Apple in Full Support of Naming Alabama Anti-Discrimination Bill After Tim Cook

[TechGod]

What I find more interesting is that you actually believe what the media is shoving down your throat. That's more frightening than anything else.

Shoving? Lol. What? The media made up what Todd Atkins said? Seriously, get a grip. The media is doing no shoving.

 

[the8thark]

It is in the PRSI section, because it is a newsarticle about a legislation that is about to be passed. That falls under "politics" (P in PRSI). The general news forum is supposed to be about related news. This is not related.

Half the news in the general news forum is not directly  related. And MacRumors is just a brand (as said by the staff here). The brand name has no relation to what is goes into the general news form. Thus my point still stands.

 

[ptb42]

If being closed minded about these positions make me a bigot, than i'm proud to be one.

OK, let's make sure we are clear here: you are OK with being a bigot, as long as you are bigoted about people or issues you don't like. But, if someone is bigoted about people or issues you DO like, that's not OK.

If I have that right: being a bigot is fine, as long as one agrees with you. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that?

'U.S. Senate candidate Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, who stated that pregnancy rarely occurs as a result of what he called "legitimate rape."'

Todd Akin is an idiot, and he deservedly was rejected in the subsequent election. So, I think we can agree on him. But, how does our shared opinion of Akin's poor judgement extend to an entire class of people?

If we were to extend our opinion of Akin to an entire class of people, which attribute should we use? Akin is a self-proclaimed social conservative, but he is also a white Caucasian, he's male, he is Presbyterian, he lives in Missouri, but was born in New York City, he is in his 60's, and he has brown hair. How are any of those relevant?

Akin was wrong, but HE was wrong -- not an entire class of people that happen to share some attribute with him. When you try to make that association, that's when you cross the line into bigotry.

 

[cfedu]

OK, let's make sure we are clear here: you are OK with being a bigot, as long as you are bigoted about people or issues you don't like. But, if someone is bigoted about people or issues you DO like, that's not OK.

If I have that right: being a bigot is fine, as long as one agrees with you. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that?



Todd Akin is an idiot, and he deservedly was rejected in the subsequent election. So, I think we can agree on him. But, how does our shared opinion of Akin's poor judgement extend to an entire class of people?

If we were to extend our opinion of Akin to an entire class of people, which attribute should we use? Akin is a self-proclaimed social conservative, but he is also a white Caucasian, he's male, he is Presbyterian, he lives in Missouri, but was born in New York City, he is in his 60's, and he has brown hair. How are any of those relevant?

Akin was wrong, but HE was wrong -- not an entire class of people that happen to share some attribute with him. When you try to make that association, that's when you cross the line into bigotry.

Akin might be one person, but 40% of his state still voted for him. If he was from Texas or a more socially conservative state he would probably have won.

IMO the social conservatives who supported Akin's are bigots, just like I think Nazi's are bigots and people in the KKK are bigots. You might support these groups but I don't and i'm not afraid to call them bigots.

 

[Cartaphilus]

I didn't see much point in quoting the rest of your screed, because this statement pretty much confirms what the OP was expecting.

As you have grudgingly granted to social conservatives, you are entitled to your opinion. But, your statement was every bit as bigoted as any statement I have ever heard or read. If you had made the same kind of sweeping generalization based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference, the people that up voted your posting would probably be aghast. But somehow, leveling the same kind of attack against someone that doesn't share all of your beliefs is acceptable.

I don't care for many social conservatives, but my opinion is based on an individual's behavior, not a label (either self-applied, or assigned to them by someone else). However, I can disagree with someone without dehumanizing or discrediting them -- even you. Even though I believe you made a mistake, it doesn't mean that every thing you ever said or wrote is wrong.

I don't share your balanced view. If, as did the poster you defend, one identifies himself as a social conservative these days it means that he embraces a philosophy that adopts pretty specific positions on a number of policy questions. In other words, the behavior is embracing the label. In my view, those positions are discredited, and I believe that those who support those positions are morally wrong.

When someone condemns an individual based on his race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, he is attributing beliefs and attitudes which that individual may very well not have. On the other hand, when one criticizes self-identified social conservatives--or Communists, Fascists, or Nihilists--for the very philosophy and values that define the label, the criticism is at once leveled at the philosophy as well as at the character of the person who embraced it as his own.

On the other hand, I'm quite sure that any self-declared Nazis you encounter will be grateful that you insist on withholding any sweeping judgment of them until you have a chance to observe their behavior. We sure wouldn't want you to discredit or dehumanize them unfairly.

 

[ptb42]

Akin might be one person, but 40% of his state still voted for him. If he was from Texas or a more socially conservative state he would probably have won

That's interesting: somehow, I knew that would be your response.

There's no way to know how many people voting for Akin actually agreed with him on this particular issue. The US effectively has a two-party system, so a vote for any person is just as likely to be a vote against their opponent. Or, it may be a vote for a candidate's position on other issues. The only way you can vote for a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue is to vote for yourself, and it's not possible to run for every single office on the ballot.

IMO the social conservatives who supported Akin's are bigots, just like I think Nazi's are bigots and people in the KKK are bigots. You might support these groups but I don't and i'm not afraid to call them bigots.

You've made that opinion clear. But, you should go to the mirror and look at your reflection, and remind yourself that you are no different than those you consider bigots. The only difference between you and them is the issues of your choice.

 

[ptb42]

I don't share your balanced view. If, as did the poster you defend, one identifies himself as a social conservative these days it means that he embraces a philosophy that adopts pretty specific positions on a number of policy questions. In other words, the behavior is embracing the label.

Social conservatism is not monolithic, and neither is the opposition. On both sides, there is a wide diversity of opinions and even overlap -- if both sides weren't so intent on labeling the other in order to marginalize them.

In my view, those positions are discredited, and I believe that those who support those positions are morally wrong.

I'm sure you realize those social conservatives consider your contrary position to also be morally wrong? So, what makes you superior, to the point that your bigotry against them is excusable? You claim all those positions are discredited, and I'm sure in your opinion that's true. But, social conservatives will make the same case against your positions. And they are just as convinced as you are.

I'm not taking sides, other than to point out that both sides are convinced the other is wrong, and repeatedly throw rhetorical bricks at each other rather than having a civil conversation.

Bigotry on the part of social conservatives is wrong, but so is bigotry on your side. Maybe someday both sides will figure out they are inflaming the conflict, and bigotry is not as one-sided as either believes.

 

[cfedu]

That's interesting: somehow, I knew that would be your response.

There's no way to know how many people voting for Akin actually agreed with him on this particular issue. The US effectively has a two-party system, so a vote for any person is just as likely to be a vote against their opponent. Or, it may be a vote for a candidate's position on other issues. The only way you can vote for a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue is to vote for yourself, and it's not possible to run for every single office on the ballot.



You've made that opinion clear. But, you should go to the mirror and look at your reflection, and remind yourself that you are no different than those you consider bigots. The only difference between you and them is the issues of your choice.

You should look in the mirror, you will see a bigot!! You have more than 2 options when voting and you could always abstain. This is not some small issue where I would expect any not bigot to compromise. I could not vote for a person who is member of NAMBLA even if I agree with all of his other views.

----------

I'm sure you realize those social conservatives consider your contrary position to also be morally wrong? So, what makes you superior, to the point that your bigotry against them is excusable? You claim all those positions are discredited, and I'm sure in your opinion that's true. But, social conservatives will make the same case against your positions. And they are just as convinced as you are.

So if I disagree with a member of NAMBLA and call him a sick nasty ******, will that me a bigot?

 

[ptb42]

IMO the social conservatives who supported Akin's are bigots, just like I think Nazi's are bigots and people in the KKK are bigots. You might support these groups but I don't and i'm not afraid to call them bigots.

On the other hand, I'm quite sure that any self-declared Nazis you encounter will be grateful that you insist on withholding any sweeping judgment of them until you have a chance to observe their behavior. We sure wouldn't want you to discredit or dehumanize them unfairly.

So if I disagree with a member of NAMBLA and call him a sick nasty ******, will that me a bigot?

Membership in NAMBLA is a pretty specific position for something that is not only distasteful -- it's a criminal act in the entire US and presumably Canada. You might as well be asking about membership in the Manson Family or the Weather Underground (the radical organization, not the climatological website). Hyperbole really doesn't bolster your argument.

But, while I gave you and the other poster a pass on your previous replies, I should point out that whether you realized it or not, you've again proved Godwin's Law, which dates back before most people even heard of the Internet:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

By tradition, once such a comparison is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis is considered to have automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

However, it's considered poor form to invoke Godwin's Law with the motive to end a discussion, so I'm not doing that. But, I do hope you'll respond with something more reasoned and thoughtful than your last few postings.

 

[cfedu]

Membership in NAMBLA is a pretty specific position for something that is not only distasteful -- it's a criminal act in the entire US and presumably Canada. You might as well be asking about membership in the Manson Family or the Weather Underground (the radical organization, not the climatological website). Hyperbole really doesn't bolster your argument.

But, while I gave you and the other poster a pass on your previous replies, I should point out that whether you realized it or not, you've again proved Godwin's Law, which dates back before most people even heard of the Internet:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

By tradition, once such a comparison is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis is considered to have automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

However, it's considered poor form to invoke Godwin's Law with the motive to end a discussion, so I'm not doing that. But, I do hope you'll respond with something more reasoned and thoughtful than your last few postings.

The voters had 5 options for this election, they could have picked one of the 3 candidates on the ballot, wrote in a candidate or abstained from the senate vote. Akins got 40% of the vote which tell a lot about who votes for people like him.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Membership in NAMBLA is a pretty specific position for something that is not only distasteful -- it's a criminal act in the entire US and presumably Canada. You might as well be asking about membership in the Manson Family or the Weather Underground (the radical organization, not the climatological website). Hyperbole really doesn't bolster your argument.

But, while I gave you and the other poster a pass on your previous replies, I should point out that whether you realized it or not, you've again proved Godwin's Law, which dates back before most people even heard of the Internet:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

By tradition, once such a comparison is made, the discussion is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis is considered to have automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

However, it's considered poor form to invoke Godwin's Law with the motive to end a discussion, so I'm not doing that. But, I do hope you'll respond with something more reasoned and thoughtful than your last few postings.

Yeah, the longer an online discussion goes on, the greater the chances that somebody shows up acting like a Nazi.

Just FYI, there are no longer any enforceable laws against same sex sex between consenting adults anywhere in the United States. I know nothing about Canada, but I'm pretty sure that third world countries in Africa and Muslim nations outlaw homosexual sex. There's a pretty close correlation between aggregate intelligence and liberal social policies.

Seriously, though, a society that guaranties the religious the right to practice what they believe without the right to dictate the practices of others is, in my view, the best sort of society in a pluralistic population. The extremes trouble me, though, on either side. Religious cults that insist on handling deadly snakes, or dopers who spend their lives in a drug-induced stupor both cause me concern. What people do in bed bothers me not at all. Why does it bother others?

 

[usersince86]

Social conservatives are absolutely entitled to free speech--only most of them, like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Palin, charge a fortune for it. What social conservatives don't have, though, is respect. Most reasonable people regard such mutterings about having "concerns about homosexual behavior" as ample evidence of ignorance, prejudice, and a desire to impose their own moral code on other people. And, of course, if you are an employer accused of denying legally-mandated equal rights to homosexual applicants or employees, comments about your "concerns" may well be presented as evidence that you have unlawfully discriminated against homosexuals in your hiring or employment practices that a jury will have to consider.

But, mostly, you see, it's just that social conservatives are and always have been on the wrong side of history You would have loved the 1950's, but time has passed social conservatives by, and as time goes on, as the demographics of the country change, as people get used to accepting homosexuals in their communities and seeing that their presence doesn't destroy anyone else's marriage and that their children haven't been molested, you'll see social conservatives being more and more ostracized. You must remember that at one time George Wallace, a sterling social conservative, expressed views that were embraced by a goodly number of Americans. Today, a half-century later, those openly denigrating black people because they are, you know, black, are virtually universally condemned, just as anti-homosexuals will be very soon, if not already.

On the other hand, look on the bright side--I hear social conservatives are doing a helluva job battling that vicious War Against Christmas.

So the government isn't going to jail social conservatives for being idiotically wrong on abortion, contraception, long hair, hip-hop music, evolution, prayer in schools, the gold standard, or intolerance of government deficit spending to recover from a demand shock at the lower bound. You needn't worry about being fined or thrown in jail. You just might want to buy a good pair of ear plugs because there is nothing in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Mayflower Compact that is going to save anyone from the criticism of his fellow citizens.

Thanks for proving my point.

You said a conservative viewpoint is without respect, on the wrong side of history, racist, and idiotically wrong.

Very tolerant and loving.

 

[thermodynamic]

Am I missing something here? Tim Cook tells other corporations 'Don't discriminate against gays and lesbians and fill-in-the-blank' and he gets legislation named after him.?.?.

Has he been the subject of this kind of employment discrimination himself? Or is he just the hypothetical 'potential discrimination' case because he has said that he is gay?

If he has a history of overcoming this kind of discrimination then fine, honor the guy, otherwise i think this is a touch silly as any other bglt employer or employee could also be the recipient of such a vacuous honor.

For the record Tsunami is going on the record saying 'Don't discriminate against clowns.'

Makes me respect Carly Fiorina more and more.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/3/carly-fiorina-apples-tim-cook-hypocritical-outrage/

The full article is worth the read.
[doublepost=1467064091][/doublepost]

Yeah, the longer an online discussion goes on, the greater the chances that somebody shows up acting like a Nazi.

Just FYI, there are no longer any enforceable laws against same sex sex between consenting adults anywhere in the United States. I know nothing about Canada, but I'm pretty sure that third world countries in Africa and Muslim nations outlaw homosexual sex. There's a pretty close correlation between aggregate intelligence and liberal social policies.

Seriously, though, a society that guaranties the religious the right to practice what they believe without the right to dictate the practices of others is, in my view, the best sort of society in a pluralistic population. The extremes trouble me, though, on either side. Religious cults that insist on handling deadly snakes, or dopers who spend their lives in a drug-induced stupor both cause me concern. What people do in bed bothers me not at all. Why does it bother others?

It wouldn't bother you until you got a mystery illness and, months or years later, someone prescribed an over prescribed HIV test that turned out positive unlike all the ones that turned up negative leading everyone to think the healthcare industry is overpriced for the sake of doing frivolous tests... though if they listened to their patients more often, there'd be fewer misdiagnoses and frivolous tests...