I'm curious what the community thinks about the ouster (under pressure) of Brendan Eich from Mozilla.

Should someone be deprived of their livelihood for contributing to a candidate or cause with which we don't agree?  Is it OK for a company to push someone out for personal views contrary to company policy that are not expressed on company time?  Is it OK for people to try to force a company to fire someone because they don't care for the person's personal views or contributions?

In all cases?  In some cases? 

For those not familiar, here's a blog that sort of gives both sides of the argument, in that it quotes heavily from one while presenting another.  

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophob...

Eich, for those who are not aware, was the co-founder of Mozilla, its chief technical officer, and the developer of Javascript which is used across the web.

Tags: 8, Eich, Proposition, discrimination, homosexual

Views: 365

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And sometimes, it's discriminatory.

Well, discrimination (the ability to discern differences and distinctions) isn't necessarily bad.

Judgments of fairness are just as much a cultural artifact as aesthetic judgments. Fairness can be judged by the result or in terms of the process. In other words, we could decide to invalidate any process that treats Icelanders as equal to us or to be as deserving to us.

Anyway, "That's not fair!" is the sort of bleat one hears out of four year olds. It's a sign of weakness. The strong don't complain, they take what they want.

Well, discrimination (the ability to discern differences and distinctions) isn't necessarily bad.

You do not get to ignore that I have specifically stated we are discussing discrimination that means unfair treatment of people ("the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people") not differentiation ("we're not talking about the meanings that refer to things like discriminating taste in wine and cigars".)

Unfair treatment of people is necessarily "bad" in the sense that unfairness undeniably refers to injustice, partiality, or deception.

Judgments of fairness are just as much a cultural artifact as aesthetic judgments. Fairness can be judged by the result or in terms of the process. In other words, we could decide to invalidate any process that treats Icelanders as equal to us or to be as deserving to us.

You could decide to invalidate Icelandic marriage in the United States. Unless the invalidation is fair-- that is, done for just, impartial and honest reasons-- it's discrimination.

Unfairness, which refers to injustice, partiality or dishonesty, is not like aesthetics, which refers to beauty and pleasing appearance.

But have it your way. You essentially claim that Icelandic marriage in the United States could be invalidated fairly.

Go ahead then. Present your case. Invalidate those undeserving Icelandic marriages and we'll judge the (un)fairness of the process and result.

Anyway, "That's not fair!" is the sort of bleat one hears out of four year olds. It's a sign of weakness. The strong don't complain, they take what they want.

Gosh, you're right.

Women. Blacks. Hispanics. Jews. LGBT people. Seniors. The disabled. Families with kids. Asians. Muslims. Veterans.

They're all a bunch of bleating little brats for calling out discrimination. They should keep their fucking mouths shut and TAKE what they want!

You know, like strong people do.

You forgot atheists, LOL. Unlike blacks (or 25% to 100% Jewish blooded persons living in Europe in the 1930s, for example) gays and lesbians could stay in the closet and have stayed in the closet to save themselves from the levels of persecution that blacks or Jews received. I think in many countries during various decades they were no less hated, just way more invisible.

But have it your way. You essentially claim that Icelandic marriage in the United States could be invalidated fairly.

Go ahead then. Present your case. Invalidate those undeserving Icelandic marriages and we'll judge the fairness of the process and result.

This sort of judgment involves attitudes, not facts. So, no "case" can settle the issue. In fact, all ethical arguments are about competing attitudes, not competing facts. The only facts involved are over what the attitudes are. Whether denying Icelanders marriage rights in the US is fair or not is a matter of perception and perceptions are colored by attitudes. Attitudes are a matter of fashion.

Seventy years ago, when I was under 10, the attitude was that interracial marriage was wrong. Today we find that idea ludicrous and backward. Who knows what attitudes we have today, thinking ourselves liberal, will be adjudged backward. Perhaps in the future people will a so-called "human right" to marry their pets and the days when people could not might be seen as "the bad old days."

Gallup: You essentially claim that Icelandic marriage in the United States could be invalidated fairly. Go ahead then. Present your case. Invalidate those undeserving Icelandic marriages and we'll judge the fairness of the process and result.

Unseen: This sort of judgment involves attitudes, not facts. So, no "case" can settle the issue.

The issue is that you claim to have an argument which invalidates Icelandic marriage fairly, that is, by a process that is just, impartial and honest.

You can settle the issue by demonstrating that process. Show me how Icelandic marriage can be invalidated without being unfair. Be specific.

If you can't present the reasoning to support your point (and you can't) then you haven't made one.

In fact, all ethical arguments are about competing attitudes, not competing facts. The only facts involved are over what the attitudes are. Whether denying Icelanders marriage rights in the US is fair or not is a matter of perception and perceptions are colored by attitudes. Attitudes are a matter of fashion.

Splendid. I'm looking forward to seeing your just, impartial and honest argument which invalidates Icelandic marriage, especially now that you've discounted facts in your disclaimer above.

By all means, go ahead and present the argument, assuming the aforementioned paradox hasn't rendered it stillborn.

Perhaps in the future people will a so-called "human right" to marry their pets and the days when people could not might be seen as "the bad old days."

I'm sure, in the bright future, it's considered beyond the pale to compound references to paedophilia with comparisons to bestiality when discussing homosexual marriage.

Until we get there, these bad ol' days must be endured.

Unseen, how can you reconcile your postmodernism with your Ubermesnch attitude and your indifference to gay rights. It doesn't make any sense.

@Gallup's Mirror - The issue is that you claim to have an argument which invalidates Icelandic marriage fairly, that is, by a process that is just, impartial and honest. 

I made no such claim. But, once again, whether a process is just, impartial, and honest is subject to attitudes. Value judgments can't be elevated to the level of fact, whether it's your evaluation of whether Rush is the greatest rock trio of all time or whether Rembrandt's Night Watch is better than Vermeer's Lacemaker or whether giving Icelanders the right to marry is the right thing to do. The only way to come partway to settling any of those things is through various fallacious appeals, usually some sort of appeal to marjority thinking.

@Davis Goodman - Unseen, how can you reconcile your postmodernism with your Ubermesnch attitude and your indifference to gay rights. It doesn't make any sense.

Once you frame that question in plain English using terms we can agree upon, I'll take a stab at a reply. By postmodernism do you refer to my skeptical attitude? By Uebermensch, do you mean I'm (literally) a superman? 

When it comes to rights, I just don't see any way around rights being either legislated or imaginary (nonexistent). That's not my position on gay rights. It's my position on rights in general. No aspersions intended. I support gay rights, by the way. My view on rights is based on logic, though, not my attitude. It's my belief that gays should have full rights which is my attitude on the subject. However, I'm not going to let my attitude masquerade as a fact, as many others attempt to do.

Gallup's Mirror: The issue is that you claim to have an argument which invalidates Icelandic marriage fairly, that is, by a process that is just, impartial and honest. 

Unseen: I made no such claim.

Of course you did: ("Well, discrimination (the ability to discern differences and distinctions) isn't necessarily bad. Judgments of fairness are just as much a cultural artifact as aesthetic judgments. Fairness can be judged by the result or in terms of the process. In other words, we could decide to invalidate any process that treats Icelanders as equal to us or to be as deserving to us.")

You attempted to substitute the third meaning of the word discrimination, which refers to simple differentiation, instead of the applicable meaning, which refers to unfairly treating some people (Icelanders, gays, etc.) differently than others. 

I simply didn't let you get away with it.

With the proper meaning of 'discrimination' in this context now restored: you say in the paragraph above that unfairly treating one group differently than another is not necessarily "bad" as I have repeatedly described it.

That is, I said unfairness-- which is injustice, partiality or deception-- is necessarily "bad" for having those qualities (with dishonesty being perhaps the most egregious).

There is no reasonable alternative meaning for your words above: it's a claim that you can invalidate Icelanders fairly-- that is, without being unjust, partial or dishonest.

If not, then kindly do explain exactly what you are claiming in regard to your (still tiresomely unspecified) process that lets you invalidate Icelanders as equals to us (in marriage or whatever other rights). Be specific.

But, once again, whether a process is just, impartial, and honest is subject to attitudes.

Wrong.

You can tell me you're banning Jewish rights because they're dirty, or banning gay rights because they're child molesters, or banning rights for Black women because they're welfare cheats, or banning atheists' rights because they're unfit for office.

But don't tell me these are just, impartial or (most importantly of all) true reasons for such bans.

What is factual-- demonstrably true or demonstrably false-- regarding certain groups of people is not subject to how you feel about it.

You are simply describing discriminatory processes (and carefully avoiding specifics so you don't have to address or even acknowledge that they are discriminatory).

Value judgments can't be elevated to the level of fact,

Agreed. Discrimination ignores facts, distorts facts or reduces facts to the level of value judgements. This is the root of much discrimination: the bigot starts with the bigotry ('gay people are icky'), then manufactures reasons to justify it falsely ('God says so').

-----------------------------------------------------

discrimination:

(1) the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
(2) the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not
(3) the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

@Gallup's Mirror - I repeat myself: "(W)hether a process is just, impartial, and honest is subject to attitudes. Value judgments can't be elevated to the level of fact, whether it's your evaluation of whether Rush is the greatest rock trio of all time or whether Rembrandt's Night Watch is better than Vermeer'sLacemaker or whether giving Icelanders the right to marry is the right thing to do. The only way to come partway to settling any of those things is through various fallacious appeals, usually some sort of appeal to majority thinking."

Of course, a legislature is a majority vote by proxy.

@Gallup's Mirror - I repeat myself:

Ignoring everything I say and repeating a demonstrably false point does not make it true.

"(W)hether a process is just, impartial, and honest is subject to attitudes. Value judgments can't be elevated to the level of fact, whether it's your evaluation of whether Rush is the greatest rock trio of all time or whether Rembrandt's Night Watch is better than Vermeer'sLacemaker or whether giving Icelanders the right to marry is the right thing to do.

I've already explained that giving legal rights to some groups and denying the same rights to other groups for dishonest reasons is not the same as judging the merits of music (or cigars or wine).

A claim like "Rush is the greatest band in the world" is evaluated by subjective criteria. Opinion is subjective.

A claim like "Gay rights cause child molestation" can be evaluated as true or false. Facts are not subjective.

There simply is no comparison between music appreciation and using factually incorrect claims to deny rights to groups of people.

The only way to come partway to settling any of those things is through various fallacious appeals, usually some sort of appeal to majority thinking."

I have already demonstrated how this is false where discriminatory processes are concerned. Facts are not fallacious. We do not decide reality by democratic vote.

We're not going to play these stupid games where you ignore clearly reasoned rebuttals and explanations, and simply repeat the same unreasoned proclamations ever more relentlessly.

We're done here, Unseen. You're wrong.

@Gallup's Mirror - A claim like "Gay rights cause child molestation" can be evaluated as true or false. Facts are not subjective. 

True: facts are not subjective, but attitudes are.

A claim like Icelanders should have the right to marry Americans is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It will be settled by majority vote (if it ever becomes an issue). Majority vote by proxy, though, because we live in a republic, not a democracy.

Whenever you see a "should," it's an attitude/opinion, not a fact.

BTW, I know you imagine this discussion is over, but you seem to want to leave an impression that I believe that gay rights cause child molestation, and nothing could be further from the truth. 

You THINK you have demonstrated all kinds of things, but that means to your satisfaction. I know it frustrates you that I don't debate your every point. I typically respond to one point per post. Keep your posts shorter and on one point and you'll get the satisfaction of point by point replies. (And that doesn't mean take a long post and break it up into six shorter ones.)

I have about seven or eight more posts by other members I'd like to address and eight movies I borrowed from the library I'd like to start viewing.

I can't have one overeager interlocutor monopolizing my time. 

Oh, I almost forgot. Thanks for giving me the last word. ;)

RSS

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 17 minutes ago. 41 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 2 hours ago. 55 Replies

Sunday Disassembly

Started by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Society. Last reply by Unseen 5 hours ago. 12 Replies

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 18 hours ago. 5 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service