Talking about your own children, well that explains a lot.

No free choice there then, no cohesion, sounds like tyranny to me.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Using the word training while writing about bring up children, seems a strange choice of words?

Talking about your own children, well that explains a lot.

No free choice there then, no cohesion, sounds like tyranny to me.

You object to training your kids to know and understand the difference between right and wrong?

No wonder the world is going to hell in a hand-basket!

 

[niuniu]

You object to training your kids to know and understand the difference between right and wrong?

No wonder the world is going to hell in a hand-basket!

Did you get the part where you tell them it's okay for boys to be attracted to boys?

 

[jimbobb24]

Let em guess, you're a straight, white male from the south.

If I was (I'm not) what would that have to do anything other than allowing you to stereotype.

Discrimination laws made sense for a long time to protect groups that were actively persecuted by the law - namely African Americans and women. The trade offs favored the laws at the time. Things have changed and the trade offs no longer make sense. We should repeal laws when they no longer have good trade offs. Discrimination laws probably do more harm than good now. The collective harm of discrimination is a lesser evil to society that the new burdens imposed by such laws.

Not all good ideas should become laws because we must evaluate trade offs. I think the trade offs are pretty bad for these laws and violate enough freedoms that they should only be used in extreme situations. We used to be in an extreme situation, thankfully we are not anymore.

 

[likemyorbs]

And that, too, was tyranny. Oh, how the world turns!

You're one french fry short of a happy meal.

 

[Websnapx2]

Ok, my apologies. However, who's "we"? Socialism hasn't quite perfected the hive, yet. And, if Islam does form a coalition, all bets are off as to where personal ideology will end up.

Currently, there are two prevailing ideologies - Left and Right, only one will end up the victor in the next major conflict. Barring the pandemic plague of Islam, my money is on the one with the guns.

"We" is the society we live in – wether it be civic, state/province, country or the world. We chose it be part of an ecosystem of people, business, government and services on all of those levels. We co-exist and majority rules. It sucks sometimes but that is something we all have to deal with at some point or another.

Can we not bring Islam into this? It has nothing to do with the topic at all. Islam has no influence in law or society of western culture. Respect on an international scale, sure – as we share this world but Islam does not come into consideration on a civic, state/province or country level. These are the rules and the people we are speaking about future/possible was do not dictate how we run out day-to-day lives.

 

[dec.]

Did you get the part where you tell them it's okay for boys to be attracted to boys?

Since he mentioned a "bible" earlier (in combination with some of his other slightly bizarre posts) I'm pretty sure that he told them the opposite.

 

[Michael Goff]

You're only helping to prove my original point. If your family member's company knows that people like your family member can and will sue on the basis of discrimination, do you think they'll be more likely or less likely to hire women in the future? Clearly, people like your family member are a liability.

She's a liability because she wants to be treated equally?

Do you even read your responses before you hit submit?

 

[Websnapx2]

One small point about your post - there is no such thing as "society". It is a false construct (like many such), designed to fool people into falling in line with the noisiest voice. It is, in effect, nothing more than rabble-rousing.

Sorry, my friend, but that's crazy. You live in a society if you at all live in an area with other people. You agree who's in charge with elections (even if your candidate lost, going through that in Canada right now and have been for a few years), laws and rules to follow, what traffic lights mean, state taxes, how to behave in line at the checkout, what's civil behaviour in general (changes from area to area) and many, many other social constructs to prevent chaos and to propel us forward. You may not like where it's going be you did like how we got here. And with all due respect, in this instance – what you "lose" (the right to not hire gays or fire them after the fact is – in the scope of society – nothing compared to justice in equality to not be fearful at work or in an interview.

 

[Websnapx2]

At my expense - that is the point!

At their expense too. That's the point. I would gladly pitch in to help your family if they hit a rough patch from medical reasons. I do if here In Canada and it's awesome, seamless, I don't even feel it. I break my arm, I go in and get it taken care of. Someone gets into an accident, the last thing they should be thinking about is "how much will this cost". It's an amazing thing and it works great. We do not live in the jungle where we leave the weakest behind. How do they catch up if we keep stepping on them while they are down? You wouldn't like it, I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't want you to got though that either and I don't even know you. We don't need to be selfish if we look out for one another, especially with the aded bonus that if we look out for one another we are a strain on the system for much less time as treated illnesses means people can get back to work or find work and not resort to things like crime that could be much worse to us than the few dollars I pay a month to make sure people I don't even know get healthy.

----------

Indeed. In my mind, one is very effective at improving my well-being, the other is not.

I don't advocate for helping others based on a bleeding heart, I want everybody to be forced to help others because it promotes a living situation that benefits ME. And not in the too-lazy-to-work sense, which is probably what comes to mind first for some, but in the sense of not having to worry (much) about crime, not having to worry at all where my next meal will come from, not having to worry about who will have enough money to buy products from the company I work for, not having to worry about the entirety of my assets getting wiped out if I get cancer...

In a truly every-person-for-themselves setup like you seem to advocate for, I bet I'd have less income than I do now but would have to spend more than I do now for protection and basic services and such. I don't mind my money being stolen from me by fiat if I get back value greater than that money.

Here's how I look at it - I get a paycheck every two weeks. After deductions and whatnot, about 20% of that goes to the feds. 2% to sales taxes, about 3% to property taxes. So 25% is "gone." Which is what people advocating for reduced taxes and government are probably thinking they'd simply get to keep themselves, and they can buy 33% more stuff, whether it's retirement savings or cars or whatever. But I think they'd have to actually spend MORE than 25% of their old income to maintain their lifestyles, not to mention they'd possibly have less income to begin with.

Efficiency is good. I'd love to see increased efficiency and accountability in the spend of tax money at all levels of government. There's even some things I think shouldn't get spent on at all. And of course there's some things I think should get MORE spending.

But I don't for a minute think that "everybody for themselves" would produce a living situation that only but the very, very few would enjoy. Giving women, and men, time off for family benefits me and you. Enforcing equal opportunity employment benefits me and you. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits me and you. Social Security and gay marriage benefits me and you.

Bang-on, perfect.

----------

Oh, yes it is! You would be denying free will to a segment of a population. You are attempting to force your opinion onto others - that's tyranny.

You are not allowed to kill anyone either, is that tyranny or is that rules we all agree to so we don't get shot running to the store to buy milk?