Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Steyn on Eich 83
Mozilla's chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued the usual tortured justification:
"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech," Baker said. "And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."
I heard a lot of this stuff during my free-speech battles in Canada. The country's chief censor, the late Jennifer Lynch, QC, was willing to concede that free speech was certainly a right, but it was merely one in a whole range of competing rights - such as "equality" and "diversity" - that needed to be "balanced". What the "balancing" boils down to is that you get fired if you are an apostate from the new progressive groupthink. Underneath the agonized prose, Mitchell Baker is a bare-knuckled thug.
And thus the sins of the past are recycled with new labels. Bravo.
So, it's wrong for a foundation to have values? (Score:2)
Besides, it's not like he'll have any trouble finding another well paying job.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What if this guy was opposed to interracial marriage rather than same sex marriage? Interracial marriage was banned in many states not that long ago. Many people turned to the bible and various other sources to justify their opposition to interracial marriage. If he had contributed money to a group that was trying to outlaw interracial marriage somewhere, should he be protected under "diversity"?
Re: (Score:1)
What if this guy was opposed to interracial marriage rather than same sex marriage?
Counterfactual.
Re: (Score:1)
Cop out!
Are we trying to play the religious "freedom" card? Is civil rights law racist in your mind??
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's playing the counterfactual card. In other words, he wants you to prove your irrational anti-religioius bias, instead of just repeating the standard postmodern talking points that you have been inoculated with [patheos.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, people did use "religious freedom" arguments to fight emancipation, civil rights, miscegenation, universal suffrage and women's rights, so it's not like we don't have plentiful evidence that religion is used as the protective shield of the bigot.
It doesn't mean that the religious are bigots, just that bigots tend to get religion when all other arguments fail. Because there really is nothing "counter-factual" that can be used to dispute, "God tole me so!"
I'm not surprised that Mark Steyn got this wron
Re: (Score:1)
Religious exception to secular law, which the US is supposed to be under, is bogus. *What goes in church stays church*.(something like that) We don't want the church to define legal marriage. I am not demanding the church perform same sex marriages. That would be your business. The law is not. The push back is entirely rational, and more is needed.
Re: (Score:1)
I am not demanding the church perform same sex marriages.
Oh, that's coming, if the inability of AZ photographers to have any say in their customers is an indicator.
Re: (Score:1)
When this happens, and a church is forced to perform a gay wedding against it's will...
It'll be time for open, armed, revolt.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not what the First Amendment says.
Free Exercise Clause.
Re: (Score:1)
Well damn! Let's restart the blood sacrifice of prepubescent virgins then! Maybe we can prevent the super volcano from going off.
If you want to do business with non members of your church, you will respect their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure I want to do business with non-Catholics anymore. They clearly don't want to do business with me, by your standards, because you don't respect our rights either.
Re: (Score:1)
Just keep the church doors open and let people come in of their own volition, instead of trying to annex the government.
And right, I don't respect any "right" to act out bigotry against anybody. Nobody's breaking down the doors of the church. There you can play out your fantasies (almost) any way you want. You just can't use humans anymore, like in the old days. On the outside things work a bit differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep the church doors open and let people come in of their own volition
Well, you see, that's a huge part of the problem. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example.
And right, I don't respect any "right" to act out bigotry against anybody. Nobody's breaking down the doors of the church
Yet. [patheos.com] It's only a matter of time before your "it will never happen" becomes "I'm sorry, it's necessary to tear down your church to build a new Department of Homeland Security armory".
Re: (Score:1)
Civil Rights law is by no means racist; Affirmative Action is blatantly, overtly racist, as is all DNA-based decision-making. Which I think you know.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah yeah, I mentioned Eisenhower and what I think of the democrats a few journals back, so nothing new there.
If you want to see where Affirmative Action is truly, blatantly, overtly racist, look to the prison population, where both factions play the same role and have the same goal. Oh, but we don't want to go there..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They are directly linked. "Affirmative Action" is the second drug you have to take to counteract the side effects of the first one. Take the racism out of the "justice" system, and maybe affirmative action can wither and die. Well, of course you have to remove the racism out of the employer's heart, which is noticeable every time he flinches when he sees a (insert minority here) man show up at the door. You cannot deny the existence of water.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What if this guy was opposed to interracial marriage rather than same sex marriage?
Counterfactual.
That is a really sad dodge of the matter here. You are trying to say that he should be praised for his diversity of opinion. Why do you praise some opinions more than others? I'm not saying that he does oppose interracial marriage, I'm just looking at a previous social issue involving marriage. Plenty of people felt that opposition to interracial marriage was supported by the bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people felt that opposition to interracial marriage was supported by the bible.
And those people were, of course, wrong as there is no biblical text to support being antagonistic towards interracial marriage.
That is not what they said back then. And at best the bible is contradictory towards same sex marriage.
Gay marriage, however, is not a marriage. Never will be, despite how much lefties such as yourself twist the language and try to make it so against Natural Law.
If you believe that your god made you to love someone of the opposite sex then you need to acknowledge that your god also made some people to love others of the same sex. This behavior has also been seen in other animals, so your argument about "Natural Law" is bogus. More importantly though why would your god want you to discriminate against others of his same creation, and why would he want you to d
Re: (Score:2)
"If you believe that your god made you to love someone of the opposite sex then you need to acknowledge that your god also made some people to love others of the same sex."
No, in fact, I do not, because I reject your postmodernist construct as being irrational at its root.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that your god made you to love someone of the opposite sex then you need to acknowledge that your god also made some people to love others of the same sex.
No, in fact, I do not, because I reject your postmodernist construct as being irrational at its root.
So then how exactly do you see homosexuality as coming to be? Do you honestly believe that people would choose that for themselves? Being as it happens in the natural world outside our species, you have a pretty large logical gap to clear if you want to claim that in our species it somehow happens unnaturally.
If you believe that people intentionally choose this, then please explain why animals - which many will claim are devoid of any ability for free will - would make this same choice.
Re: (Score:1)
So then how exactly do you see homosexuality as coming to be? Do you honestly believe that people would choose that for themselves?
If you don't support the notion of free moral agency, several despicable consequences obtain:
a. Is homosexuality a birth defect?
b. Are people responsible for anything? At all?
c. If people are irresponsible, sheep like animals, then are abortion and murder just "culling herds"?
It kind of seems needful for you to demolish individuality, sexuality, and religious tradition in the name of Progress, but do please think things through.
Re: (Score:2)
"So then how exactly do you see homosexuality as coming to be? "
Doesn't matter. It's a mental illness and needs to be treated as such. You don't ask how the person got cancer, you battle the cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for me, I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation. Why would someone choose to be discriminated against in that way? What brings it about? I don't know. If someone researched it then p
Re: (Score:2)
So then how exactly do you see homosexuality as coming to be?
Doesn't matter. It's a mental illness and needs to be treated as such.
No. You are simply wrong on that matter. Decades ago (and in some cases more recently) we tried to treat it as a mental illness and came to realize that not only is such an approach morally reprehensible but it is scientifically unsupportable to do such a thing. You don't have to like homosexuality or homosexual people - and it's quite clear that you don't like either based on that statement - but your statement is beyond ridiculous. You might as well be calling for deportation of everyone with red hair
Re: (Score:1)
I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation.
And thus you undermine free will, as explained above.
Why would someone choose to be discriminated against in that way? What brings it about?
I've never had a homosexual encounter or shot heroin, but clearly there is enough positive feedback (albeit temporary) to make this behavior repeat-worthy.
If someone researched it then people who are homophobic would be pushing for a gay "cure" which would be unethical, IMHO.
Who is defining "ethics" here? Is it the people who say things like:
"All cultures are equally valuable, and worthy of respect, except our Judeo-Christian one, which should be thrown under the bus as often as possible for its endless mo
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe people choose their sexual orientation? Yes, or no?
Re: (Score:1)
Do you believe people choose their sexual orientation? Yes, or no?
Y. E. S., as stated above:
All men are tempted, but they own what they do with that temptation.
One can draw a distinction between the temptation toward a sin (who hasn't done something immoral in a dream?) but, being actively gay is about as involuntary as first degree murder. Again, you can find edge cases (prison) where you can quibble on the motives (you quibbler!) but if we're going to play games about actions people take, then let's throw away the legal system, because embezzlers, murderers, car thieves, junkies and politicians are all just so many victims of nature
Re: (Score:1)
"No. You are simply wrong on that matter."
It is your belief that I am wrong on that matter. By your own moral relativism, you can't tell me what is right and wrong, because you have given up on the concept and are in no position to judge me.
"Decades ago (and in some cases more recently) we tried to treat it as a mental illness and came to realize that not only is such an approach morally reprehensible but it is scientifically unsupportable to do such a thing. "
Bullshit. Decades ago the gay lobby paid the
Re: (Score:1)
Giving up one's free moral agency and culpability for rebellion against God, is indeed a mental illness.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Decades ago (and in some cases more recently) we tried to treat it as a mental illness and came to realize that not only is such an approach morally reprehensible but it is scientifically unsupportable to do such a thing.
Bullshit. Decades ago the gay lobby paid the AMA to remove homosexuality from the DSM
You're simply wrong here, just as you were wrong before.
For one, the DSM is managed not by the AMA but by the APA (American Psychiatric Association). You could have spent 10 seconds to look that up on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] - unless your paranoia has convinced you that wikipedia has also been intimidated by the "gay lobby".
Second, if such a lobby exists, what incentive would they have to de-list homosexuality from the DSM-IV?
Third, what evidence has ever existed to support it being a mental disorder? Being as
Re: (Score:1)
"Second, if such a lobby exists, what incentive would they have to de-list homosexuality from the DSM-IV? "
Ever read the Communist Manifesto?
"Third, what evidence has ever existed to support it being a mental disorder?"
The disconnect between physical gender and sexual orientation, perhaps?
"Aside from the fact that it is not a mental health condition. It has no physiological or neurological manifestations. It does not respond to any psychiatric or psychological treatments."
Except of course, when it does.
Let'
Re: (Score:2)
Bad philosophy can cause mental illness just as much as chemical abuse can.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, if such a lobby exists, what incentive would they have to de-list homosexuality from the DSM-IV?
Ever read the Communist Manifesto?
As a matter of fact, yes I have. It is not a very long document. The fact that you are asking about it in this context suggests you have not. How about we go back to the topic at hand?
Third, what evidence has ever existed to support it being a mental disorder?
The disconnect between physical gender and sexual orientation, perhaps?
So then would someone who has no interest in sex be in need of therapy? What if you only want to have sex with infertile people? What if you only want to pleasure yourself?
The only thing all those - and homosexuality - have in common is that none of them are mental disorders, no matter how much you may want to claim o
Re: (Score:1)
How did you miss the part where Marx wants to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to help undermine and destroy the Catholic Church, who Marx saw as the lone defense against creating his totalitarian world order? Did you learn anything about what the French did to Catholic Clergy during the French Revolution?
(Looks at who posted... oh, right. Either you're 1. Lying again or 2. Didn't comprehend what you read. Either is possible.)
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, yes I have.
How did you miss the part where Marx wants to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to help undermine and destroy the Catholic Church
Now your joke is that the conservatives have their own secret edition of the communist manifesto that they claim is the "real" one that Marx meant to publish, but was held back by his illuminati. Do I have your joke right on this one?
Because I have read the communist manifesto. As I mentioned, it is not long. And as anyone who has read it can tell you, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. But of course you already knew that as you were writing that comment as a joke.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh brother! You can say THAT again...
Except you would be wrong. You don't have to believe bad philosophy. And we sure do encounter a lot of that from people who can't even live by their own rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe people choose their sexual orientation? Yes, or no?
Y. E. S., as stated above:
OK, now we're getting somewhere. You have admitted that in spite of evidence to the contrary you believe that people would choose to be discriminated against.
Hopefully we can get you to upgrade your behavioral model and see that I'm answering your question, not ducking (or indeed, fearing) your question in the slightest.
Well, I had to ask the question three times before you were willing to give a direct answer to it. All the other answers you gave, had I said you said yes, you could have claimed I was putting words in your mouth. Of course at this point I wouldn't put it beyond you to claim that "Y.E.S." is actually an acronym of some sorts that does not actually
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You have admitted that in spite of evidence to the contrary you believe that people would choose to be discriminated against.
Of course they would. Are you trying to say that the martyr complex [wikipedia.org] does not exist? People "know" that heroin is illegal and unhealthy, yet Brian Williams was all on about the epidemic just last week on the news. Your assertion that people wouldn't do something that could trigger discrimination is absurd, and reveals a gross non-grasp of human nature.
Are you honestly so opposed to homosexuality that you consider it to be on par with felony crimes
I'm so pro-common sense that all human silliness gets lumped into a big pile labeled "unfortunate". Your epistemology may vary.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You have admitted that in spite of evidence to the contrary you believe that people would choose to be discriminated against.
Of course they would. Are you trying to say that the martyr complex does not exist?
A martyr for what, exactly? Why choose that cause? It doesn't stand for anything. Besides the vast majority of homosexuals live very normal quiet lives; hardly a solid path to becoming a martyr.
Your assertion that people wouldn't do something that could trigger discrimination is absurd, and reveals a gross non-grasp of human nature.
But there is no incentive for doing this. Nobody is promising sky cake [youtube.com] to those who are homosexual. There is no central body trying to recruit people to homosexuality. You provide no good argument for why someone would choose that path over others if they had to ability to do so.
Furthermore, as it has bee
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have read it, and I do remember quite well the part about promoting homosexuality and divorce to destroy, not the Catholic Church, but the FAMILY- the one big threat against the power of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say it was *Marx*'s manifesto? I'm talking about the Communist Party document from the 1930s.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say it was *Marx*'s manifesto? I'm talking about the Communist Party document from the 1930s.
You said the Communist Manifesto. That is understood to be the document written by Marx with that title. If you read a different document and confused it with the actual Communist Manifesto that Marx wrote, that's OK, just admit that you have not actually read Marx's Communist Manifesto - which does not say anything about homosexuality.
Re: (Score:2)
This one was titled "The Communist Manifesto" as well. There were several, after all.
Re: (Score:1)
Skycake => funny, in its foolish way.
Good argument => http://theothermccain.com/2014/04/05/worlds-youngest-blogger-starbucks-chillin/ [theothermccain.com]
"if they had to ability to do so" Perhaps unintentionally, you make homos
Re: (Score:2)
why would it be preserved in humans if we are somehow "different" or "better" than others?
Pure animal hedonism is of the flesh; the "made in God's image" portion of humanity comes from the mind & soul (when installed).
It appears that you may be trying to suggest that homosexual love is somehow inferior to heterosexual love. I would like to think you are better than that. Even if you choose to hate homosexual intercourse, I would hope you would be capable of realizing that the love of a homosexual relationship is every bit as valid and fulfilling as that of a heterosexual relationship.
What is the benefit to society of throwing homosexuals in jail? Would you also throw heterosexual people in jail if they don't want to procreate?
If they break the law, e.g. prey upon children,
Preying upon children is not a problem unique in any way to homosexuality. If people choose to abuse children I certainly support thro
Re: (Score:1)
...the "made in God's image" portion of humanity comes from the mind & soul...
*The mind is what the brain does*
Everything is in god's image.
Re: (Score:1)
to claim that child abuse (physical, sexual, psychological, etc) is somehow more prevalent in the homosexual community is absurd.
I did not claim that, nor would I. While homosexuality is among the rarer sins, insofar as it tries to justify itself in a way only rivaled by the murder of the unborn, I wouldn't say it's any more sinful than any sin which I personally undertake. That kind of thinking, too, is a deception from Hell.
Homosexuals did not make a choice, they were born (or, if you prefer, made) that way.
To regurgitate what I'd said elsewhere, you're cheerfully undermining free will here. Do you really want to equate ho
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
to claim that child abuse (physical, sexual, psychological, etc) is somehow more prevalent in the homosexual community is absurd.
I did not claim that, nor would I.
I apologize for misreading your comment. You earlier brought up child abuse (or "prey on children") in the context of homosexuality, and I took that to mean that you were trying to establish a correlation between the two. If your point in bringing up child abuse in that context was something else, please elaborate.
Homosexuals did not make a choice, they were born (or, if you prefer, made) that way.
you're cheerfully undermining free will here.
You are erroneously asserting that sexual orientation is somehow a choice. Not everything in life is so cut and dry.
Do you really want to equate homosexuals with Downs Syndrome babies?
Down's Syndrome is a vastly different matter involving a third copy of chr
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, every single thing that exists. If it was created, it was created by god. God created satan. God created heaven and hell, all of it, everything you can possibly image, and more. Everything is godly, no exceptions. You wanted absolute truth, there ya go.
Re: (Score:1)
One hypothesis with homosexuality that is gaining traction is that it may be epigenetically encoded.
So, are you trying to say that there is some reproducible bit of state in there that drives men to waste their seed uncontrollably?
I don't see how you've escaped the penalty box of
(a) reducing homosexuality to a treatable "defect" condition, and/or
(b) obviating people from responsibility for the actions they undertake.
On the one hand, I'm all for mercy for everyone. It'd be great if the joy of beholding one's own child could suffuse everyone. Truly a transformational moment. And, clearly, some people ar
Re: (Score:1)
Or you can deny free will and have yourself a fine time rationalizing herding people like sheep. That temptation is also not new.
Re: (Score:2)
And at best the bible is contradictory towards same sex marriage.
Please provide evidence
Jesus - in the new testament - wants you to love everyone. That is pretty clear, right?
Leviticus - in the old testament - does not distinguish clearly when it is talking about terms by which rabbis and cleric should live and terms by which the rest should live.
And that is just a start. Of course here on slashdot when someone replies as AC there is no way to know if that person has ever returned, so this message might never be read by the person who just asked it.
Re: (Score:1)
Romans 1: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly
I'm something of an amateur Biblical scholar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody doesn't know the difference between love and lust. Love is always a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [blueletterbible.org]
Jesus is the reference model for the meaning of life. Socialism/collectivism, the attempt to preach "the Kingdom of God, hold the God" will never amount to more than a dismal failure until He returns. Instead, you're going to continue to receive tripe like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" or
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. [nytimes.com]
followed by your sad little rationalizations, distortions, and "What difference, at this point, does it make?" mental gymnastics.
Re: (Score:1)
I already did, by referencing Jesus being quoted as saying that He wasn't there to change the Law. And by law, of course, he meant Jewish Law which (among other things) prohibited homosexual contact -- in order words, it defined what is, and what is not, sinful.
It may help you to understand the Catholic Church's position: Same Sex attraction is not a sin. Just like it's not a sin for me t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Dictionary: Omniscient
I could explain this further to you, but then I truly would be casting pearls before swine. Therefore, I have no choice but to start ignoring you again, as you can't help yourself other than to be a weapons-grade idiot.
Perhaps the AC trolls are right and you are a fake liberal. Would be a shame if you were truly as stupid in real life as you appear on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing unusual about it is this time he left his joke out in the wide open, in a comment. Usually he puts his jokes in his JEs so he can delete them when the gig runs cold.
Re: (Score:2)
My week was getting so drab, too. Thanks friend! Your combination of silly insults and "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" is icing on the cake here.
If you could spare me one last comment, does time traveling Jesus meet Doc Brown or Bill & Ted first - and what does he say to President Obama when they find each other to both be time travelers?
Bonus question - has time traveling Jesus told you how Doctor Who ends? I expe
Re: (Score:2)
Too be exact, marriage is not marriage, post sexual revolution and post modernism. But then again, words aren't words and ideas aren't ideas and ideals are not ideal, post modernism.
Re: (Score:1)
Think we should tell them that when Pope Francis was talking about recognizing "civil unions" recently that what he was actually talking about was heterosexual marriages performed either civilly or in the Protestant Church and not the mockery of marriage that is a homosexual union?
Re: (Score:2)
I've found nothing scares the Gay Lobby more, than suggesting that platonic couples and heterosexual couples deserve civil unions.
Re: (Score:1)
Reform the tax code such that there is no federal knowledge of individual citizens, and the agony may abate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's too late. We've lost the culture war, time to start the culture insurgency.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's a private organization, and they certainly have the right to decide whom to employ. I disagree with his previous political donation, but I also disagree with the people who think he's a terrible person who shouldn't be running Mozilla.
I guess now leftists can stop pretending that black balling communists was a bad thing for anything but themselves. Hopefully, we can use this tragedy to resurrect that policy and then something good will have come from this after all.
Re: (Score:1)