Doctor Fate wrote:No, this is not the thrust of my argument at all. I am frightened when a reasonably innocuous campaign gift turns the "tolerance police" into a lynch mob. I know some hysterians (sic) want to turn Eich into a human rights violator, but put it in context people! It had nothing to do with his job, had no apparent effect on how he treated his subordinates, but he had to be driven out! What he did was so outrageous! Who could ever agree with Eich? Oh, 52% of the electorate?

Why him? Why stop with him? Get them all!

So who is the hysterical one here?

Making a donation to a public cause is a publicly made position. It is not a 'leading' position, but political action is an action in the public sphere.

Nice. So, if you give to a candidate who loses, should you have cause to worry? What if someone at Apple gave to the Romney campaign? Should they be forced out?

Supporting a candidate is not quite the same as supporting a single issue campaign. And seeing as I don't support the tactic used, why are you asking if I support it applied to a wider case?

The point is that if you do something in public, people will notice, and they may react. That's just life, it's just how things are. What they do may be legal but unpalatable - as may the reaction. It may be intolerant on the part of whoever. But surely the sensible course is not to join the mob on one side or the other screaming about how close the others are to Nazis or whatever, but to try and calm it down.

To me, this has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. At the very least, it is evidence as Sullivan said that at the very least the LGBT community is turning into the force of intolerance they complain Christians are.

If indeed either community is that homogeneous.

Yes, it looks like a 'witch hunt'. Except that the real witch hunts had the force of state law behind them and resulted in innocent people being killed on spurious allegations. This is different in three respects - 1) no State involvement; 2) No deaths 3) However minor the accusation, it's not fabricated or the result of delusion.

Got it. Just like I never claimed freedom of speech was anything other than a protection from the government. Okay.

Except of course I didn't actually put words into your mouth. You do it to me (and others) all the time, and when called out on it either evade or try to rationalise it. Why can you not stop?

A 'public' company is one that is open to public purchase. I'm not sure why your distinction is important - why should it be that the ownership structure of a company affect the way employees can act?

Because in a private company, let's say one like Chick-Fil-A, a CEO can do or say whatever he wants. No one is going to fire him or call for him to be fired. It's his company. (NB: I make no argument re a boycott--separate issue)

Well, yes, the only real difference is that the owners are also the managers. Which just means that the idea that a company (and it's employees) are in some way beholden to their owners is conflated for those at the top. Of course, if a family run firm finds that one member is damaging the business somehow (or even if they realise themselves that they are), they can still be removed/remove themselves.

This whole issue has made it plain to me that we need to stop identifying donors to political campaigns. Who I give to is no one's business and I've no right to know who freeman3, geojanes, or anyone else, supports. I don't think you see the bigger picture. This is going to lead to more nastiness. This has now been used. Think of it as a tactical nuke. Our society may well be on its way to more conflict if this is permitted to continue.

"tactical nuke"? more hyperbole.

I don't actually have a problem with people being identified. The converse is that you can have shadowy organisations bankrolling campaigns without the people knowing about it - which seems to me to make it more likely that conflicts of interest or corruption will occur.

So, back to my question - do you think people who are allowed to use their free expression to criticise their employer should be somehow protected from that employer?

Uh, what does that have to do with this situation?

For example, I know a kid who went on Facebook and decried his company forcing him to work on Christmas. Now, I was very sympathetic to the argument, but NOT to the forum or the manner he used. For what he said, he should have been fired. Why? Because it is impossible for an employer to maintain order among his/her employees if one is allowed to give him/her a broad-side fusillade.

What does it have to do with it? If we take the position that Eich was forced out (in a recent situation here, the phrase "was resigned" was coined for a Cabinet Minister who was caught fiddling their expenses and held on for too long before they finally stood down, but the PM having backed her at the start didn't want to publicly fire her later), if Eich "was resigned" by the company, then perhaps it was not because they had any view about his donation itself, but felt that his continued presence as CEo was damaging the company, making hard for them to do business. Just as vocal critic employees damage a company, so can a senior manager who is at the centre of a controversy.

yet more hyperbole.

Right. Who said this, "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure?"

I think you have a problem telling hyperbole ("hunted down", "gay gestapo", "tactical nuke", "hang them" etc) from what that was. Clearly they don't wish anyone to success in denying love and enforcing misery, shame and frustration. While you may not agree with gay marriage, it certainly has produced those things for a series of campaigns to be launched to block it. Funding a campaign like that does promote it. Hyperbole would be claiming that it kills people.

After all, it's not discrimination at all to hunt a man down and hound him out of his job because he once supported a popular initiative.

It is not unfair discrimination to disagree with someone's opinions, no. (let us ignore the hyperbole)

It's not hyperbole--the man was hounded out of his job. There's nothing hypothetical or hyperbolic about it. [/quote]He was not 'hunted down' though, was he? How popular the initiative was is not really relevant (the majority can be wrong, as you know, and when you think they are, you call them "know-nothings")

Nope. I think, however, that a small segment of the population ought to be careful about wielding that ax too often.

Something really bugs me about that comment. It seems to be saying that minorities should shut up in case the majority decides to oppress them.

Even before this - gay-bashing is a thing, but straight-bashing is not. I think LGTB people are already aware of their minority status and how precarious it can make them.

I think it is because it's not that serious of a transgression and the man was driven out of his job. It says a lot about our society that this happened. And, it is typical of the Left in this country: crucify your "enemies" and sue when you don't get your way. Everyone must agree with the agenda of the Left or they must be destroyed. I know you think that's hyperbole, but please don't confuse reality with hyperbole just because you disagree.

I don't have to pick a side, by the way.

So it's only the 'Left' that would do such a thing? Or try? Give me strength! There are boycotts all over the place. I found one where the UCC (United Church of Christ) are boycotting the Washington Redskins over their name. And as for suing when you don't get your way? the perception over here is that this is part of the American Dream it's so all-pervasive.

You don't pick a side, but you blame it all on the Left. Gotcha!

No, I think people (liberals, for the most part) should simply accept that not everyone agrees with them. For example, we have a President who spent most of last week attacking Republicans and an Attorney General who insinuated that any opposition to him or the President is based on race (no matter how he tried to later walk it back).

In other words: conservatives are bad people. It's not that our ideas are not as good as liberal ones; it's us. WE are the problem. That is the issue.

I think it's clear that the reverse happens too. You have no shortage of right wingers/conservatives who are quick to call people who don't agree with them "know-nothings", smear the opposition etc...

motes and beams, I fear, are a perception issue...

Eich should have been left alone. If his ideology had an impact on his work, fine. However, there is no evidence of that.

It seems to have affected some of his colleagues, given that some resigned - you don't think such things have an impact on a company? Perhaps you don't understand corporate culture.

Yes, because what this debate really needs is a Godwin.

Of course, that was a reasonable lesbian who used the term. Andrew Sullivan said similar things. One person on CNN bragged he was part of the "gay gestapo." The phrase is in the public arena.

by "reasonable" lesbian, you mean one who doesn't join in a boycott but does liken people to the gestapo. Ok. I don't care who it was who started to use the term, or how 'reasonable' or well known they are. It's a dick move to Godwin the argument, and it's a dick move to repeat it, as if it's just a normal part of the debate.

Because a boycott by free individuals is just like the Nazi state secret police. Never heard of Tammy Bruce, but she's a typical twitter loudmouth

Not really. But, you're entitled to your opinion.

I can only go on the tweets quoted in that piece. Hardly emollient, are they?

This is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. It is the first time it's had this kind of impact. There was an effort a few years ago to do this based on how people voted. All in all, I find it very disturbing that people are to be persecuted for their beliefs.

Or their sexuality.

danivon wrote:

Got it. Just like I never claimed freedom of speech was anything other than a protection from the government. Okay.

Except of course I didn't actually put words into your mouth. You do it to me (and others) all the time, and when called out on it either evade or try to rationalise it.

Insinuating I said something is NOTHING like putting words in my mouth, right?

This whole issue has made it plain to me that we need to stop identifying donors to political campaigns. Who I give to is no one's business and I've no right to know who freeman3, geojanes, or anyone else, supports. I don't think you see the bigger picture. This is going to lead to more nastiness. This has now been used. Think of it as a tactical nuke. Our society may well be on its way to more conflict if this is permitted to continue.

"tactical nuke"? more hyperbole.

So keen an observation! Perhaps you'd like to start a forum on figures of speech?

I don't actually have a problem with people being identified. The converse is that you can have shadowy organisations bankrolling campaigns without the people knowing about it - which seems to me to make it more likely that conflicts of interest or corruption will occur.

We do have that. We have exactly that. How many billboards will contain the name of former Mayor Bloomberg or that of George Soros? Yet, they will spend millions this year on elections.

Lobbying is precisely what you've identified, but we still have that too. Billions are spent on this every year--and Congressmen, Senators, and the Administration all act on it.

So, again, why should individual donors of paltry amounts be identified? Was Eich's $1,000 contribution particularly notable in the big scheme of things?

So, why individuals giving small amounts need to be identified is not clear.

Just as vocal critic employees damage a company, so can a senior manager who is at the centre of a controversy.

Yeah, because a Firefox boycott would kill them. I don't buy it.

yet more hyperbole.

Right. Who said this, "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure?"

I think you have a problem telling hyperbole ("hunted down", "gay gestapo", "tactical nuke", "hang them" etc) from what that was. Clearly they don't wish anyone to success in denying love and enforcing misery, shame and frustration. While you may not agree with gay marriage, it certainly has produced those things for a series of campaigns to be launched to block it. Funding a campaign like that does promote it. Hyperbole would be claiming that it kills people.

If I look long enough, I'm sure I could find an advocate of homosexual marriage who would say exactly that. That said, I think referring to someone with whom you have a disagreement as your "enemy" is fairly hyperbolic. I don't consider those who favor it to be mine.

He was not 'hunted down' though, was he? How popular the initiative was is not really relevant (the majority can be wrong, as you know, and when you think they are, you call them "know-nothings")

Yes he was. It took 6 years for the information to become an issue. Someone dug it up and made sure it became an issue. I'd say that's "hunting."

The point on the majority: it does not mean Eich was right. It does show he's not out of the mainstream, not in the lunatic fringe, and no more worthy of persecution than over half of the population.

Nope. I think, however, that a small segment of the population ought to be careful about wielding that ax too often.

Something really bugs me about that comment. It seems to be saying that minorities should shut up in case the majority decides to oppress them.

Watch this: no, it doesn't say that and don't put words in my mouth.

In this case, the minority won. Now, in taking their victory lap, they've decided to take a pelt or two. I'm only saying it is unseemly and divisive. Think of it as Lincoln going to Richmond and twerking. He did go, but I don't think there's a record of a victory dance.

There are boycotts all over the place. I found one where the UCC (United Church of Christ) are boycotting the Washington Redskins over their name. And as for suing when you don't get your way? the perception over here is that this is part of the American Dream it's so all-pervasive.

You don't pick a side, but you blame it all on the Left. Gotcha!

Not exactly. The UCC is a leftist group.

And, actually, the Left uses the Court system more often than the Right. There are two reasons for this: 1) the Left generally knows it has the minority position and thus could not win at the ballot box; 2) the majority of judges are liberals who have no difficulty creating law out of whole cloth.

I think it's clear that the reverse happens too. You have no shortage of right wingers/conservatives who are quick to call people who don't agree with them "know-nothings", smear the opposition etc...

Funny, except that I have poll after poll showing the American electorate, by and large, are know-nothings.

It seems to have affected some of his colleagues, given that some resigned - you don't think such things have an impact on a company? Perhaps you don't understand corporate culture.

Why did they resign?

This is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. It is the first time it's had this kind of impact. There was an effort a few years ago to do this based on how people voted. All in all, I find it very disturbing that people are to be persecuted for their beliefs.

Or their sexuality.

Being excluded from a word that has historically and biologically never included you is not persecution.

I don't see the right as being more likely to use the court system than the left, but they sure did not hesitate to go to court against the ACA, did they?As for the idea that judges are liberal, that does not really make sense. Who appoints judges? Governors appoint state judges and presidents appoint federal judges. Have there been no Republican presidents or governors? Here in California a lot of judges are former das--are they liberal too? And in general in local politics someone is not going to get appointed if their politics stray too much from the mainstream.
As for the topic at hand I think this covers it quite well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/ ... osition-8/

freeman3 wrote:I don't see the right as being more likely to use the court system than the left, but they sure did not hesitate to go to court against the ACA, did they?

No other option. Democrats had all the levers to create Frankenstein.

As for the idea that judges are liberal, that does not really make sense. Who appoints judges?

Really? Tell me: how many liberals appoint conservative judges? Do you know how many justices have been appointed by Republicans and turned out to be liberals?

Governors appoint state judges and presidents appoint federal judges. Have there been no Republican presidents or governors? Here in California a lot of judges are former das--are they liberal too?

Ultimately, Federal appointments are far more important. They can enforce and invent notions and emanations allegedly derived from the Constitution.

Many GOP appointees turn out to be closeted liberals.

DA's? Please. Many of them are Democrats.

And in general in local politics someone is not going to get appointed if their politics stray too much from the mainstream.

Really? It took a number of incredible decisions to get Rose Bird removed.

Anyway, David Souter. I win.

As for the topic at hand I think this covers it quite well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/ ... osition-8/

Balanced:

I admittedly can’t think of anyone I know who supported Prop 8. Even amongst people in my circles who identify as conservative, none of them — as far as I am aware — are social conservatives who think that gay marriage should be illegal.

He doesn't know any social conservatives, but . . .

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Got it. Just like I never claimed freedom of speech was anything other than a protection from the government. Okay.

Except of course I didn't actually put words into your mouth. You do it to me (and others) all the time, and when called out on it either evade or try to rationalise it.

Insinuating I said something is NOTHING like putting words in my mouth, right?

That was not the intent. I was not 'insinuating' that you said anything, rather I was pointing out something that you had not said.

So keen an observation! Perhaps you'd like to start a forum on figures of speech?

Not really. I'd just prefer it if you'd calm down a bit.

I don't actually have a problem with people being identified. The converse is that you can have shadowy organisations bankrolling campaigns without the people knowing about it - which seems to me to make it more likely that conflicts of interest or corruption will occur.

We do have that. We have exactly that. How many billboards will contain the name of former Mayor Bloomberg or that of George Soros? Yet, they will spend millions this year on elections.

Lobbying is precisely what you've identified, but we still have that too. Billions are spent on this every year--and Congressmen, Senators, and the Administration all act on it.

So, again, why should individual donors of paltry amounts be identified? Was Eich's $1,000 contribution particularly notable in the big scheme of things?

So, why individuals giving small amounts need to be identified is not clear.

Depends on what you think of as 'paltry'. I don't know many people who can spare the equivalent of $1000 for a political campaign. Personally, I think it's easier to just apply an 'all or nothing' approach.

Whether someone's name appear on the billboard does not mean that the funding for a campaign cannot be traced to the donors. And I would most definitely support (here and in the USA) measures to open up the murky world of political lobbying to the cleansing spotlight of public scrutiny. We certainly do have a right to know who is spending what to try and influence our elected (and unelected) politicians.

Just as vocal critic employees damage a company, so can a senior manager who is at the centre of a controversy.

Yeah, because a Firefox boycott would kill them. I don't buy it.

I guess you understand the Mozilla business and finances better than I do, then. I thought their main income stream came from people using Firefox browsers to perform Google searches. Certainly that's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Fo ... #Financing says:

Wikipedia wrote:In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received US$66.8 million in revenues, of which US$61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties" from Google.[8]

The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. The original contract expired in November 2006. However, Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011.[9] On 20 December 2011 Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at three times the amount previously paid, or nearly US$300 million annually.[10][11] Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract.

If people had stopped using Firefox (and there are plenty of other browsers that are quite easy to switch to), then surely that would threaten that income stream.

yet more hyperbole.

Right. Who said this, "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure?"

I think you have a problem telling hyperbole ("hunted down", "gay gestapo", "tactical nuke", "hang them" etc) from what that was. Clearly they don't wish anyone to success in denying love and enforcing misery, shame and frustration. While you may not agree with gay marriage, it certainly has produced those things for a series of campaigns to be launched to block it. Funding a campaign like that does promote it. Hyperbole would be claiming that it kills people.

If I look long enough, I'm sure I could find an advocate of homosexual marriage who would say exactly that. That said, I think referring to someone with whom you have a disagreement as your "enemy" is fairly hyperbolic. I don't consider those who favor it to be mine. [/quote]And they would then be being hyperbolic. I am not. You are, and you are repeating the hyperbole of others, while at the same time lamenting the stridency of a particular group of people. hence my 'motes and beams' comment.

He was not 'hunted down' though, was he? How popular the initiative was is not really relevant (the majority can be wrong, as you know, and when you think they are, you call them "know-nothings")

Yes he was. It took 6 years for the information to become an issue. Someone dug it up and made sure it became an issue. I'd say that's "hunting."

There is a simple error of fact here - the information was an issue two years ago, well before he was promoted.

The point on the majority: it does not mean Eich was right. It does show he's not out of the mainstream, not in the lunatic fringe, and no more worthy of persecution than over half of the population.

Technically, over half of the population of California did not vote for Prop 8. 52.24% of valid votes, 50.94% of all votes, 40.46% of the electorate and less than 20.67% of the population (I used 2000 census figures, and by 2010 the population was 10% higher) voted for Prop 8. A slightly smaller proportion voted against (47.76% valid votes, 46.58% votes, 36.99% electorate, 18.90% of population).

And while a majority vote for something may well signify 'mainstream' opinion, that does not mean it is any more reasonable. And there is still a difference between casting a vote, and paying money towards a campaign. I don't support 'persecution' of anyone, but I think there is more reason to be able to criticise Eich than any random Prop-8 supporting voter.

Nope. I think, however, that a small segment of the population ought to be careful about wielding that ax too often.

Something really bugs me about that comment. It seems to be saying that minorities should shut up in case the majority decides to oppress them.

Watch this: no, it doesn't say that and don't put words in my mouth.

You know what "seems" means, right? But if that it not what it means, why should a minority need to be careful about 'wielding that ax too often'?

In this case, the minority won. Now, in taking their victory lap, they've decided to take a pelt or two. I'm only saying it is unseemly and divisive.

Think of it as Lincoln going to Richmond and twerking. He did go, but I don't think there's a record of a victory dance.

No, he didn't do a victory dance - he was criticised by Union figures for being too much of a peacemaker during his visit.. Of course, he was shot very shortly afterwards, though. But the Reconstruction Era did include a fair amount of triumphalism and doing-down of the losers (or the people who happened to live in the South). Just as one person is not the same as all homosexuals, Lincoln is not the same as all Union leaders.

There are boycotts all over the place. I found one where the UCC (United Church of Christ) are boycotting the Washington Redskins over their name. And as for suing when you don't get your way? the perception over here is that this is part of the American Dream it's so all-pervasive.

You don't pick a side, but you blame it all on the Left. Gotcha!

Not exactly. The UCC is a leftist group.

I don't care what their politics are, I was pointing out that there are boycotts for all kinds of reasons. Whether you agree with them or not, there are boycotts by people from all sides for various reasons.

And, actually, the Left uses the Court system more often than the Right.

Evidence please.

I think it's clear that the reverse happens too. You have no shortage of right wingers/conservatives who are quick to call people who don't agree with them "know-nothings", smear the opposition etc...

Funny, except that I have poll after poll showing the American electorate, by and large, are know-nothings.

Sure - when they disagree with you, they are idiots. Of course, when a majority agrees with you, they are just reflecting mainstream opinion and don't deserve such calumnies as criticism for their stated positions....

I am not saying that any side is 'better' or 'worse' than the other on this, I think it's a problem that affects the whole of your society - you clearly are pointing the figure at the 'Left'.

It seems to have affected some of his colleagues, given that some resigned - you don't think such things have an impact on a company? Perhaps you don't understand corporate culture.

Why did they resign?

Apparently some of the three board members who stepped down did so because they wanted to appoint from outside, not someone internal. One was due to step down whoever was appointed CEO. But it was not just board members who complained from within the company about Eich's promotion.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. It is the first time it's had this kind of impact. There was an effort a few years ago to do this based on how people voted. All in all, I find it very disturbing that people are to be persecuted for their beliefs.

Or their sexuality.

Being excluded from a word that has historically and biologically never included you is not persecution.

[/quote]I mentioned gay-bashing earlier in a post, and that most definitely is persecution, is it not?

But 'never' is a strong word. It is also incorrect. The Romans did have same-sex marriage (Nero had one), until they were outlawed in 342AD.

http://amazingbeautifulworld.com/amazing-world/10-most-weirdest-marriages-in-the-world/

We can't say never about these ten manifestations of marriage either. Do we need legislation for these changes in societal evolution?

bbauska wrote:http://amazingbeautifulworld.com/amazing-world/10-most-weirdest-marriages-in-the-world/

We can't say never about these ten manifestations of marriage either. Do we need legislation for these changes in societal evolution?

No, as there is a key difference. Firstly, I'm not convinced that all of these are true, and not just jokes - the lack of grammar shown by the authors suggests it's not exactly the most well-researched piece of journalism in the world.

Secondly all are either animals or non-living (apart from the one to 'himself' which makes no real sense). To be married, properly, takes consent - as it is about a legal and social contract. Inanimate objects, places, cartoons etc cannot give consent at all. Animals are not known to be able to consent to the concept of marriage as we know it.

As much fun as it is to bring up these weird suggestions, they are not legal marriages, and never have been. But the Romans did have legal gay marriage with examples known of those who joined one.

Now, there are also precedents for polygamy, and that is an area where I don't have a philosophical problem with it being re-legalised, but I do have a lot of concerns about the practice.

Anyway, bbauska, other than showing your ability to find buzzfeed-level tripe, do you have any point to make?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://amazingbeautifulworld.com/amazing-world/10-most-weirdest-marriages-in-the-world/

We can't say never about these ten manifestations of marriage either. Do we need legislation for these changes in societal evolution?

No, as there is a key difference. Firstly, I'm not convinced that all of these are true, and not just jokes - the lack of grammar shown by the authors suggests it's not exactly the most well-researched piece of journalism in the world.

Secondly all are either animals or non-living (apart from the one to 'himself' which makes no real sense). To be married, properly, takes consent - as it is about a legal and social contract. Inanimate objects, places, cartoons etc cannot give consent at all. Animals are not known to be able to consent to the concept of marriage as we know it.

As much fun as it is to bring up these weird suggestions, they are not legal marriages, and never have been. But the Romans did have legal gay marriage with examples known of those who joined one.

Now, there are also precedents for polygamy, and that is an area where I don't have a philosophical problem with it being re-legalised, but I do have a lot of concerns about the practice.

Anyway, bbauska, other than showing your ability to find buzzfeed-level tripe, do you have any point to make?

My point is that there are varying degrees of marriage. You bring up the same-sex history, I bring up this silly piece (which you discount completely for spelling... God forbid if I were to discount someone's opinion for that!). There are serious cases; Polygamy, Child marriage, marriage to the incapacitated for a few.

The case for gay marriage being recognized was discussed elsewhere. This is the case of intolerance for a belief and not an action. Something that supporters of gay marriage would like to think they are not known for. Do you see it as hypocrisy was what I asked.

Why did Eich resign, if not for being either asked to, or hounded out? Either case is intolerance of a differing belief, and should be called out. Certainly a belief as silly as the ones I flippantly gave can be accepted also. Should people have the right to love and marry who/what they want, or should there be regulations. If there should be regulations (which I agree), there will be some who do not agree with those regulations. That is where the society comes in. Prop 8 was where the society made the decision. Either side you choose is fine, but the vote was what it was.

danivon wrote:[I guess you understand the Mozilla business and finances better than I do, then. I thought their main income stream came from people using Firefox browsers to perform Google searches. Certainly that's what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Fo ... #Financing says:

Wikipedia wrote:In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received US$66.8 million in revenues, of which US$61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties" from Google.[8]

The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. The original contract expired in November 2006. However, Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011.[9] On 20 December 2011 Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at three times the amount previously paid, or nearly US$300 million annually.[10][11] Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract.

If people had stopped using Firefox (and there are plenty of other browsers that are quite easy to switch to), then surely that would threaten that income stream.

I did not propose that it would be meaningless if EVERYONE stopped using Firefox. I was talking specifically about the boycott. It was announced and boom he resigned. There is no way it had a significant fiscal effect in that timeframe.

Furthermore, switching to other browsers has its drawbacks. Chrome is, in my experience, far more problematic with regard to pop-ups and it does not handle plug-ins as eloquently. Frankly, it sucks. I wasn't interested in a counter-boycott for many reasons, but among them was the knowledge that Firefox is just better.

There is a simple error of fact here - the information was an issue two years ago, well before he was promoted.

I'll trust you are correct, but it's not particularly relevant. it still took 4 years for someone to dig it up and 6 for someone to make it a big enough issue to cause his removal.

And while a majority vote for something may well signify 'mainstream' opinion, that does not mean it is any more reasonable. And there is still a difference between casting a vote, and paying money towards a campaign. I don't support 'persecution' of anyone, but I think there is more reason to be able to criticise Eich than any random Prop-8 supporting voter.

Again, I think this retribution is a dangerous practice.

You know what "seems" means, right?

Yes, it's a weasel word so you can invoke it and claim you didn't 'really' mean what you said, possibly, if it becomes an issue. That's what it means.

Funny, except that I have poll after poll showing the American electorate, by and large, are know-nothings.

Sure - when they disagree with you, they are idiots. Of course, when a majority agrees with you, they are just reflecting mainstream opinion and don't deserve such calumnies as criticism for their stated positions....

No, it's more than failing to agree with me. It's when they don't know the size of the Debt, know who the Speaker is, know who the VP is, know much of anything about their government, etc. Again, you have succumbed to the temptation of putting words in my keyboard.

Apparently some of the three board members who stepped down did so because they wanted to appoint from outside, not someone internal. One was due to step down whoever was appointed CEO. But it was not just board members who complained from within the company about Eich's promotion.

But, not because of his support of Prop 8?

Being excluded from a word that has historically and biologically never included you is not persecution.

I mentioned gay-bashing earlier in a post, and that most definitely is persecution, is it not?

Sure, but gay-bashing and marriage are not related, not even by marriage.

But 'never' is a strong word. It is also incorrect. The Romans did have same-sex marriage (Nero had one), until they were outlawed in 342AD.

Nero also lit Christians on fire and used them as torches. Is he any kind of standard?

bbauska wrote:My point is that there are varying degrees of marriage. You bring up the same-sex history, I bring up this silly piece (which you discount completely for spelling... God forbid if I were to discount someone's opinion for that!). There are serious cases; Polygamy, Child marriage, marriage to the incapacitated for a few.

Ok, a few things to correct.

1 - I do not discount it for spelling. I mentioned the poor grammar (which is not the same thing as spelling)

2 - That was an aside, really, and the main point was that the examples were not comparable as they are not between consenting adult humans.

3 - There is marriage and 'marriage'. I was talking about legally recognised marriages in Rome. You bring up sham 'marriages' where some oddball has a ceremony. The former are societally recognised, the latter are not.

The case for gay marriage being recognized was discussed elsewhere. This is the case of intolerance for a belief and not an action. Something that supporters of gay marriage would like to think they are not known for. Do you see it as hypocrisy was what I asked.

You mention child marriage. Which means, in effect, forced marriage, because a child is not recognised as being legally capable of consent or entering into a contract. Now, we (even the West) have had arranged marriages and child marriages in the past, and so I would not say 'never' on those either, historically. Someone is indeed entitled to have whatever view they like on the legal status of child marriages. Are we not entitled to judge for ourselves whether that is morally acceptable, and to act in response to them?

Why did Eich resign, if not for being either asked to, or hounded out? Either case is intolerance of a differing belief, and should be called out. Certainly a belief as silly as the ones I flippantly gave can be accepted also.

Sure, they can be accepted - or not. But this is not just about the intolerance of a 'belief' - it's about intolerance of an action, the action being to support what is itself an intolerant policy position.

I mean, we can be tolerant of all kinds of 'beliefs' but should we be? 19 guys passionately, sincerely and motivated by their religious views, believed that flying planes into buildings on 9/11 was the right thing to do. As tolerant as anyone can be, should they tolerate that belief, let alone the actions resulting from it? I say no - ymmv

Similarly, I can tolerate some idiot marrying his pillow, but I would not expect society to convey upon that pillow spousal rights.

Should people have the right to love and marry who/what they want, or should there be regulations. If there should be regulations (which I agree), there will be some who do not agree with those regulations. That is where the society comes in. Prop 8 was where the society made the decision. Either side you choose is fine, but the vote was what it was.

I agree that there should be laws around marriage - because it is a legal and social contract. So there indeed should be regulations about who can and cannot marry (eg - incestuous relationships), how it must be conducted (properly registered so as to be recognised) etc etc. And yes, whether to allow gay marriage is indeed a valid policy question.

But that does not mean that people are no longer free to express an opinion, or to carry out legal and free market actions, in response to the expressed opinions or the actions of others.

You may clutch your pearls and tut at Eich's treatment, as may I, but at the end of it, what really seems to rankle with you is not even the 'issue', but mere hypocrisy. To that, I just say "meh", because as much as it's your hobby horse to seek out hypocrisy in others, I note that it tends to be on rather... blinkered terms.

For example, what has happened since Eich left? A bunch of right wing conservative Christians have... called for a boycott of Mozilla. Thus proving that it's not boycotts or intolerance that they object to, but homosexuals winning a battle against them (perceived). Your crusade would be more valuable applied to people more closely aligned with your own views, or it just looks partisan.

bbauska
. Prop 8 was where the society made the decision. Either side you choose is fine, but the vote was

what it was

.
Ruled unconstitutional though, wasn't it?

Doctor Fate wrote:I did not propose that it would be meaningless if EVERYONE stopped using Firefox. I was talking specifically about the boycott. It was announced and boom he resigned. There is no way it had a significant fiscal effect in that timeframe.

It was days, and while it may not have had an impact in that time, the potential future impact is what companies look at. Again, perhaps you don't 'get' corporate culture. No reason you should, if you haven't much experience of how large companies work.

Furthermore, switching to other browsers has its drawbacks. Chrome is, in my experience, far more problematic with regard to pop-ups and it does not handle plug-ins as eloquently. Frankly, it sucks. I wasn't interested in a counter-boycott for many reasons, but among them was the knowledge that Firefox is just better.

My backup is Safari, rather than Chrome. I'm sure people can change if they want to fairly easily, just as when a new release comes out all the add-ons need refreshing or stop working...

There is a simple error of fact here - the information was an issue two years ago, well before he was promoted.

I'll trust you are correct, but it's not particularly relevant. it still took 4 years for someone to dig it up and 6 for someone to make it a big enough issue to cause his removal. [/quote]He was not CEO two years ago. It is entirely relevant what the actual facts are and the timelines. The information was actually public from 2008, but was not noticed until 2012. I've seen no evidence that people who found it were looking specifically for dirt on him (so not a 'hunt') but just at who had funded the Yes campaign.

that did cause a stir at the time, with people involved in the Open Source community criticising Eich's position. So why did they not launch a boycott back then? Probably because until last month he was not being promoted by Mozilla, who by then would have had knowledge of the donation.

Again, I think this retribution is a dangerous practice.

I agree that it can be. But I think it's clear that it's not restricted to just one side of one particular debate.

You know what "seems" means, right?

Yes, it's a weasel word so you can invoke it and claim you didn't 'really' mean what you said, possibly, if it becomes an issue. That's what it means.

So what does your comment really mean then? You have now had a couple of chance to explain why my 'seems' is wrong.

By the way, 'seems' means that the interpretation is based on inference - as in my reading - not in implication - your intent.

No, it's more than failing to agree with me. It's when they don't know the size of the Debt, know who the Speaker is, know who the VP is, know much of anything about their government, etc. Again, you have succumbed to the temptation of putting words in my keyboard.

Sorry, I was basing my comments on the other thread where you called most people who said that they don't want Medicare or Medicaid changed 'know nothings', I don't recall those polls being about the basic facts, but their opinions. Ho hum...

Apparently some of the three board members who stepped down did so because they wanted to appoint from outside, not someone internal. One was due to step down whoever was appointed CEO. But it was not just board members who complained from within the company about Eich's promotion.

But, not because of his support of Prop 8?

Being excluded from a word that has historically and biologically never included you is not persecution.

I mentioned gay-bashing earlier in a post, and that most definitely is persecution, is it not?

Sure, but gay-bashing and marriage are not related, not even by marriage.

No, but oddly when there is a visible public campaign against homosexual rights, gay-bashing often becomes more prevalent. I'm sure it's entirely co-incidental...

But 'never' is a strong word. It is also incorrect. The Romans did have same-sex marriage (Nero had one), until they were outlawed in 342AD.

Nero also lit Christians on fire and used them as torches. Is he any kind of standard?

I was pointing out that your 'never' was factually incorrect. Nero may have been a terrible person, but I never said he wasn't. His gay marriage (which was not the only one, of course) was legal. I'm not citing him as a moral standard, but as a legal precedent.

What we are really talking about here is a concern from conservative Christians that a Christian is being persecuted for acting on his religious beliefs. I think one way to determine how accurate that depiction of what happened is to look at other factual scenarios...

(1) A CEO is forced out because he belongs to a religion which believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman;
(2) A CEO is forced out because he voted for proposition 8 but did not contribute money to it;
(3) A CEO is forced out of a company whose culture does not emphasizes openess to different types of people
(4) A CEO is forced out for contributing to Proposition 8 even after he now apologizes for doing so
(5) A CEO is forced out for contributing to Proposition 8 even after he apologized for doing so and now says he supports gay marriage.

None of the above is true for this case. Scenario one would be of far greater concern than the present situation. Eich made a political act in supporting Proposition 8, and not just voting for it but contributing a significant amount of money to it. His act was thus political and not religious (even if the act was based on religion). He has not renounced that political act after becoming CEO of a company that one would suspect be particularly sensitive to gay rights.

Is this the case that you want to be making for protection of religious rights? I don't think so. I get that religions have concerns that they not be discriminated against because of their views, but once you start acting politically I think you step outside the private sphere where you can practice your religion without interference into the public sphere where your views may not be accepted.

Again Freeman, I disagree with your premise. It was not due to religious persecution that he was forced to resign.

Can a CEO force an employee to resign because they gave money to the anti-Prop 8 campaign? That would be the same thing. I am all for an employee having the choice to work if hired, and the employer having the choice to release an employee. Regardless of reason. This would apply with the Eich case. The board did not want to have to keep Eich, and Eich made the choice to leave. No biggie.

Wait, it becomes a biggie if the rules are not equally applied. Can an employer force an employee to quit if they did not like the political stance of the employee?

There is nothing preventing an employer, at least in California, from discharging an employee for any reason unless there is discrimination against a protected class. I don't think what Mozilla did qualifies as religious discrimination. So now we are getting into whether an employer should do it...and if your concern is not about your right to exercise your religion, I don't get it. Nothing prevents an employer from discharging an employee due to their political views. I would think the concern here is that a religious person may being unfairly treated (not saying I agree with that statement but that it might be a legitimate concern) and even if legally permissible it is something we may not want to do. But you just rejected my argument.

There is no law that says you cannot fire someone for their political views. Therefore, there is no concern about equal application because employers can do what they want. What you are saying, I am guessing, is simply go ahead and fire the CEO in Mozilla if you want for any reason, just don't whine when a liberal gets fired for supporting whatever liberal cause you can think of. And we will be nearer to the libertarian utopia where employers can do what they want for any reason to employees...