Tim Cook's 'rhino skin' tested by a rash of angry flies as Apple investors shrug off concerns

145791014

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 279
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post





    No one is 100% gay or straight. Your view of sexuality is restrictive. There are not too poles but an array of sexualities.

     

    Oh mang. This is approaching the "other side" of AI forums. Look what you done.

  • Reply 122 of 279
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post





    When did you choose to be straight?

     

    I was born this way.

     

    Thanks for moderating.

     

    We should continue this at the local MUG.

  • Reply 123 of 279
    dugbugdugbug Posts: 283member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    That doesn't answer my question. You've only skirted it with non answers.

     

    This isn't grade school... you don't get an answer.  Its his business.

  • Reply 124 of 279
    Have to wonder if a species this backwards deserves to survive.
  • Reply 125 of 279
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    His coming out is as pointless as the iPad mini 3 image

     

    not in today's world. he's the first major CEO to *ever* come out. thats significant. historic.  for gays in IT it's pretty big to have the leader of the most successful company in the world be a gay role model. and yes, i work w/ closeted people in my fortune 100 IT department, and they can be fired for coming out in our state.

     

    it's sad but true. and significant.

  • Reply 126 of 279
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eideard View Post



    Have to wonder if a species this backwards deserves to survive.

     

    We were able to make french toast and maple syrup. There is hope.

  • Reply 127 of 279
    dugbug wrote: »
    This isn't grade school... you don't get an answer.  Its his business.

    You thinking that one shouldn't inquire about the world past grade school definitely answers all my questions about you.
  • Reply 128 of 279
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Swift View Post



    No one can look at the Russian reaction, or the Saudi reaction, and think it is not a crippling mental disease to make a big deal of how a man or woman wants to live his private life. ...

     

    Yes, i agree, private life should be private, not "public".

  • Reply 129 of 279
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,201member
    apple ][ wrote: »

    Billions of people probably care.

    However, the most important people, Apple stockholders do not care.

    They will care if the "Billions" stop buying the "GayPhone". Then again, such people would always have been Android customers anyway.

    I can't see how this announcement actually helps Apple.
  • Reply 130 of 279

    Everytime I think we have the worst politicians in the world here in the USA, the blithering mental cases in Russia spout off about something.

     

    Thanks, Russian lunatics! I may even bother voting today!

  • Reply 131 of 279
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    That term preference is an odd one. I never hear homophobic people talking about how they prefer to be naturally attracted to women but will make an alternate choice the way I may choose a plain bagel if the bakery is out of my preferred onion

    I have always had a problem with the term 'sexual preference'. Does sexual mean gender, or sex. There are plenty of heterosexual people that enjoy sexual acts with the same sex, but aren't interested in any romantic involvement with them. Ultimately someone is straight, or gay depending on who they go out on dates with, take walks in the park with, goes to dinner with, goes away for a weekend with, etc, etc.... For me a more correct term would be 'romantic preference'.
  • Reply 132 of 279
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ipen View Post

     

    Yes, i agree, private life should be private, not "public".


     

    The negative and sometimes violent reactions some people have when they find out about one's private life (directly or indirectly) are definitely something of public concern.

  • Reply 133 of 279
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Tim Cook is awesome. I love his quotes.
  • Reply 134 of 279
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    many people--including a number of AppleInsider readers--have wondered in their public comments why Cook should be "proud" to be gay, and whether it would be Politically Correct for a straight man to write of being "proud to not be gay."

    The word 'pride' comes across differently depending on how it's used:


    [VIDEO]


    It is the opposite of shame but also used to symbolise achievement. Tim's comment could have been 'unashamed to be gay' but it's like when Apple uses 'thin' instead of 'thick'. 'Unashamed' negates a negative statement, 'proud' reinforces the positive opposite. So it's not really appropriate to say 'proud to not be gay' because there has never been any implied shame that needed to be negated with heterosexuality. That statement would instead have a meaning that suggests it's better or an achievement to be straight than to be gay, which is not what 'proud to be gay' means in reverse.
    analogjack wrote: »
    Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.

    For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved

    Sex doesn't have to be the determining factor. Some people have gay sex while being straight. In porn it's called 'gay for pay'.


    [VIDEO]


    It's mainly your attractions that determine the sexuality you define yourself by. It's not for others to determine, it's just being honest with yourself.
    analogjack wrote: »
    is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.

    It doesn't have to be called marriage, it's called a civil union in some countries but if it has equal rights then it makes little difference. I think it would be better named differently so that people know it's a same-sex marriage but I can see how that can be used to discriminate.
    analogjack wrote: »
    If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.

    Anal sex is always private whether it's between heterosexuals or homosexuals.
    solipsismy wrote:
    My interest is why now and not years ago or years from now.

    There is really no reason to wait any more. He could have done it years ago but he wasn't a public figure until he became CEO in 2011. It was difficult enough stepping into Steve's place without having that to deal with on top.
    swift wrote:
    in Putin's Manly, Shirtless Russia, gays are confused with pedophiles as a kind of doctrinal matter

    They might be coming to that conclusion by misinterpreting abuse stats. Girls are abused about 4x more than boys (so boys = 20% of abuse cases, it will vary by region) but if homosexuals are 2% of the population and half of those are women then 1% of the population is committing 20% of the child abuse (because 99% or so of reported abuse is by males), or in other words same-sex child abuse would be 25x more likely (relative to the population) than heterosexual. Sites like this take that angle:

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

    but the abusers don't necessarily identify as gay so it skews the stats. When there are campaigns to lower the age of consent, that won't help either but it's not lower than heterosexuals:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-ask-canada-to-lower-age-of-consent-for-anal-sex-national-post

    Some people make decisive conclusions first and then wait for others to disprove it.
    rogifan wrote:
    I don't get the point of this article. Apple stock being at record highs just means nobody gives a shit that Tim Cook is gay or that he came out. Because it's not about HIM it's about Apple the company.

    That seems to actually be one of the points made by the article, the title says as much - investors aren't bothered about it, there's just a handful of people who aren't relevant speaking up.
    nightsky wrote:
    This is exactly why Tim should have kept his personal life private.

    I'd say it's why he shouldn't have kept it private because this needs to not be an issue.
    And bisexual people have no choice but be attracted to men and women.
    And pedophiles have no choice but be attracted to children.
    And people whose mothers don't want them have no choice but to be aborted.
    And thieves have no choice but to steal.
    And murderers have no choice but to kill people.
    Got it.

    Let's assume this is true, we can also conclude that all those examples after the first are harmful to others. Bisexuality and homosexuality aren't. That's where society draws the line between what we accept and what we reject. Incestuous relationships on their own aren't harmful but there's a strong chance of their children having genetic abnormalities so society rejects incestuous relationships.

    What is the harm caused by homosexual or bisexual relationships? If there isn't any then they are acceptable.
  • Reply 135 of 279
    nick29nick29 Posts: 111member
    I didn't care Cook was gay until he said it was a "gift from God", that's a big F-u to billions of people around the world. Way to make it all about you Tim, and not the company you run. Narcissistic a-hole.
  • Reply 136 of 279
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    nick29 wrote: »
    I didn't care Cook was gay until he said it was a "gift from God", that's a big F-u to billions of people around the world. Way to make it all about you Tim, and not the company you run. Narcissistic a-hole.

    To be fair, God has to be gay or female. No way the world would look and smell this nice if it was designed by a straight guy. Just go into any single straight guy's bathroom and take a deep breath.

    It highlights an important aspect of religion IMO, which is that you can make up your own interpretation as you go.
  • Reply 137 of 279

    Who cares. Tims Life does not affect my life. I worry about me. if he wants to be gay thats his choice. Just means more pussy for me :)

  • Reply 138 of 279

    Exactly just means more pussy for us. I wish all the gay guys came out the closet and stop pretending just get with each other and leave the pussy i want it!

  • Reply 139 of 279
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I have always had a problem with the term 'sexual preference'. Does sexual mean gender, or sex. There are plenty of heterosexual people that enjoy sexual acts with the same sex, but aren't interested in any romantic involvement with them. Ultimately someone is straight, or gay depending on who they go out on dates with, take walks in the park with, goes to dinner with, goes away for a weekend with, etc, etc.... For me a more correct term would be 'romantic preference'.

    1) From a scientific standpoint sex refers to the sexual organs one has or the chromosomal make up one has. Gender is not based on biology even thought it can be heavily influenced. It's cultural. You can see this with cultures of today and in the past having more than 2 genders in a society. I'm fairly certain most of us learned about some of the more notable ones in an Anthropology 101 class.

    Of course, sexual attraction is not completely clear. One could say that we're attracted to genders, and even though genders typically fall into a defined sex and one tends to be attracted to multiple (if not all) genders of one sex and typically none of the other, it might be the gender that appeals to us. An analogy people might be able to relate to, might be an attraction to a certain types of people you define as famine or butch of a sex, outgoing or subdued, etc.

    2) I like the term romantic preference (or intimate preference) when we talk about more detailed aspects of what appeals to us on carnal or spiritual levels. This might be biological, to an extent, but this seems to be more based on experiences and changes over time, but the sex of the person typically doesn't. You either like males, like females, or like both, or like neither, as a general rule.

    3) ESS talks about various strategies an organism uses to survive. I feel that religion is written with this concept in mind, but it's written from a specific PoV at a specific time which means it's not likely to adapt as cultures and society changes. There is a reason why so many regions are against homosexuality and even birth control — you can't grow society as well without those limitations — but people today fail to see the ESS of a world community when quoting scripture. There are definitely excellent lessons to be learned from these laws, but many are outdated, and I've never met anyone that quotes Bible scripture to not backtrack when you bring up specific entries.

    I have nothing wrong with the foundation of religion. It's designed for a purpose, and if you need someone else to tell you how to behave ethically and if you need to fear an all-knowing deity in order to do the right thing, then by al means believe it, but don't think it's more noble than another. I've heard how polygamy is awful, but why do cultures do it? Simple answer: a lot more females than males, especially for the amount of averrable resources. There is also polyandry: multiple husbands for each wife. Much more rare, and done for the opposite reason: much fewer resources for the population. The former will boost population growth and the other keep it low.


    OT: I find it disturbing I'm living in a society that is against beheadings of criminals sentence to death but will torture criminals sentenced to death with a prolonged and painful death by untested chemicals. If I had to choose one or the other, please cut my fucking head off as it's much more humane that what we're doing with lethal injection these days.


    Marvin wrote: »
    There is really no reason to wait any more. He could have done it years ago but he wasn't a public figure until he became CEO in 2011. It was difficult enough stepping into Steve's place without having that to deal with on top.

    But that's my point. Why wait to 1) be CEO, and 2) for Apple to be at the height of their game with an amazing year of announcements and releases and the stock being at an all time high? Why not just have been out when he joined Apple back in 1997(?) or made the mention more casual at some point in some interview? I have to think Jobs and all his workmates knew and it would therefore have had no issue on his choice as CEO.
  • Reply 140 of 279
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,249member
    analogjack wrote: »
    Being an obviously articulate and intelligent person, and now that he has decided to announce to the world his 'pride' at being 'gay', I would be extremely interested for Mr Cook to define what 'being gay' actually means in real terms.

    For men, does it mean preferring a man as a sexual partner? Does sex have to be involved, and is it necessary for a new category of 'marriage' to be invented, as opposed to simply having a 'gay' relationship recognised as having the same rights as a traditional marriage.

    It troubles me how very young children will come to think about relationships and what criteria they themselves will use to decide if they are in fact 'gay' if respected people like Cook decide to be 'proud' about it but then become overtly coy. If he's going to make a big deal about it, is it reasonable for an interviewer to ask him if he has anal sex with his partner or does that then become a matter of privacy.

    Derrida made a big deal about how all words are signs and each sign is the meaning of another sign so that words like 'marriage' have no meaning without all the other words that go with it, one of those words being 'consummate'.

    It's all very confusing to me and I cannot imagine how it would be to be a child growing up in an overtly sexualised world to be faced with these issues that no one wants to talk about.

    2014-09-19-1062sea.png
Sign In or Register to comment.