Tim Cook 'deeply disappointed' by new Indiana anti-gay law

12223242527

Comments

  • Reply 521 of 552
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:Originally Posted by joseph_went_south View Post



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    Quote:
    Quote:
    No - I'm not trying to, nor have I succeeded in, proving anything, and you read all kinds of things that I didn't say. What you seem to regard as a limitation of science is its very strength. It makes no unqualified assumptions, and regards all theories as disposable. Science almost never proves anything - that privilege is reserved for mathematics only. And in doing that you missed my central point again. Science never proved geocentrism - it just used it as the best working hypothesis until it was either disproved or a better hypothesis was proposed. As an example, it represents the scientific method at work.



     



    I'm sorry - so your problem with the hypothesis of global warming is that science doesn't tell you what to do about it? That's terrible. Better consult the Lord - I'm sure he will provide.





    Then complain about the politicians, not the science. If AGW is real, then the only remedies suggested by climate science depend on an as early as possible and aggressive as possible reduction in CO2 emissions. Science has no magic solution to offer, and science is not responsible for the economic problems that follow from the current situation, nor for the misuse of that message by politicians.



     



    But they are tested by whatever data are, by chance, available, not systematically as required for formally testing a hypothesis. You see the difference, presumably?





    I'm simply aghast at your continued mischaracterization of science. Are you not comprehending what I have written, or are you simply refusing to accept it and instead insisting on imposing your own misconceptions, both on what science is and what it does? Your example, "airplane travel is possible" was not a scientific theory in any sense. It was regarded with skepticism because at the time, no supporting theory of fluid dynamics existed. I'm not going to repeat my objections to intelligent design, but I will say that the reason that anyone proposing it might be regarded as crazy (scientifically speaking) is not because they came up with a theory, but because they came up with a theory that depends on inherent unknowables, which is simply unscientific.




    Look man, I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that the passion comes first, before the scientific inquiry is even considered.



    Scientists aren't studying every possible proposition all the time. They're studying what they feel passionate about, or what the people paying them are passionate about. I think that is a very good thing.



    What I am trying to say is your beliefs and vision determine what you choose to study. If you're working for a company or university, hopefully you believe in their vision, or at least they're paying enough to make it not matter.



    Some scientists study the molecular structure of cane sugar and others study animals or rocks.



    If you believed nuclear science (in the old days) caused cancer, and that scared you, and you chose to enter into another field... probably wise but you would not have learned about nuclear science. If you feel that studying rocks is boring chances are you're not going to be using your lab to experiment on rocks. If you think flight is impossible you won't test any theories about that and you will find funding hard to come by, because no one will invest if the scientist thinks it will be a fruitless pursuit.

     
    Quote:
    Non sequitur, and I never said that, or said that religious belief implies a nutcase. It is irrational and unscientific though. And I already pointed out that just because a belief system is irrational does not imply that it cannot embrace good practices.



     

    ,,,,



    I think you are confusing science with the mainstream medical establishment, which has tended, at least in the west, to be rather conservative in its approach to treatment. That said, the field of neuropsychology is fairly new, primarily due to the lack of diagnostics available in the past to make meaningful measurements. So yes - lucky break or the results of centuries of trial and error. I'd guess the latter.




    You say intelligent design is based on unkowables, which is unscientific... fair enough... but can you say with 100% uncertainty that we evolved from amoebas according to a certain pattern over a reasonably precise time frame, say... within a few hundred million years or so? It just seems astonishing and a little bit arrogant to me that a 50 year old scientist (I'm speaking generally, no idea your age)... could proclaim with such certainty that he knows what happened 350 million years ago.



    I think if you're completely honest about it, you'll find that evolution theory depends on a lot of unknowables too. For example I have never read a plausible and convincing theory why I see in colour but many animal species only see in black and white. Or why art and music exist but my cat is indifferent to them. Those are probably unknowables, or "not yet knowables".

     

    The motivations that drive people to science are unconnected with the scientific principles that they apply in conducting research. The biggest motivator is generally curiosity, which is exactly the right mindset to start with. If the motivation is to prove a pet theory then that person will likely be a poor scientist.

     

    And now you are confusing unknowns with unknowables. And still missing my point that science doesn't prove positives, only disprove them. So no - of course science cannot say with 100% certainty exactly how we evolved, but science can say that certain possibilities are more probable than others. In particular, science argues for the simplest supported explanation that is consistent with observation. Science can also say that proposing a theory based on the intervention of a supernatural being, for whom there is no evidence, is not useful. Like any other untestable proposition, it cannot be disproved, but it is just one of a potentially infinite set of equally unsupported propositions. And again - you seem be falling into the trap of arguing that if science cannot explain everything, then it must be wrong about what it can explain.

     

    This conversation is fascinating, but I'm not sure it is really getting us anywhere. Your views on science are still so far off base that it is hard to find common ground to start from.

  • Reply 522 of 552
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    zoetmb wrote: »

    You're free to accept and believe anything you want and you're free to join any religion that believes the same things that you do, but that has absolutely nothing to do with civil law.   That's what separation of church and state is all about.   I can't impose my religious views on you and you can't impose yours on me.    

    The difference between us is that you think that my opposing views somehow restrict your ability to practice your religion but I don't think your opposing views restrict my ability to practice my religion.    You want your beliefs imposed on all of society.   That's the problem I have with conservative Christians in the U.S.    They want their beliefs imposed on all of U.S. society.  

    In case you haven't noticed, there is an effort underway not to quote or even acknowledge the spoor of this entity.
  • Reply 523 of 552
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    Sorry, marriage existed close to two thousand years BEFORE then as codified in Babylon by Hammurabi.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi_Code

    If you feel the need to defend the Christian WORD for "marriage" as the literal word? Then you need to dig up what that relationship is in Aramaic since modern English did not exist when the Catholic/Christian Church was forming and most definitely wasn't spoken by the founders: that would have been Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

    And here as well, no matter how good the argument, the entity B. Frost is only encouraged to prolong its existence here by any sort of attention. We've all tried to deal with it as if it were a reasonable human, with no success.
  • Reply 524 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one. 




    McCarthy thought he was fighting a great evil, too. And, like you, he didn't care who he destroyed in the process.

  • Reply 525 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    Nice try. Your lurid fantasy projected on Walt Kelly, one of the true heroes of the McCarthy witch hunts, is a disgrace to his memory. You have no idea of the depths of his contempt for the sort of moral gamesmanship that you are displaying here.



    An example of what happened in real life: after segregation and discrimination on the basis of race began to be ameliorated by legislation in the 1960s, there was never any effort to round up and blacklist the former perpetrators of segregation, now was there? George Wallace continued on as governor, Bull Conner kept his job, klansmen were never prosecuted, and so on.



    Reactionaries are paranoid.



    Your post is dripping with irony. Kelly was well aware that witch hunts are not limited to the far right. You are a perfect example of what Allan Bloom pointed out -- a society's greatest madness is invisible to itself.

     

    If you don't like witch hunts, stop hunting for witches. It is that simple.

  • Reply 526 of 552
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    cjcampbell wrote: »
    muppetry wrote: »
     


    Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one. 


    McCarthy thought he was fighting a great evil, too. And, like you, he didn't care who he destroyed in the process.

    I didn't ask what he thought, and I'm not fighting any great evil. Should I take your deflection and lack of response to my question as tacit admission that I'm right?
  • Reply 527 of 552
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,628member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cjcampbell View Post

     



    McCarthy thought he was fighting a great evil, too. And, like you, he didn't care who he destroyed in the process.




    No he didn't truly believe he was fighting a great evil.   He just found something to "appeal to the base" and put his face in front of everyone and he latched onto it.   And the proof of that is when he screamed, "I have the names!", and held up a piece of paper, it was blank.    Don't forget that it was the U.S. army who went after McCarthy in court, not the ACLU or another group like it.   

  • Reply 528 of 552
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,628member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    In case you haven't noticed, there is an effort underway not to quote or even acknowledge the spoor of this entity.



    I've frequently thought about not responding to any post dealing with politics, race, civil rights, etc., because one is never going to change anyone else's opinion.   In fact, arguing with someone frequently hardens their position.

     

    But on the other hand, I also feel that if we don't respond to such a post, we're leaving the impression that we endorse that position - or at the very least that we don't object to that position or the validity of holding such an opinion.    So let's say he posted that "only Christian marriage is true marriage and nothing else should be called marriage" and no one responded.   Wouldn't that leave the impression that everyone else who read it agreed?   I have a hard time letting posts like that go.    

  • Reply 529 of 552
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     



    Are you from the US?  Because if so, then your understanding of the constitutional reality of this country is seriously messed up.  Let's say you own a restaurant.  You don't want to "associate" with black people.  Do you really think that you can ban black people from your restaurant?

     

    The fact is, the 800 lb. elephant in the room is this: These proposals (and now laws, like in Indiana) talk about "religious" people not wanting to serve "sinners."  Well, guess what?  A basic tenet of Christianity is that EVERYONE is a sinner.  So, in other words, if these merchants really lived up to their "beliefs" then they would serve NO ONE.  Adulterer?  No way.  Alcoholic?  Nope.  Someone who says, "God damn!" Uh-uh.  Anyone who has a tattoo?  That's not going to happen.

     

    Go read Leviticus some day.  

     

    Tim Cook is not only a good leader of Apple, he's a good man who believes in equality and, more importantly, people being decent to one and other.  It's sad that you can't understand that.


     

    People don't go around advertise that they're adulterers or alcoholics.  Do they?  

  • Reply 530 of 552
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AtlApple View Post

     

    It really doesn't matter if it's signed or not. It will be challenged in court and will be deemed unconstitutional. This has been a fairly clear trend and I'm not even sure why state legislatures even waste their time attempting to pass laws like this one. 

     

    Also Tim Cook is right Apple treats everyone the same, they will take your 17,000 for an Apple Watch no matter who you are. 


    Not treating the same to the poors.  Apple is discriminating those who can't come up with the dough and the homeless people too.  I saw a homeless person (by the look of him, shabby wardrobe, poor personal hygiene) trying to get into the Apple store but refused at the door.

  • Reply 531 of 552
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    ipen wrote: »
    People don't go around advertise that they're adulterers or alcoholics.  Do they?  

    Maybe they aren't overly proud of it but they do advertise. Alcoholics displaying public drunkenness are advertising and those looking for extra marital affairs are advertising. There is even an entire dating site for married people looking to have an affair.


    Oops, that' Ashley Magdalene, where you can find god's other match for you. Here's the right link…

  • Reply 532 of 552
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    ipen wrote: »
    Not treating the same to the poors.  Apple is discriminating those who can't come up with the dough and the homeless people too.  I saw a homeless person (by the look of him, shabby wardrobe, poor personal hygiene) trying to get into the Apple store but refused at the door.

    Just just stupid.
  • Reply 533 of 552
    solipsismy wrote: »
    ipen wrote: »
    Not treating the same to the poors.  Apple is discriminating those who can't come up with the dough and the homeless people too.  I saw a homeless person (by the look of him, shabby wardrobe, poor personal hygiene) trying to get into the Apple store but refused at the door.

    Just just stupid.

    I don't think it's stupid, but if you've got a problem with Apple turning away entry to their stores, just write to Cook. He wants to make it impossible to turn away the homeless from his stores, so maybe your letter will prompt him to act. Cook certainly doesn't seem to like bakers turning away custom, so he presumably doesn't like Apple turning away custom, either.
  • Reply 534 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ipen View Post

     

     

    People don't go around advertise that they're adulterers or alcoholics.  Do they?  




    Have you left your house in ... oh ... a decade or so?  Ever?

     

    Let me tell you a few things:

     

    -- Most people you encounter on a daily basis who are gay, you will never know it.  Heck, some people NEVER come out.  Gay people don't walk around wearing a sign reading, "I'm gay!"  Well, ok, occasionally.  Like if you are in a gay bar, there's a good chance that the guy next to you is  gay.  But in general?  No.

     

    -- As someone who is not only straight but drinks too much, far too often, I can tell you that I've "advertised" my drinking issues WAY more than my sexuality.  WAY, WAY more.

     

    -- Gay people don't hurt people (any more or less than the general population).  Alcoholics do, in myriad ways.  Do I really need to list them?

  • Reply 535 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Oh, and so far (3:43 ET), AAPL is up 2.41%, or nearly $3.

     

    Damn, that Tim Cook!  

  • Reply 536 of 552
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

     

    Oh, and so far (3:43 ET), AAPL is up 2.41%, or nearly $3.

     

    Damn, that Tim Cook!  




    I'd love to see it hit $140 by end of year.

  • Reply 537 of 552
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone.



    I'm saying that marriage is unique to the Church and as such can only be regarded as marriage in the eyes of God. Therefore, there should be no such thing as civil marriage. If a man and woman wish to enter into some kind of legally binding partnership outside the Church, then that is up to them, but it isn't marriage.



    The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.

     

    If you're going to troll these things, you should do better fact checking. Marriage predates churches and Christianity. In fact it held secular roots in many cultures.

  • Reply 538 of 552
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    I didn't ask what he thought, and I'm not fighting any great evil. Should I take your deflection and lack of response to my question as tacit admission that I'm right?



    No you may not. However, I will take your non-response and refusal to acknowledge my answer as an admission that I am right.

  • Reply 539 of 552
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cjcampbell View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    I didn't ask what he thought, and I'm not fighting any great evil. Should I take your deflection and lack of response to my question as tacit admission that I'm right?



    No you may not. However, I will take your non-response and refusal to acknowledge my answer as an admission that I am right.




    My non-response to what? And, since you clearly didn't answer my question, what was there for me to acknowledge? You do realize, I assume, that there is an expectation that what you write should make at least some sense.

  • Reply 540 of 552
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    This is like bridge club with a bunch of old ladies.

     

    -- You didn't answer my question.

     

    -- Well you didn' answer mine first!

     

    -- What question?

     

    -- Are you going to bid or pass Martha?!

     

    -- I ... I ... I don't know!  I have to use the facilities.  Where's my walker?

     

    -- I thought Ralph took it!

     

     

    I mean, really?

Sign In or Register to comment.