Someone's upset that they cannot be legally free to discriminate gays if a law is passed banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and to promote tolerance and respect for different people.
Tim Cook is obviously free to do whatever he pleases with his own money.
Having said that, I bet you that if Tim Cook were not gay, and if he was a conservative CEO contributing to a conservative cause using their own private money, then many of the same people that applaud Tim Cook's gay activism would be calling for his head and for his resignation. You know that's true, don't even attempt to deny that.
You are right on this. A CEO is a representative of their company and its products. Any time they openly support a cause not related to their business they put themselves at risk. Just as a hard line conservative would garner fans and haters for their position, so too Tim risks similar treatment. In Russia I believe they've already had statues of him taken down or some time of similar backlash.
In the end it is Tim's decision to take that risk or not take that risk. Calls that 'this is Tim's private affair' are wrong, Tim is doing it openly and deliberately for a reason. (Obviously the parts about it being his money are correct). I commend him for his courage.
You are right on this. A CEO is a representative of their company and its products. Any time they openly support a cause not related to their business they put themselves at risk. Just as a hard line conservative would garner fans and haters for their position, so too Tim risks similar treatment. In Russia I believe they've already had statues of him taken down or some time of similar backlash.
In the end it is Tim's decision to take that risk or not take that risk. Calls that 'this is Tim's private affair' are wrong, Tim is doing it openly and deliberately for a reason. (Obviously the parts about it being his money are correct). I commend him for his courage.
The Russian statue that you speak of was a Steve Jobs statue that they took down and removed, because Russia is obviously not too fond of any gay people. Steve Jobs was not gay, but when Tim Cook came out as gay, that was enough for them to remove the statue of Jobs.
I bet you that if Tim Cook were not gay, and if he was a conservative CEO contributing to a conservative cause using their own private money, then many of the same people that applaud Tim Cook's gay activism would be calling for his head and for his resignation. You know that's true, don't even attempt to deny that.:smokey:
what if the cause was, let's say, anti-illegal immigration? That is a worthy and good cause to be contributing to, yet I bet that people would be attacked for supporting such a noble cause. You have certain CEOs, like that dufus from Facebook who is basically pro illegal immigration and is spending lots of money to fund his anti-American activities, yet he still has his job.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, and many of those people who claim to be tolerant, are some of the most intolerant hypocrite types around.
If you don't tolerate immigrants or people with different sexuality then you are intolerant. You seem to be suggesting that people who don't tolerate people who are intolerant are themselves intolerant. However, tolerating them would allow their intolerance to continue so they have no choice. It's like the phrase 'fighting for peace'. It seems inherently hypocritical but without the confrontation then the result wouldn't come about.
You have a valid point that people choose a side in arguments based on their own perspective and homosexuality was officially illegal 10-50 years ago, the following case was from 2003:
The law can change overnight but decades of conditioning that the laws enforce doesn't change as quickly. The same thing happened with race, interracial marriage etc.
The Firefox/Mozilla CEO stepped down after calls to boycott the company's products for the CEO promoting anti-gay legislation. After he stepped down, anti-gay organizations called to boycott the company:
"We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people".
Society as a whole can't just allow every point of view to have equal merit because there are clear cases where one view is much more harmful than the other. Some issues are very hard to decide like abortion where it involves taking a human life away.
A lot of people don't agree with homosexuality but they need to justify why that's the case. If they can't justify their opposition then those views are unreasonable and so they are treated differently from views that are reasonable.
As long as there is pay inequity between sexes, there will be a need for the giving generosity you represent.
To sort pay inequity there (equal pay for equal work), he should really be giving to big breasted male strippers because there's no way they're making as much as the female ones.
If you don't tolerate immigrants or people with different sexuality then you are intolerant.
I just need to point out that I obviously have zero problems with any immigrants. The USA is made up of immigrants from everywhere. Unless somebody is pure native American blood, then we are all immigrants from somewhere.
But I do not tolerate any illegal immigrants at all, and I don't believe that makes me intolerant.
I just need to point out that I obviously have zero problems with any immigrants. The USA is made up of immigrants from everywhere. Unless somebody is pure native American blood, then we are all immigrants from somewhere.
But I do not tolerate any illegal immigrants at all, and I don't believe that makes me intolerant.
So you'd find with children from unregistered individuals who are born here?
So long as follow the unquestionable and immutable law we'll always have right on our side¡
Not all laws are right or just of course. Bad laws should be changed. Children born to illegals should not become citizens, so that is something that should be changed, however that's the law at the moment, unfortunately.
Children born to illegals should not become citizens…
No, I don’t like that. There’s a reason that everyone born here is a citizen.
“Anchor babies” need to become legally moot, however. We’ve no right nor desire to expel citizens from the country, but minors also have no right to living on their own.
With the deportation of illegal parents, the child does not have to follow the parents, but remaining would place him into foster care. I can’t imagine many who would leave their parents, so it would be a voluntary return to their parents’ home country.
It’s not the expulsion of citizens. It’s the expulsion of illegals who have ties to citizens who, in most cases, would choose to continue those ties. An illegal spouse could very well see the same thing happen; there’s no problem here.
No, I don’t like that. There’s a reason that everyone born here is a citizen.
I am assuming that practically everyone born here was born to non illegals.
Did you know that the US is one of the few western nations on the planet to have such an insane law? I just checked on Google, and only the US and Canada has such an insane law, no other western countries on the planet has it! The few that did have it all repelled that crazy law.
It's insane that any living being on the planet can simply make their way to the USA, then find a way to break in illegally, and if they only manage to poop out their baby on US soil, then they get rewarded by having their child becoming a citizen. This law is being taking advantage of, and it is actually enticing people to break the law.
No, I don’t like that. There’s a reason that everyone born here is a citizen.
I am assuming that practically everyone born here was born to non illegals.
Did you know that the US is one of the few western nations on the planet to have such an insane law? I just checked on Google, and only the US and Canada has such an insane law, no other western countries on the planet has it! The few that did have it all repelled that crazy law.
It's insane that any living being on the planet can simply make their way to the USA, then find a way to break in illegally, and if they only manage to poop out their baby on US soil, then they get rewarded by having their child becoming a citizen. This law is being taking advantage of, and it is actually enticing people to break the law.
That's a crazy law.
As TS suggests, either the children should be deported with the parents or they should be placed in care or adopted.
Whatever happens to the children, the parents should be banished permanently.
It's insane that any living being on the planet can simply make their way to the USA, then find a way to break in illegally, and if they only manage to poop out their baby on US soil, then they get rewarded by having their child becoming a citizen. This law is being taking advantage of, and it is actually enticing people to break the law.
Right, and this situation is disgusting and inexcusable, but it is not the law itself that makes it so.
The law stating all people born on US soil are US citizens is a logical conclusion of the fundamental rights otherwise protected by the Constitution.
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
As TS suggests, either the children should be deported with the parents or they should be placed in care or adopted.
Again, it’s not the deportation of the children. The children cannot–and should not–in any way be forced to leave, but more often than not they’d probably choose to stick with their parents. I don’t like the idea of Americans even voluntarily leaving the country, but I dislike more the idea of illegals abusing their position here.
Good God. Does the word "inhuman" mean anything to you? It should because that's where you would find your picture in the dictionary.
Nobody forced them to break the law, invading another country's sovereign territory, and scamming money and benefits that they are not entitled to. It is a very disrespectful and rude thing to do, not to mention criminal and also quite sleazy. And I am of the belief that respect is a two way street. A country without borders isn't really a country.
You might as well add my picture to your dictionary also.
I do not tolerate any illegal immigrants at all, and I don't believe that makes me intolerant.
It does by definition, what you're saying is that there are things that are ok to be intolerant of such as things that break the law. There are cases where the law is not setup in a way to promote the best outcome for people as a whole because people change over time. Liberalism can adapt to change, conservatism opposes change. That's why the latter always wants to stick to an unchanging constitution or unchanging religious text to define laws. Different races and sexualities cause a change in population culture and conservatism/intolerance resists that change.
Illegal immigration can certainly cause a lot of harm when it happens in large numbers but where you are making a false equivalency is in suggesting that Zuckerberg should be condemned for wanting to help illegal immigrant children in the same way Brendan Eich was condemned for opposing gay marriage. Zuckerberg was not trying to create a problem, he was trying to help solve a problem that already exists. Brendan Eich was not solving any problem, he was just resisting change he didn't agree with.
The intention behind each action shows the relative merit. The side often described as socialists, tend to act in a way to benefit others regardless of whether the action impacts themselves positively, the other side (capitalist, conservative) tends to act in a way to benefit themselves be it enforcing their unchanging ideology or for their own gain regardless of the expense to others.
The reason the two sides exist is because neither side can reach a suitable result on its own but in each issue, people need to justify the problems caused by the change they oppose or justify the gain caused through their support. Justification doesn't come from pointing at an ancient text written hundreds or thousands of years ago as though there's an unquestionable authority to it.
What Tim Cook is doing here is supporting a group who want to help people who are suffering because of the unwillingness of others to accept their differences:
There are behaviours that lots of people won't tolerate, including more liberal people but if they justify their actions suitably then it's not hypocritical. Where intolerance can't be justified then the people opposing intolerance don't deserve condemnation for it.
Comments
Bigots have no place here.
Tim Cook is obviously free to do whatever he pleases with his own money.
Having said that, I bet you that if Tim Cook were not gay, and if he was a conservative CEO contributing to a conservative cause using their own private money, then many of the same people that applaud Tim Cook's gay activism would be calling for his head and for his resignation. You know that's true, don't even attempt to deny that.
You are right on this. A CEO is a representative of their company and its products. Any time they openly support a cause not related to their business they put themselves at risk. Just as a hard line conservative would garner fans and haters for their position, so too Tim risks similar treatment. In Russia I believe they've already had statues of him taken down or some time of similar backlash.
In the end it is Tim's decision to take that risk or not take that risk. Calls that 'this is Tim's private affair' are wrong, Tim is doing it openly and deliberately for a reason. (Obviously the parts about it being his money are correct). I commend him for his courage.
You are right on this. A CEO is a representative of their company and its products. Any time they openly support a cause not related to their business they put themselves at risk. Just as a hard line conservative would garner fans and haters for their position, so too Tim risks similar treatment. In Russia I believe they've already had statues of him taken down or some time of similar backlash.
In the end it is Tim's decision to take that risk or not take that risk. Calls that 'this is Tim's private affair' are wrong, Tim is doing it openly and deliberately for a reason. (Obviously the parts about it being his money are correct). I commend him for his courage.
The Russian statue that you speak of was a Steve Jobs statue that they took down and removed, because Russia is obviously not too fond of any gay people. Steve Jobs was not gay, but when Tim Cook came out as gay, that was enough for them to remove the statue of Jobs.
Intolerant is a synonym for the word conservative ( http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/intolerant ):
http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-tim-cook-could-have-been-fired-for-being-gay-2014-10
If you don't tolerate immigrants or people with different sexuality then you are intolerant. You seem to be suggesting that people who don't tolerate people who are intolerant are themselves intolerant. However, tolerating them would allow their intolerance to continue so they have no choice. It's like the phrase 'fighting for peace'. It seems inherently hypocritical but without the confrontation then the result wouldn't come about.
You have a valid point that people choose a side in arguments based on their own perspective and homosexuality was officially illegal 10-50 years ago, the following case was from 2003:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html
The law can change overnight but decades of conditioning that the laws enforce doesn't change as quickly. The same thing happened with race, interracial marriage etc.
The Firefox/Mozilla CEO stepped down after calls to boycott the company's products for the CEO promoting anti-gay legislation. After he stepped down, anti-gay organizations called to boycott the company:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/04/anti-gay-marriage-group-calls-for-boycott-of-mozilla-firefox/
Apple removed that organization's app from the App Store, twice:
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/steve-jobs-mocked-in-anti-gay-marriage-1984-spoof/
"We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people".
Society as a whole can't just allow every point of view to have equal merit because there are clear cases where one view is much more harmful than the other. Some issues are very hard to decide like abortion where it involves taking a human life away.
A lot of people don't agree with homosexuality but they need to justify why that's the case. If they can't justify their opposition then those views are unreasonable and so they are treated differently from views that are reasonable.
To sort pay inequity there (equal pay for equal work), he should really be giving to big breasted male strippers because there's no way they're making as much as the female ones.
If you don't tolerate immigrants or people with different sexuality then you are intolerant.
I just need to point out that I obviously have zero problems with any immigrants. The USA is made up of immigrants from everywhere. Unless somebody is pure native American blood, then we are all immigrants from somewhere.
But I do not tolerate any illegal immigrants at all, and I don't believe that makes me intolerant.
So you'd find with children from unregistered individuals who are born here?
So you'd find with children from unregistered individuals who are born here?
I believe that the law says that any child born in the US is a US citizen, so I guess I can't argue with that.
So the children are fine, but their illegal parents should be thrown out, because I believe that's also the law.
So I am for following the law in both cases. What the illegals choose to do with their US citizen child, is up to them.
So you'd find with children from unregistered individuals who are born here?
I believe that the law says that any child born in the US is a US citizen, so I guess I can't argue with that.
So the children are fine, but their illegal parents should be thrown out, because I believe that's also the law.
So I am for following the law in both cases. What the illegals choose to do with their US citizen child, is up to them.
T'would be better if they never had them in the first place.
What a useful and practical comment. That should be the new policy.
So long as follow the unquestionable and immutable law we'll always have right on our side¡
So long as follow the unquestionable and immutable law we'll always have right on our side¡
Not all laws are right or just of course. Bad laws should be changed. Children born to illegals should not become citizens, so that is something that should be changed, however that's the law at the moment, unfortunately.
No, I don’t like that. There’s a reason that everyone born here is a citizen.
“Anchor babies” need to become legally moot, however. We’ve no right nor desire to expel citizens from the country, but minors also have no right to living on their own.
With the deportation of illegal parents, the child does not have to follow the parents, but remaining would place him into foster care. I can’t imagine many who would leave their parents, so it would be a voluntary return to their parents’ home country.
It’s not the expulsion of citizens. It’s the expulsion of illegals who have ties to citizens who, in most cases, would choose to continue those ties. An illegal spouse could very well see the same thing happen; there’s no problem here.
No, I don’t like that. There’s a reason that everyone born here is a citizen.
I am assuming that practically everyone born here was born to non illegals.
Did you know that the US is one of the few western nations on the planet to have such an insane law? I just checked on Google, and only the US and Canada has such an insane law, no other western countries on the planet has it! The few that did have it all repelled that crazy law.
It's insane that any living being on the planet can simply make their way to the USA, then find a way to break in illegally, and if they only manage to poop out their baby on US soil, then they get rewarded by having their child becoming a citizen. This law is being taking advantage of, and it is actually enticing people to break the law.
That's a crazy law.
As TS suggests, either the children should be deported with the parents or they should be placed in care or adopted.
Whatever happens to the children, the parents should be banished permanently.
It's insane that any living being on the planet can simply make their way to the USA, then find a way to break in illegally, and if they only manage to poop out their baby on US soil, then they get rewarded by having their child becoming a citizen. This law is being taking advantage of, and it is actually enticing people to break the law.
Right, and this situation is disgusting and inexcusable, but it is not the law itself that makes it so.
The law stating all people born on US soil are US citizens is a logical conclusion of the fundamental rights otherwise protected by the Constitution.
Again, it’s not the deportation of the children. The children cannot–and should not–in any way be forced to leave, but more often than not they’d probably choose to stick with their parents. I don’t like the idea of Americans even voluntarily leaving the country, but I dislike more the idea of illegals abusing their position here.
I do the same but to the smaller breasted athletic ones with the perfect body and average age of 19
That's a crazy law.
As TS suggests, either the children should be deported with the parents or they should be placed in care or adopted.
Whatever happens to the children, the parents should be banished permanently.
Good God. Does the word "inhuman" mean anything to you? It should because that's where you would find your picture in the dictionary.
Good God. Does the word "inhuman" mean anything to you? It should because that's where you would find your picture in the dictionary.
Nobody forced them to break the law, invading another country's sovereign territory, and scamming money and benefits that they are not entitled to. It is a very disrespectful and rude thing to do, not to mention criminal and also quite sleazy. And I am of the belief that respect is a two way street. A country without borders isn't really a country.
You might as well add my picture to your dictionary also.
It does by definition, what you're saying is that there are things that are ok to be intolerant of such as things that break the law. There are cases where the law is not setup in a way to promote the best outcome for people as a whole because people change over time. Liberalism can adapt to change, conservatism opposes change. That's why the latter always wants to stick to an unchanging constitution or unchanging religious text to define laws. Different races and sexualities cause a change in population culture and conservatism/intolerance resists that change.
Illegal immigration can certainly cause a lot of harm when it happens in large numbers but where you are making a false equivalency is in suggesting that Zuckerberg should be condemned for wanting to help illegal immigrant children in the same way Brendan Eich was condemned for opposing gay marriage. Zuckerberg was not trying to create a problem, he was trying to help solve a problem that already exists. Brendan Eich was not solving any problem, he was just resisting change he didn't agree with.
The intention behind each action shows the relative merit. The side often described as socialists, tend to act in a way to benefit others regardless of whether the action impacts themselves positively, the other side (capitalist, conservative) tends to act in a way to benefit themselves be it enforcing their unchanging ideology or for their own gain regardless of the expense to others.
The reason the two sides exist is because neither side can reach a suitable result on its own but in each issue, people need to justify the problems caused by the change they oppose or justify the gain caused through their support. Justification doesn't come from pointing at an ancient text written hundreds or thousands of years ago as though there's an unquestionable authority to it.
What Tim Cook is doing here is supporting a group who want to help people who are suffering because of the unwillingness of others to accept their differences:
http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/project-one-america
[VIDEO]
There are behaviours that lots of people won't tolerate, including more liberal people but if they justify their actions suitably then it's not hypocritical. Where intolerance can't be justified then the people opposing intolerance don't deserve condemnation for it.
I don't understand how that sentence could be written without a clear indicator of humor.