Is it really that hard for you to tell discrimination from respectful treatment. The proposal we are discussing here is about preventing discrimination, not about protecting it.
The "guy from Mozilla" was saying idiotic hateful things about people with different sexual orientation and paid the price for it. There is not much else that should be said about it. But of course people who discriminate would love it if somehow a law could be passed that would allow them to launder their hate and to hide behind (just like the religious people launder their hate with their imaginary god - I don't hate you god does).
If my opinion is different than your it is discriminatory and hateful... if your opinion is different than mine it's enlightened and loving. Hmmm... interesting how that works.
I'm not claiming that gay = pedos, but I don't think that a gay boy scout leader should sleep in a tent full of boys, unless it is ok for a male hetero scout leader to sleep in a tent full of girls. If one is ok, then the second one must also be ok, otherwise it is hypocritical.
I'm not claiming that gay = pedos, but I don't think that a gay boy scout leader should sleep in a tent full of boys, unless it is ok for a male hetero scout leader to sleep in a tent full of girls. If one is ok, then the second one must also be ok, otherwise it is hypocritical.
I'm not claiming that gay = pedos, but I don't think that a gay boy scout leader should sleep in a tent full of boys, unless it is ok for a male hetero scout leader to sleep in a tent full of girls. If one is ok, then the second one must also be ok, otherwise it is hypocritical.
33% of child molestations are Man on boy. Less than 3% of the US population is gay men. The reasonable assumption is that hetero men would not want to molest someone of their own sex. Therefore, we can assume that a small 3% of the population is responsible for 1/3 of the child rape cases in the US. (stats from CDC)
33% of child molestations are Man on boy. Less than 3% of the US population is gay men. The reasonable assumption is that hetero men would not want to molest someone of their own sex. Therefore, we can assume that a small 3% of the population is responsible for 1/3 of the child rape cases in the US. (stats from CDC)
As a gay man, I had to sign in to AppleInsider for the first time in years and respond to this fallacy.
Your "reasonable assumption" is incorrect, for a number of reasons:
1) Rape is an act of aggression and power--not sexual desire.
2) Heterosexual men have greater access to young boys vs. young girls.
The below video examines the statistics surrounding child rape, and explains why your child is in far greater danger from a heterosexual extended family member than they ever would be from a gay man:
Your absolutely right. Heterosexuals can get it too... but you better check the CDC's web sight to see what activity is riskier and which demographic is the most highly infected. You will find that your chances of infection are much lower as a hetero.
That's not the point I was making. Everyone is at risk of getting HIV irrespective of their sexuality. What are the statistics for deaths caused by various forms of transport? Should we ban cars because they kill more people? No. Also, I'm sure the gay community is much more likely to be tested for HIV, because they know they're at risk. Maybe that's why the number of new infections is higher in homosexual men - because they get tested. Is there much incentive for straight people to get an HIV test every six months? Probably not, so there could be tens of thousands of heterosexuals out there unaware that they have HIV.
I'm not claiming that gay = pedos, but I don't think that a gay boy scout leader should sleep in a tent full of boys, unless it is ok for a male hetero scout leader to sleep in a tent full of girls. If one is ok, then the second one must also be ok, otherwise it is hypocritical.
You are equating being gay with being a paedophile because you're saying that a gay man would do something to the boys if he were to sleep in a tent with them. You are wrong. Something would only happen if that man were a paedophile, and that is an unlikely scenario.
Brilliant move there Tim. Call for a bunch of legislation that will invite all kinds of new "discrimination" lawsuits for companies like yours.
Why do you think Apple would be part of sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits? Just because they stopped using the rainbow colors in the Apple logo doesn't mean Apple is now anti-gay.
You are equating being gay with being a paedophile because you're saying that a gay man would do something to the boys if he were to sleep in a tent with them. You are wrong. Something would only happen if that man were a paedophile, and that is an unlikely scenario.
That is correct but his point is more generalized. It's simply about someone of one sex sleeping in a room of a sex they are attracted to. He didn't say anything about them being attracted to any one person or being attracted to children. Unfortunately there is wiggle room on what is considered pedophilia. We can all create a scenario that is definitely fall into the "WTF! This monster should be killed" category but what about an adult who is 18yo dating a child that is 17yo? I think many US states have laws that would allow certain age stepping so that being less than a year apart wouldn't be illegal, but what about 2 or 3 years difference across that 18yo "adult" threshold?
It's like when they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is!" he replied.
Why do litigious people sue companies like Apple? "Because that's where the money is!"
So you agree that people will sue Apple regardless thereby making it pointless for Apple to start discriminating simply to prevent some from issuing lawsuits against Apple for choosing not to discriminate.
So you agree that people will sue Apple regardless thereby making it pointless for Apple to start discriminating simply to prevent some from issuing lawsuits against Apple for choosing not to discriminate.
When you say "...for Apple to start discriminating..." what do you mean? In what way is Apple supposedly going to "start discriminating"?
When you say "...for Apple to start discriminating..." what do you mean? In what way is Apple supposedly going to "start discriminating"?
In whatever way you expect them to since your claim was that Apple shouldn't be against discrimination because it would open itself to lawsuits. IOW, since they hasn't been discriminating the only way to take your comment is that you want Apple to start discriminating.
In whatever way you expect them to since your claim was that Apple shouldn't be against discrimination because it would open itself to lawsuits. IOW, since they hasn't been discriminating the only way to take your comment is that you want Apple to start discriminating.
How do you connect not supporting a law that would make it easier for people to sue your business with that same business DELIBERATELY PLANNING to violate the tenants of that law if it were to be passed? They are two different things with no guarantee of the former being evidence of the later. Are you capable of comprehending the difference?
So you agree that people will sue Apple regardless thereby making it pointless for Apple to start discriminating simply to prevent some from issuing lawsuits against Apple for choosing not to discriminate.
So you agree that people like you have to put words in the mouths of people like me in order to help you make some point more conveniently on the wrongful pretense that I agree with you?
How do you connect not supporting a law that would make it easier for people to sue your business with that same business DELIBERATELY PLANNING to violate the tenants of that law if it were to be passed? They are two different things with no guarantee of the former being evidence of the later. Are you capable of comprehending the difference?
There either is or isn't a law in place. You can't have both. Choose one.
For states that don't have a law preventing sexual orientation discrimination you want Apple to be for such discrimination because those in favour of that such a deplorable act could sue Apple for choosing to discriminate. I disagree with your stated fear.
So you agree that people like you have to put words in the mouths of people like me in order to help you make some point more conveniently on the wrongful pretense that I agree with you?
Comments
Hmm. I’m not sure that stands for anything other than government.
Is it really that hard for you to tell discrimination from respectful treatment. The proposal we are discussing here is about preventing discrimination, not about protecting it.
The "guy from Mozilla" was saying idiotic hateful things about people with different sexual orientation and paid the price for it. There is not much else that should be said about it. But of course people who discriminate would love it if somehow a law could be passed that would allow them to launder their hate and to hide behind (just like the religious people launder their hate with their imaginary god - I don't hate you god does).
If my opinion is different than your it is discriminatory and hateful... if your opinion is different than mine it's enlightened and loving. Hmmm... interesting how that works.
Because gay != paedophilia.
I'm not claiming that gay = pedos, but I don't think that a gay boy scout leader should sleep in a tent full of boys, unless it is ok for a male hetero scout leader to sleep in a tent full of girls. If one is ok, then the second one must also be ok, otherwise it is hypocritical.
I agree with this statement.
I'm not claiming that gay = pedos, but I don't think that a gay boy scout leader should sleep in a tent full of boys, unless it is ok for a male hetero scout leader to sleep in a tent full of girls. If one is ok, then the second one must also be ok, otherwise it is hypocritical.
33% of child molestations are Man on boy. Less than 3% of the US population is gay men. The reasonable assumption is that hetero men would not want to molest someone of their own sex. Therefore, we can assume that a small 3% of the population is responsible for 1/3 of the child rape cases in the US. (stats from CDC)
33% of child molestations are Man on boy. Less than 3% of the US population is gay men. The reasonable assumption is that hetero men would not want to molest someone of their own sex. Therefore, we can assume that a small 3% of the population is responsible for 1/3 of the child rape cases in the US. (stats from CDC)
As a gay man, I had to sign in to AppleInsider for the first time in years and respond to this fallacy.
Your "reasonable assumption" is incorrect, for a number of reasons:
1) Rape is an act of aggression and power--not sexual desire.
2) Heterosexual men have greater access to young boys vs. young girls.
3) Pre-pubescent oung boys are often appealing substitutes for young girls. More info on that is here: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm
The below video examines the statistics surrounding child rape, and explains why your child is in far greater danger from a heterosexual extended family member than they ever would be from a gay man:
Thanks.
I agree with this statement.
I actually don't understand the hangup there, although I would prefer not to be the only adult present if it came to supervising a group of kids.
Brilliant move there Tim. Call for a bunch of legislation that will invite all kinds of new "discrimination" lawsuits for companies like yours.
Why do you think Apple would be part of sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits? Just because they stopped using the rainbow colors in the Apple logo doesn't mean Apple is now anti-gay.
That is correct but his point is more generalized. It's simply about someone of one sex sleeping in a room of a sex they are attracted to. He didn't say anything about them being attracted to any one person or being attracted to children. Unfortunately there is wiggle room on what is considered pedophilia. We can all create a scenario that is definitely fall into the "WTF! This monster should be killed" category but what about an adult who is 18yo dating a child that is 17yo? I think many US states have laws that would allow certain age stepping so that being less than a year apart wouldn't be illegal, but what about 2 or 3 years difference across that 18yo "adult" threshold?
It's like when they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is!" he replied.
Why do litigious people sue companies like Apple? "Because that's where the money is!"
So you agree that people will sue Apple regardless thereby making it pointless for Apple to start discriminating simply to prevent some from issuing lawsuits against Apple for choosing not to discriminate.
So you agree that people will sue Apple regardless thereby making it pointless for Apple to start discriminating simply to prevent some from issuing lawsuits against Apple for choosing not to discriminate.
When you say "...for Apple to start discriminating..." what do you mean? In what way is Apple supposedly going to "start discriminating"?
In whatever way you expect them to since your claim was that Apple shouldn't be against discrimination because it would open itself to lawsuits. IOW, since they hasn't been discriminating the only way to take your comment is that you want Apple to start discriminating.
In whatever way you expect them to since your claim was that Apple shouldn't be against discrimination because it would open itself to lawsuits. IOW, since they hasn't been discriminating the only way to take your comment is that you want Apple to start discriminating.
How do you connect not supporting a law that would make it easier for people to sue your business with that same business DELIBERATELY PLANNING to violate the tenants of that law if it were to be passed? They are two different things with no guarantee of the former being evidence of the later. Are you capable of comprehending the difference?
So you agree that people will sue Apple regardless thereby making it pointless for Apple to start discriminating simply to prevent some from issuing lawsuits against Apple for choosing not to discriminate.
So you agree that people like you have to put words in the mouths of people like me in order to help you make some point more conveniently on the wrongful pretense that I agree with you?
There either is or isn't a law in place. You can't have both. Choose one.
For states that don't have a law preventing sexual orientation discrimination you want Apple to be for such discrimination because those in favour of that such a deplorable act could sue Apple for choosing to discriminate. I disagree with your stated fear.
You chose to quote Willie Sutton.