4 ms·

Wow, I really couldn't disagree with you more. It's not left vs right, its humanity denying stances. Denying LGBT are human (which is what the "8" people were

Wow, I really couldn't disagree with you more. It's not left vs right, its humanity denying stances. Denying LGBT are human (which is what the "8" people were about) is a critical issue. Eich tied himself to the wrong side of history, and epically fucked up his CEO response proving he was a bad candidate for that role. He made his own bed and now lies in it. As for Trump... well, this is a presidential candidate describing HOW exactly he sexually assaults women. It wasn't a theoretical "what I could do" conversation, it was a "this is what I do" bragging talk. Again, dehumanizing 51% of the population. Maybe basic human rights is just a "cause" for you, but for the 60-70% of humanity you're trashing, it's kind of their lives.

peterhadlaw 10y ago
No one is trashing rights. No one is denying LGBT people, their humanity. Thiel is literally a homosexual, why do you choose to ignore that. I don't think it is in his self interest to dehumanize himself.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  It's quite well known that rich people are the least affected by policies like anti-LGBT. Thiel may not personally have much to lose if gay marriage was banned, but for many people it makes a huge difference. For example child rights, tax advantages, end of life decisions. Anyways, you're actually very wrong - people ARE trashing rights. People in Trump's camp ARE denying LGBT their humanity. Evangelicals for example. How about "kick out every muslim"? The constitution explicitly doesn't call for a religious test to apply.
  - peterhadlaw 10y ago
    Where was the M for Muslim in LGBT? You'll need to quote where you found "kick out every Muslim" because that's the first I've heard that.
  - peterhadlaw 10y ago
    Oh yeah, explain this https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lgbtq-for-trump-mens-ss-t-shirt-white?variant=26468926918 https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lgbtq-for-trump-mens-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 10y ago
So...what do you think about the women who are still voting for Trump(who number in the millions), even though they've probably seen the same video you have(and come to different conclusions about it being sexual assault). Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  I guess all I can say is that the truth isn't subject to voters approval. Human rights and LGBT rights, and women's rights are part of a natural truth. Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    Sure. And just because you think something is true doesn't make it true. What percentage of black people were voting for KKK-associated politicians? Was it 43%? Why do 43% of voting age women disagree with your take on the matter? Are they all delusional? > Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect. 'I am perfectly logical, and anyone who disagrees with me is illogical' > everyone deserves equality and respect. I absolutely agree.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      43% of voting age women aren't supporting Trump, as you imply. His support is around 43% overall, but it's much lower with women, and higher with men.
      - oh_sigh 10y ago
        I'm referring to here[1], which states that Clinton is +15 on average compared to Trump with women. Yes, I did assume that it is only a 2-person playing field because I don't know how those polls were conducted(was it "who are you voting for?", or "would you choose Trump or Clinton?") [1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-ar...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
BrendanEich 10y ago
One-time only service: for-all humans h, i: h can-marry i; has never been true. Marriage is not an individual human right, it never was. It's a dyadic operation, conjugal. The issue was (pre-Obergefell) US State (as in US Federal System) rule of law. If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. Or you are confused.
- jbapple 10y ago
  > If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. What is a "real philosophical system", and what distinguishes it from an unreal or fake philosophical system? In particular, if a person who is not a professional philosopher has a set of beliefs about what is knowable or what is moral or what the nature of consciousness is, and if that set of beliefs is unusual, is their set of beliefs a "real philosophical system"? Conversely, if that person is a professional, full-time, employed philosopher and their set of beliefs is very popular and influential, is that set a "real philosophical system"?

peterhadlaw 10y ago

No one is trashing rights. No one is denying LGBT people, their humanity. Thiel is literally a homosexual, why do you choose to ignore that. I don't think it is in his self interest to dehumanize himself.

ryanobjc 10y ago
It's quite well known that rich people are the least affected by policies like anti-LGBT. Thiel may not personally have much to lose if gay marriage was banned, but for many people it makes a huge difference. For example child rights, tax advantages, end of life decisions. Anyways, you're actually very wrong - people ARE trashing rights. People in Trump's camp ARE denying LGBT their humanity. Evangelicals for example. How about "kick out every muslim"? The constitution explicitly doesn't call for a religious test to apply.
- peterhadlaw 10y ago
  Where was the M for Muslim in LGBT? You'll need to quote where you found "kick out every Muslim" because that's the first I've heard that.
- peterhadlaw 10y ago
  Oh yeah, explain this https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lgbtq-for-trump-mens-ss-t-shirt-white?variant=26468926918 https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lgbtq-for-trump-mens-...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oh_sigh 10y ago

So...what do you think about the women who are still voting for Trump(who number in the millions), even though they've probably seen the same video you have(and come to different conclusions about it being sexual assault). Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?

ryanobjc 10y ago
I guess all I can say is that the truth isn't subject to voters approval. Human rights and LGBT rights, and women's rights are part of a natural truth. Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Sure. And just because you think something is true doesn't make it true. What percentage of black people were voting for KKK-associated politicians? Was it 43%? Why do 43% of voting age women disagree with your take on the matter? Are they all delusional? > Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect. 'I am perfectly logical, and anyone who disagrees with me is illogical' > everyone deserves equality and respect. I absolutely agree.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    43% of voting age women aren't supporting Trump, as you imply. His support is around 43% overall, but it's much lower with women, and higher with men.
    - oh_sigh 10y ago
      I'm referring to here[1], which states that Clinton is +15 on average compared to Trump with women. Yes, I did assume that it is only a 2-person playing field because I don't know how those polls were conducted(was it "who are you voting for?", or "would you choose Trump or Clinton?") [1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-ar...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

BrendanEich 10y ago

One-time only service: for-all humans h, i: h can-marry i; has never been true. Marriage is not an individual human right, it never was. It's a dyadic operation, conjugal. The issue was (pre-Obergefell) US State (as in US Federal System) rule of law. If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. Or you are confused.

jbapple 10y ago
> If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. What is a "real philosophical system", and what distinguishes it from an unreal or fake philosophical system? In particular, if a person who is not a professional philosopher has a set of beliefs about what is knowable or what is moral or what the nature of consciousness is, and if that set of beliefs is unusual, is their set of beliefs a "real philosophical system"? Conversely, if that person is a professional, full-time, employed philosopher and their set of beliefs is very popular and influential, is that set a "real philosophical system"?