Oh, ignorance on display. "Size" discrimination is rightly outlawed in many jurisdictions. In some places they allow for it if the job is as an entertainer, where appearance is part of the job. But what makes you think a heavy dude is less deserving of a job than a slender one?
The problem with discrimination, is that it's impossible to legislate against. What happens if you've got two dudes who are equally capable of getting the job? You'll probably go for the one that you get on with more, or any number of other reasons. Where do you stop? Do you create legislation to prevent discrimination against quiet people? Or too political people? Or people who are too good at their job who might create jealousy and resentment amongst their peers?
It troubles me anytime a CEO uses his position to push his own agenda.
I don't think Tim Cook can be accused of pushing "his own agenda". If you think about it, Apple have consistently been ahead of the curve on a number of issues in terms of what we might call "corporate citizenship" - especially in the last few years.
I suppose the most obvious example of this is the company's pursuit of sustainability (inclusive of their work on alternate power sources as well as the recyclable aspects of their products).
In this context, it makes sense for Apple - or at least, for Tim Cook as head of Apple - to support the logical extension of civil rights, especially in terms of an employment context. This is directly relevant to Apple, and likely to many of its workers.
Unfortunately, these kinds of issues often require big companies and people with influence to get behind them in order to see some kind of positive change. I applaud Tim Cook for taking a firm stance on this, as he rightly should (and as every company should, really). Those who don't take that stance now are increasingly their chances of experiencing major feelings of embarrassment, especially in the future, when this kind of thing is no longer an issue in society.
On the question of the effectiveness of legislating against discrimination; I think that you only have to look at some of the discrimination cases that have been through the courts to see how this kind of legal protection can be both relevant and enforceable. If somebody presents a discrimination case fraudulently, then this obviously has to be tested on a case-by-case basis.
The idea that because someone can potentially take advantage of the system unfairly, we should never provide legal protections around discrimination is a bit of a logical fallacy I'd say.
Physical health, and also their abilities to carry out the job, depending upon what exactly that job is of course.
If somebody is hiring an employee for the longterm, and there are two employees seeking the job with equal qualifications, it makes sense to go with the one who will survive longer, and have less medical issues and take less time off from work.
There are many things to consider when hiring somebody, and I believe that everything is fair game, including gender, physical appearance, religion and many other factors.
Quite. Politicians blatantly use the family card to promote their attractiveness to voters. This is discrimination against single people, but no-one complains about it. You could quite easily propose legislation to say that a politician must not reveal their family members or be photographed with them to avoid discrimination against single people.
Why does it matter whether it's a choice? Religion is a choice, but I'm forbidden from discriminating against people who believe in nonsense and disbelieve science (ie Christians)
Atheism is a choice, but I'm forbidden from discriminating against people who believe in nonsense and disbelieve their own existence (ie atheists).
Get real-Christians are members of the most mocked, persecuted and vilified religion in existence today.
I cannot speak to gender identity as I have no personal experience with it, however, as a homosexual, I can tell you it was not a choice for me. I didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight (if indeed that is the implied case). I can't imagine anyone "choosing" to be gay and having to accept all the negativity that goes along with it from people like you. It's insulting to read a post such as this and hear someone speak of something they obviously know nothing about or have any personal experience with. It's equivalent to saying someone chose to be black or to be a woman or what color hair they have.
Quite. Politicians blatantly use the family card to promote their attractiveness to voters. This is discrimination against single people, but no-one complains about it. You could quite easily propose legislation to say that a politician must not reveal their family members or be photographed with them to avoid discrimination against single people.
This is a red herring, though.
In day-to-day life, we all "discriminate" in one way or another. When I go to buy groceries, I discriminate, in the sense that I choose one item over another for a variety of reasons (e.g. my preferences about taste or nutritional value).
This is explicitly not what the subject of this thread is about, though. I think the distinction ought to be pointed out clearly because these analogies are unhelpful.
On the point about Christians being the most "mocked, persecuted and vilified" religion in society today - I can't say whether or not that's true in terms of religions, but Christians as a subset of the population still have undue influence in many societies. Or, to put it another way, religious groups generally still have enormous influence over the rights of others. What's happening at the moment is an overdue redressing of that balance.
Unfortunately though, I think numerous issues come in that cloud the debates (like the poor analogies around what kind of discrimination we are talking about here, for example). These kinds of red herrings only serve to muddy up the discussion, I think.
Also just to add one key point - when there is a debate about whether or not being gay is a choice, then the conversation really kind of ends there. It's difficult to move past that point, because that is a bit of a show stopper. Any conversation about rights or equal protections has to be based on reason and on a shared acceptance of the core facts behind the issue. Without that, how can the conversation progress?
My analogy here would be that it would be difficult to have a discussion about medical policy with someone who is an anti-vaccination campaigner (or, another analogy would be that it would be difficult to have a conversation with someone about geological science when that person believes the Earth is flat, and/or 6,000 years old).
Absolutist: There are absolutes we all must adhere to.
Relativist: There are no absolutes.
Absolutist: You just made an absolute statement, and therefor self contradicted yourself.
All relativists are relative relativists. They are ok with everybody believing whatever until what someone else believes infringes on what they believe.
Relativist: What is right for me is right for me, and what is right for you is right for you.
Absolutist: I believe it is ok for me to steal from you.
Relativist: No it isn't.
Who defines morals then? Who says what is right, and what is wrong? The government, individuals, majority, minority, etc? All of these are falible and are prone to mistakes. I cant expect the goverment to always do the right thing. There are some very intelligent and unintelligent people out there, so we can't rely on any given individual. Even the intelligent ones can make mistakes. I can't rely on someone else to do right by me. When you have a group of people (majority, minority, etc), they tend to be very dumb, regardless if they are smart individually or right collectively. So what can we rely on for morality? Who defines the standard? Left to our own devices we make stupid choices about morality regardless of how you look at it. We cannot depend on any group or individual to come up with the correct standard.
So who does that leave to define a standard? Evolution? Nay, absolutes don't happen by chance. Besides, evolution is about survival of the fittest. So by that mindset we should kill the elderly, the sick, and people with disabilities. We should take what we want. Its all about being ahead. Progress must ensue. But you may argue it is beneficial for us to show compassion or empathy towards others because it makes us more fit to survive. That would allow characteristics to persist within the species that may not necessarily be good traits for survival.
There is only one answer:
God has set the standard.
My job is not to judge others. That is not my place. I cant condem others for the things they have done, because I myself was just as condemned. It is God's job to judge. My job is to spread the word about the gospel. God has a perfect standard, and we all fall short of it. We are all destined for hell. It doesnt matter how much good you've done. Would a judge be a good judge if someone without a doubt committed murder and and he didn't sentence the criminal to prison? The criminal may argue, "but look at all the good I've done!" Many good deeds do not pay for the crime. It was still committed regardless. What are we to do then if we can't save ourselves from hell by doing good or promising to be better? God provided a way to save us from hell. He really doesn't want us to experience His wrath for eternity, but as a perfect judge he has to, unless there is a substitue. Only someone who is perfect (followed God's law perfectly) can be a suitable substitue. For if that substitue had their own transgressions, how could they pay for the transgressions of others? That substitue is the Lord Jesus Christ. The only thing you are required to do is accept and believe that He took your place for the sentence God had set forth.
That is what Christianity is ultimately about. People are going to do what they are going to do, whether the government permits it or not.
1) are you kidding? That's the most confining crap I've ever heard. Talk about gender stereotyping! Screw that. So you could technically be one gender in one culture and another in another? Come on man. This has gotten ridiculous.
I've met more than one woman that act like gay men. They go through the trouble of looking like a man to attract gay men instead of attracting men as women.
Btw in many countries it's quite normal for the men to act effeminate, and they're not gay.
There is now strong evidence that theistic gods i.e. gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, god who stops the motion of the sun around earth so certain people in the Bible can finish their work, god who takes "our" side in a war, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity are man made invention.
Religion comes to us from other human mammals who not only know there is a god, but they also know his mind what he wants us to do. And how do they know? Revelation of course, god told them something often times contradictory what he told others. And you never even seek evidence for their extraordinary claims. But revelation is useless and unreliable as a way to discover truth
Revelation can only ever be relevant to the person to whom something is revealed. As soon as that person shares and relates the revelation to someone else, it becomes a testimony at that point. And then it becomes a matter of trusting that person for the claim they are making. Also, the person to whom something is revealed should be apprehensive and wonder which is more likely that laws of nature have been bent in their favor no less, or if perhaps they are under apprehension.
Revelations are dime a dozen. Numerous people have claimed that something has been revealed to them. Even worse different people have claimed same god has revealed things that are contradictory to the things god has revealed to other people. In Christianity god reveals himself as a human, he dies on the cross, and resurrects. In Islam, Jesus is not only not the son of god, he never died on the cross and never resurrected. Believing otherwise will have you condemned to hell. In Christianity god says love your enemies, in Islam he says kill your enemies and apostates. Yes it's the same god, and yet both sides claim divine revelation for the "wisdom" they preach.
Content of revelation paints a picture of a god who is quite frankly incompetent, stupid and has morals lesser than average decent human being today. And most importantly he leaves it to chance what you will believe about him and if you will be damned to eternity.
What religion you get indoctrinated into has very little to do with its truthfulness, but everything to do with where you were born. If you were born in Saudi Arabia for example you would be a Muslim defending Islam right now. Yet both Islam and Christianity and Judaism (the three desert dogmas) all claim to posses the true and perfect words of the creator of the universe. Yet how many sleepless nights have you spent worrying that Islam could be right? And why is that?
And isn't it incredibly stupid of a supreme, intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent being to demand belief in him without evidence? God would presumably know that people would invent scientific method as the only sure way to discover truth. Yet he leaves such important things as if you will be damned for eternity to belief without evidence leading to three desert dogmas that teach completely opposite things about him. Yahweh himself besides being stupid is rather evil god. Look how he behaves exactly as you would expect the people of that age that invented him to behave (he orders genocide of neighboring tribes that worship other gods, enslavement of women and children etc, just read random book of old testament). By the way he was never meant to be god of all, he was meant to be a god of a single tribe (otherwise a lot of stuff god says and orders makes no sense). Evolution of competing religions and the fact we have multiple religions like this is exactly what you would expect to see if religion were man made.
All metaphysical claims and especially all physical claims made by religion were proved to be wrong. And would you expect it any other way really? Religion was our first approximation of cosmology, medicine etc. But like all first approximations it proved to be completely wrong. Jesus casts out demons to heal people, he heals lepers instead of healing leprosy, no germs ever mentioned in the Bible (naturally no germ theory of disease either).
But now we know better. We know how solar systems are formed, we know how planets are formed, we know how life evolves, we even know how a universe can come from nothing. We really don't need god to kick off any of these things any more. Besides positing an intelligent god capable of creating universes, god that always existed, or that spontaneously came into being is assuming a lot more than assuming the same about the universe itself i.e. dumb matter. Occam's razor cuts him out of existence as superfluous assumption that does not explain anything.
And besides, look at the absurdity of belief themselves: we are all supposed to believe that god impregnated his virgin mother in order that he could die on the cross for what he condemned the humanity to and so he could make himself forgive the transgressions he invented, performed by the beings created in his own image. And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly,
So, in light of that saying silly things like god sets the standard is really saying let's not use the very thing that makes us human, our reason to decide what is right and what is wrong, but let's rely on superstitions of our bronze age ancestors one chromosome away from chimpanzee and uses their judgement as what is right and wrong.
You see morals are just codified behavior and customs expressed in language. Morals like language are also products of our wills and minds and therefore also a technology. We can decide slavery is not a good idea (despite endorsement from Yahweh). We can decide that fairly applied laws, rather than nepotistic favoritism, is a good idea. We can outlaw certain punishments with treaties. We can encourage accountability with the invention of writing. We can consciously expand our circle of empathy. These are all inventions, products of our minds, as much as lightbulbs and telegraphs are. People who insist on absolute biblical morality are really insisting on using bronze age technology absolutely.
And besides god's morals are not absolute either. God in the old testament orders killing of innocent people time and time again. Explicit general prescriptions are given by god in what circumstances it is OK to kill people. God in the new testament says it is not OK to kill at all. So god changed his mind, therefore moral teaching on murder is relative. Just one example.
So, the only way the religious can claim their morals are absolute is to define absolute to mean "what ever we believe now".
I've never read a convincing argument for atheism. Every advocate for atheism that I've ever read ends up using puerile language, as your post exemplifies. This hardly strengthens your case.
For me, the only thing more absurd than believing in God is not believing in God.
Of course not. Simply put they are naturally attracted to certain individuals within an additional sex.
Consider the women you've been attracted to. Are you attracted to all women? Now consider other guys you've known that are attracted to women. Were you all attracted to the same women? It could be height, weight, hair color, eyes, face, skin tone, or any number of physical features... or any number of other features like how someone carries themselves, how they speak... or non-physical characteristics that make up the complex structure of our fundamenta desires. Some of these people you know might be attracted to more superficial aspects that you may also find attractive features, just not as a sole reason for the attraction in-and-of themselves, while you might like a deeper connection which they may consider to be an annoyance.
Regardless, the variety of ways in which attraction can manifest is clearly not so cut and dry that we choose to be attracted to certain people.
There seems to be a long history of bisexuality in human history but today more than ever things might be less distinct because of the way genders have evolved. In today's society the divide between male and female roles has bleed together. From fighting in combat, to be police officers, to voting, to even wearing pants. Then you have metrosexual as a term for man that groom or have themselves groomed in a way that were traditionally only done by women (at least in the 20th century).
Unfortunately I don't have anyone I can ask about this topic but, to me, I can see how someone who defines themselves as bisexual might find an effeminate gay man attractive as well as a more less feminine woman as those qualifiers tend to push certain characteristics toward each other. Or perhaps that scenario has nothing to do with how one find another human being attractive.
Private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone, just like individuals should. If people don't want to do business with them, so be it. What happened to freedom of association you tyrants? If a gay-run company doesn't want to do business with conservative Christians, more power to them. It's amazing to see how many people go along with fascism as long as it has a "liberal" "progressive" or "gay" face. Shame on you bastards.
Quite. Here in England, there are women-only golf clubs. Discrimination much? I think there's a gay choir. What about gay bars?
I don't think he's saying that, I think he's saying that quoting any religious text won't be helpful with this civil rights issue. If that's the case, I agree. It would be like quoting fortune cookies; perhaps there are some decent statements in some of them but as an argument it's not going to help make one's point. I'd think a rational atheist or agnostic could fine plenty of salient and sagacious statements in the Bible and every other religious books, and I think that any rational person of any region could also find salient and sagacious comments in another religion's sacred texts.
I think if one were to form their statement in their own words even if based on a fair and balanced comment from the Bible but without quoting it I think that would be fine.
I admire your diplomacy greatly. I don't know how you manage to keep so placid! But I would point out that the first poster to mention religion in this thread was Mario with the following:
I am a long time citizen and it troubles me when Christian bigots use their political position to push their religious agenda on everyone (remember, religion is now debunked bunch of bronze age lies).
It may be that Mario is a Christian, but I don't think he is. To me, this post of his says a lot about the vitriol and hatred he has for Christians and indeed all religion; therefore, it's not surprising that he's provoked a hornet's nest.
And I agree with TS-I hate these threads. I'm here because I'm interested in Apple, and this kind of thread stirs up so much poison, which I have certainly succumbed to.
?Finally, to dare to mention the original article: like Rogifan, I find it hard to believe that there's much, if any, discrimination against homosexual people when they are applying for jobs. Surely a business is looking for the best person for the job? It strikes me that Tim Cook is making a political move, rather than one that is needed.
No clue. Let's use dogs instead- they're mammals. They can tell by balls. Although my dog has gone after my leg before....
1- duh. Although, if I'm not mistaken, most were "turned" female by default.
2- I'm not a hermaphrodite expert. If I'm not mistaken (without research and from asking an OB 4 years ago)- they have a vagina, but also testes. Not a vagina and a penis- hence why almost all become by default, females.
Again, I'm not expert enough to know about this- and doubtful anyone on this forum is. That's why I gave the hermaphrodite a "not-loony" pass.
But when you're born with balls and a penis. And you want to cut them off and get a vagina. That's insanity. I mean seriously, what's the point? You like boys? Cool- be gay. Vice versa, if you're a girl, don't get a penis if you like girls (as if lesbians have sex anyway- only half joking here).
Something is seriously wrong in your head when your born a man or woman but think you aren't. I'm not intolerant of that person, but definitely intolerant of that act.
In this context, on this forum- abso-firickin-lutely
One of my pet peeves from both sides
I've agreed with most of what you've said in these threads, but not the gender-change one. Yes, there is something 'seriously wrong' in their heads, but that's no reason to be intolerant of them! It's probably a genetic aberration that we're not fully aware of yet. It's very rare.
?Finally, to dare to mention the original article: like Rogifan, I find it hard to believe that there's much, if any, discrimination against homosexual people when they are applying for jobs. Surely a business is looking for the best person for the job? It strikes me that Tim Cook is making a political move, rather than one that is needed.
Unfortunately, there is evidence of significant discrimination in this area - even still.
Tim Cook is right to push for greater equality in this area, both from a corporate and a societal perspective.
In any case, Tim Cook is one voice among many. I suspect that legislation along these lines is the natural outcome of general societal change and progression forward on the question of civil rights, but who knows when or if this will actually happen.
Sure I know what he meant. I just find fault with the original Bible lecturer. A lot of these types of religious fanatics just spout off whatever they heard on the sermon TV and haven't even read their own Bible and fail to understand that it is completely full of nonsense. Sorry if I am a bit jaded but going to church a couple times a week for my entire youth was a huge waste of time, but at least I know almost every verse in the Bible by memory so when these holier than thou fanatics start preaching I can quote them verse for verse to counter any argument they make.
I can look in my pants and see what I was born with to know in a male. If I get amnesia and forget if I'm a guy or girl, I'll just glance in my underwear or look at my birth certificate and clear things up.
More than genitalia. Ovulation, breast tissue, body type, risk of gender-sensitive disease, prostate cancer, muscularity, fat needs, EVERYTHING in your body works like a male or female. The only thing that doesn't is their mind. Hence- a mental disorder.
You're onto something here. There is a distinction between what makes us male and female, and what our sexual desires are. As children, boys and girls behave in very different ways. Whilst no doubt a lot of this is nurture, to my mind, a lot is nature, too. But this has nothing to do with sexual desire. Whilst our gender guides that to a large extent, the human brain is an amazing thing, and our capacity for variety endless. In fact, it's one of the things that separates us from our mammally forebears.
When it comes to homosexuality, I'm inclined to think of it as a mental disorder. Whether this is from birth or acquired later is an open question. But obviously, the human race wouldn't have survived if it was common to everyone. I think that trauma plays a large part in the development of homosexuality at a very early age.
The second commandment is 'Love thy neighbour as thyself,' something which I continually fail to do.
Scarlett Johansson is discriminating because she won't go out with me. I'm bi, I'm even cute, but she's not interested.
That's not a violation of my human rights. That's a basic exercise of *her* human rights.
It's called freedom of association. Freedom of association IS a basic human right.
I have no right to be hired by Apple. Apple has the right to decide to make me an offer or to decline. I have the right to accept their offer, or decline it. That's discrimination in both cases.
If Apple won't hire me because I'm bi, then Apple is stupid. BEING STUPID IS A HUMAN RIGHT!
Just like Scarlett is stupid for not returning my calls. Her loss.
This bill, just like the one that makes it a crime for me to refuse to hire a christian, is itself a violation of human rights.
So if you support it, that's your right-- after all, being stupid is your right-- just don't claim that you're defending human rights, because you aren't.
Also, queer people don't need hiring quotas. Only bigots who think we can't get jobs otherwise think we do.
Comments
LOL
They are choices. Nothing more.
The greatest deception of recent times is that homosexuality is like being caucasian, hispanic, asian, etc.
It's a complete fallacy.
It's a lifestyle choice.
Not immutable. Not by birth.
You took the words right out of my mouth. It's the great lie of our times.
Oh, ignorance on display. "Size" discrimination is rightly outlawed in many jurisdictions. In some places they allow for it if the job is as an entertainer, where appearance is part of the job. But what makes you think a heavy dude is less deserving of a job than a slender one?
The problem with discrimination, is that it's impossible to legislate against. What happens if you've got two dudes who are equally capable of getting the job? You'll probably go for the one that you get on with more, or any number of other reasons. Where do you stop? Do you create legislation to prevent discrimination against quiet people? Or too political people? Or people who are too good at their job who might create jealousy and resentment amongst their peers?
I am a long time Apple customer, 1978 Apple II.
It troubles me anytime a CEO uses his position to push his own agenda.
I don't think Tim Cook can be accused of pushing "his own agenda". If you think about it, Apple have consistently been ahead of the curve on a number of issues in terms of what we might call "corporate citizenship" - especially in the last few years.
I suppose the most obvious example of this is the company's pursuit of sustainability (inclusive of their work on alternate power sources as well as the recyclable aspects of their products).
In this context, it makes sense for Apple - or at least, for Tim Cook as head of Apple - to support the logical extension of civil rights, especially in terms of an employment context. This is directly relevant to Apple, and likely to many of its workers.
Unfortunately, these kinds of issues often require big companies and people with influence to get behind them in order to see some kind of positive change. I applaud Tim Cook for taking a firm stance on this, as he rightly should (and as every company should, really). Those who don't take that stance now are increasingly their chances of experiencing major feelings of embarrassment, especially in the future, when this kind of thing is no longer an issue in society.
On the question of the effectiveness of legislating against discrimination; I think that you only have to look at some of the discrimination cases that have been through the courts to see how this kind of legal protection can be both relevant and enforceable. If somebody presents a discrimination case fraudulently, then this obviously has to be tested on a case-by-case basis.
The idea that because someone can potentially take advantage of the system unfairly, we should never provide legal protections around discrimination is a bit of a logical fallacy I'd say.
Physical health, and also their abilities to carry out the job, depending upon what exactly that job is of course.
If somebody is hiring an employee for the longterm, and there are two employees seeking the job with equal qualifications, it makes sense to go with the one who will survive longer, and have less medical issues and take less time off from work.
There are many things to consider when hiring somebody, and I believe that everything is fair game, including gender, physical appearance, religion and many other factors.
Quite. Politicians blatantly use the family card to promote their attractiveness to voters. This is discrimination against single people, but no-one complains about it. You could quite easily propose legislation to say that a politician must not reveal their family members or be photographed with them to avoid discrimination against single people.
Why does it matter whether it's a choice? Religion is a choice, but I'm forbidden from discriminating against people who believe in nonsense and disbelieve science (ie Christians)
Atheism is a choice, but I'm forbidden from discriminating against people who believe in nonsense and disbelieve their own existence (ie atheists).
Get real-Christians are members of the most mocked, persecuted and vilified religion in existence today.
I cannot speak to gender identity as I have no personal experience with it, however, as a homosexual, I can tell you it was not a choice for me. I didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight (if indeed that is the implied case). I can't imagine anyone "choosing" to be gay and having to accept all the negativity that goes along with it from people like you. It's insulting to read a post such as this and hear someone speak of something they obviously know nothing about or have any personal experience with. It's equivalent to saying someone chose to be black or to be a woman or what color hair they have.
The only fallacy here is your ignorance.
So all those 'bisexual' people had no choice?
Quite. Politicians blatantly use the family card to promote their attractiveness to voters. This is discrimination against single people, but no-one complains about it. You could quite easily propose legislation to say that a politician must not reveal their family members or be photographed with them to avoid discrimination against single people.
This is a red herring, though.
In day-to-day life, we all "discriminate" in one way or another. When I go to buy groceries, I discriminate, in the sense that I choose one item over another for a variety of reasons (e.g. my preferences about taste or nutritional value).
This is explicitly not what the subject of this thread is about, though. I think the distinction ought to be pointed out clearly because these analogies are unhelpful.
On the point about Christians being the most "mocked, persecuted and vilified" religion in society today - I can't say whether or not that's true in terms of religions, but Christians as a subset of the population still have undue influence in many societies. Or, to put it another way, religious groups generally still have enormous influence over the rights of others. What's happening at the moment is an overdue redressing of that balance.
Unfortunately though, I think numerous issues come in that cloud the debates (like the poor analogies around what kind of discrimination we are talking about here, for example). These kinds of red herrings only serve to muddy up the discussion, I think.
Also just to add one key point - when there is a debate about whether or not being gay is a choice, then the conversation really kind of ends there. It's difficult to move past that point, because that is a bit of a show stopper. Any conversation about rights or equal protections has to be based on reason and on a shared acceptance of the core facts behind the issue. Without that, how can the conversation progress?
My analogy here would be that it would be difficult to have a discussion about medical policy with someone who is an anti-vaccination campaigner (or, another analogy would be that it would be difficult to have a conversation with someone about geological science when that person believes the Earth is flat, and/or 6,000 years old).
Absolutist: There are absolutes we all must adhere to.
Relativist: There are no absolutes.
Absolutist: You just made an absolute statement, and therefor self contradicted yourself.
All relativists are relative relativists. They are ok with everybody believing whatever until what someone else believes infringes on what they believe.
Relativist: What is right for me is right for me, and what is right for you is right for you.
Absolutist: I believe it is ok for me to steal from you.
Relativist: No it isn't.
Who defines morals then? Who says what is right, and what is wrong? The government, individuals, majority, minority, etc? All of these are falible and are prone to mistakes. I cant expect the goverment to always do the right thing. There are some very intelligent and unintelligent people out there, so we can't rely on any given individual. Even the intelligent ones can make mistakes. I can't rely on someone else to do right by me. When you have a group of people (majority, minority, etc), they tend to be very dumb, regardless if they are smart individually or right collectively. So what can we rely on for morality? Who defines the standard? Left to our own devices we make stupid choices about morality regardless of how you look at it. We cannot depend on any group or individual to come up with the correct standard.
So who does that leave to define a standard? Evolution? Nay, absolutes don't happen by chance. Besides, evolution is about survival of the fittest. So by that mindset we should kill the elderly, the sick, and people with disabilities. We should take what we want. Its all about being ahead. Progress must ensue. But you may argue it is beneficial for us to show compassion or empathy towards others because it makes us more fit to survive. That would allow characteristics to persist within the species that may not necessarily be good traits for survival.
There is only one answer:
God has set the standard.
My job is not to judge others. That is not my place. I cant condem others for the things they have done, because I myself was just as condemned. It is God's job to judge. My job is to spread the word about the gospel. God has a perfect standard, and we all fall short of it. We are all destined for hell. It doesnt matter how much good you've done. Would a judge be a good judge if someone without a doubt committed murder and and he didn't sentence the criminal to prison? The criminal may argue, "but look at all the good I've done!" Many good deeds do not pay for the crime. It was still committed regardless. What are we to do then if we can't save ourselves from hell by doing good or promising to be better? God provided a way to save us from hell. He really doesn't want us to experience His wrath for eternity, but as a perfect judge he has to, unless there is a substitue. Only someone who is perfect (followed God's law perfectly) can be a suitable substitue. For if that substitue had their own transgressions, how could they pay for the transgressions of others? That substitue is the Lord Jesus Christ. The only thing you are required to do is accept and believe that He took your place for the sentence God had set forth.
That is what Christianity is ultimately about. People are going to do what they are going to do, whether the government permits it or not.
Thank you for your wise post.
I've met more than one woman that act like gay men. They go through the trouble of looking like a man to attract gay men instead of attracting men as women.
Btw in many countries it's quite normal for the men to act effeminate, and they're not gay.
There is now strong evidence that theistic gods i.e. gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, god who stops the motion of the sun around earth so certain people in the Bible can finish their work, god who takes "our" side in a war, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity are man made invention.
Religion comes to us from other human mammals who not only know there is a god, but they also know his mind what he wants us to do. And how do they know? Revelation of course, god told them something often times contradictory what he told others. And you never even seek evidence for their extraordinary claims. But revelation is useless and unreliable as a way to discover truth
Revelation can only ever be relevant to the person to whom something is revealed. As soon as that person shares and relates the revelation to someone else, it becomes a testimony at that point. And then it becomes a matter of trusting that person for the claim they are making. Also, the person to whom something is revealed should be apprehensive and wonder which is more likely that laws of nature have been bent in their favor no less, or if perhaps they are under apprehension.
Revelations are dime a dozen. Numerous people have claimed that something has been revealed to them. Even worse different people have claimed same god has revealed things that are contradictory to the things god has revealed to other people. In Christianity god reveals himself as a human, he dies on the cross, and resurrects. In Islam, Jesus is not only not the son of god, he never died on the cross and never resurrected. Believing otherwise will have you condemned to hell. In Christianity god says love your enemies, in Islam he says kill your enemies and apostates. Yes it's the same god, and yet both sides claim divine revelation for the "wisdom" they preach.
Content of revelation paints a picture of a god who is quite frankly incompetent, stupid and has morals lesser than average decent human being today. And most importantly he leaves it to chance what you will believe about him and if you will be damned to eternity.
What religion you get indoctrinated into has very little to do with its truthfulness, but everything to do with where you were born. If you were born in Saudi Arabia for example you would be a Muslim defending Islam right now. Yet both Islam and Christianity and Judaism (the three desert dogmas) all claim to posses the true and perfect words of the creator of the universe. Yet how many sleepless nights have you spent worrying that Islam could be right? And why is that?
And isn't it incredibly stupid of a supreme, intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent being to demand belief in him without evidence? God would presumably know that people would invent scientific method as the only sure way to discover truth. Yet he leaves such important things as if you will be damned for eternity to belief without evidence leading to three desert dogmas that teach completely opposite things about him. Yahweh himself besides being stupid is rather evil god. Look how he behaves exactly as you would expect the people of that age that invented him to behave (he orders genocide of neighboring tribes that worship other gods, enslavement of women and children etc, just read random book of old testament). By the way he was never meant to be god of all, he was meant to be a god of a single tribe (otherwise a lot of stuff god says and orders makes no sense). Evolution of competing religions and the fact we have multiple religions like this is exactly what you would expect to see if religion were man made.
All metaphysical claims and especially all physical claims made by religion were proved to be wrong. And would you expect it any other way really? Religion was our first approximation of cosmology, medicine etc. But like all first approximations it proved to be completely wrong. Jesus casts out demons to heal people, he heals lepers instead of healing leprosy, no germs ever mentioned in the Bible (naturally no germ theory of disease either).
But now we know better. We know how solar systems are formed, we know how planets are formed, we know how life evolves, we even know how a universe can come from nothing. We really don't need god to kick off any of these things any more. Besides positing an intelligent god capable of creating universes, god that always existed, or that spontaneously came into being is assuming a lot more than assuming the same about the universe itself i.e. dumb matter. Occam's razor cuts him out of existence as superfluous assumption that does not explain anything.
And besides, look at the absurdity of belief themselves: we are all supposed to believe that god impregnated his virgin mother in order that he could die on the cross for what he condemned the humanity to and so he could make himself forgive the transgressions he invented, performed by the beings created in his own image. And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly,
So, in light of that saying silly things like god sets the standard is really saying let's not use the very thing that makes us human, our reason to decide what is right and what is wrong, but let's rely on superstitions of our bronze age ancestors one chromosome away from chimpanzee and uses their judgement as what is right and wrong.
You see morals are just codified behavior and customs expressed in language. Morals like language are also products of our wills and minds and therefore also a technology. We can decide slavery is not a good idea (despite endorsement from Yahweh). We can decide that fairly applied laws, rather than nepotistic favoritism, is a good idea. We can outlaw certain punishments with treaties. We can encourage accountability with the invention of writing. We can consciously expand our circle of empathy. These are all inventions, products of our minds, as much as lightbulbs and telegraphs are. People who insist on absolute biblical morality are really insisting on using bronze age technology absolutely.
And besides god's morals are not absolute either. God in the old testament orders killing of innocent people time and time again. Explicit general prescriptions are given by god in what circumstances it is OK to kill people. God in the new testament says it is not OK to kill at all. So god changed his mind, therefore moral teaching on murder is relative. Just one example.
So, the only way the religious can claim their morals are absolute is to define absolute to mean "what ever we believe now".
I've never read a convincing argument for atheism. Every advocate for atheism that I've ever read ends up using puerile language, as your post exemplifies. This hardly strengthens your case.
For me, the only thing more absurd than believing in God is not believing in God.
Of course not. Simply put they are naturally attracted to certain individuals within an additional sex.
Consider the women you've been attracted to. Are you attracted to all women? Now consider other guys you've known that are attracted to women. Were you all attracted to the same women? It could be height, weight, hair color, eyes, face, skin tone, or any number of physical features... or any number of other features like how someone carries themselves, how they speak... or non-physical characteristics that make up the complex structure of our fundamenta desires. Some of these people you know might be attracted to more superficial aspects that you may also find attractive features, just not as a sole reason for the attraction in-and-of themselves, while you might like a deeper connection which they may consider to be an annoyance.
Regardless, the variety of ways in which attraction can manifest is clearly not so cut and dry that we choose to be attracted to certain people.
There seems to be a long history of bisexuality in human history but today more than ever things might be less distinct because of the way genders have evolved. In today's society the divide between male and female roles has bleed together. From fighting in combat, to be police officers, to voting, to even wearing pants. Then you have metrosexual as a term for man that groom or have themselves groomed in a way that were traditionally only done by women (at least in the 20th century).
Unfortunately I don't have anyone I can ask about this topic but, to me, I can see how someone who defines themselves as bisexual might find an effeminate gay man attractive as well as a more less feminine woman as those qualifiers tend to push certain characteristics toward each other. Or perhaps that scenario has nothing to do with how one find another human being attractive.
Private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone, just like individuals should. If people don't want to do business with them, so be it. What happened to freedom of association you tyrants? If a gay-run company doesn't want to do business with conservative Christians, more power to them. It's amazing to see how many people go along with fascism as long as it has a "liberal" "progressive" or "gay" face. Shame on you bastards.
Quite. Here in England, there are women-only golf clubs. Discrimination much? I think there's a gay choir. What about gay bars?
Every advocate for atheism that I've ever read ends up using puerile language, as your post exemplifies.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you read his post if you came to this conclusion.
Even if you disagree with it, calling it "puerile language" is absurd.
I don't think he's saying that, I think he's saying that quoting any religious text won't be helpful with this civil rights issue. If that's the case, I agree. It would be like quoting fortune cookies; perhaps there are some decent statements in some of them but as an argument it's not going to help make one's point. I'd think a rational atheist or agnostic could fine plenty of salient and sagacious statements in the Bible and every other religious books, and I think that any rational person of any region could also find salient and sagacious comments in another religion's sacred texts.
I think if one were to form their statement in their own words even if based on a fair and balanced comment from the Bible but without quoting it I think that would be fine.
I admire your diplomacy greatly. I don't know how you manage to keep so placid! But I would point out that the first poster to mention religion in this thread was Mario with the following:
I am a long time citizen and it troubles me when Christian bigots use their political position to push their religious agenda on everyone (remember, religion is now debunked bunch of bronze age lies).
It may be that Mario is a Christian, but I don't think he is. To me, this post of his says a lot about the vitriol and hatred he has for Christians and indeed all religion; therefore, it's not surprising that he's provoked a hornet's nest.
And I agree with TS-I hate these threads. I'm here because I'm interested in Apple, and this kind of thread stirs up so much poison, which I have certainly succumbed to.
?Finally, to dare to mention the original article: like Rogifan, I find it hard to believe that there's much, if any, discrimination against homosexual people when they are applying for jobs. Surely a business is looking for the best person for the job? It strikes me that Tim Cook is making a political move, rather than one that is needed.
No clue. Let's use dogs instead- they're mammals. They can tell by balls. Although my dog has gone after my leg before....
1- duh. Although, if I'm not mistaken, most were "turned" female by default.
2- I'm not a hermaphrodite expert. If I'm not mistaken (without research and from asking an OB 4 years ago)- they have a vagina, but also testes. Not a vagina and a penis- hence why almost all become by default, females.
Again, I'm not expert enough to know about this- and doubtful anyone on this forum is. That's why I gave the hermaphrodite a "not-loony" pass.
But when you're born with balls and a penis. And you want to cut them off and get a vagina. That's insanity. I mean seriously, what's the point? You like boys? Cool- be gay. Vice versa, if you're a girl, don't get a penis if you like girls (as if lesbians have sex anyway- only half joking here).
Something is seriously wrong in your head when your born a man or woman but think you aren't. I'm not intolerant of that person, but definitely intolerant of that act.
In this context, on this forum- abso-firickin-lutely
One of my pet peeves from both sides
I've agreed with most of what you've said in these threads, but not the gender-change one. Yes, there is something 'seriously wrong' in their heads, but that's no reason to be intolerant of them! It's probably a genetic aberration that we're not fully aware of yet. It's very rare.
?Finally, to dare to mention the original article: like Rogifan, I find it hard to believe that there's much, if any, discrimination against homosexual people when they are applying for jobs. Surely a business is looking for the best person for the job? It strikes me that Tim Cook is making a political move, rather than one that is needed.
Unfortunately, there is evidence of significant discrimination in this area - even still.
Tim Cook is right to push for greater equality in this area, both from a corporate and a societal perspective.
In any case, Tim Cook is one voice among many. I suspect that legislation along these lines is the natural outcome of general societal change and progression forward on the question of civil rights, but who knows when or if this will actually happen.
Sure I know what he meant. I just find fault with the original Bible lecturer. A lot of these types of religious fanatics just spout off whatever they heard on the sermon TV and haven't even read their own Bible and fail to understand that it is completely full of nonsense. Sorry if I am a bit jaded but going to church a couple times a week for my entire youth was a huge waste of time, but at least I know almost every verse in the Bible by memory so when these holier than thou fanatics start preaching I can quote them verse for verse to counter any argument they make.
Do you have a photographic memory?
If homosexuality is a choice then why isn't heterosexuality a choice and why can't I recall ever having to consider which sex to be attracted to.
I can look in my pants and see what I was born with to know in a male. If I get amnesia and forget if I'm a guy or girl, I'll just glance in my underwear or look at my birth certificate and clear things up.
More than genitalia. Ovulation, breast tissue, body type, risk of gender-sensitive disease, prostate cancer, muscularity, fat needs, EVERYTHING in your body works like a male or female. The only thing that doesn't is their mind. Hence- a mental disorder.
You're onto something here. There is a distinction between what makes us male and female, and what our sexual desires are. As children, boys and girls behave in very different ways. Whilst no doubt a lot of this is nurture, to my mind, a lot is nature, too. But this has nothing to do with sexual desire. Whilst our gender guides that to a large extent, the human brain is an amazing thing, and our capacity for variety endless. In fact, it's one of the things that separates us from our mammally forebears.
When it comes to homosexuality, I'm inclined to think of it as a mental disorder. Whether this is from birth or acquired later is an open question. But obviously, the human race wouldn't have survived if it was common to everyone. I think that trauma plays a large part in the development of homosexuality at a very early age.
The second commandment is 'Love thy neighbour as thyself,' something which I continually fail to do.
Scarlett Johansson is discriminating because she won't go out with me. I'm bi, I'm even cute, but she's not interested.
That's not a violation of my human rights. That's a basic exercise of *her* human rights.
It's called freedom of association. Freedom of association IS a basic human right.
I have no right to be hired by Apple. Apple has the right to decide to make me an offer or to decline. I have the right to accept their offer, or decline it. That's discrimination in both cases.
If Apple won't hire me because I'm bi, then Apple is stupid. BEING STUPID IS A HUMAN RIGHT!
Just like Scarlett is stupid for not returning my calls. Her loss.
This bill, just like the one that makes it a crime for me to refuse to hire a christian, is itself a violation of human rights.
So if you support it, that's your right-- after all, being stupid is your right-- just don't claim that you're defending human rights, because you aren't.
Also, queer people don't need hiring quotas. Only bigots who think we can't get jobs otherwise think we do.