And remember that "a hate group" is actually "more than one hate groups" because Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul definitely qualify as haters and bigots.
If you have the stomach, google yourself up some Pat Buchanan quotes -- it's really vile and disgusting stuff, and he absolutely and without question qualifies as an archetypal "bigot".
In fact, the Guardian article that recently outed him as contributing money to Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul happened between the short time that he announced in an interview he was NOT going to resign, and between when he DID resign, so it may have been a factor, the straw (or rather the bay of straw) that broke the camel's back.
You should respect him if he had the integrity to earnestly change his views. But he deserves absolutely no respect for sticking to views that are wrong and hateful that he refuses to even justify.
Just because you were a bigot 15 years ago doesn't mean you should respect bigots who haven't changed their opinions yet. You deserve some respect for changing your views, but Brendan only deserves contempt for failing to do that himself, not respect.
I think Eich is a bigot and I'm glad he stepped down. I don't see how someone can be against gay marriage and not have a problem with homosexuality in general.
How does one go about changing their views? They just wake up one day they're like "hmmm.. I just don't hate gays anymore"? Most of the reformed racists and other bigots I've heard about have become that way because something happened, maybe a family member came out or a black dude helped them jump start their car or something stupid like that.
Your comments read just like the people that claim homosexuality is a choice and gays should just choose to not be gay.
So you're saying it was wrong for the Supreme Court to strike down bans on mixed race marriages because at the time an overwhelming majority of Americans were against it?
Why do you think human rights should be put up for a vote? Are you against mixed race marriage because it was so unpopular at the time the "activist court" struck it down?
Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?". He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
It's certainly always possible to change what you believe, and that's a lot more ethical than lying about what you believe. Of course, Brendan is a failure as a CEO and a decent human being because he REFUSED to change what he believed.
It's ironic that bigots of Brendan's ilk strongly believe that it's possible for gays to change their sexual preference, while they continue to cling to what they believe in the face of all the facts that prove them wrong.
The difference is that the people who stuck their neck out for racial equality, gay rights and women's rights were objectively right, but Brendan Eich is objectively wrong. And that matters.
There is no such thing. I agree with them, and under various moral philosophies I could make convincing arguments that they're right, but you're off the rails.
Or, if you've really found an objective measure of right and wrong that isn't based on a subjective positing of objectivity, you've upended an entire field of study, have a very rewarding future and are totally set for life. You'll just have to forgive us for not waiting with baited breath.
but it's downright _scary_ how people get so _zealous_
once they firmly believe they are "objectively right".
i don't know if i'm happy or sad this tendency has been
adopted by the leftwingers. of course it will help them
to battle the rightwingers (who always felt "righteous"),
and let me be crystal clear i want the rightwing crushed,
but i can't help but think that something has been lost.
i'm unsure you can _beat_ intolerance _with_ intolerance.
-bowerbird
p.s. go ahead and downvote this; it will prove my point.
Your idea that human rights are about social consensus is really dangerous. The argument that homosexuality is acceptable is not based on cultural attitudes, it's based on science and ethics.
Why don't you let Brendan Eich play the victim and feel sorry for himself, he doesn't need any of your help.
Not sure exactly what the other fellow is talking about, but science is definitely relevant here. If you read the recent decision in the Michigan Marriage Amendment case:
The basic question was: is there a rational basis to deny gay couples the same right straight couples have? One of the offered reasons for preventing gay marriage is that it was worse for children. That being a factual question, social science research was relevant. The short version: the judge, like other judges, found that the evidence offered favored the "gay people are just fine" side of things.
Indeed, what is better for children is a factual question, and the answer is not surprising at all. Of course gay parents don't matter, because parents don't matter. If you do literature search on the matter you will find long term effect of parenting to children outcome is (not statistically distinct from) zero when you substract genetic component.
It speaks to his integrity as a hateful bigot that he didn't have the human decency to change his beliefs based on the fact that he was completely incapable of coming up with a valid justification for them, and refused to justify himself or apologize for what he did. And no, his non-apology apology was not an apology.
Not to be confused with the other "guy", Josh Mattingly: "The original concept work came from Indie Statik’s then-face Josh Mattingly and Game Jolt founder David DeCarmine, back before that ugliness back in January lost us half our staff and an EIC in around twelve minutes."
This guy:
"Also, how are yo, pretty lady? :)"
"I will kiss you on the vagina if you do"
"Ill still kiss your vagina"
"Let me know if you need a penis for anything in the meae future *near"
"Like. My penis. For your vagina"
[Too explicit for me to feel comfortable leaving readable]
Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
If you have the stomach, google yourself up some Pat Buchanan quotes -- it's really vile and disgusting stuff, and he absolutely and without question qualifies as an archetypal "bigot".
In fact, the Guardian article that recently outed him as contributing money to Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul happened between the short time that he announced in an interview he was NOT going to resign, and between when he DID resign, so it may have been a factor, the straw (or rather the bay of straw) that broke the camel's back.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controvers...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/brendan...