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.
@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 - 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 - 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. ;)
@Gallup's Mirror - So you couldn't resist having the last word.
You are firmly under my mind control. I take advantage of your OCD-like personality and use it against you. I write short replies, and your condition forces you to produce lengthy rebuttals. You're helpless against the possibility of not having the last word.
@Gallup's Mirror - Well done, Unseen.
I'm glad I live in Belgium where gay people are protected just as much as any other persecuted group.
I'm glad you live in Belgium, too.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I'm not saying he should have been fired. I really don't care that much. I simply horrified that people in the US take the rights of one protected minority far more seriously than the rights of another protected minority.
+1 an excellent reply.
I'll get a rope. Let's lynch him or drag him behind a car.
More seriously, I don't really think he was "ousted" so much as he realized that he wasn't in tune with the Mozilla corporate culture and that he couldn't be a successful