Apple's Tim Cook encourages US House to pass sexual orientation nondiscrimination act

17891113

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 247
    jessijessi Posts: 302member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

    When it comes to homosexuality, I'm inclined to think of it as a mental disorder.  ... But obviously, the human race wouldn't have survived if it was common to everyone. 

     

    Homosexuality exists in wildlife. Those species have not died out.  Since it exists in animals it's not unique to sentience.  Thus it cannot be a mental disorder.

     

    The disorder is your inability to accept people who are different.  That is taught by other ignorant people.  I think that childhood trauma enhances it, and that you might be able to seek some relief with a lot of counseling with a therapist. 

     

    But please, stop projecting your disorder onto others. 

  • Reply 202 of 247
    jessijessi Posts: 302member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MDCragg View Post

     

    You have been conditioned by liberal orthodoxy to immediately label anybody who is somehow opposed to such a law or concerned about bad practices to which it may give rise as "discriminatory".  Therefore you are the one who is being intolerant and bigoted.


     

    The problem with liberalism is that their ideology is profoundly anti-intellectual.  So they've been conditioned to simply parrot attitudes while being smug in their belief in their correctness.

     

    Thus you see liberals claiming to have a monopoly on science running around espousing pseudo-science BS when it comes to "global warming"... but they're so smug- because the idiots they follow have told them they have a monopoly on science-- so they don't even know enough science to comprehend scientific arguments.

     

    You see this with economics as well... they believe what Krugman says, even though he advocated creating a housing bubble. 

     

    You see it with every issue.  They just parrot the Obamacare party line even though a basic understanding of economics reveals why it will fail. 

     

    It's quite sad. 

     

    Yes, Christian republicans can be just as bad, this is true.  But at least there are thinking republicans and libertarians.  Every liberal these days seems to be a mind washed zombie unable to comprehend arguments, and ignorant of even the basic facts.

  • Reply 203 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mario View Post

     

    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).


    You castigate the guy from Mozilla for saying 'idiotic hateful things' and yet your first post on this thread was:

     

    I am a long time citizen and it troubles me when Christian bigots use their political position to push their religious agenda on everyone (remember, religion is now debunked bunch of bronze age lies).

     

    Presumably being hateful is fine as long as you're the only one being it.

  • Reply 204 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by randomusername View Post



    Can I just point out that if Jonny Rockets, from next door wrote this tweet, this wouldn't be an issue? Everyone is getting upset because they think Tim Cook is using his position in order to progress what they feel is a political agenda. He didn't bring Apple in to this. He simply used his social media account to express his support for something. Something that MILLIONS of people do everyday.

    No, he 'simply' used his position as the CEO of the richest and most influential company in the world.

  • Reply 205 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post

     

     

    This is a red herring, though. 

    In day-to-day life, we all "discriminate" in one way or another. When I go to buy groceries, I discriminate, in the sense that I choose one item over another for a variety of reasons (e.g. my preferences about taste or nutritional value).

     

    This is explicitly not what the subject of this thread is about, though. I think the distinction ought to be pointed out clearly because these analogies are unhelpful.

     

    On the point about Christians being the most "mocked, persecuted and vilified" religion in society today - I can't say whether or not that's true in terms of religions, but Christians as a subset of the population still have undue influence in many societies. Or, to put it another way, religious groups generally still have enormous influence over the rights of others. What's happening at the moment is an overdue redressing of that balance.

     

    Unfortunately though, I think numerous issues come in that cloud the debates (like the poor analogies around what kind of discrimination we are talking about here, for example). These kinds of red herrings only serve to muddy up the discussion, I think.

     

    Also just to add one key point - when there is a debate about whether or not being gay is a choice, then the conversation really kind of ends there. It's difficult to move past that point, because that is a bit of a show stopper. Any conversation about rights or equal protections has to be based on reason and on a shared acceptance of the core facts behind the issue. Without that, how can the conversation progress?

     

    My analogy here would be that it would be difficult to have a discussion about medical policy with someone who is an anti-vaccination campaigner (or, another analogy would be that it would be difficult to have a conversation with someone about geological science when that person believes the Earth is flat, and/or 6,000 years old). 


    How is it a red herring? You seem to be muddying the waters by saying that 'day-to-day' we all use discrimination. I gave the example of politicians, which is their job, not a day-to-day activity.

  • Reply 206 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Of course not. Simply put they are naturally attracted to certain individuals within an additional sex.



    Consider the women you've been attracted to. Are you attracted to all women? Now consider other guys you've known that are attracted to women. Were you all attracted to the same women? It could be height, weight, hair color, eyes, face, skin tone, or any number of physical features... or any number of other features like how someone carries themselves, how they speak... or non-physical characteristics that make up the complex structure of our fundamenta desires. Some of these people you know might be attracted to more superficial aspects that you may also find attractive features, just not as a sole reason for the attraction in-and-of themselves, while you might like a deeper connection which they may consider to be an annoyance.



    Regardless, the variety of ways in which attraction can manifest is clearly not so cut and dry that we choose to be attracted to certain people.



    There seems to be a long history of bisexuality in human history but today more than ever things might be less distinct because of the way genders have evolved. In today's society the divide between male and female roles has bleed together. From fighting in combat, to be police officers, to voting, to even wearing pants. Then you have metrosexual as a term for man that groom or have themselves groomed in a way that were traditionally only done by women (at least in the 20th century).



    Unfortunately I don't have anyone I can ask about this topic but, to me, I can see how someone who defines themselves as bisexual might find an effeminate gay man attractive as well as a more less feminine woman as those qualifiers tend to push certain characteristics toward each other. Or perhaps that scenario has nothing to do with how one find another human being attractive.

    Precisely; bisexuality can be a very fluid thing. It can be a choice!

  • Reply 207 of 247
    ingsocingsoc Posts: 212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

    When it comes to homosexuality, I'm inclined to think of it as a mental disorder. Whether this is from birth or acquired later is an open question. But obviously, the human race wouldn't have survived if it was common to everyone. I think that trauma plays a large part in the development of homosexuality at a very early age. 

     


     

    The beautiful part is that these questions have been pondered, and answered. You only have to take a cursory glance at various online resources to find that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder some years ago (in the U.S., I believe this happened in the 1970's).

     

    In fact, homosexuality is part of the normal range of sexual orientations. Various sexual orientations exist, and not only within human beings, it should be noted.

     

    So, there is no need to actually ponder whether or not this is a mental disorder; that kind of pondering became redundant several decades ago.

     

    Also, I can't see how anyone can suggest that physical attraction is a choice. That makes no sense on its face. Sure, you can choose who to actually have sex with, that's true. But choosing who you are attracted to?  

     

    A good thought experiment is to think about someone you are attracted to, and then to choose to be unattracted to them. As you will discover in short order, such things are not conscious choices. If they were, then we could theoretically make choices about a whole range of things such as when to feel (or not feel) grief, stress, emotional pain, etc...

  • Reply 208 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post

     

     

    I'm sorry, but I don't think you read his post if you came to this conclusion.

    Even if you disagree with it, calling it "puerile language" is absurd.


    Here's part of his post:

     

    And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly

     

    That is puerile language.

  • Reply 209 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

     

     

    Homosexuality exists in wildlife. Those species have not died out.  Since it exists in animals it's not unique to sentience.  Thus it cannot be a mental disorder.

     

    The disorder is your inability to accept people who are different.  That is taught by other ignorant people.  I think that childhood trauma enhances it, and that you might be able to seek some relief with a lot of counseling with a therapist. 

     

    But please, stop projecting your disorder onto others. 


    You think that animals can't have mental disorders? I'm not a biologist, but that seems unlikely.

  • Reply 210 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post

     

     

    The beautiful part is that these questions have been pondered, and answered. You only have to take a cursory glance at various online resources to find that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder some years ago (in the U.S., I believe this happened in the 1970's).

     

    In fact, homosexuality is part of the normal range of sexual orientations. Various sexual orientations exist, and not only within human beings, it should be noted.

     

    So, there is no need to actually ponder whether or not this is a mental disorder; that kind of pondering became redundant several decades ago.

     

    Also, I can't see how anyone can suggest that physical attraction is a choice. That makes no sense on its face. Sure, you can choose who to actually have sex with, that's true. But choosing who you are attracted to?  

     

    A good thought experiment is to think about someone you are attracted to, and then to choose to be unattracted to them. As you will discover in short order, such things are not conscious choices. If they were, then we could theoretically make choices about a whole range of things such as when to feel (or not feel) grief, stress, emotional pain, etc...


    If you really think that scientists in the 70s discovered the final word on the cause of homosexuality, then you're deluded. You, like many on this thread, repeat the mantra that none of us have any choice as to what we are attracted to, as though we are slaves to our desires. Based on myself, this is not true! 

  • Reply 211 of 247
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Precisely; bisexuality can be a very fluid thing. It can be a choice!

    That is not what I stated at all. To be bisexual isn't moving in and out of homo- and heterosexuality, it's being naturally attracted to both sexes at all times.

    I think what you're doing is conflating an attraction with an action on a said attraction. These are very different things. This means a bisexual person might only engage in hetero- or homosexual relationships depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time.
  • Reply 212 of 247
    ingsocingsoc Posts: 212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    If you really think that scientists in the 70s discovered the final word on the cause of homosexuality, then you're deluded. You, like many on this thread, repeat the mantra that none of us have any choice as to what we are attracted to, as though we are slaves to our desires. Based on myself, this is not true! 


     

    I never said that scientists discovered the final word on the cause of homosexuality in the 70s, so I'm not sure where you actually got that from.

    My point was that science debunked the idea of homosexuality being a mental disorder at that point in time, and that is the key point.

     

    In terms of none of us having a choice - that's right, we don't have a choice who we are attracted to. This is different than "being slaves to our desires". I think you confuse the two.

     

    When you talk about us being "slaves to our desires", I think you imply the idea of acting on a feeling. I specifically mentioned that as being different than having the feeling in the first place.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. SolipsismX explained this perfectly in the post just before mine.

     

    Tell me - how did you consciously choose not to be attracted to someone? You would be the first human being in history to have achieved this, so I'm curious as to how you managed it.

     

    Quote:


     

    Here's part of his post:

     

    And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly

     

    That is puerile language.



     

    Well, you're good at quote-mining, that much is true. Have you read the whole thing, though, or just looked for these kinds of quotes?

    Also, the first sentence in that quote is a pretty reasonable analogy if you think about it.

  • Reply 213 of 247
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    That is not what I stated at all. To be bisexual isn't moving in and out of homo- and heterosexuality, it's being naturally attracted to both sexes at all times.



    I think what you're doing is conflating an attraction with an action on a said attraction. These are very different things. This means a bisexual person might only engage in hetero- or homosexual relationships depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time.

    You touch upon a critical point - how do you define what is natural? I'm not sure that you can. You could say that a man and a woman mating is a natural thing, and that therefore a man being attracted to a woman is a natural thing. But that doesn't scratch the surface of the gamut of sexual desire.

     

    When you say, "depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time,' that sounds awfully like choice to me.

  • Reply 214 of 247
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

    You, like many on this thread, repeat the mantra that none of us have any choice as to what we are attracted to, as though we are slaves to our desires. Based on myself, this is not true! 


     

    You choose who you're attracted to? That's fascinating. I'm sure millions of people would pay you good money to learn that incredible skill. 

     

    Note: I'm referring to initial ATTRACTION. Not acting on that attraction, which IS a choice. But the attraction itself? Really? I can't CHOOSE not to be attracted to the hot girl I just saw, or CHOOSE to be attracted to someone that I find in no way whatsoever physically attractive. Nor can anyone else. 

  • Reply 215 of 247
    slurpy wrote: »
    You choose who you're attracted to? That's fascinating. I'm sure millions of people would pay you good money to learn that incredible skill. 

    Note: I'm referring to initial ATTRACTION. Not acting on that attraction, which IS a choice. But the attraction itself? Really? I can't CHOOSE not to be attracted to the hot girl I just saw, or CHOOSE to be attracted to someone that I find in no way whatsoever physically attractive. Nor can anyone else. 

    I think that we learn to be attracted to a particular sex as we grow up. Once we have settled on that, we then learn to find particular traits attractive, be it physical or other. So, like you, I generally find certain types more attractive than others. But I don't find it as set in stone as you imply. My tastes change-I don't find the poster girls I had as a teenager as desirable as now. That's why getting married to someone mainly due to physical beauty is likely to end in disappointment. As long as you're not so repelled by each other that you don't procreate, it's more important to get along.
  • Reply 216 of 247
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    slurpy wrote: »
    You choose who you're attracted to? That's fascinating. I'm sure millions of people would pay you good money to learn that incredible skill. 

    Note: I'm referring to initial ATTRACTION. Not acting on that attraction, which IS a choice. But the attraction itself? Really? I can't CHOOSE not to be attracted to the hot girl I just saw, or CHOOSE to be attracted to someone that I find in no way whatsoever physically attractive. Nor can anyone else. 

    I think a lot of people are unable to separate the two. Same goes for pretty much all innate desires v the action of satisfying one's innate desire.
  • Reply 217 of 247
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

     

    Scarlett Johansson is discriminating because she won't go out with me.  I'm bi, I'm even cute, but she's not interested.

     

    That's not a violation of my human rights.  That's a basic exercise of *her* human rights.

     

    It's called freedom of association.  Freedom of association IS a basic human right.

     

    I have no right to be hired by Apple.  Apple has the right to decide to make me an offer or to decline.  I have the right to accept their offer, or decline it.   That's discrimination in both cases.

     

    If Apple won't hire me because I'm bi, then Apple is stupid.  BEING STUPID IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

     

    Just like Scarlett is stupid for not returning my calls.  Her loss.

     

    This bill, just like the one that makes it a crime for me to refuse to hire a christian, is itself a violation of human rights.

     

    So if you support it, that's your right-- after all, being stupid is your right-- just don't claim that you're defending human rights, because you aren't.

     

    Also, queer people don't need hiring quotas.  Only bigots who think we can't get jobs otherwise think we do. 


     

    I haven't reviewed the bill in enough depth to make a meaningful comment on what it may or may not do, but this is specifically regarding your argument. When you start talking about theoretical entities, they no longer possess all human rights. They're a method of abstraction used to shield their ownership against part of their financial obligations. The business can go down without bankrupting its ownership. It's not really the same thing as an individual. Both are recognized as legal entities, but they are not identical.

  • Reply 218 of 247
    websnapwebsnap Posts: 224member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    When you say, "depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time,' that sounds awfully like choice to me.




    It is in action, but not in desire. As in, if i'm sitting in a coffee shop and an extremely desirable person walks in and this person is all I can see or think about now. I didn't choose to be attracted to them but those emotions have hit me like a truck – lovestruck. The choice now comes from if I do something about it or not. I have one friend that never would have though of dating a woman before – and had dated men on numerous occasions with varying degrees of success. Then she met one woman that changed everything and now they have been together for years. Sometimes you can't know what you want until it's presented to you. Then you don't know hoe you ever managed without. It's how I feel about my wife, and it's how my friend feels about her wife. If you know anything about love you should know that there are no choices in the matter other than between allowing yourself to take the risk or letting the opportunity pass, knowing you may never find it again.

  • Reply 219 of 247
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    I've agreed with most of what you've said in these threads, but not the gender-change one. Yes, there is something 'seriously wrong' in their heads, but that's no reason to be intolerant of them! It's probably a genetic aberration that we're not fully aware of yet. It's very rare.

    I didn't say that. I said I was tolerant of transgendered people- just intolerant of the act- and choose not to recognize their claim of being a different gender. No different than I chose not to recognize that some blonde lady dressed up like Cinderella at Disney World really was Cinderella. Of course, the difference is, that if that lady genuinely thought she were Cinderella, we'd all think she was nuts. Yet somehow Transgenders get a pass :\
  • Reply 220 of 247
    Gays already have equal rights. What this really about is the right to persecute someone who's religious beliefs you disagree with
    Equal rights aren't an "agenda" and it shouldn't be considered "politics" either. And just for the record, equal rights should NEVER be put up for a vote. 

    It's time to pass laws like ENDA to ensure equal rights for all. 

    Gays already have equal rights. This is about giving individuals the right to persecute people for their religious beliefs. Right now any non-religious organization that fires someone purely for being gay would have their rear handed to them in court. This is why lawyers love this country, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Sign In or Register to comment.