That's what the hippies said too. Yet the cycle continues. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Printable View
That's what the hippies said too. Yet the cycle continues. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Of course there is. Companies are allowed to prevent stuff from happening, ya know.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The discussion wasn't about the company, but the people who forced the company's hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I know some guys who make duck calls who may hire him
So... Eich is a Mor(m)on?
In that case, he has already offended his costumers by donating to this group, so the reaction is perfectly fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No, not really. No matter what you do, somebody somewhere is pretty much guaranteed to take offense at that. That doesn't mean that you should lose your job over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Isn't that for the company to decide?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Sure, and I never put the blame on the company. The blame lies with the sheeple of california.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I guess I am a sheeple simply because I live in California. I don't understand what people have against us half man half sheep creatures. It's not as if we are baaaad at communicating or can't baaaaa think about baaaa baaaa baaaa baaa.
Haters gonna hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
https://i.imgur.com/9JSk0Dm.jpg
So, when they disagree with you they're sheeple?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And since you don't believe I should boycott a company over gay rights, what behaviour justifies a boycott in your opinion? Or should we just continue buying stuff without any thought given to company behaviour?
Making shoddy product/service, illegal business practices, etc. You know, the stuff that actually has something to do with the product that the company produces.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
How does an illegal business practice affect their product?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Anyway, why am I not allowed to boycott the company for any other reasons? Why should I be forced to buy stuff from people I don't like? Why should I have to buy stuff from a company support, say, Al-Qaida or has publicly supported the idea that 9/11 was done by Mossad?
Depends on the specifics, but being illegal is enough to warrant a boycott.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Who says you're not allowed? You're most certainly allowed. If you wanna bleat with the rest of them, go ahead and bleat to your heart's content. In the meantime I will call this bleating for what it is.Quote:
Anyway, why am I not allowed to boycott the company for any other reasons? Why should I be forced to buy stuff from people I don't like? Why should I have to buy stuff from a company support, say, Al-Qaida or has publicly supported the idea that 9/11 was done by Mossad?
I can't see how this attitude does not put you in the category of "sheeple".Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
How, exactly, am I a "sheeple" for staying informed about company profiles and making my economic decisions based on how I view their contribution to the wider society? Why should I only care about filling their coffers, and nothing else?
Because you're operating within the same mindset as the sheep that were boycotting The Dixie Chicks back ten years ago or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, my mindset is promoting corporate welfare at your expense. Quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So your opinion then is that I should mindlessly buy stuff without thinking about who my purchases support. And if I don't, I'm sheeple. Brilliant logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You have the right not to purchase the goods or services of any company and for any reason.
As long as you do not advocate violence, you also have the right to persuade others to boycott the organization in question. Arguably, depending on your code of ethics, it may be a moral duty for you to do so and not to simply refrain from that organization yourself.
Chick-Fil-A stays closed on Sundays. If people find this Christian-centric choice on their part to be inappropriate, then they should stop buying the chicken sandwiches. If enough folks stop, then Chick-Fil-A closes. If Chick-Fil-A counters with an ad campaign that says "proud to be a Christian chicken shop" or whatever, then the ad campaign may knock the boycott flat. All part of the game.
Public pressure, social media version, sponsored/propelled by a website with its own agenda, got this guy ousted. Apparently, Mozilla got scared and thought they would lose enough market share to knuckle under. I think they made the wrong call, but it was their call to make.
I work in academe. We actually still encourage the exchange of opposing viewpoints without squelching the opposition.
From this website's perspective, however, this was nothing but a win. Their agenda item is front and center and every social-media sensitive organization was just served notice to toe the line with our agenda or we will squelch you. The Constitution protects the freedom of speech...from government. If you want to boycott a person or group for their views you can. If you can swing it, you can crush them and leave them broken and rule by fear of your clout. Tacky, but within your rights. It's not as though the NRA hasn't been doing much the same in Congress for years.
You're arguing against someone who apparently believes that a Jew who doesn't want to buy stuff from a neo-nazi is a sheep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I think it's quite safe to assume he's not entirely aware of what his interests are.
No, he's arguing against someone who thinks that what is currently going on in California is a witch hunt. And to me it makes no difference whether the witch hunt has been initiated by a group of concerned citizens, a committee on un-American activities or The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. It's still a witch hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
P.S. Godwin stronk.
You generalized your opinion on the previous page to state that actions unrelated to the quality of the product or the legality of the business are never grounds for a boycott.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Is this inaccurate?
You just compared a group of private citizens making a personal choice against Mozilla with a real government entity (committee on un-american activities) and a fake government entity (ministry of silly walks and virtue).Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
There's really a committee of un-American activities or something to that effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What does it do? What activities are considered un-American?
I don't think it makes much difference for the Mozilla guy whether or not he got fired because of the effort of a government agency or a group of californians. BTW, The Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is very real. It was and still is active in Taliban held areas of Afghanistan as well as in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
No, that's very accurate. so?Quote:
You generalized your opinion on the previous page to state that actions unrelated to the quality of the product or the legality of the business are never grounds for a boycott.
Is this inaccurate?
So, that would mean that you consider a Jew who refuses to shop at the local neo-nazi store to be a sheep. Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Cold war had all these committees with cool names, and what do we have now? Committee for chicken protection (I know there's got to be one like that).
No wonder we're in decline as a species...
Ok, I'll accept that one as semi-cool. When they start to act like the Spanish inquisition, I'll promote them to cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Please stop your exaggerations, there would never be an organization like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Oh, God Almighty, spare us the misery and finish us off now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ignorance once again, Sven? Not sheep - sheeple. Half sheep-half people. Best of both worlds. They graze on the pastures but democratically elect their sheepleherder.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What's he supposed to be buying in the neo-nazi store, swastikas? Give me more information about this hypothetical case.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Let's say it's your run-of-the-mill grocery store, with slightly lower prices than the store across the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Run by the local head of the national-socialist party. Should a Jew be compelled to shop at his store?
Of course! He's a Jew for Christ's sake, they really know a good deal when they see one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
All the joking aside, this is America. Here you will find Neo Nazis asking a 90% Jewish ACLU to defend the Neo Nazis' right to march through a Jewish neighborhood of a Chicago suburb. And you will see the ultra liberal ACLU help Nazis get their right to march so that they can offend the residents of the heavily Jewish neighborhood of Skokie. America is like that. Witch hunts belong in the 1950s.
That's civil rights organizations behaving like they should(and like they do in most places), and just like you found the ACLU standing up for anyone's right to free speech, you will also find organizations who refuse to deal with certain segments. But this hardly relates to an individual consumer's choice of where to shop his salmon.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So I ask again: should the individual Jewish man shop at a grocery store run by a neo-nazi? And more to the point, is he a sheep if he chooses not to?
Also, a "Jew for Christ's sake"....hmmm.....
Of course he should.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A sheep and a fool.Quote:
And more to the point, is he a sheep if he chooses not to?
I'm sorry rvg. But that is just silly. The market and the public sphere are not two distinguishable entities. The former is a subsection of the latter. A Jewish man is being perfectly rational in thinking that he does not want his money in part to be directed towards an individual (e.g. through salary) who believes and acts according to a philosophy that rejects his status as a citizen and a human being.
The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.
That's a poultry excuse for an organization. :drummer:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
With that line of thinking in mind a Jew should never do business with a Muslim. Ever. Not buy from him, not sell to him, not hire one, nor work for one. Who is being silly here?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I never disputed the legality of it. Lots of stupid things are completely legal. Suppose you're drowning near some pier in the San Francisco Bay. You're wearing your "No to Prop 8!" T-shirt, "I love hemp" panama hat, and whatever else a liberal hippy would normally wear. Then there comes a Jack-booted Nazi thug with his "Sieg Heil" tattoos, brown shirt and a swastika lapel pin. You clearly see who he is and he clearly sees who you are. He extends his hand and offers help. Will you take his hand or will you choose to drown?Quote:
The fact is this, what people choose to do with their money earned is their business. They may go about donating to whatever cause they want. It is also a fact that this money comes from the business for which they work for (in general). Therefore, if you wish to declare a boycott on a company in order to prevent the possible promotion of undesirable causes, then again, it is the individuals choice to not spend his/her own money and they are not a fool for choosing to do so.
Some clarifications/corrections: We are not the customers of the Mozilla Corporation, we don't buy Firefox or Thunderbird. Google is Mozilla Corp's customer. Eich was "asked to leave" Mozilla Corp, the taxed, wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation appoints the board for the Corporation, which in turn selects the Corp's CEO. All this talk of Jews buying from Nazis is pointless, although I would be curious to know of any missives sent from Google HQ.
If someone was paying a political referendum to deny your right to drive or own a computer or surf the net?
Now how about someone paying to deny your relationship/friendship/marriage to your significant other how would you feel?
I know that if someone was running a political campaign to divorce me of my wife because we did not fit his criteria of a couple I would not be a happy chap.
To deny access to material goods based on some sort of class system is bad enough. That is what the open source movement fights against.
But to deny access to an adult relationship based on another form of class system is far worse. It is crossing the line from material segregation to human segregation. It's a denial of human rights that is as abhorrent as slavery, apartheid, Australian aboriginals on the wildlife census or other forms of racial segregation.
If it was your access to your loved ones in a special event being denied be it birth, death, wedding, graduation, hospital, emergency or any other major life event what would you do to the person paying to deny you access to them?
Can any of you honestly say you would meekly limit yourselves to just commerical boycotting? Would you also not be the hero fighting the dragon for your love? Or would you just accept that injustice is the way of the world and accept that it is fine for someone to pay away your rights?
That pun was a red-card class fowl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yep, "they" even have a website.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
If you defend the right of someone to do something, but not what they actually did, you are acting as if you can't defend what they actually did.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
This religious school demanded that it's teachers sign a morality clause saying, among other things, that they did not engage in homosexual activity:
http://www.katc.com/news/fatima-s-sc...t-controversy/
When I read this I'm not thinking about their right to do it, I'm thinking about how obviously nasty it is. We should be able to accept people as friends even if they have beliefs we find very objectionable and engage in activities we find very objectionable, and we should certainly be able to accept them as colleagues. Demanding recantations and purity tests and the like is disgusting. What would you think of someone who responded to this story about the catholic school by talking about nothing but how the school had the legal right to do that?
In slavery people are treated like animals and forced to work with no compensation, their lives are controlled in many ways, they were whipped, families were split up for profit and so on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Making gay marriage illegal doesn't deny anyone access to an adult relationship. It just removes certain legal aspects of that relationship that are generally insignificant and don't justify this kind of language. Hospital visitation rules are a problem, but they are a problem for many people who can't be visited by their loved ones for various reasons, e.g. widows and widowers who can't be visited by the only friend they have left in the world. It seems harmful to pretend like legalizing gay marriage solves that issue, when in fact it only solves it for some people. For all you know he is in favor of civil unions in any case.
If you say that not having a legal document means you don't have an adult relationship, you are insulting a lot of people.
You have some responsibility for your beliefs. You can't just say "I think opposing gay marriage is like supporting slavery, so I have a moral duty to hate people who oppose gay marriage". That's completely unjustified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
First link I clicked had this wonderful quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"You might be surprised at who will show up at your church when Jews for Jesus come to minister. Some may even receive the Lord during or immediately following our presentation".
Yeah... Because that happens...
Tell me Sasaki, are you a fan of Tibor Machan?Quote:
We should be able to accept people as friends even if they have beliefs we find very objectionable and engage in activities we find very objectionable, and we should certainly be able to accept them as colleagues. Demanding recantations and purity tests and the like is disgusting.
The above actually contradicts
Anyway, no man is obliged to be the friend of the man who strikes him, of the man who hates him.Quote:
If you defend the right of someone to do something, but not what they actually did, you are acting as if you can't defend what they actually did.
So, uh, why not make a principled case? And if he disapproved or did not identify with the derogatory and vituperative Prop 8 campaign, then why not say so? Rather, he acted like a child who's done a bad thing but thinks he can avoid punishment if he clams up and doesn't say a word.Quote:
For all you know he is in favor of civil unions in any case.
You have just as much responsibility for the "beliefs" of others.Quote:
You have some responsibility for your beliefs.
So you, come now and justify this position. All you did was point out that slavery and lack of legal provision for gay marriage are different things. Obviously, they are different things. That's not a case for why one or another is or is not bad, at least not to me.Quote:
You can't just say "I think opposing gay marriage is like supporting slavery, so I have a moral duty to hate people who oppose gay marriage". That's completely unjustified.
By crumbs you have me with that nugget of truth good sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Also this thread title is laughable.
Thoughtcrime implies McGaybasher didn't act upon his thoughts and is being punished for his, well, thoughts.
He's a grand lighter in the britches. If you're keeping score at home that constitutes an action. Listen, Had this guy had donated to NAMBLA, everyone would be cheering Mozilla for "taking a moral stance". Likewise, if he had given 1000$ to some anti gay group, many of you wringing your hands now would be vigorously nodding and frothing at the mouth while barely comprehensible pro-business phrases came out of your lips.
I don't really see what the real issue is here other than where you fall on the political spectrum.
I think personal boycotts against companies with an objectionable behaviour is a good thing. However, I do not believe that having a very low treshold for boycotting is a good thing. We can't boycott every time someone says or does something we object to. There is a line somewhere, and I'm interested in discussing just where that line is. The Jew-nazi example was intended as an extreme example of a boycott to show the absurdity of a "never boycott"-principle. My hope was that rvg would agree to the absurdity and discuss where the line goes between healthy and unhealthy consumer boycotts.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Sadly, he's lost in a weird land where people who judge a company on their behaviour in addition to their prices and products(ie. nearly everyone) are deemed "sheeple".
It's very hard to draw that line for everybody, because it's more about personal beliefs and convictions. Maybe there's a fanatic supporter of Liverpool F.C. who wouldn't fly Turkish Airlines because Manchester players are advertizing the company. Some people feel strongly about sports, some about politics, some about religion and philosophy, some about music or lifestyles, or about working conditions in the company that made the product.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I personally don't care much about the background of the product I'm buying. I try to buy products produced domestically and that's pretty much it, but I'm not a fanatic in that regard - I do it only if the product is in the same price range and of similar quality...
When does a "one true answer" ever exist outside mathematics? That's no reason not to discuss it, nor does it mean that the discussion won't be meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I get that, but I'm pointing out that boycotting Mozilla only works if you boycott Google as well. Google pays Mozilla to put the Google search bar on Firefox, this is ~95% of the Mozilla Corp's income. If you switch to Opera and still use Google, the boycott has no direct effect since Google is the one bankrolling Mozilla. When the "think of the children" crowd here in the States gets offended by a TV show, they don't boycott the show, they boycott the advertisers of the show. This is how you change the behavior of a "free" service/product.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Actual consumer boycotts are difficult, since Brand A is usually owned by MegaCorp B, which owns a gazillion different brands spread throughout the consumer product spectrum. I've been boycotting one company for years now, and it's a pain trying to to keep track of what they own. With convoluted patent licensing, it pretty much impossible not to send them money in some form without being a hermit.
But Mozilla wasn't accused of objectionable behavior. No one ever accused Mozilla or Eich of ever treating anyone differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In other news, let the purge continue:
OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too
Maybe, after all this stupidity has run its course, people will begin to think twice before burning someone at the stake for having supported something years ago- something that was also supported by a majority of voters at the same time. :yes:Quote:
Of course, it's been a decade since Yagan's donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon's votes on gay rights. It's possible that Cannon's opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It's also quite possible that Yagan's politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama's campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn't include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest.
You are. Islam is not fundamentally opposed to recognizing Jewish people as people.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This situation is simply not analogous. We are talking about an individual in an environment not applying any external coercion deciding on whether or not he wishes to support someone he disagrees with. You are giving an example of an individual under coercive forces (possibility of drowning) being offered help by someone he disagrees with. Could not be further apart.Quote:
I never disputed the legality of it. Lots of stupid things are completely legal. Suppose you're drowning near some pier in the San Francisco Bay. You're wearing your "No to Prop 8!" T-shirt, "I love hemp" panama hat, and whatever else a liberal hippy would normally wear. Then there comes a Jack-booted Nazi thug with his "Sieg Heil" tattoos, brown shirt and a swastika lapel pin. You clearly see who he is and he clearly sees who you are. He extends his hand and offers help. Will you take his hand or will you choose to drown?
I get where you are coming from rvg, but this argument is sloppy even by my standards, which are pretty low.
We should be able to tolerate people and accept them as individuals/fellow citizens in the public sphere and in making policy. None of us should be forced to become best friends and not make demands according to our own preferences if we have the legal right to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
What would I think of someone who responded in the way you describe? Hmm, well I would say that he/she is correct, but the question becomes whether or not recantations and purity tests fail to uphold the standard of toleration and humanization in the public sphere. If not, then we should move to make such demands illegal.
Defending the right of someone to do something, but not the act itself is in my opinion the definition of tolerance. I can still defend the right of a individual to drink alcohol, even if my personal opinion is that consumption of alcohol is wrong for either religious or secular reasons. Are you suggesting that the only actions we have the right to perform are those we can call good actions?
Uhm, yeah, he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The donation was considered objectionable behaviour.
Are you sure maths has one true answer or is it also context sensitive?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Is the sum of the internal angles of a triangle always 180 degrees?
It was in my High School geometry class. Mr. Fitzgerald...though he tended to get twitchy during my class since it was has last of the afternoon and his luncheon cigarettes (and whiskey?) were a while behind him then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Or maybe, as has already been pointed out in many places, this was an unfortunate confluence of events, and not the harbinger of a new inquisition. Maybe. But where's the dramatic value in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Only true for Euclidean (plane) geometry. In another context say a triangle drawn on a sphere the angles won't add up to 180.
You can spot the differences that won't make the hot heads particulary interested in that case. Link is broken btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Anyway, that part of him not regretting anything, nor having changed his mind is quite critical on this. It's not "old guy supported segregation in his youth", it's "guy supported banning gay marriage recently and is still making himself appear very much to support banning gay marriage".
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Read between the lines in his explanation and it comes down to him saying "It's not as bad that I supported an anti-gay candidate- because I did it for money." I suppose that makes it better. :yes:
Another difference is that this CEO recanted and completely disavowed his past donations- so presumably all will be forgiven. Which is why I chose "thoughtcrime" as the thread title. The donation is forgivable- the reason Eich had to be punished is because he wouldn't disavow his belief.
Honestly, it's looking more and more like a publicity stunt on the part of OKCupid. He was willing to donate to an allegedly anti-gay candidate so he could try to garner favor in DC. And then he leads the charge to burn another for being "anti-gay" to garner some positive publicity for his company. It's nauseating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
From the Mother Jones article I linked earlier:
"Of course, it's been a decade since Yagan's donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon's votes on gay rights. It's possible that Cannon's opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It's also quite possible that Yagan's politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama's campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn't include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest."
Thanks so much for the flashback to conic sections. Now you tell me the sections can be curved too. Neurons straining.....[thump]Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This is the premis for Xiahou's linky conclusion, and it's disingenious at best. Eich has not rethought his stance, hence the uproar. He isn't someone who once donated to an anti-gay campagin, he is anti-gay.Quote:
Perhaps even Firefox's Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation.
The two situations are not at all similar.
Well boycotting CEO:s for greed would make a very, very long list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Actually, Eich was given the option to disavow his action, he did not need to disavow his belief. Formulating himself properly of course.
We can go through this. Something can be so vicious that's unforgivable, but if something is forgivable because it was made in the past (a different time, a different person), then the first point is to establish the answer on the question: "Would you do the same thing today, if given the opportunity?". If the answer is either yes or an implied yes, then it's not a matter in the past, it's a matter now.
It is also the standard procedure in situations like this. Churches are paticulary fond of this.
If you really want to go that way, then asking for any act of conformity is a thought crime. They always ask you to act according to a set of standards or face the (unpleasant) consequences. If the set of standard changes, then you need to act according to the new standards, not the old, even if leeway is often given in that case.
THIS WARN YOU
Posts before in oldspeak. Untruth, make-ups only. Make-ups make THOUGHTCRIME. Careful. Supervisor rank or not to read. This warn you. THOUGHTCRIME in posts before. Careful. If thought excited, report Moderator. If other excited, report. Everything, report. Withold report is INFOCRIME. This warn you. Are you authorised, if no stop read now! Make report! We know. Careful. If report made on failing report, this paradox. Paradox is LOGICRIME. Do not do anything. Do not fail to do anything. This warn you. Why you nervous? Was it you? We know. IMPORTANT: Do not read next sentance. This sentance is for official inspect only. Now look. Now dont. Now look. Now dont. Careful. Everything not banned compulsory. Everything not compulsory banned. You did it. We know. This warn you.
Math is all fun and games until you find yourself looking at a picture with a simple ripple distortion, your quadrant shifted DTDF image of same (frequency domain), your mask, the convolution of the image in the frequency domain and your mask, and finally the inverse DTDF transformation of the output and conclude the image is in every way worse than the original you are supposed to clean up as part of the exam...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I would rather reconcile Lyotardian Differends with Habermasian Discursive Constructionism any day of the week -- even if I have to use Barthes to referee the integration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Careful now, there are Norwegians on this board!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
How inclusive of us. Next thing you know we'll be allowing Canadians in...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
And your making my point. It wasn't the donation, it was the "thought" that was the "crime" (thoughtcrime?).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Someone else can have donated money that hindered the same-sex marriage cause and still be fit to be CEO- because, opposing same-sex marriage wasn't his intent... it was more of a side-effect? However, if you donated money in opposition to same-sex marriage for that reason, then it's unforgivable. Never mind that the end result was no different. And never mind the fact that no one has ever accused Eich of behaving towards anyone in an "anti-gay" manner. It is indeed the thought that counts. :yes:
So as long as someone hasn't taken any action, I should be happy shopping at the store of someone who considers me to be a second-class citizen...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
How do you judge that if he treats you with the same level of respect of everyone who comes to the store? He even grants benefits to same-sex partners of his employees. Not exactly the second-class citizen treatment....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
When someone pushes for laws which will create second-class citizens, I'd say it's very possible to judge that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Especially when he states his opinion that gays are second-class citizens when asked about it.
See post 172.
Yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The other guy isn't of the opinion that gays should be treated as second-class citizens. Eich is. Hence the uproar.
So, I ask again: should you be happy to shop at the store of someone who believes you should be treated as a second-class citizen?
To which I say again: How can you say that if he never treated anyone as a second-class citizen?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Uh.... By saying so...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
He said homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens? When?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
People who've worked with him, including the chairman, said he was never anything but respectful and courteous towards everyone. He's said he supports the company extending benefits to same sex couples.
When he supported a group promoting that view...? And when he later said his opinion was the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Let's see the quotes. Because, I don't really remember him ever saying anything about second class citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore