And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.
You seem to not understand. Cook has had the courage to make his private life public in order to help out all the ones whose private gay life is suffering from people who'd rather they're not allowed to even have a private life. Or to even have a life.
And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.
You seem to not understand. Cook has had the courage to make his private life public in order to help out all the ones whose private gay life is suffering from people who'd rather they're not allowed to even have a private life. Or to even have a life.
We all suffer.
It's not Cook's position as CEO of Apple to be a politician. All it does is detract from the laser-like focus that Jobs built up and takes us back to the Apple of the 90s.
Coca-Cola sells Coca-leaf-flavored drinks, but cocaine is dangerous. Plants and drugs are controlled for a reason, not because governments around the world just thought "hey, what could we do this morning? Let's make laws on random plants".
Marijuana is an interesting plant providing powerful chemicals for human medicinal use, but it should not be considered harmless, as it clearly isn't.
The main issue is not about promoting the use of it but the legality of possessing it. Alcohol is dangerous but isn't illegal to own:
because they couldn't find any other cause of death but alcohol kills 2.5m every year worldwide. I personally consider alcohol to be more dangerous and leads to worse behaviour and would much rather mass alcohol consumption was replaced with a safer alternative. Drugs don't have to be smoked to be ingested, there's a connoisseur here that reviews the edible route:
[VIDEO]
Skip to 9:40 for the effects, which showed up 30-60 minutes after eating. Perhaps there can be a version that gets absorbed more quickly but without resorting to smoking.
And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.
You wouldn't say that about Steve Jobs or Jony Ive mentioning their wife or kids so Tim Cook should get the same treatment. All he's done is say he's gay, why is it wiser to not say that?
I'm not a big fan when innocents are groomed in any scenario (homosexuality being one of many).
Everybody is groomed. If you took a person and isolated them from all human contact then when you introduce them to people, they would still have to figure out their sexuality. It's very rare to have children raised without other humans but it happens:
[VIDEO]
Almost every aspect of human behaviour that you are familiar with is trained. But on top of the training, there are chemicals in bodies that have evolved to promote attraction between different sexes:
We already know that people aren't all born completely male or female so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that people's bodies don't all react the same way to chemicals designed to attract partners. You might think of it as an abnormality much like some would consider hermaphroditism to be but these would have to be defective or harmful to be labelled abnormal and that hasn't been demonstrated so they are just atypical outcomes in the random process of forming a human being.
It's not Cook's position as CEO of Apple to be a politician. All it does is detract from the laser-like focus that Jobs built up and takes us back to the Apple of the 90s.
Horseshit. One interview and appearance at a parade doesn't take appreciable time; Steve Jobs had a personal life too. Did SJ speaking at Stanford detract from Apples focus? Maybe it did, so great! Apple without any heart is not an Apple I'd want to see.
It's not Cook's position as CEO of Apple to be a politician. All it does is detract from the laser-like focus that Jobs built up and takes us back to the Apple of the 90s.
Horseshit. One interview and appearance at a parade doesn't take appreciable time; Steve Jobs had a personal life too. Did SJ speaking at Stanford detract from Apples focus? Maybe it did, so great! Apple without any heart is not an Apple I'd want to see.
Tim Cook is in the wrong job.
He's at much his most passionate when talking politics. He has never shown anything close to Jobs's passion for Apple's products. What that means is that the general public also show less enthusiasm for them, and Apple's magical aura fades.
It took decades to take Apple's brand to No.1, and it will take but a few mis-steps to destroy it.
And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.
I don't know if you are married, but imagine you were giving a presentation at a large conference and gave a quick anecdote, saying something like "My wife mentioned to me this morning ..." as I've certainly heard people do - you would be making making your private life public.
Do you wear a wedding ring? That clearly says "I'm married" to everyone who sees it. In your case, it says, loud and clear, "I'm heterosexual and I'm unavailable". Why willingly bring your private life into the public domain in such a blatant manner?
The thing is, the assumption is always that you are straight. That if you are a married man then you are obviously married to a woman. That you you have children. This is never seen as making your private life public because it is just everywhere around us. Of course, when a gay person makes an equivalent statement, you have a very different reaction. Interesting.
Your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. I suggest that people are asexual (do not have sexual desire) before puberty, and sexual (have sexual desires) during/after puberty, and that coercion has nothing to do with it.
Again, your assertion is that everyone is coerced into being sexual. Given that I had sexual desires long before I ever had sex, who or what “coerced” me into being sexual, and what was their motive, given that they didn’t actually conduce me into sexual activity with them?
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. I have two children, by the way.
My assertion is not that people are coerced into being sexual, it's that they are coerced into different preferences once they get there.
I was kissing girls & getting aroused before puberty. I remember that well.
Congratulations on the kids by the way.
My assertion is not that people are coerced into being sexual, it's that they are coerced into different preferences once they get there.
I was kissing girls & getting aroused before puberty. I remember that well.
Congratulations on the kids by the way.
May men "expermint" with other men, especially in their teens and 20s, and do not identify as gay later in life. So a "coercion" to engage in homosexual sex does not correlate with later identifiying as gay. The assertion that homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic because they are less likely to reproduce, and thus will not pass on the gene, portends a misunderstanding of genetics. Firstly, because someone does not show a particular trait, doesn't mean they don't carry the gene. It could be a recessive gene that only expresses itself if a copy is received from both parents. As with most genetic variance, most traits are more complex than a simple dominant/recessive binary anyway. Also, for example, people with Down Sydrome are born at a pretty predictable rate, even though those with the condition are very rarely fertile. They do not pass on their genes. The condition is caused by an extra chromosome being passed, and is not depedant on their parents carrying a gene for the trait. Even so, homosexuality could even be more complex than a simple nature vs nurture binary, perhaps caused by a combination of factors. There is no one universally excepted theory on its causes, but the sort of coersion theory you offer has found no basis in actual studies.
There's a video on Youtube of a guy walking around dressed effeminately to see the reactions he'd get. This was originally done by a woman walking around filming reactions ( ):
[VIDEO]
There's quite a few of these done, some parodies but there's another one here with a guy who gets similar harassment to the woman and is approached by both men and women:
[VIDEO]
Some of the comments on the homosexual video criticise the portrayal of the homosexual but it's just to see the kind of reactions people have towards it. One of the comments that was upvoted 140 times said "god made the world without homesexuals, there wouldnt be any babies if people were all homosexual, its just not meant to be". Other highly voted posts said:
"Don't be a homosexual and you won't get harrased. Why would you even want to be homosexual??"
"Gays are mentally ill. And we should try to help those sick people!?",
"just thinking about homosexuals/gays makes me feel like this world has gone to shit. It's not fucking normal, and the thing that pisses me off the most is when all the gays come together and are like "we're gay, so what" "I get bullied for being gay" "Why do I Get picked on?", it's their fault for bringing all the attention to them by making themselves vulnerable because they made the worst decision any one can make in their life. Russia have the right idea about how to deal with gays."
"Blacks always cry racism but they are racist to gays and also violent"
The Youtube comment section can't be taken too seriously and probably has a lot of kids in it but the video and nature of the comments show how intolerant people can be just in everyday situations. The guy in the video wan't doing anything to anyone and didn't deserve to be treated like that.
I think a big part of the problem with things that people are intolerant of is the word association. Homosexuality gets linked with effeminacy, AIDS, mental illness, child abuse, obscene sex acts. When you look at Tim Cook, he's nothing like this but his sexuality hadn't been declared so he wasn't part of how people define homosexuality. The more people who are like Tim Cook e.g Ellen Page ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ellen-page-comes-as-gay-680563 ), who are simply living their lives and choose to declare their sexuality, the more people will see there's nothing harmful in what they're doing.
Fortunately, there are people who are more supportive, the following was an exchange apparently found by the guy's sister and posted online:
May men "expermint" with other men, especially in their teens and 20s, and do not identify as gay later in life. So a "coercion" to engage in homosexual sex does not correlate with later identifiying as gay. The assertion that homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic because they are less likely to reproduce, and thus will not pass on the gene, portends a misunderstanding of genetics. Firstly, because someone does not show a particular trait, doesn't mean they don't carry the gene. It could be a recessive gene that only expresses itself if a copy is received from both parents. As with most genetic variance, most traits are more complex than a simple dominant/recessive binary anyway. Also, for example, people with Down Sydrome are born at a pretty predictable rate, even though those with the condition are very rarely fertile. They do not pass on their genes. The condition is caused by an extra chromosome being passed, and is not depedant on their parents carrying a gene for the trait. Even so, homosexuality could even be more complex than a simple nature vs nurture binary, perhaps caused by a combination of factors. There is no one universally excepted theory on its causes, but the sort of coersion theory you offer has found no basis in actual studies.
Experimentation is a conscious choice (I'd like to think) so not really what I'm talking about.
I don't misunderstand genetic expression, only why it would be applied to such a prolific segment of society which mostly fails to pass anything on.
Down syndrome likelihood dramatically increases in older women implying its influenced by environmental rather than purely genetic factors which would support my point. It also affects less than 0.1% of foetuses, most are electively terminated.
I don't misunderstand genetic expression, only why it would be applied to such a prolific segment of society which mostly fails to pass anything on.
So you're saying that Mother Nature keeps getting things wrong. Again. And again. And again. For over a thousand years at least. Maybe she understands something you don't. Either genetics is wrong. Genetics is incomplete. Your understanding of genetics is wrong or incomplete. Take your pick.
Or maybe, stop trying to work it out and just accept that, like glow in the dark fish, towering sequoia trees, volcanoes, hummingbirds, angler fish and orchids (to name the minutest portion of it all), Mother Nature has provided us with a fantastically diverse experience of life to delight in. Humans, in all our variety, are part of the wonderful web of life, including me and you.
So you're saying that Mother Nature keeps getting things wrong. Again. And again. And again. For over a thousand years at least. Maybe she understands something you don't. Either genetics is wrong. Genetics is incomplete. Your understanding of genetics is wrong or incomplete. Take your pick.
Or maybe, stop trying to work it out and just accept that, like glow in the dark fish, towering sequoia trees, volcanoes, hummingbirds, angler fish and orchids (to name the minutest portion of it all), Mother Nature has provided us with a fantastically diverse experience of life to delight in. Humans, in all our variety, are part of the wonderful web of life, including me and you.
Natural Selection could easily include Mother Nature "getting things wrong."
So you're saying that Mother Nature keeps getting things wrong. Again. And again. And again. For over a thousand years at least. Maybe she understands something you don't. Either genetics is wrong. Genetics is incomplete. Your understanding of genetics is wrong or incomplete. Take your pick.
Or maybe, stop trying to work it out and just accept that, like glow in the dark fish, towering sequoia trees, volcanoes, hummingbirds, angler fish and orchids (to name the minutest portion of it all), Mother Nature has provided us with a fantastically diverse experience of life to delight in. Humans, in all our variety, are part of the wonderful web of life, including me and you.
Also, it is a very incorrect understanding of Darwinism/evolution to say that because some individuals don't reproduce, they don't contribute genes to the community.
Maybe the gay brothers of the alpha female ensure her protection and continued survival for their gene pool. Direct transmission is only part of the picture.
Using pseudo-science to decry sexual conduct that displease one is equivalent to saying "God hates this behavior". Neither science nor gods talk to us directly (but science does allow us to lead efficient experiments with the goal of increasing common knowledge).
A lot of waffle - just answer my question simply. Why are you so interested? "Grooming". "Played for sex". "Denial". What has this to do with anything I asked? You repeat that you don't have a problem with people being gay but you seem very interested in why they are gay. Could it be that you have a fixed script which cannot simply accept (consensual) human sexuality in all its variety? You seem certain that heterosexuality is "the one true way" and therefore anything else is some kind of weird biological or social anomaly which needs to be evaluated and then possibly, "fixed". I don't know.
I really don't like the taste of cucumber so I don't eat it, but most people do. Can you accept that I don't like cucumber and move on - you probably wouldn't want to deny my rights, attack me, imprison me, kill me or hound me out of my home simply for disliking it. Why are you so fascinated by my same sex desires but not at all interested (I'm guessing here!) in my dislike of a certain vegetables. I like gherkins, just to muddy the issue. Oh, and I'm vegetarian too.
Oh, and you are patronising ("<span style="color:rgb(59,59,59);text-indent:-14px;">treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority")</span>
! By saying, as you did earlier about gay people that "it's not their fault" means that we are at fault in your eyes but we are not responsible for it. What gives you the right to make such personal judgements about people of whom you have no knowledge and have never met?
I've answered your question directly, why won't you accept the answer.
Never said heterosexuality was the one true way, they're your words.
And, as usual, my "superiority" complex appears to be your "inferiority" complex- nice try. And what gives me the right to have my own opinion based my own experiences - well how arrogant of me. Perhaps you should practice the tolerance you expect and crave.
In fact from your comments, perhaps your homosexuality isn't from coercion ("rules" are never absolute). It appears to be blind defiance of the imposition of heterosexuality/normality. In light of this you might want to try meat again - tastes good!
270 replies to a thread in the AAPL investors forum about Cook's sexuality and politics - at least twice as many replies as any (legit) investment related thread has gotten in here over the past 6 months or so. And someone asked me why I don't post here much anymore. Yeah, I can't imagine why...
Comments
And yet, Cook has willingly brought his private life into the public domain. It would have been wiser for him to keep it private.
You seem to not understand. Cook has had the courage to make his private life public in order to help out all the ones whose private gay life is suffering from people who'd rather they're not allowed to even have a private life. Or to even have a life.
We all suffer.
It's not Cook's position as CEO of Apple to be a politician. All it does is detract from the laser-like focus that Jobs built up and takes us back to the Apple of the 90s.
The main issue is not about promoting the use of it but the legality of possessing it. Alcohol is dangerous but isn't illegal to own:
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/teengirls/Pages/vodka.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/Effectsofalcohol.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/cannabis-facts.aspx
Mushrooms can be deadly:
http://gawker.com/5952743/woman-accidentally-poisons-her-whole-family-with-wild-mushrooms
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239069/Christina-Hale-dies-husband-left-seriously-ill-eating-mushrooms-garden.html
but the ones they outlaw are the hallucinogenic kind:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4691899.stm
Surely items that kill are worse. There's been a recorded death due to cannabis here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548669/Devout-Christian-mother-three-31-woman-Britain-DIE-cannabis-poisoning-smoking-joint-bed.html
because they couldn't find any other cause of death but alcohol kills 2.5m every year worldwide. I personally consider alcohol to be more dangerous and leads to worse behaviour and would much rather mass alcohol consumption was replaced with a safer alternative. Drugs don't have to be smoked to be ingested, there's a connoisseur here that reviews the edible route:
[VIDEO]
Skip to 9:40 for the effects, which showed up 30-60 minutes after eating. Perhaps there can be a version that gets absorbed more quickly but without resorting to smoking.
You wouldn't say that about Steve Jobs or Jony Ive mentioning their wife or kids so Tim Cook should get the same treatment. All he's done is say he's gay, why is it wiser to not say that?
Everybody is groomed. If you took a person and isolated them from all human contact then when you introduce them to people, they would still have to figure out their sexuality. It's very rare to have children raised without other humans but it happens:
[VIDEO]
Almost every aspect of human behaviour that you are familiar with is trained. But on top of the training, there are chemicals in bodies that have evolved to promote attraction between different sexes:
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/more-evidence-sexuality-is-innate-gay-men-respond-to-male-sex-pheromones
We already know that people aren't all born completely male or female so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that people's bodies don't all react the same way to chemicals designed to attract partners. You might think of it as an abnormality much like some would consider hermaphroditism to be but these would have to be defective or harmful to be labelled abnormal and that hasn't been demonstrated so they are just atypical outcomes in the random process of forming a human being.
Tim Cook is in the wrong job.
He's at much his most passionate when talking politics. He has never shown anything close to Jobs's passion for Apple's products. What that means is that the general public also show less enthusiasm for them, and Apple's magical aura fades.
It took decades to take Apple's brand to No.1, and it will take but a few mis-steps to destroy it.
I see that passion about Apple and its products whenever he's on stage or giving an interview.
And yet, he's been at the helm for many years and Apple has continued to succeed, thrive and grow.
I don't know if you are married, but imagine you were giving a presentation at a large conference and gave a quick anecdote, saying something like "My wife mentioned to me this morning ..." as I've certainly heard people do - you would be making making your private life public.
Do you wear a wedding ring? That clearly says "I'm married" to everyone who sees it. In your case, it says, loud and clear, "I'm heterosexual and I'm unavailable". Why willingly bring your private life into the public domain in such a blatant manner?
The thing is, the assumption is always that you are straight. That if you are a married man then you are obviously married to a woman. That you you have children. This is never seen as making your private life public because it is just everywhere around us. Of course, when a gay person makes an equivalent statement, you have a very different reaction. Interesting.
My assertion is not that people are coerced into being sexual, it's that they are coerced into different preferences once they get there.
I was kissing girls & getting aroused before puberty. I remember that well.
Congratulations on the kids by the way.
My assertion is not that people are coerced into being sexual, it's that they are coerced into different preferences once they get there.
I was kissing girls & getting aroused before puberty. I remember that well.
Congratulations on the kids by the way.
May men "expermint" with other men, especially in their teens and 20s, and do not identify as gay later in life. So a "coercion" to engage in homosexual sex does not correlate with later identifiying as gay. The assertion that homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic because they are less likely to reproduce, and thus will not pass on the gene, portends a misunderstanding of genetics. Firstly, because someone does not show a particular trait, doesn't mean they don't carry the gene. It could be a recessive gene that only expresses itself if a copy is received from both parents. As with most genetic variance, most traits are more complex than a simple dominant/recessive binary anyway. Also, for example, people with Down Sydrome are born at a pretty predictable rate, even though those with the condition are very rarely fertile. They do not pass on their genes. The condition is caused by an extra chromosome being passed, and is not depedant on their parents carrying a gene for the trait. Even so, homosexuality could even be more complex than a simple nature vs nurture binary, perhaps caused by a combination of factors. There is no one universally excepted theory on its causes, but the sort of coersion theory you offer has found no basis in actual studies.
[VIDEO]
There's quite a few of these done, some parodies but there's another one here with a guy who gets similar harassment to the woman and is approached by both men and women:
[VIDEO]
Some of the comments on the homosexual video criticise the portrayal of the homosexual but it's just to see the kind of reactions people have towards it. One of the comments that was upvoted 140 times said "god made the world without homesexuals, there wouldnt be any babies if people were all homosexual, its just not meant to be". Other highly voted posts said:
"Don't be a homosexual and you won't get harrased. Why would you even want to be homosexual??"
"Gays are mentally ill. And we should try to help those sick people!?",
"just thinking about homosexuals/gays makes me feel like this world has gone to shit. It's not fucking normal, and the thing that pisses me off the most is when all the gays come together and are like "we're gay, so what" "I get bullied for being gay" "Why do I Get picked on?", it's their fault for bringing all the attention to them by making themselves vulnerable because they made the worst decision any one can make in their life. Russia have the right idea about how to deal with gays."
"Blacks always cry racism but they are racist to gays and also violent"
The Youtube comment section can't be taken too seriously and probably has a lot of kids in it but the video and nature of the comments show how intolerant people can be just in everyday situations. The guy in the video wan't doing anything to anyone and didn't deserve to be treated like that.
I think a big part of the problem with things that people are intolerant of is the word association. Homosexuality gets linked with effeminacy, AIDS, mental illness, child abuse, obscene sex acts. When you look at Tim Cook, he's nothing like this but his sexuality hadn't been declared so he wasn't part of how people define homosexuality. The more people who are like Tim Cook e.g Ellen Page ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ellen-page-comes-as-gay-680563 ), who are simply living their lives and choose to declare their sexuality, the more people will see there's nothing harmful in what they're doing.
Fortunately, there are people who are more supportive, the following was an exchange apparently found by the guy's sister and posted online:
http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/22/boy-13-comes-out-to-his-best-friend-his-response-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity-4958300/
Experimentation is a conscious choice (I'd like to think) so not really what I'm talking about.
I don't misunderstand genetic expression, only why it would be applied to such a prolific segment of society which mostly fails to pass anything on.
Down syndrome likelihood dramatically increases in older women implying its influenced by environmental rather than purely genetic factors which would support my point. It also affects less than 0.1% of foetuses, most are electively terminated.
I don't misunderstand genetic expression, only why it would be applied to such a prolific segment of society which mostly fails to pass anything on.
So you're saying that Mother Nature keeps getting things wrong. Again. And again. And again. For over a thousand years at least. Maybe she understands something you don't. Either genetics is wrong. Genetics is incomplete. Your understanding of genetics is wrong or incomplete. Take your pick.
Or maybe, stop trying to work it out and just accept that, like glow in the dark fish, towering sequoia trees, volcanoes, hummingbirds, angler fish and orchids (to name the minutest portion of it all), Mother Nature has provided us with a fantastically diverse experience of life to delight in. Humans, in all our variety, are part of the wonderful web of life, including me and you.
Natural Selection could easily include Mother Nature "getting things wrong."
So you're saying that Mother Nature keeps getting things wrong. Again. And again. And again. For over a thousand years at least. Maybe she understands something you don't. Either genetics is wrong. Genetics is incomplete. Your understanding of genetics is wrong or incomplete. Take your pick.
Or maybe, stop trying to work it out and just accept that, like glow in the dark fish, towering sequoia trees, volcanoes, hummingbirds, angler fish and orchids (to name the minutest portion of it all), Mother Nature has provided us with a fantastically diverse experience of life to delight in. Humans, in all our variety, are part of the wonderful web of life, including me and you.
Also, it is a very incorrect understanding of Darwinism/evolution to say that because some individuals don't reproduce, they don't contribute genes to the community.
Maybe the gay brothers of the alpha female ensure her protection and continued survival for their gene pool. Direct transmission is only part of the picture.
Using pseudo-science to decry sexual conduct that displease one is equivalent to saying "God hates this behavior". Neither science nor gods talk to us directly (but science does allow us to lead efficient experiments with the goal of increasing common knowledge).
Also, bananas.
Never said heterosexuality was the one true way, they're your words.
And, as usual, my "superiority" complex appears to be your "inferiority" complex- nice try. And what gives me the right to have my own opinion based my own experiences - well how arrogant of me. Perhaps you should practice the tolerance you expect and crave.
In fact from your comments, perhaps your homosexuality isn't from coercion ("rules" are never absolute). It appears to be blind defiance of the imposition of heterosexuality/normality. In light of this you might want to try meat again - tastes good!
270 replies to a thread in the AAPL investors forum about Cook's sexuality and politics - at least twice as many replies as any (legit) investment related thread has gotten in here over the past 6 months or so. And someone asked me why I don't post here much anymore. Yeah, I can't imagine why...