Well, it was only Flaneur's last post four hours ago that convinced me. I guess he must have been spouting off for some while to create all that hot air.
Well, it was only Flaneur's last post four hours ago that convinced me. I guess he must have been spouting off for some while to create all that hot air.
I just want to announce that I'm proud to be straight! Thank you!
Yay! Another deep thinker chimes in.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would it somehow make me a "deeper thinker" to say that I like to suck penisis? Are you implying that I'm a 2-dimensional thinker for announcing that I'm straight? It's an announcement of sexual orientation, just like good ol' Tim. Does it make him smarter somehow that he announces something that goes against the grain? What if someone announces that they like to have sex with goats? Is that "courageous" also? Is it praiseworthy? Would Bill Clinton tweet about that?
Oh, my. Nothing is done for the benefit of others. Every decision we make and action we take comes from self-interest, even those that may be identified as "enlightened self-interest". I could argue you that six ways to Sunday.
Ah yes, naturally someone who blindly follows the faith of Capitalist philosophy would argue the world is innately that way. I've studied Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and the other social and economic philosophers who helped form the foundations of modern Capitalism too. People who subscribe to that that faith without question no different from those on the other side of the fence who take Marx and Engels as the gospel truth on how the world works. They just continue to repeat the same mantra over and over again without any independent thought. Reminds me of this famous scene:
In the meantime, despite what philosophy one frame's Tim's actions in, the real world effect is that they will make life better/easier for others who are experiencing hardship due to circumstances that are beyond their control. Whereas using a position of power to advance partisan political views has no such effect (despite what the person advancing them may believe). That's the difference here.
Ah yes, naturally someone who blindly follows the faith of Capitalist philosophy would argue the world is innately that way. I've studied Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and the other social and economic philosophers who helped form the foundations of modern Capitalism too. People who subscribe to that that faith without question no different from those on the other side of the fence who take Marx and Engels as the gospel truth on how the world works. They just continue to repeat the same mantra over and over again without any independent thought. Reminds me of this famous scene:
In the meantime, despite what philosophy one frame's Tim's actions in, the real world effect is that they will make life better/easier for others who are experiencing hardship due to circumstances that are beyond their control. Whereas using a position of power to advance partisan political views has no such effect (despite what the person advancing them may believe). That's the difference here.
Self-interest is more fundamental than economics. It is biological.
Ah yes, naturally someone who blindly follows the faith of Capitalist philosophy would argue the world is innately that way. I've studied Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and the other social and economic philosophers who helped form the foundations of modern Capitalism too. People who subscribe to that that faith without question no different from those on the other side of the fence who take Marx and Engels as the gospel truth on how the world works. They just continue to repeat the same mantra over and over again without any independent thought. Reminds me of this famous scene:
In the meantime, despite what philosophy one frame's Tim's actions in, the real world effect is that they will make life better/easier for others who are experiencing hardship due to circumstances that are beyond their control. Whereas using a position of power to advance partisan political views has no such effect (despite what the person advancing them may believe). That's the difference here.
Self-interest is more fundamental than economics. It is biological.
I think you share that self-interest theory with Solip.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would it somehow make me a "deeper thinker" to say that I like to suck penisis? Are you implying that I'm a 2-dimensional thinker for announcing that I'm straight? It's an announcement of sexual orientation, just like good ol' Tim. Does it make him smarter somehow that he announces something that goes against the grain? What if someone announces that they like to have sex with goats? Is that "courageous" also? Is it praiseworthy? Would Bill Clinton tweet about that?
I've repeated it many times throughout this thread, but I'll try this time very plainly and directly in bold and see if it sinks in for those who can't comprehend things outside of their own experience:
The reason Tim Cook's openly stating that he's gay is important is because there are many other gay men who are currently experiencing discrimination in the world because of their sexual orientation. By having someone of his stature openly state this, it could have many positive effects such as getting the people who are discriminating against those gay men to rethink things, or providing inspiration for those being discriminated against that they can get through it and be successful. It could even help prevent some of them from taking their own lives. Lastly, by openly stating that he's gay, Tim Cook will likely face discrimination when he travels to places which aren't accepting of gays (and even from Apple shareholders who believe they will lose money because of his actions).
Now, with all of that in mind, can you explain to me how an average straight male coming out and stating their sexual orientation is even remotely similar?
Self-interest is a more sophisticated, subtle version of survival instinct, but it is the same thing.
So if Tim Cook's public coming out is driven by self-interest, and self-interest is the same as survival instinct, then explain to me how Cook's survival depends on this action?
One could actually make a good case for the reverse: his survival could potentially be threatened by this action if he travelled to certain areas of the world.
So if Tim Cook's public coming out is driven by self-interest, and self-interest is the same as survival instinct, then explain to me how Cook's survival depends on this action?
One could actually make a good case for the reverse: his survival could potentially be threatened by this action if he travelled to certain areas of the world.
One's personal needs become more subtle and psychological as one climbs the "pyramid" of needs. Surely you are familiar with this?
Once you change to use the categorization of "needs" instead of "necessities for survival", you've broken the logical connection that makes one group the same as the other.
If we're going to discuss it in terms of the "pyramid of needs" (which is again a social theory and not a scientifically provable fact), the needs which fit into a higher level of the pyramid are not the same as the needs which fit into a lower level. This is what forms the distinction between survival instinct and self-interest. So, necessities for survival would be a subset of one's overall needs.
Once you change to use the categorization of "needs" instead of "necessities for survival", you've broken the logical connection that makes one group the same as the other.
If we're going to discuss it in terms of the "pyramid of needs" (which is again a social theory and not a scientifically provable fact), the <span style="line-height:1.4em;">needs which fit into a higher level of the pyramid are not the same as the needs which fit into a lower level. This is what forms the distinction between survival instinct and self-interest. So, necessities for survival would be a subset of one's overall needs.</span>
Agreed. But coming back to my original point, they don't all fit under the survival umbrella.
I think the fundamental problem I have with the notion that all actions are done in the name of self-interest is that it's a completely superfluous statement if the definition of self-interest is simply things one is interested in. What you're essentially saying is that all actions are done in the name of being interested in them. Well of course they are.
But if the definition of self-interest is the interest in things which benefit oneself, then it's more difficult to say that all actions are done in the name of self-interest. Which, of course, the slippery debater then prefixes the term "englightened" to mean actions which benefit oneself and also others.
So then, if upon face value a person's action appears to done predominantly for the benefit of others (as Tim Cook's action does), they'll come up with ideas about how it also benefits the person so that it can be made to fit this model. However, accepting those ideas are true without proof that the person really had these ideas in mind when they performed the action is the real problem.
Apple is in the business of raising consciousness, always has been from the very beginning. The founder was inspired by a fellow acid-tripper, Leary associate, mostly gay philosopher, Richard Alpert, author of "Be Here Now," which was a guide to using the expanded consciousness afforded by mind-manifesting substances like LSD and psilocybin.
The problem with most of you who can't accept Tim's and Apple's stance on "human rights BS'" as Rogifan put it, your problem is that you haven't moved your consciousness beyond where the world was in 1963. You are virgins, in Steve Jobs's words. You haven't paid your respects to Nature and the Way Things Are, the Tao, by taking your medicine, your sacrament, your communion with reality. All life is beautiful if you are open to it.
The sad part about this is that those supposedly principled conservatives have already shown their true colors by even investing in Apple stock in the first place. They have already displayed that they are more concerned with capital gains and profits than moral standards or they wouldn't have put their money into making Apple one of the largest corporations in the world. Then of course, they come into forums like this are indignant that Apple's corporate fabric is all about inclusion.
I would like to see some of these people say that they are dumping this stock because of Tim Cook's actions because it goes against their principles or because they do not believe that a public corporation should not instill social principles. But you know they never will because in the end, the money they make is more important. It's just sad to see them play the victim card here unless they admit they were so ignorant they didn't realize that Apple was like this and are looking to dump the stock.
Agreed. But coming back to my original point, they don't all fit under the survival umbrella.
I think the fundamental problem I have with the notion that all actions are done in the name of self-interest is that it's a completely superfluous statement if the definition of self-interest is simply things one is interested in. What you're essentially saying is that all actions are done in the name of being interested in them. Well of course they are.
But if the definition of self-interest is the interest in things which benefit oneself, then it's more difficult to say that all actions are done in the name of self-interest. Which, of course, the slippery debater then prefixes the term "englightened" to mean actions which benefit oneself and also others.
So then, if upon face value a person's action appears to done predominantly for the benefit of others (as Tim Cook's action does), they'll come up with ideas about how it also benefits the person so that it can be made to fit this model. However, accepting those ideas are true without proof that the person really had these ideas in mind when they performed the action is the real problem.
I'll employ the Wikipedia definition of self-interest for the sake of simplicity:
Self-interestgenerally refers to a focus on the needs or desires (interests) of the self. A number of philosophical, psychological, and economictheories examine the role of self-interest in motivatinghumanaction.
It's not referring to 'things a person is interested in'. You may be interpreting the word too literally.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value, then that is a financial loss I would gladly bare. Some things are more important than the thickness of my wallet.
Good for you -- I don't think the world knowing someones sexual preferences (for lack of a better term) is important. I am not knocking Tim for his choice, I am simply saying that it is not worth the possibility of losing business -- but then again if a fly farts in Africa that can get blamed on Apple and the stock can tumble. Really I am just saying lets avoid the controversial personal issues and get on with building and selling the best technology products in the world.
BTW: I am not knocking you for not giving a shit about losing money/donating for a cause, just don't drag me along and expect me to smile. I think from this thread alone (which seems to be very supportive of Tim) that this is a controversial/volatile issue even for those that of us that don't care about his sexual orientation -- can you imagine the shit slinging going on at the many other companies full of haters?
I've always suspected Larry Ellison was heterosexual, but I'm just not sure. Maybe Tim Cook's actions will one day convince Larry to come out of the closet. It will probably be best if he waits until Oracle is the most valuable company in the world and trading at an all-time high, though.
Comments
Well, it was only Flaneur's last post four hours ago that convinced me. I guess he must have been spouting off for some while to create all that hot air.
Oh I get it, ha ha.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would it somehow make me a "deeper thinker" to say that I like to suck penisis? Are you implying that I'm a 2-dimensional thinker for announcing that I'm straight? It's an announcement of sexual orientation, just like good ol' Tim. Does it make him smarter somehow that he announces something that goes against the grain? What if someone announces that they like to have sex with goats? Is that "courageous" also? Is it praiseworthy? Would Bill Clinton tweet about that?
Oh, my. Nothing is done for the benefit of others. Every decision we make and action we take comes from self-interest, even those that may be identified as "enlightened self-interest". I could argue you that six ways to Sunday.
Ah yes, naturally someone who blindly follows the faith of Capitalist philosophy would argue the world is innately that way. I've studied Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and the other social and economic philosophers who helped form the foundations of modern Capitalism too. People who subscribe to that that faith without question no different from those on the other side of the fence who take Marx and Engels as the gospel truth on how the world works. They just continue to repeat the same mantra over and over again without any independent thought. Reminds me of this famous scene:
In the meantime, despite what philosophy one frame's Tim's actions in, the real world effect is that they will make life better/easier for others who are experiencing hardship due to circumstances that are beyond their control. Whereas using a position of power to advance partisan political views has no such effect (despite what the person advancing them may believe). That's the difference here.
Would it somehow make me a "deeper thinker" to say that I like to suck penisis?
I wonder if either or both of these sentences have ever been written on any other tech forum?
Self-interest is more fundamental than economics. It is biological.
I think you share that self-interest theory with Solip.
It's wrong.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would it somehow make me a "deeper thinker" to say that I like to suck penisis? Are you implying that I'm a 2-dimensional thinker for announcing that I'm straight? It's an announcement of sexual orientation, just like good ol' Tim. Does it make him smarter somehow that he announces something that goes against the grain? What if someone announces that they like to have sex with goats? Is that "courageous" also? Is it praiseworthy? Would Bill Clinton tweet about that?
I've repeated it many times throughout this thread, but I'll try this time very plainly and directly in bold and see if it sinks in for those who can't comprehend things outside of their own experience:
The reason Tim Cook's openly stating that he's gay is important is because there are many other gay men who are currently experiencing discrimination in the world because of their sexual orientation. By having someone of his stature openly state this, it could have many positive effects such as getting the people who are discriminating against those gay men to rethink things, or providing inspiration for those being discriminated against that they can get through it and be successful. It could even help prevent some of them from taking their own lives. Lastly, by openly stating that he's gay, Tim Cook will likely face discrimination when he travels to places which aren't accepting of gays (and even from Apple shareholders who believe they will lose money because of his actions).
Now, with all of that in mind, can you explain to me how an average straight male coming out and stating their sexual orientation is even remotely similar?
Self-interest is more fundamental than economics. It is biological.
Survival instinct is biological. Self-interest is a social theory which has no biological scientific evidence.
Self-interest is a more sophisticated, subtle version of survival instinct, but it is the same thing.
Self-interest is a more sophisticated, subtle version of survival instinct, but it is the same thing.
So if Tim Cook's public coming out is driven by self-interest, and self-interest is the same as survival instinct, then explain to me how Cook's survival depends on this action?
One could actually make a good case for the reverse: his survival could potentially be threatened by this action if he travelled to certain areas of the world.
One's personal needs become more subtle and psychological as one climbs the "pyramid" of needs. Surely you are familiar with this?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
One's personal needs become more subtle and psychological as one climbs the "pyramid" of needs. Surely you are familiar with this?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Once you change to use the categorization of "needs" instead of "necessities for survival", you've broken the logical connection that makes one group the same as the other.
If we're going to discuss it in terms of the "pyramid of needs" (which is again a social theory and not a scientifically provable fact), the needs which fit into a higher level of the pyramid are not the same as the needs which fit into a lower level. This is what forms the distinction between survival instinct and self-interest. So, necessities for survival would be a subset of one's overall needs.
They ALL fit under the self-interest umbrella.
They ALL fit under the self-interest umbrella.
Agreed. But coming back to my original point, they don't all fit under the survival umbrella.
I think the fundamental problem I have with the notion that all actions are done in the name of self-interest is that it's a completely superfluous statement if the definition of self-interest is simply things one is interested in. What you're essentially saying is that all actions are done in the name of being interested in them. Well of course they are.
But if the definition of self-interest is the interest in things which benefit oneself, then it's more difficult to say that all actions are done in the name of self-interest. Which, of course, the slippery debater then prefixes the term "englightened" to mean actions which benefit oneself and also others.
So then, if upon face value a person's action appears to done predominantly for the benefit of others (as Tim Cook's action does), they'll come up with ideas about how it also benefits the person so that it can be made to fit this model. However, accepting those ideas are true without proof that the person really had these ideas in mind when they performed the action is the real problem.
Ugly thread, owned by the benighted ones.
Apple is in the business of raising consciousness, always has been from the very beginning. The founder was inspired by a fellow acid-tripper, Leary associate, mostly gay philosopher, Richard Alpert, author of "Be Here Now," which was a guide to using the expanded consciousness afforded by mind-manifesting substances like LSD and psilocybin.
The problem with most of you who can't accept Tim's and Apple's stance on "human rights BS'" as Rogifan put it, your problem is that you haven't moved your consciousness beyond where the world was in 1963. You are virgins, in Steve Jobs's words. You haven't paid your respects to Nature and the Way Things Are, the Tao, by taking your medicine, your sacrament, your communion with reality. All life is beautiful if you are open to it.
The sad part about this is that those supposedly principled conservatives have already shown their true colors by even investing in Apple stock in the first place. They have already displayed that they are more concerned with capital gains and profits than moral standards or they wouldn't have put their money into making Apple one of the largest corporations in the world. Then of course, they come into forums like this are indignant that Apple's corporate fabric is all about inclusion.
I would like to see some of these people say that they are dumping this stock because of Tim Cook's actions because it goes against their principles or because they do not believe that a public corporation should not instill social principles. But you know they never will because in the end, the money they make is more important. It's just sad to see them play the victim card here unless they admit they were so ignorant they didn't realize that Apple was like this and are looking to dump the stock.
Maybe he's just a regular guy like the majority of people you offended with your binary stereotypes.
Agreed. But coming back to my original point, they don't all fit under the survival umbrella.
I think the fundamental problem I have with the notion that all actions are done in the name of self-interest is that it's a completely superfluous statement if the definition of self-interest is simply things one is interested in. What you're essentially saying is that all actions are done in the name of being interested in them. Well of course they are.
But if the definition of self-interest is the interest in things which benefit oneself, then it's more difficult to say that all actions are done in the name of self-interest. Which, of course, the slippery debater then prefixes the term "englightened" to mean actions which benefit oneself and also others.
So then, if upon face value a person's action appears to done predominantly for the benefit of others (as Tim Cook's action does), they'll come up with ideas about how it also benefits the person so that it can be made to fit this model. However, accepting those ideas are true without proof that the person really had these ideas in mind when they performed the action is the real problem.
I'll employ the Wikipedia definition of self-interest for the sake of simplicity:
Self-interest generally refers to a focus on the needs or desires (interests) of the self. A number of philosophical, psychological, and economic theories examine the role of self-interest in motivating human action.
It's not referring to 'things a person is interested in'. You may be interpreting the word too literally.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value, then that is a financial loss I would gladly bare. Some things are more important than the thickness of my wallet.
Good for you -- I don't think the world knowing someones sexual preferences (for lack of a better term) is important. I am not knocking Tim for his choice, I am simply saying that it is not worth the possibility of losing business -- but then again if a fly farts in Africa that can get blamed on Apple and the stock can tumble. Really I am just saying lets avoid the controversial personal issues and get on with building and selling the best technology products in the world.
BTW: I am not knocking you for not giving a shit about losing money/donating for a cause, just don't drag me along and expect me to smile. I think from this thread alone (which seems to be very supportive of Tim) that this is a controversial/volatile issue even for those that of us that don't care about his sexual orientation -- can you imagine the shit slinging going on at the many other companies full of haters?
I've always suspected Larry Ellison was heterosexual, but I'm just not sure. Maybe Tim Cook's actions will one day convince Larry to come out of the closet. It will probably be best if he waits until Oracle is the most valuable company in the world and trading at an all-time high, though.