A nerve, no, as I was unsure of the meaning of your comment as it appeared contradictory to logic as written, hence my query. You have only now confirmed you did not make your statement in error.
So tell us, how is it one is insecure if they accept others, but you feel you're secure in your hatred for what others are unable to choose for themselves?
Its good Tim is using his own money rather than a public company's money to promote the cause. Everyone wants to promote equality. Not everyone wants to promote the gay lifestyle, especially influencing young people that its ok to have same-sex sex.
If you don't tolerate immigrants or people with different sexuality then you are intolerant.
But I do not tolerate any illegal immigrants at all, and I don't believe that makes me intolerant.
I don't understand how that sentence could be written without a clear indicator of humor.
I think the angle he was going for was like if someone said they didn't tolerate theft then they wouldn't be labelled intolerant in a derogatory way, the justification being that everyone has their own views on what should be tolerated and what shouldn't. Even in the case of theft, it wouldn't be treated the same in all cases like the recent case of a woman stealing eggs to feed her family:
We can't simply defer to the law because the law has been corrected from oppressing people by race, gender, sexuality, disability and so on. We can't give the views of every individual equal merit either because that allows people to be as oppressive and hateful as they like. Unfortunately this leaves topics that get endlessly debated. Everyone internally justifies their own views to themselves according to their own biases. Some issues are easier to reach a broad consensus on because they can be rationalized.
One thing that the One America group will be doing is media distribution. I think controlling the word association is a very important thing to do. If terms are perpetually given negative associations then they become corrupted e.g:
The common word association is more positive like:
Straight, normal, married, kids, family
Christian, forgiving, kind, charity, community
Not everyone will identify with the exact words but the point is that people process information by association. It's why people have instant likes and dislikes to names:
[VIDEO]
These word associations are sometimes hard to control because the most vocal parts of groups are often the most offensive, the reason being that they try to shift arguments more quickly to their way of thinking. If you argue from a moderate position, you'd more likely end up between the moderate position and the position needing changed rather than the moderate position itself. Like if you stand near the line in a tug of war. Both sides try to position themselves as far from the moderate line as possible.
If you look at people like Tim Cook, he's not offensive to anyone. Same with the people in the One America video. Same with the tennis player who got married recently:
They haven't been defining the narrative around homosexuality. The more that they do, the word association will become more positive. The vocal groups that promote the negative word association through their actions need to be given less attention or countered.
I wish Cook would spend some dough on fixing iOS, rather than wasting it on some useless, liberal frippery.
I guess he needs to keep the attention away from Apple's water treading.
MEMO TO COOK: FOLLOW YOUR HEART AND GO INTO POLITICS. DON'T MAKE APPLE SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR CAUSE CÉLÈBRE.
It's a private donation. Cook should be spending his private money to "fix" iOS, instead of Apple's 150+ billion? Maybe he should fire Apple's entire iOS team, and code iOS9 himself, using his private money? Apple's "water-treading"? Please do us all a favor, burn all your Apple products, and delete your account on this forum. Not sure what's worse, your grotesque hatred and trolling of Apple, their products, software, and leadership- or your vile hatred towards any kind of social progress. How the **** is Apple "suffering" from Cook's ideological stances or private donations? I wonder if you are capable of a post that is anyone way rooted in reality- I have yet to see one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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.
Why don't you give us an example of such a "cause"? Oh nevermind, wait for it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't buy that at all. I'm not talking about any anti-gay causes, but 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.
..aaaannd there we go! The best "cause" Apple ][ could come up with, as expected of course, is "anti-illegal immigration". Is that even considered a "cause"? Yeah, what a noble and pure-hearted endeavor, full of lovely intentions and pure-heartedness, no doubt propagated by those who want the best for human beings, right? I mean, do you actually, truly believe that this ia a cause that moves humanity forward? Do you not understand and realize that the most fervent supporters of this are only doing it from a place of hatred, racism, intolerance, and bigotry? And yet, this is the bets example you could think of, in order to somehow assert that those who are ok with Cook's donation in this case are "hypocrites".
Unreal. If conservatives and the republican party can ever find a cause that's actually worth promoting, and does not come from a place of hatred, ignorance, xenophobia, and intolerance, I'm sure noone would have a problem with Cook supporting that. The fact that rounding up mexicans is the best example you can think of to define "noble" is hilarious to the point of parody.
I wish Cook would spend some dough on fixing iOS, rather than wasting it on some useless, liberal frippery.
I guess he needs to keep the attention away from Apple's water treading.
MEMO TO COOK: FOLLOW YOUR HEART AND GO INTO POLITICS. DON'T MAKE APPLE SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR CAUSE CÉLÈBRE.
If you don't want your money to in-directly support the advancement of gay rights then don't buy or use Apple, Microsoft or even Google products. Buy a Smartphone from Sperry-Univac because you already are in the past.
I applaud Tim Cook for his courage and generosity in making this donation because making progress in deep-south states like Alabama is extremely difficult.
Fortunately things will change as the older generation dies off and millennialist become the countries political leaders.
Also the illegal immigration debate shows the ineptitude of conservative leaders.
I mean, do you actually, truly believe that this ia a cause that moves humanity forward?
Humanity is not my concern. I do believe that controlling illegal immigration is important to the USA. What moves humanity forward or not is a matter of opinion.
I do believe that controlling illegal immigration is important to the USA.
There are different ways to do it. There needs to be limits set on what people are allowed to do:
[VIDEO]
That should apply to anyone though, illegal or not. Someone shouldn't be allowed to coast through life having the burden of their support placed on other people.
What moves humanity forward or not is a matter of opinion.
It's not a matter of unrestricted opinion. If someone said that moving humanity forward requires killing everyone who is not white, wealthy, attractive and straight then that's not an opinion that deserves any credibility.
People have to justify their opinions in matters to be able to convince other rational people to think the same way.
Pretty much. We already saw that with Brendan Eich.
Personally I think Eich apology should have been enough to keep him CEO. He would have been a good CEO from a technical standpoint. However there is a clear difference between Eich's donation and Cook's donation. Cook is on the right side of history. When you take the dogma out of the issue, equal rights is an american ideal not a liberal ideal. Cook is clearly on the side of right. Eich was supportive of equal rights in his company, just not in his church. The board decided Mozilla had to be forward looking on social issues. Eich wasn't a bad guy and had support (even if a little offended) from LGBT employees in his company. As a side note, I noticed many churches standing up to Westboro LGBT bashing as well as many congregations forming that are LGBT friendly. Even the new pope is taking a step in the right direction. Things are certainly moving in a good direction for equal rights.
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.
And wait, let me guess- ripping parents away from their children, and deporting them to another country is also "noble", right? In your estimation, these are the kinds of causes Tim Cook should be putting his private money towards, instead of fighting intolerance, right?
And wait, let me guess- ripping parents away from their children, and deporting them to another country is also "noble", right? In your estimation, these are the kinds of causes Tim Cook should be putting his private money towards, instead of fighting intolerance, right?
The children are US citizens, so they can't be deported. The children would either have to stay in the US by themselves, and fend for themselves, or the illegal parents can choose to take their child with them when they get the boot.
Comments
it's interesting that whenever a "gay" issue comes up those who are the most insecure about their heterosexuality are the are first to defend it.
Defend homosexuality or condemn it?
Defend homosexuality or condemn it?
struck a nerve, did i?
A nerve, no, as I was unsure of the meaning of your comment as it appeared contradictory to logic as written, hence my query. You have only now confirmed you did not make your statement in error.
So tell us, how is it one is insecure if they accept others, but you feel you're secure in your hatred for what others are unable to choose for themselves?
What sort of stupid statement is this?
Why not listen to what you yourself say instead?
Its good Tim is using his own money rather than a public company's money to promote the cause. Everyone wants to promote equality. Not everyone wants to promote the gay lifestyle, especially influencing young people that its ok to have same-sex sex.
Such a generous man, always giving. But does he also like to receive?
I think the angle he was going for was like if someone said they didn't tolerate theft then they wouldn't be labelled intolerant in a derogatory way, the justification being that everyone has their own views on what should be tolerated and what shouldn't. Even in the case of theft, it wouldn't be treated the same in all cases like the recent case of a woman stealing eggs to feed her family:
http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/watch-alabama-police-officer-buys-alleged-shoplifter/story?id=27503845
We can't simply defer to the law because the law has been corrected from oppressing people by race, gender, sexuality, disability and so on. We can't give the views of every individual equal merit either because that allows people to be as oppressive and hateful as they like. Unfortunately this leaves topics that get endlessly debated. Everyone internally justifies their own views to themselves according to their own biases. Some issues are easier to reach a broad consensus on because they can be rationalized.
One thing that the One America group will be doing is media distribution. I think controlling the word association is a very important thing to do. If terms are perpetually given negative associations then they become corrupted e.g:
Muslim, terrorism, bombing, Jihad, beheading, oppression
Gay, AIDS, anal sex, pederasty, unnatural, gay pride parades
Feminism, man-hater, double standards, aggression
Immigrant, stealing jobs, illegal, poor, unhealthy, thieves, moochers, lazy, entitled
This negative word association is rarely used for majority groups. You don't hear the following in common discussions:
Straight, infidelity, STD, anal sex, divorce, lazy, entitled
Christian, child abuser, oppressive, hateful
The common word association is more positive like:
Straight, normal, married, kids, family
Christian, forgiving, kind, charity, community
Not everyone will identify with the exact words but the point is that people process information by association. It's why people have instant likes and dislikes to names:
[VIDEO]
These word associations are sometimes hard to control because the most vocal parts of groups are often the most offensive, the reason being that they try to shift arguments more quickly to their way of thinking. If you argue from a moderate position, you'd more likely end up between the moderate position and the position needing changed rather than the moderate position itself. Like if you stand near the line in a tug of war. Both sides try to position themselves as far from the moderate line as possible.
If you look at people like Tim Cook, he's not offensive to anyone. Same with the people in the One America video. Same with the tennis player who got married recently:
http://www.people.com/article/martina-navratilova-marries-julia-lemigova
They haven't been defining the narrative around homosexuality. The more that they do, the word association will become more positive. The vocal groups that promote the negative word association through their actions need to be given less attention or countered.
People have a motivation to support others with the same attitude, whether they are progressive or not.
I wish Cook would spend some dough on fixing iOS, rather than wasting it on some useless, liberal frippery.
I guess he needs to keep the attention away from Apple's water treading.
MEMO TO COOK: FOLLOW YOUR HEART AND GO INTO POLITICS. DON'T MAKE APPLE SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR CAUSE CÉLÈBRE.
It's a private donation. Cook should be spending his private money to "fix" iOS, instead of Apple's 150+ billion? Maybe he should fire Apple's entire iOS team, and code iOS9 himself, using his private money? Apple's "water-treading"? Please do us all a favor, burn all your Apple products, and delete your account on this forum. Not sure what's worse, your grotesque hatred and trolling of Apple, their products, software, and leadership- or your vile hatred towards any kind of social progress. How the **** is Apple "suffering" from Cook's ideological stances or private donations? I wonder if you are capable of a post that is anyone way rooted in reality- I have yet to see one.
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.
Why don't you give us an example of such a "cause"? Oh nevermind, wait for it..
I don't buy that at all. I'm not talking about any anti-gay causes, but 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.
..aaaannd there we go! The best "cause" Apple ][ could come up with, as expected of course, is "anti-illegal immigration". Is that even considered a "cause"? Yeah, what a noble and pure-hearted endeavor, full of lovely intentions and pure-heartedness, no doubt propagated by those who want the best for human beings, right? I mean, do you actually, truly believe that this ia a cause that moves humanity forward? Do you not understand and realize that the most fervent supporters of this are only doing it from a place of hatred, racism, intolerance, and bigotry? And yet, this is the bets example you could think of, in order to somehow assert that those who are ok with Cook's donation in this case are "hypocrites".
Unreal. If conservatives and the republican party can ever find a cause that's actually worth promoting, and does not come from a place of hatred, ignorance, xenophobia, and intolerance, I'm sure noone would have a problem with Cook supporting that. The fact that rounding up mexicans is the best example you can think of to define "noble" is hilarious to the point of parody.
I applaud Tim Cook for his courage and generosity in making this donation because making progress in deep-south states like Alabama is extremely difficult.
Fortunately things will change as the older generation dies off and millennialist become the countries political leaders.
Also the illegal immigration debate shows the ineptitude of conservative leaders.
So illegal immigration is 'rounding up mexicans[sic]'?
You're in favour of the annexing of countries by foreigners, much like Hitler.
Got it.
I wish Cook would spend some dough on fixing iOS, rather than wasting it on some useless, liberal frippery.
I guess he needs to keep the attention away from Apple's water treading.
MEMO TO COOK: FOLLOW YOUR HEART AND GO INTO POLITICS. DON'T MAKE APPLE SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR CAUSE CÉLÈBRE.
Verbal diarrhoea
So illegal immigration is 'rounding up mexicans[sic]'?
You're in favour of the annexing of countries by foreigners, much like Hitler.
Got it.
Hang on - you mean they are crossing the border in battle tanks, killing and looting as they go? I had no idea - yes - they must be stopped.
Don't really care what Tim Cook does with his time and money outside of Apple.
I mean, do you actually, truly believe that this ia a cause that moves humanity forward?
Humanity is not my concern. I do believe that controlling illegal immigration is important to the USA. What moves humanity forward or not is a matter of opinion.
It is as long as you are a part of it.
There are different ways to do it. There needs to be limits set on what people are allowed to do:
[VIDEO]
That should apply to anyone though, illegal or not. Someone shouldn't be allowed to coast through life having the burden of their support placed on other people.
It's not a matter of unrestricted opinion. If someone said that moving humanity forward requires killing everyone who is not white, wealthy, attractive and straight then that's not an opinion that deserves any credibility.
People have to justify their opinions in matters to be able to convince other rational people to think the same way.
Pretty much. We already saw that with Brendan Eich.
Personally I think Eich apology should have been enough to keep him CEO. He would have been a good CEO from a technical standpoint. However there is a clear difference between Eich's donation and Cook's donation. Cook is on the right side of history. When you take the dogma out of the issue, equal rights is an american ideal not a liberal ideal. Cook is clearly on the side of right. Eich was supportive of equal rights in his company, just not in his church. The board decided Mozilla had to be forward looking on social issues. Eich wasn't a bad guy and had support (even if a little offended) from LGBT employees in his company. As a side note, I noticed many churches standing up to Westboro LGBT bashing as well as many congregations forming that are LGBT friendly. Even the new pope is taking a step in the right direction. Things are certainly moving in a good direction for equal rights.
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.
And wait, let me guess- ripping parents away from their children, and deporting them to another country is also "noble", right? In your estimation, these are the kinds of causes Tim Cook should be putting his private money towards, instead of fighting intolerance, right?
And wait, let me guess- ripping parents away from their children, and deporting them to another country is also "noble", right? In your estimation, these are the kinds of causes Tim Cook should be putting his private money towards, instead of fighting intolerance, right?
The children are US citizens, so they can't be deported. The children would either have to stay in the US by themselves, and fend for themselves, or the illegal parents can choose to take their child with them when they get the boot.