Advise entity Radar stop clowning around. There is no other place on earth with electronic assembly as developed as it is in China. Note that it is the Taiwanese who have set up the factories in mainland China, based on their own experience going back decades in electronics manufacturing.
Pegatron has 16 times its Taiwanese workforce working in the PRC. Foxconn has about half a million workers in China contract assembling for most major electronics companies, including Apple.
You haven't addressed the points raised by RichL and Suddenly Newton. Here's another: better Apple should continue pressuring the contract companies to improve conditions, because there's no way they could switch to other contractors. There aren't any. Conjuring some up would take many years, if not decades.
Your presumption that Apple or the United States is somehow unable to technologically match Chinese production standards is amusing to say the least (e.g. we landed men on the moon almost fifty years ago). It's not a question of being unable, it's being unwilling, and for one reason: profit margin.
As for your other points, see my reply to Slurpy, above.
Your presumption that Apple or the United States is somehow unable to technologically match Chinese production standards is amusing to say the least (e.g. we landed men on the moon almost fifty years ago). It's not a question of being unable, it's being unwilling, and for one reason: profit margin.
As for your other points, see my reply to Slurpy, above.
Not my presumption. Steve Jobs told Pres. Obama "those jobs aren't coming back" because there are 700,000 workers involved with the manufacturing of Apple products overseas. Just the process engineering alone requires 30,000 engineers who don't exist in the US and aren't being educated in the US.
What's laughable is your fantasy that 50 years of lost experience in the ecosystem of microelectronics manufacturing, not to mention the lost ecosystem itself, can be recovered in the US by the waving of some wand. You must try to be real.
Not my presumption. Steve Jobs told Pres. Obama "those jobs aren't coming back" because there are 700,000 workers involved with the manufacturing of Apple products overseas. Just the process engineering alone requires 30,000 engineers who don't exist in the US and aren't being educated in the US.
What's laughable is your fantasy that 50 years of lost experience in the ecosystem of microelectronics manufacturing, not to mention the lost ecosystem itself, can be recovered in the US by the waving of some wand. You must try to be real.
While we're on the subject of laughter I think the unspoken interpretation of those words is "won't, not "aren't" and certainly not "can't". Such statements are simply excuses for following the lowest common denominator to exploit cheap overseas labor. What I'm sure Jobs conveniently didn't mention is that along with Europe we not only (still, anyway) have the best R&D institutes on the planet, but by far still the best universities as well.
With 6.5 million part-time unemployed Americans seeking full-time employment and another 2 million fully unemployed long-term, somehow I think that between the US, Canada, and Europe, we could very easily fill those 700,000 jobs performed mostly by people with very little long-term training, as well as any engineering jobs we need.
Here's some reality for you to chew on. China at this stage still isn't exactly a hotbed of scientific innovation or the home of a lot of Nobel science laureates, not yet. No doubt this will change as America is allowed to weaken its own investment relative to China's investment in such R&D. Being ok with allowing that to happen, particularly regarding a nation which ironically is so anti-labor (as is the US to a lesser extent), exemplifies the fact that your attitude is depressingly defeatist.
How is Apples support of its LGBT employees and the issues in China connected in any way.
Regardless...based on how horrible Apple is...I suggest you immediately divest yourself of all Apple products and stop supporting that horrible corporation. Put your money where your mouth is and vote with your wallet so you're not a hypocrite.
Laughable; now you're really grasping. Let's look at some of those basic facts you're so in denial of. Cook is taking the "minimum possible as a CEO"? Really? Where does it say in American labor law that the "minimum" a CEO can make is $ 9.2 million basic salary (not including his vested stock last year which brought that to over $100 million; and not his total profit from Apple which is over $700 million. Read that again: Seven hundred million dollars. Regardless of how he spends it, it is he, not those workers, who will ultimately decide what he does with that money. Now, let's compare that fortune with the average Apple subcontractor factory worker wage in China under Foxconn which is..... $1.78 an hour, often for 12 hours a day with few if any days off. I'm sure you can do the math as to who's really benefitting from whom in that relationship.
Your 'justification' of "it's so much better" if companies/corporations invest in places with horrible labor and human rights records than don't has been used for the last few hundred years, usually to justify exactly the same type of profit/wage disparity as we see above and more importantly, to allow such entities to bypass labor laws in their own home countries and to avoid paying hard-fought minimum wages there. They did it during the apartheid era too, and initially fought tooth and nail to avoid divesting in South Africa (I remember this well as I was actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement for years). The real world? You're naive to believe that the largest company on the planet doesn't have far more say in defining that world that any of its factory workers can ever dream of. This is about greed, a reality you to seem to want to avoid. Divest and go where you say? How about the United States? It is after all an American corporation and we seem to still have at least some basic labour laws here. Or if Tim is truly concerned about labor conditions, as you insist he is, I'd suggest they set up in Norway, Finland, Canada, or Denmark, their laws are even better than ours. Oh right, but that would mean fewer billions of dollars profit for Cook and the other major stockholders; I forgot.
As to how this supposed 'commitment to labor' often ends, I think you've unwittingly provided your own answer. When wages and conditions do rise to certain levels, these multinationals tend to follow the newest lowest wage to yet another third world country where conditions are even worse, thereby proving that their talk of "concern for" (in this case, Chinese) factory workers, like their talk of concern for American factory workers before was nothing more than a ruse all along.
As I said, I don't give a damn if Cook is gay. I do give a damn that he uses Apple to promote one issue (albeit a far safer one which contributes not only to the 'image' of a progressive corporation, but benefits Cook himself, once again), while beyond that image continuing to profit greatly from the global wage disparities of working people. That's at very best a double standard.
While we're on the subject of laughter I think the unspoken interpretation of those words is "won't, not "aren't" and certainly not "can't". Such statements are simply excuses for following the lowest common denominator to exploit cheap overseas labor. What I'm sure Jobs conveniently didn't mention is that along with Europe we not only (still, anyway) have the best R&D institutes on the planet, but by far still the best universities as well.
With 6.5 million part-time unemployed Americans seeking full-time employment and another 2 million fully unemployed long-term, somehow I think that between the US, Canada, and Europe, we could very easily fill those 700,000 jobs performed mostly by people with very little long-term training, as well as any engineering jobs we need.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Here's some reality for you to chew on. China at this stage still isn't exactly a hotbed of scientific innovation or the home of a lot of Nobel science laureates, not yet. No doubt</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> this will change as America is allowed to </span>
weaken<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> its own investment relative to </span>
China's<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> investment in such R&D. Being ok with allowing that to happen, </span>
particularly regarding a nation which ironically is so anti-labor (as is the US to a lesser extent),<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> exemplifies the fact that your attitude is depressingly defeatist. </span>
Good, then you agree with my view, which is incidentally the view of Tim Cook and every futurist who has ever confronted the evolution of technological and cultural shifts on a global, tectonic level. The US has passed into a post-industrial phase, as far as its leading-edge economy is concerned. Its most valuable product is knowledge, design, methods of integration, any kind of creative "software." This is why and how the R&D and basic research is still advanced in the US. Apple for example controls, concentrates on, the supply chain, the design, the software, the marketing and distribution intelligence, without all of which the manufacturing would be useless.
The manufacture of nearly all the many hundreds of parts in an iPhone are being done in East Asia for a reason besides wages. The fabs there are drawing on two or three generations of engineering experience and untold trillions in plant and materials investment that the US cut loose from as a matter of mass production in the 1960s. Only chip making has been retained here in electronics. Your aerospace example earlier is a separate matter entirely, because that has had direct military implications.
Since the stock in trade of Apple and the world of the future is Knowledge with a capital K, this is why "inclusion inspires innovation." This is why there is an Apple software developer's camp for young girls now. Or it's also why Apple is developing China as a market equally important to the US, and as a source for design inspiration, e.g., large-screened phones. Those 700,000 jobs in China are just going to get better paid; they're not going anywhere. They're certainly not going to spring up in the US. There are no parts here, no buildings with machines to use their work, few engineers to direct the building of factories, few schools with experienced teachers to train the engineers. We got bigger fish to fry here, as Apple demonstrates before your unseeing eyes day after day.
Not my presumption. Steve Jobs told Pres. Obama "those jobs aren't coming back" because there are 700,000 workers involved with the manufacturing of Apple products overseas. Just the process engineering alone requires 30,000 engineers who don't exist in the US and aren't being educated in the US.
What's laughable is your fantasy that 50 years of lost experience in the ecosystem of microelectronics manufacturing, not to mention the lost ecosystem itself, can be recovered in the US by the waving of some wand. You must try to be real.
While we're on the subject of laughter I think the unspoken interpretation of those words is "won't, not "aren't" and certainly not "can't". Such statements are simply excuses for following the lowest common denominator to exploit cheap overseas labor. What I'm sure Jobs conveniently didn't mention is that along with Europe we not only (still, anyway) have the best R&D institutes on the planet, but by far still the best universities as well.
With 6.5 million part-time unemployed Americans seeking full-time employment and another 2 million fully unemployed long-term, somehow I think that between the US, Canada, and Europe, we could very easily fill those 700,000 jobs performed mostly by people with very little long-term training, as well as any engineering jobs we need.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Here's some reality for you to chew on. China at this stage still isn't exactly a hotbed of scientific innovation or the home of a lot of Nobel science laureates, not yet. No doubt</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> this will change as America is allowed to </span>
weaken<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> its own investment relative to </span>
China's<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> investment in such R&D. Being ok with allowing that to happen, </span>
particularly regarding a nation which ironically is so anti-labor (as is the US to a lesser extent),<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> exemplifies the fact that your attitude is depressingly defeatist. </span>
Flaneur is actually trying to educate you with some important facts and perspectives, and all you can bring by way of a response is to pile on crappy, cliched shallowness upon further crappy, cliched shallowness.
'Excuses'? From whom? 'Somehow you think,' therefore it must be? What are 'R&D institutes'? Can you provide some examples? Universities? How does having the 'best universities in the world' allow you to manufacture something better, cheaper, and higher quality? Can you provide an example of whether and how universities have contributed to better, cheaper electronics manufacturing? Where did you get '700000'? Cite? Btw, how are you how going to replicate the supply chain for these 700000 people to assemble stuff? Do you have a sense of what the all-in-cost of doing something like this in the U.S. would be, compared to China? Can you share your analysis with us, instead of pulling an assertion out of your a**?
Your post is just so typical of someone who can't or does not get past business headlines. Pathetic.
Flaneur is actually trying to educate you with some important facts and perspectives, and all you can bring by way of a response is to pile on crappy, cliched shallowness upon further crappy, cliched shallowness.
'Excuses'? From whom? 'Somehow you think,' therefore it must be? What are 'R&D institutes'? Can you provide some examples? Universities? How does having the 'best universities in the world' allow you to manufacture something better, cheaper, and higher quality? Can you provide an example of whether and how universities have contributed to better, cheaper electronics manufacturing? Where did you get '700000'? Cite? Btw, how are you how going to replicate the supply chain for these 700000 people to assemble stuff? Do you have a sense of what the all-in-cost of doing something like this in the U.S. would be, compared to China? Can you share your analysis with us, instead of pulling an assertion out of your a**?
Your post is just so typical of someone who can't or does not get past business headlines. Pathetic.
(Fixed typos)
I wouldn't expect a response, now that you've pressed for specifics. Cowardly trolls like him who haven't done an ounce of research into the topics that they rant about in order to skewer Apple pretty much have nothing at that point. Sad that the most opinionated people are the most clueless and the least knowledgeable about anything.
Laughable; now you're really grasping. Let's look at some of those basic facts you're so in denial of. Cook is taking the "minimum possible as a CEO"? Really? Where does it say in American labor law that the "minimum" a CEO can make is $ 9.2 million basic salary (not including his vested stock last year which brought that to over $100 million; and not his total profit from Apple which is over $700 million. Read that again: Seven hundred million dollars. Regardless of how he spends it, it is he, not those workers, who will ultimately decide what he does with that money. Now, let's compare that fortune with the average Apple subcontractor factory worker wage in China under Foxconn which is..... $1.78 an hour, often for 12 hours a day with few if any days off. I'm sure you can do the math as to who's really benefitting from whom in that relationship.
Your 'justification' of "it's so much better" if companies/corporations invest in places with horrible labor and human rights records than don't has been used for the last few hundred years, usually to justify exactly the same type of profit/wage disparity as we see above and more importantly, to allow such entities to bypass labor laws in their own home countries and to avoid paying hard-fought minimum wages there. They did it during the apartheid era too, and initially fought tooth and nail to avoid divesting in South Africa (I remember this well as I was actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement for years). The real world? You're naive to believe that the largest company on the planet doesn't have far more say in defining that world that any of its factory workers can ever dream of. This is about greed, a reality you to seem to want to avoid. Divest and go where you say? How about the United States? It is after all an American corporation and we seem to still have at least some basic labour laws here. Or if Tim is truly concerned about labor conditions, as you insist he is, I'd suggest they set up in Norway, Finland, Canada, or Denmark, their laws are even better than ours. Oh right, but that would mean fewer billions of dollars profit for Cook and the other major stockholders; I forgot.
As to how this supposed 'commitment to labor' often ends, I think you've unwittingly provided your own answer. When wages and conditions do rise to certain levels, these multinationals tend to follow the newest lowest wage to yet another third world country where conditions are even worse, thereby proving that their talk of "concern for" (in this case, Chinese) factory workers, like their talk of concern for American factory workers before was nothing more than a ruse all along.
As I said, I don't give a damn if Cook is gay. I do give a damn that he uses Apple to promote one issue (albeit a far safer one which contributes not only to the 'image' of a progressive corporation, but benefits Cook himself, once again), while beyond that image continuing to profit greatly from the global wage disparities of working people. That's at very best a double standard.
That real enough for you? Good.
Not a single fact in your predictable gibberish post, except the fact that Chinese factory workers make less money than the CEO of the biggest company on the planet. Thanks for your incredible insight and enlightenment. The rest of your post is basically unicorn dreams, ranted up by someone who obviously has never taken a serious, sober look at the subject, and doesn't have a clue in hell about the manufacturing industry, what it involves, and what is and isn't possible when it comes to Apple's competitive environment and product launch logistics and requirements. The fact that you believe the only factor holding back Apple from moving its entire manufacturing operations away from China is his personal bank account shows how childish and petulant you actually are.
Oh, and I didn't say "as a CEO".. you left out the "..of the biggest company on the planet" part. You do know that Cook also refuses all bonuses offered to him, right? And that some lower execs make more money than he does? But that's not convenient for you, so ignore, and go back to your meaningless argument of comparing his compensation to that of a Chinese worker.
Also, I love how you conveniently ignore the fact that Apple manufactures the Mac Pro in the US, when it can do so much more easily in China. If profit was the only factor, they would never have taken that on. You didn't comment on the fact that Apple has caused wages to increase- one would think you'd consider this a GOOD thing- instead, you twist it by fantasizing that Apple plans to move its operations to a cheaper country. More proof you don't give a shit about positive progress.
Oh, and how the **** does Cook's activism benefit himself? He moved up his entire life and became the CEO of Apple while basically in the closet and never mentioning his sexuality, and in his position and location he's not going to suffer the discriminations that others might. His obvious motivation is helping others less fortunate than him, which he has articulated numerous times as his motivation for coming out. But yeah, unless Cook doesn't single-handedly solve China, then he's a "hypocrite" and should shut the **** up about everything else that has to do with equality and discrimination in his own country. Another childish and petulant form of reasoning from you. It's not an "either or" concept.
Again, if you gave half a shit about China you wouldn't bring it up in this thread just to change the topic from something else entirely, you would have created another thread specifically about that topic. Your dishonesty and agenda is obvious, as if your laziness of logic, so stop pretending you care. You honestly think if Apple had another CEO, manufacturing would have moved to the US? There are some dynamics Apple cannot control, and if you had an ounce of understanding you would realize that, even in your magical fantasy world.
Why can't you just be honest and admit you only randomly bring up CHINA in order to shit on the LGBT cause in this thread? We all know you have zero interest in the topic beyond that goal, as everything you've said has been a string of random and false nonsense. What advocacy you done in your personal life in support of Chinese working conditions? What groups have you joined? Or does your outrage suddenly manifest itself only in LGBT threads on AppleInsider?
THIS is what Apple is doing-which if you had even a passing interest in the subject matter, you would read thoroughly. They have more transparency in this than any other company on the planet. But of course you don't, and you won't.
Why isn't Tim Cook marching for his minority employees? His handicapped employees? Females? Suicidal Chinese factory employees who</span> make Apple products and <span style="line-height:1.4em;">work long hours at a highly stressful job with low income??? Why isn't Tim Cook out there marching for his employees with religious beliefs?
They tried a handicapped march but it was taking too long. Seriously though, not every issue needs awareness marches. Women, disabled people and minorities are everywhere and highly visible. Sexuality and gender identity are not external so it's easier for people to feel marginalized.
With these events, people focus on male homosexual but it covers more than that. It covers transgender, female homosexual, bisexual and others.
Religion is distinct from sexuality in that unlike sexuality, it is a lifestyle choice. People choose to be hateful and prejudiced towards people they don't approve of. While sexuality and gender identity or at least the results of the discovery process can change over long periods of time and sexuality considered to be deviant is expected to be suppressed, it is never something someone imposes on themselves and it's not something that can be changed wilfully nor short-term. Hatred and prejudice can however be changed with the click of a finger. There's a song that sums this up quite well - imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try:
[VIDEO]
Things that are made-up can vanish just as quickly as they were brought into existence. Dealing with different sexualities and genders isn't always going to be easy and it's going to be next to impossible to resolve every scenario adequately. Caitlyn Jenner for example recently announced the desire to be known as a woman going forward. Seems straightforward at first but she has chosen not to have a sex change operation and has said she's still attracted to women. This makes the situation harder to deal with because identifying and dressing like a woman would look odd if she used male facilities. But at the same time having male organs and being attracted to women would make using female facilities odd too. It's not clear if she would be able to identify as a lesbian while still having male organs.
There are other scenarios not covered by this event like inter-family relationships that people are being imprisoned for:
They did a sample study with reactions of consensual adult brother/sister relationships:
"Was it wrong for them to have sex?
Most people answered with a resounding yes, supporting their "yuck" response with reasons. Yet Professor Haidt noticed that many respondents ignored elements of the story. Some invoked the risk of bearing children with general abnormalities despite mention of two forms of contraception. Others referred to the risk of damaging the sibling relationship, ignoring the fact that the experience actually improved their relationship. Others pointed to the impact on others, but overlooked their pact of secrecy. When one argument was rebutted, people plucked out another. When their ammunition was exhausted, most people clung to their view that Julie and Mark committed a grave moral wrong. Haidt calls this state "moral dumbfounding". His conclusion is that intuitive moral judgments precede the explanations of the rational brain."
This is legal in many developed countries like France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal. There have been couples who discovered they were related and their relationships not supported:
The statement from the quote above is precisely the problem with considerations of sexual attractions - people put intuitive moral judgement ahead of rationality. It's perhaps why criticism aligns more closely with religions as a similar suspension of rationality is required in favor of dogmatic or emotional response. However, I'd expect even more liberally minded people would draw their lines of acceptance in different places:
Some in the gay and lesbian community reject transgender because changing gender surgically or with their appearance is something they elect to do, which some in the gay community said undermines them by making it appear optional.
Common justifications made for what should be accepted are about what's natural or what's consensual. But there are actions that are natural and consensual that aren't permitted. Similarly there are things we do that aren't consensual but permitted. Children don't consent to being raised under a certain ideology or education but it's permitted. They don't consent to being born from donor parents:
They don't consent to adoption either. Everything that happens in life is really a giant social experiment and the rules are changing all the time. There is no set of fixed rules. Fixed rules seem to give people comfort like ones that are set out in historical documents but they are rules that are just a snapshot that worked for the social status at a particular period in time. Sometimes they continue to work, especially if they are vague but eventually there has to be new rules set out.
I feel that a consistent way to determine which are the best rules to follow are ones that avoid harm to living things. When it comes to harming one living thing over another then the rules get complicated but each would be justifiable and the lesser harm decided. Sexuality and gender identity don't harm people around them. Some actions might but the core element of coming to terms with who they are isn't harmful and people shouldn't be made to feel like they are unwanted. It's better to live by each other's happiness than by each other's misery. When you contrast Apple's video with the following anti-gay protest, one thing stands out immediately:
The people in Apple's video are all smiling. As a society, we shouldn't make it an aim to push intolerance as the default. It is the opposite that allows people to express themselves, even objections. Where we stop is when people are harmed by it.
It may be the case that if Apple was run by a different CEO like Forstall, they might not be as forthright on this particular issue. Forstall could have been supporting musicals instead. But that proves a point, which is that until people who face these issues are in certain positions to help raise awareness of them, the issues are more likely to get ignored. Tim Cook has stated that he sees his role in the movement as a small one - just one brick in a path that many people contribute to - and it encompasses multiple human rights issues.
Apple's video was very well made and the music track was an ideal choice along with Tim's statement on inclusion. There doesn't need to be any racial, national nor gender division. Even within social structures that people find conventional, there are many colors and we are accustomed to carrying/supporting each other. It would be nice to see Apple bring this upbeat and colorful theme to the rest of their marketing. The old ways of separation and convention don't work in modern society and this is a message Apple has always sent out. People are fighting to keep things as they were, some violently but it is nothing more than the bitterness of people who fear the way of human progress and nobody is exempt from this, we all have lines we draw in the sand we don't want to cross but we all have to assess things in the appropriate way for the most positive outcome. Purposely hurting other people to gratify adherence to a particular ideology is not a positive outcome and this has proven true more times than necessary.
How is Apples support of its LGBT employees and the issues in China connected in any way.
Regardless...based on how horrible Apple is...I suggest you immediately divest yourself of all Apple products and stop supporting that horrible corporation. Put your money where your mouth is and vote with your wallet so you're not a hypocrite.
Well, that would be because, as I've written, Apple is using its name to very publicly promote one cause while all but ignoring a far more serious issue. I suggest you go back and actually read it.
I use a Pro and make every effort to buy American whenever possible. How about you Diego?
Actually, as I've written, apple is supporting its employee LGBT group during pride, as it does all of its employee groups when they participate in different events. Such as the During the breast cancer run in downtown SF annually. You trying to make this something else is laughable. If you hold someone to a standard, you need to hold everyone else to the same standard including yourself or else you are a hypocrite. regardless, all companies have a voice and a right to support different causes, don't be whiney if you don't agree with what they choose. Like I said, put your money where your mouth is.
And I'm fine with my purchase choices, however that's not what this thread is about, but way to keep moving goalposts to try to make yourself seem righteous.
Well, that would be because, as I've written, Apple is using its name to very publicly promote one cause while all but ignoring a far more serious issue. I suggest you go back and actually read it.
I use a Pro and make every effort to buy American whenever possible. How about you Diego?
She's so shallow, isn't she (in fact, shallowness was the hallmark of her leadership at HP). Last I looked, Cook was not running for anything, so it's a bit bizarre for her to be going after him. And, afaik, he's not a citizen of any country other than the U.S., where he grew up, runs a business, and votes.
"David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
I find it interesting you decided to simply ignore the facts and comment only on Carly Fiorina. Apple has online stores in the following nations
Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. If you are LGBT you can be punished by death. If he is such an advocate for LGBT rights then why do business in these countries? We already know the answer to that question. Why for Tim Cook is this an United States issue only?
Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-sanctioned churches continues. While the recent reinstatement of Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases may result in lower numbers of executions, China remains the leading executioner in the world.
So Tim Cook can't put himself on the moral high ground with his tweets, speeches and parades yet ignore the fact that Apple makes billions on the backs of slave labor and does business in countries that will kill you simply for being gay.
These are facts it doesn't matter who says them and it doesn't matter how much people defend Cook here, they can't be disputed. If you can show evidence that Apple does not do business in these nations or these nations don't have these laws then please present it. Right now all you are doing is pretending to be educated on the issue and shifting the focus.
They tried a handicapped march but it was taking too long. Seriously though, not every issue needs awareness marches. Women, disabled people and minorities are everywhere and highly visible. Sexuality and gender identity are not external so it's easier for people to feel marginalized.
With these events, people focus on male homosexual but it covers more than that. It covers transgender, female homosexual, bisexual and others.
Religion is distinct from sexuality in that unlike sexuality, it is a lifestyle choice. People choose to be hateful and prejudiced towards people they don't approve of. While sexuality and gender identity or at least the results of the discovery process can change over long periods of time and sexuality considered to be deviant is expected to be suppressed, it is never something someone imposes on themselves and it's not something that can be changed wilfully nor short-term. Hatred and prejudice can however be changed with the click of a finger. There's a song that sums this up quite well - imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try:
[VIDEO]
Things that are made-up can vanish just as quickly as they were brought into existence. Dealing with different sexualities and genders isn't always going to be easy and it's going to be next to impossible to resolve every scenario adequately. Caitlyn Jenner for example recently announced the desire to be known as a woman going forward. Seems straightforward at first but she has chosen not to have a sex change operation and has said she's still attracted to women. This makes the situation harder to deal with because identifying and dressing like a woman would look odd if she used male facilities. But at the same time having male organs and being attracted to women would make using female facilities odd too. It's not clear if she would be able to identify as a lesbian while still having male organs.
There are other scenarios not covered by this event like inter-family relationships that people are being imprisoned for:
They did a sample study with reactions of consensual adult brother/sister relationships:
"Was it wrong for them to have sex?
Most people answered with a resounding yes, supporting their "yuck" response with reasons. Yet Professor Haidt noticed that many respondents ignored elements of the story. Some invoked the risk of bearing children with general abnormalities despite mention of two forms of contraception. Others referred to the risk of damaging the sibling relationship, ignoring the fact that the experience actually improved their relationship. Others pointed to the impact on others, but overlooked their pact of secrecy. When one argument was rebutted, people plucked out another. When their ammunition was exhausted, most people clung to their view that Julie and Mark committed a grave moral wrong. Haidt calls this state "moral dumbfounding". His conclusion is that intuitive moral judgments precede the explanations of the rational brain."
This is legal in many developed countries like France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal. There have been couples who discovered they were related and their relationships not supported:
The statement from the quote above is precisely the problem with considerations of sexual attractions - people put intuitive moral judgement ahead of rationality. It's perhaps why criticism aligns more closely with religions as a similar suspension of rationality is required in favor of dogmatic or emotional response. However, I'd expect even more liberally minded people would draw their lines of acceptance in different places:
Some in the gay and lesbian community reject transgender because changing gender surgically or with their appearance is something they elect to do, which some in the gay community said undermines them by making it appear optional.
Common justifications made for what should be accepted are about what's natural or what's consensual. But there are actions that are natural and consensual that aren't permitted. Similarly there are things we do that aren't consensual but permitted. Children don't consent to being raised under a certain ideology or education but it's permitted. They don't consent to being born from donor parents:
They don't consent to adoption either. Everything that happens in life is really a giant social experiment and the rules are changing all the time. There is no set of fixed rules. Fixed rules seem to give people comfort like ones that are set out in historical documents but they are rules that are just a snapshot that worked for the social status at a particular period in time. Sometimes they continue to work, especially if they are vague but eventually there has to be new rules set out.
I feel that a consistent way to determine which are the best rules to follow are ones that avoid harm to living things. When it comes to harming one living thing over another then the rules get complicated but each would be justifiable and the lesser harm decided. Sexuality and gender identity don't harm people around them. Some actions might but the core element of coming to terms with who they are isn't harmful and people shouldn't be made to feel like they are unwanted. It's better to live by each other's happiness than by each other's misery. When you contrast Apple's video with the following anti-gay protest, one thing stands out immediately:
The people in Apple's video are all smiling. As a society, we shouldn't make it an aim to push intolerance as the default. It is the opposite that allows people to express themselves, even objections. Where we stop is when people are harmed by it.
It may be the case that if Apple was run by a different CEO like Forstall, they might not be as forthright on this particular issue. Forstall could have been supporting musicals instead. But that proves a point, which is that until people who face these issues are in certain positions to help raise awareness of them, the issues are more likely to get ignored. Tim Cook has stated that he sees his role in the movement as a small one - just one brick in a path that many people contribute to - and it encompasses multiple human rights issues.
Apple's video was very well made and the music track was an ideal choice along with Tim's statement on inclusion. There doesn't need to be any racial, national nor gender division. Even within social structures that people find conventional, there are many colors and we are accustomed to carrying/supporting each other. It would be nice to see Apple bring this upbeat and colorful theme to the rest of their marketing. The old ways of separation and convention don't work in modern society and this is a message Apple has always sent out. People are fighting to keep things as they were, some violently but it is nothing more than the bitterness of people who fear the way of human progress and nobody is exempt from this, we all have lines we draw in the sand we don't want to cross but we all have to assess things in the appropriate way for the most positive outcome. Purposely hurting other people to gratify adherence to a particular ideology is not a positive outcome and this has proven true more times than necessary.
Thank You Marvin for yet another one of your excellent, well researched opinion posts! It's gems like these why I continue to read these forums. There's certainly a number of other great thinkers here, but you do a singular stellar job of setting the bar for quality.
"David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
I find it interesting you decided to simply ignore the facts and comment only on Carly Fiorina. Apple has online stores in the following nations
Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. If you are LGBT you can be punished by death. If he is such an advocate for LGBT rights then why do business in these countries? We already know the answer to that question. Why for Tim Cook is this an United States issue only?
Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-sanctioned churches continues. While the recent reinstatement of Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases may result in lower numbers of executions, China remains the leading executioner in the world.
So Tim Cook can't put himself on the moral high ground with his tweets, speeches and parades yet ignore the fact that Apple makes billions on the backs of slave labor and does business in countries that will kill you simply for being gay.
These are facts it doesn't matter who says them and it doesn't matter how much people defend Cook here, they can't be disputed. If you can show evidence that Apple does not do business in these nations or these nations don't have these laws then please present it. Right now all you are doing is pretending to be educated on the issue and shifting the focus.
When are going to accept the fact that the entire world has been trying to bend China to their will for decades, far longer than Apple has been in existance, with little to no Western culture acceptable results.
China controls everything about China, including your so-called slave labor of it's citizens, regardless of what any other country, army, organization... or what Tim Cook says or does. Ignoring, sanctions, and isolation hasn't worked and I doubt it ever will.
The one thing you should fear is if our leaders ever think that they can use force aginst China. This is one dragon/tiger that you do not want to ever become agressive either financially or militarily. Tim Cook does his best and better than any other leader we've seen in years negotiate through the Chinese culture: with humble strength in conviction.
As for the other countries on your list, well just think about this: how do you think it makes those countries look when a fair number of their business and government leaders use a "dirty heathen sinner" phone to conduct their affairs? It's up to the populace in each of those countries to rise up against the hypocrisy, not Tim Cook's to point it out. Since shaming never goes well because those being shamed often lash out at the weakest among them, as bullies usually do. So TC would actually be putting his very own fans and customers at grave risk if he ever did get too big for his soapbox.
Besides... as others have already stated here often enough and something you should appreciate as an America First supporter, he's concentrating his efforts on bringing America out of the dark ages and making life better for ALL Americans, not just those that have enjoyed their right to bigotry and discrimination in numbers for far too long.
"David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
I find it interesting you decided to simply ignore the facts and comment only on Carly Fiorina. Apple has online stores in the following nations
Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. If you are LGBT you can be punished by death. If he is such an advocate for LGBT rights then why do business in these countries? We already know the answer to that question. Why for Tim Cook is this an United States issue only?
Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-sanctioned churches continues. While the recent reinstatement of Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases may result in lower numbers of executions, China remains the leading executioner in the world.
So Tim Cook can't put himself on the moral high ground with his tweets, speeches and parades yet ignore the fact that Apple makes billions on the backs of slave labor and does business in countries that will kill you simply for being gay.
These are facts it doesn't matter who says them and it doesn't matter how much people defend Cook here, they can't be disputed. If you can show evidence that Apple does not do business in these nations or these nations don't have these laws then please present it. Right now all you are doing is pretending to be educated on the issue and shifting the focus.
I know exactly what you mean, and since you're in Atlanta, it must cut very deeply to see Apple treating the whole US as one entity, when obviously there should be one policy for the enlightened regions and another policy for the South, where medievalism still hangs heavy like a cloud of sulphur from rotting kudzu. /s
But I have to give Tim Cook the benefit of doubt since he grew up in the South, saw cross-burning first-hand, experienced the hostility toward enlightenment of all kinds, yet he seems to believe that offering the tools of knowledge, self-discovery, and connection with others' thought in the greater world may be the best way to help a backward area lift itself out of the mire of suspicion toward difference and openness of all kinds.
I find it interesting you decided to simply ignore the facts and comment only on Carly Fiorina. Apple has online stores in the following nations
Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. If you are LGBT you can be punished by death. If he is such an advocate for LGBT rights then why do business in these countries? We already know the answer to that question. Why for Tim Cook is this an United States issue only?
Ignore what facts? Not only are they amply recognized in my post, but it also makes a direct point about whether those are any of Tim Cook's business or not.
Shallowness is most certainly not in short supply.
Comments
Advise entity Radar stop clowning around. There is no other place on earth with electronic assembly as developed as it is in China. Note that it is the Taiwanese who have set up the factories in mainland China, based on their own experience going back decades in electronics manufacturing.
Pegatron has 16 times its Taiwanese workforce working in the PRC. Foxconn has about half a million workers in China contract assembling for most major electronics companies, including Apple.
You haven't addressed the points raised by RichL and Suddenly Newton. Here's another: better Apple should continue pressuring the contract companies to improve conditions, because there's no way they could switch to other contractors. There aren't any. Conjuring some up would take many years, if not decades.
Your presumption that Apple or the United States is somehow unable to technologically match Chinese production standards is amusing to say the least (e.g. we landed men on the moon almost fifty years ago). It's not a question of being unable, it's being unwilling, and for one reason: profit margin.
As for your other points, see my reply to Slurpy, above.
Not my presumption. Steve Jobs told Pres. Obama "those jobs aren't coming back" because there are 700,000 workers involved with the manufacturing of Apple products overseas. Just the process engineering alone requires 30,000 engineers who don't exist in the US and aren't being educated in the US.
What's laughable is your fantasy that 50 years of lost experience in the ecosystem of microelectronics manufacturing, not to mention the lost ecosystem itself, can be recovered in the US by the waving of some wand. You must try to be real.
Not my presumption. Steve Jobs told Pres. Obama "those jobs aren't coming back" because there are 700,000 workers involved with the manufacturing of Apple products overseas. Just the process engineering alone requires 30,000 engineers who don't exist in the US and aren't being educated in the US.
What's laughable is your fantasy that 50 years of lost experience in the ecosystem of microelectronics manufacturing, not to mention the lost ecosystem itself, can be recovered in the US by the waving of some wand. You must try to be real.
While we're on the subject of laughter I think the unspoken interpretation of those words is "won't, not "aren't" and certainly not "can't". Such statements are simply excuses for following the lowest common denominator to exploit cheap overseas labor. What I'm sure Jobs conveniently didn't mention is that along with Europe we not only (still, anyway) have the best R&D institutes on the planet, but by far still the best universities as well.
With 6.5 million part-time unemployed Americans seeking full-time employment and another 2 million fully unemployed long-term, somehow I think that between the US, Canada, and Europe, we could very easily fill those 700,000 jobs performed mostly by people with very little long-term training, as well as any engineering jobs we need.
Here's some reality for you to chew on. China at this stage still isn't exactly a hotbed of scientific innovation or the home of a lot of Nobel science laureates, not yet. No doubt this will change as America is allowed to weaken its own investment relative to China's investment in such R&D. Being ok with allowing that to happen, particularly regarding a nation which ironically is so anti-labor (as is the US to a lesser extent), exemplifies the fact that your attitude is depressingly defeatist.
Regardless...based on how horrible Apple is...I suggest you immediately divest yourself of all Apple products and stop supporting that horrible corporation. Put your money where your mouth is and vote with your wallet so you're not a hypocrite.
Good, then you agree with my view, which is incidentally the view of Tim Cook and every futurist who has ever confronted the evolution of technological and cultural shifts on a global, tectonic level. The US has passed into a post-industrial phase, as far as its leading-edge economy is concerned. Its most valuable product is knowledge, design, methods of integration, any kind of creative "software." This is why and how the R&D and basic research is still advanced in the US. Apple for example controls, concentrates on, the supply chain, the design, the software, the marketing and distribution intelligence, without all of which the manufacturing would be useless.
The manufacture of nearly all the many hundreds of parts in an iPhone are being done in East Asia for a reason besides wages. The fabs there are drawing on two or three generations of engineering experience and untold trillions in plant and materials investment that the US cut loose from as a matter of mass production in the 1960s. Only chip making has been retained here in electronics. Your aerospace example earlier is a separate matter entirely, because that has had direct military implications.
Since the stock in trade of Apple and the world of the future is Knowledge with a capital K, this is why "inclusion inspires innovation." This is why there is an Apple software developer's camp for young girls now. Or it's also why Apple is developing China as a market equally important to the US, and as a source for design inspiration, e.g., large-screened phones. Those 700,000 jobs in China are just going to get better paid; they're not going anywhere. They're certainly not going to spring up in the US. There are no parts here, no buildings with machines to use their work, few engineers to direct the building of factories, few schools with experienced teachers to train the engineers. We got bigger fish to fry here, as Apple demonstrates before your unseeing eyes day after day.
Flaneur is actually trying to educate you with some important facts and perspectives, and all you can bring by way of a response is to pile on crappy, cliched shallowness upon further crappy, cliched shallowness.
'Excuses'? From whom? 'Somehow you think,' therefore it must be? What are 'R&D institutes'? Can you provide some examples? Universities? How does having the 'best universities in the world' allow you to manufacture something better, cheaper, and higher quality? Can you provide an example of whether and how universities have contributed to better, cheaper electronics manufacturing? Where did you get '700000'? Cite? Btw, how are you how going to replicate the supply chain for these 700000 people to assemble stuff? Do you have a sense of what the all-in-cost of doing something like this in the U.S. would be, compared to China? Can you share your analysis with us, instead of pulling an assertion out of your a**?
Your post is just so typical of someone who can't or does not get past business headlines. Pathetic.
(Fixed typos)
Flaneur is actually trying to educate you with some important facts and perspectives, and all you can bring by way of a response is to pile on crappy, cliched shallowness upon further crappy, cliched shallowness.
'Excuses'? From whom? 'Somehow you think,' therefore it must be? What are 'R&D institutes'? Can you provide some examples? Universities? How does having the 'best universities in the world' allow you to manufacture something better, cheaper, and higher quality? Can you provide an example of whether and how universities have contributed to better, cheaper electronics manufacturing? Where did you get '700000'? Cite? Btw, how are you how going to replicate the supply chain for these 700000 people to assemble stuff? Do you have a sense of what the all-in-cost of doing something like this in the U.S. would be, compared to China? Can you share your analysis with us, instead of pulling an assertion out of your a**?
Your post is just so typical of someone who can't or does not get past business headlines. Pathetic.
(Fixed typos)
I wouldn't expect a response, now that you've pressed for specifics. Cowardly trolls like him who haven't done an ounce of research into the topics that they rant about in order to skewer Apple pretty much have nothing at that point. Sad that the most opinionated people are the most clueless and the least knowledgeable about anything.
Laughable; now you're really grasping. Let's look at some of those basic facts you're so in denial of. Cook is taking the "minimum possible as a CEO"? Really? Where does it say in American labor law that the "minimum" a CEO can make is $ 9.2 million basic salary (not including his vested stock last year which brought that to over $100 million; and not his total profit from Apple which is over $700 million. Read that again: Seven hundred million dollars. Regardless of how he spends it, it is he, not those workers, who will ultimately decide what he does with that money. Now, let's compare that fortune with the average Apple subcontractor factory worker wage in China under Foxconn which is..... $1.78 an hour, often for 12 hours a day with few if any days off. I'm sure you can do the math as to who's really benefitting from whom in that relationship.
Your 'justification' of "it's so much better" if companies/corporations invest in places with horrible labor and human rights records than don't has been used for the last few hundred years, usually to justify exactly the same type of profit/wage disparity as we see above and more importantly, to allow such entities to bypass labor laws in their own home countries and to avoid paying hard-fought minimum wages there. They did it during the apartheid era too, and initially fought tooth and nail to avoid divesting in South Africa (I remember this well as I was actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement for years). The real world? You're naive to believe that the largest company on the planet doesn't have far more say in defining that world that any of its factory workers can ever dream of. This is about greed, a reality you to seem to want to avoid. Divest and go where you say? How about the United States? It is after all an American corporation and we seem to still have at least some basic labour laws here. Or if Tim is truly concerned about labor conditions, as you insist he is, I'd suggest they set up in Norway, Finland, Canada, or Denmark, their laws are even better than ours. Oh right, but that would mean fewer billions of dollars profit for Cook and the other major stockholders; I forgot.
As to how this supposed 'commitment to labor' often ends, I think you've unwittingly provided your own answer. When wages and conditions do rise to certain levels, these multinationals tend to follow the newest lowest wage to yet another third world country where conditions are even worse, thereby proving that their talk of "concern for" (in this case, Chinese) factory workers, like their talk of concern for American factory workers before was nothing more than a ruse all along.
As I said, I don't give a damn if Cook is gay. I do give a damn that he uses Apple to promote one issue (albeit a far safer one which contributes not only to the 'image' of a progressive corporation, but benefits Cook himself, once again), while beyond that image continuing to profit greatly from the global wage disparities of working people. That's at very best a double standard.
That real enough for you? Good.
Not a single fact in your predictable gibberish post, except the fact that Chinese factory workers make less money than the CEO of the biggest company on the planet. Thanks for your incredible insight and enlightenment. The rest of your post is basically unicorn dreams, ranted up by someone who obviously has never taken a serious, sober look at the subject, and doesn't have a clue in hell about the manufacturing industry, what it involves, and what is and isn't possible when it comes to Apple's competitive environment and product launch logistics and requirements. The fact that you believe the only factor holding back Apple from moving its entire manufacturing operations away from China is his personal bank account shows how childish and petulant you actually are.
Oh, and I didn't say "as a CEO".. you left out the "..of the biggest company on the planet" part. You do know that Cook also refuses all bonuses offered to him, right? And that some lower execs make more money than he does? But that's not convenient for you, so ignore, and go back to your meaningless argument of comparing his compensation to that of a Chinese worker.
Also, I love how you conveniently ignore the fact that Apple manufactures the Mac Pro in the US, when it can do so much more easily in China. If profit was the only factor, they would never have taken that on. You didn't comment on the fact that Apple has caused wages to increase- one would think you'd consider this a GOOD thing- instead, you twist it by fantasizing that Apple plans to move its operations to a cheaper country. More proof you don't give a shit about positive progress.
Oh, and how the **** does Cook's activism benefit himself? He moved up his entire life and became the CEO of Apple while basically in the closet and never mentioning his sexuality, and in his position and location he's not going to suffer the discriminations that others might. His obvious motivation is helping others less fortunate than him, which he has articulated numerous times as his motivation for coming out. But yeah, unless Cook doesn't single-handedly solve China, then he's a "hypocrite" and should shut the **** up about everything else that has to do with equality and discrimination in his own country. Another childish and petulant form of reasoning from you. It's not an "either or" concept.
Again, if you gave half a shit about China you wouldn't bring it up in this thread just to change the topic from something else entirely, you would have created another thread specifically about that topic. Your dishonesty and agenda is obvious, as if your laziness of logic, so stop pretending you care. You honestly think if Apple had another CEO, manufacturing would have moved to the US? There are some dynamics Apple cannot control, and if you had an ounce of understanding you would realize that, even in your magical fantasy world.
Why can't you just be honest and admit you only randomly bring up CHINA in order to shit on the LGBT cause in this thread? We all know you have zero interest in the topic beyond that goal, as everything you've said has been a string of random and false nonsense. What advocacy you done in your personal life in support of Chinese working conditions? What groups have you joined? Or does your outrage suddenly manifest itself only in LGBT threads on AppleInsider?
THIS is what Apple is doing-which if you had even a passing interest in the subject matter, you would read thoroughly. They have more transparency in this than any other company on the planet. But of course you don't, and you won't.
Tranparancy
Who gives a shit? Transparency is to divestment what commissions are to action.
Lies? Really? So Apple are in fact not invested up to their asses in China?
Have trouble accepting basic facts, do you?
Don't worry. I'll let you know if you accidentally post anything resembling a fact.
They tried a handicapped march but it was taking too long. Seriously though, not every issue needs awareness marches. Women, disabled people and minorities are everywhere and highly visible. Sexuality and gender identity are not external so it's easier for people to feel marginalized.
With these events, people focus on male homosexual but it covers more than that. It covers transgender, female homosexual, bisexual and others.
Religion is distinct from sexuality in that unlike sexuality, it is a lifestyle choice. People choose to be hateful and prejudiced towards people they don't approve of. While sexuality and gender identity or at least the results of the discovery process can change over long periods of time and sexuality considered to be deviant is expected to be suppressed, it is never something someone imposes on themselves and it's not something that can be changed wilfully nor short-term. Hatred and prejudice can however be changed with the click of a finger. There's a song that sums this up quite well - imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try:
[VIDEO]
Things that are made-up can vanish just as quickly as they were brought into existence. Dealing with different sexualities and genders isn't always going to be easy and it's going to be next to impossible to resolve every scenario adequately. Caitlyn Jenner for example recently announced the desire to be known as a woman going forward. Seems straightforward at first but she has chosen not to have a sex change operation and has said she's still attracted to women. This makes the situation harder to deal with because identifying and dressing like a woman would look odd if she used male facilities. But at the same time having male organs and being attracted to women would make using female facilities odd too. It's not clear if she would be able to identify as a lesbian while still having male organs.
There are other scenarios not covered by this event like inter-family relationships that people are being imprisoned for:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/apr/16/incest-legality-ethics
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-ethics-council-calls-for-incest-between-siblings-to-be-legalised-by-government-9753506.html
They did a sample study with reactions of consensual adult brother/sister relationships:
"Was it wrong for them to have sex?
Most people answered with a resounding yes, supporting their "yuck" response with reasons. Yet Professor Haidt noticed that many respondents ignored elements of the story. Some invoked the risk of bearing children with general abnormalities despite mention of two forms of contraception. Others referred to the risk of damaging the sibling relationship, ignoring the fact that the experience actually improved their relationship. Others pointed to the impact on others, but overlooked their pact of secrecy. When one argument was rebutted, people plucked out another. When their ammunition was exhausted, most people clung to their view that Julie and Mark committed a grave moral wrong. Haidt calls this state "moral dumbfounding". His conclusion is that intuitive moral judgments precede the explanations of the rational brain."
This is legal in many developed countries like France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal. There have been couples who discovered they were related and their relationships not supported:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/12/uknews4.mainsection2
The statement from the quote above is precisely the problem with considerations of sexual attractions - people put intuitive moral judgement ahead of rationality. It's perhaps why criticism aligns more closely with religions as a similar suspension of rationality is required in favor of dogmatic or emotional response. However, I'd expect even more liberally minded people would draw their lines of acceptance in different places:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-clayton/queer-community-transphobic_b_2727064.html
Some in the gay and lesbian community reject transgender because changing gender surgically or with their appearance is something they elect to do, which some in the gay community said undermines them by making it appear optional.
Common justifications made for what should be accepted are about what's natural or what's consensual. But there are actions that are natural and consensual that aren't permitted. Similarly there are things we do that aren't consensual but permitted. Children don't consent to being raised under a certain ideology or education but it's permitted. They don't consent to being born from donor parents:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2669842/Donor-IVF-baby-says-I-wish-Id-never-born-Its-great-IVF-taboo-child-feel-never-knowing-biological-parents-For-family-answer-shattering.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3138016/How-feel-sperm-donor-s-child-women-say-shattered-lives.html
They don't consent to adoption either. Everything that happens in life is really a giant social experiment and the rules are changing all the time. There is no set of fixed rules. Fixed rules seem to give people comfort like ones that are set out in historical documents but they are rules that are just a snapshot that worked for the social status at a particular period in time. Sometimes they continue to work, especially if they are vague but eventually there has to be new rules set out.
I feel that a consistent way to determine which are the best rules to follow are ones that avoid harm to living things. When it comes to harming one living thing over another then the rules get complicated but each would be justifiable and the lesser harm decided. Sexuality and gender identity don't harm people around them. Some actions might but the core element of coming to terms with who they are isn't harmful and people shouldn't be made to feel like they are unwanted. It's better to live by each other's happiness than by each other's misery. When you contrast Apple's video with the following anti-gay protest, one thing stands out immediately:
The people in Apple's video are all smiling. As a society, we shouldn't make it an aim to push intolerance as the default. It is the opposite that allows people to express themselves, even objections. Where we stop is when people are harmed by it.
It may be the case that if Apple was run by a different CEO like Forstall, they might not be as forthright on this particular issue. Forstall could have been supporting musicals instead. But that proves a point, which is that until people who face these issues are in certain positions to help raise awareness of them, the issues are more likely to get ignored. Tim Cook has stated that he sees his role in the movement as a small one - just one brick in a path that many people contribute to - and it encompasses multiple human rights issues.
Apple's video was very well made and the music track was an ideal choice along with Tim's statement on inclusion. There doesn't need to be any racial, national nor gender division. Even within social structures that people find conventional, there are many colors and we are accustomed to carrying/supporting each other. It would be nice to see Apple bring this upbeat and colorful theme to the rest of their marketing. The old ways of separation and convention don't work in modern society and this is a message Apple has always sent out. People are fighting to keep things as they were, some violently but it is nothing more than the bitterness of people who fear the way of human progress and nobody is exempt from this, we all have lines we draw in the sand we don't want to cross but we all have to assess things in the appropriate way for the most positive outcome. Purposely hurting other people to gratify adherence to a particular ideology is not a positive outcome and this has proven true more times than necessary.
Were you born monogamous?
Were you born monogamous?
You've confused the differences between polyamory, monogamy, and polygamy.
How is Apples support of its LGBT employees and the issues in China connected in any way.
Regardless...based on how horrible Apple is...I suggest you immediately divest yourself of all Apple products and stop supporting that horrible corporation. Put your money where your mouth is and vote with your wallet so you're not a hypocrite.
Well, that would be because, as I've written, Apple is using its name to very publicly promote one cause while all but ignoring a far more serious issue. I suggest you go back and actually read it.
I use a Pro and make every effort to buy American whenever possible. How about you Diego?
Were you born monogamous?
Exactly.
And I'm fine with my purchase choices, however that's not what this thread is about, but way to keep moving goalposts to try to make yourself seem righteous.
Happy 4th.
She's so shallow, isn't she (in fact, shallowness was the hallmark of her leadership at HP). Last I looked, Cook was not running for anything, so it's a bit bizarre for her to be going after him. And, afaik, he's not a citizen of any country other than the U.S., where he grew up, runs a business, and votes.
"David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
I find it interesting you decided to simply ignore the facts and comment only on Carly Fiorina. Apple has online stores in the following nations
Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. If you are LGBT you can be punished by death. If he is such an advocate for LGBT rights then why do business in these countries? We already know the answer to that question. Why for Tim Cook is this an United States issue only?
China:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china
Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-sanctioned churches continues. While the recent reinstatement of Supreme People's Court review of death penalty cases may result in lower numbers of executions, China remains the leading executioner in the world.
So Tim Cook can't put himself on the moral high ground with his tweets, speeches and parades yet ignore the fact that Apple makes billions on the backs of slave labor and does business in countries that will kill you simply for being gay.
These are facts it doesn't matter who says them and it doesn't matter how much people defend Cook here, they can't be disputed. If you can show evidence that Apple does not do business in these nations or these nations don't have these laws then please present it. Right now all you are doing is pretending to be educated on the issue and shifting the focus.
Thank You Marvin for yet another one of your excellent, well researched opinion posts! It's gems like these why I continue to read these forums. There's certainly a number of other great thinkers here, but you do a singular stellar job of setting the bar for quality.
When are going to accept the fact that the entire world has been trying to bend China to their will for decades, far longer than Apple has been in existance, with little to no Western culture acceptable results.
China controls everything about China, including your so-called slave labor of it's citizens, regardless of what any other country, army, organization... or what Tim Cook says or does. Ignoring, sanctions, and isolation hasn't worked and I doubt it ever will.
The one thing you should fear is if our leaders ever think that they can use force aginst China. This is one dragon/tiger that you do not want to ever become agressive either financially or militarily. Tim Cook does his best and better than any other leader we've seen in years negotiate through the Chinese culture: with humble strength in conviction.
As for the other countries on your list, well just think about this: how do you think it makes those countries look when a fair number of their business and government leaders use a "dirty heathen sinner" phone to conduct their affairs? It's up to the populace in each of those countries to rise up against the hypocrisy, not Tim Cook's to point it out. Since shaming never goes well because those being shamed often lash out at the weakest among them, as bullies usually do. So TC would actually be putting his very own fans and customers at grave risk if he ever did get too big for his soapbox.
Besides... as others have already stated here often enough and something you should appreciate as an America First supporter, he's concentrating his efforts on bringing America out of the dark ages and making life better for ALL Americans, not just those that have enjoyed their right to bigotry and discrimination in numbers for far too long.
I know exactly what you mean, and since you're in Atlanta, it must cut very deeply to see Apple treating the whole US as one entity, when obviously there should be one policy for the enlightened regions and another policy for the South, where medievalism still hangs heavy like a cloud of sulphur from rotting kudzu. /s
But I have to give Tim Cook the benefit of doubt since he grew up in the South, saw cross-burning first-hand, experienced the hostility toward enlightenment of all kinds, yet he seems to believe that offering the tools of knowledge, self-discovery, and connection with others' thought in the greater world may be the best way to help a backward area lift itself out of the mire of suspicion toward difference and openness of all kinds.
Ignore what facts? Not only are they amply recognized in my post, but it also makes a direct point about whether those are any of Tim Cook's business or not.
Shallowness is most certainly not in short supply.