4 ms·

OK, fine, let's be even more pedantic. The question is whether you should be able to get or remain married to someone. The purpose of Prop 8 is to make things t

by geofft 8y ago

OK, fine, let's be even more pedantic. The question is whether you should be able to get or remain married to someone. The purpose of Prop 8 is to make things that were previously recognized as legal marriages no longer legal marriages. If you're in one of the affected marriages and your CEO is trying to cause your marriage to become invalid, you may not share long-term goals. (I can't tell, are you disagreeing with my point or just picking at the words I'm using to make it?)

paulddraper 8y ago
> trying to cause your marriage to become invalid FYI, the validity of existing marriages was never really on the table. > I can't tell, are you disagreeing with my point I'm disagreeing with "gun control isn't quite analogous here for a few reasons". What if a leader opposed gun rights, thus removing employees' ability to protect themselves? Or what if a leader supported gun rights, thus making employees' communities more violent? What if a leader opposed abortion rights, thus imposing an inappropriate level of control on women and their bodies? What if a leader supported abortion rights, thus showing a fundamental disregard for human life? What if a leader supported minimum wage, thus showing a poor grasp of economics? What if a leader opposed minimum wage, thus hurting his employees financially? What if a leader wanted increased defense spending, thus recklessly endangering the well-being of the world? What if a leader wanted decreased defense spending, thus recklessly endangering the well-being of the world? What if a leader has Communist sympathies? Or let's bring it back to marriage: What if a leader supported rights to polygamist marriage? What if a leader opposed rights to polygamist marriage? The usual response to this is "Well, OBVIOUSLY X is the right thing." Despite the fact that the country at large does not have anything resembling consensus on these issues. (Just as the supposed "obvious" answer to Prop 8 was evidently very non-obvious to most Californians in 2008.)
- geofft 8y ago
  I am distinctly not claiming "Obviously X is the right thing." I am claiming that if a leader believes that obviously X is the right thing, and a significant number of employees believe that obviously !X is the right thing, and the issue is likely to affect the productivity or long-term happiness of employees, the leader is a poor choice. This claim does not in any way express an opinion on which of the two groups is right. (Also, the poor choice may still be the best of the available choices.)
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    In that case, I suppose I don't see that as a surprising or really even noteworthy occurrence. Statistically speaking, it is very likely that a CEO's political views are at odds with half of his employees.
    - geofft 8y ago
      I didn't say it was surprising or noteworthy. Brendan Eich is one of literally billions of people who are ill-suited to be CEO of Mozilla.
      - paulddraper 8y ago
        > I didn't say it was surprising or noteworthy I don't think it's noteworthy that a CEO doesn't vote the same way as some employees; I think it's notable that a CEO was fired for it. How many companies have done that? > billions of people who are ill-suited to be CEO of Mozilla. Specifically (and this is really important -- you can't leave this out) because of their political affiliation.

by geofft 8y ago

paulddraper 8y ago

> trying to cause your marriage to become invalid FYI, the validity of existing marriages was never really on the table. > I can't tell, are you disagreeing with my point I'm disagreeing with "gun control isn't quite analogous here for a few reasons". What if a leader opposed gun rights, thus removing employees' ability to protect themselves? Or what if a leader supported gun rights, thus making employees' communities more violent? What if a leader opposed abortion rights, thus imposing an inappropriate level of control on women and their bodies? What if a leader supported abortion rights, thus showing a fundamental disregard for human life? What if a leader supported minimum wage, thus showing a poor grasp of economics? What if a leader opposed minimum wage, thus hurting his employees financially? What if a leader wanted increased defense spending, thus recklessly endangering the well-being of the world? What if a leader wanted decreased defense spending, thus recklessly endangering the well-being of the world? What if a leader has Communist sympathies? Or let's bring it back to marriage: What if a leader supported rights to polygamist marriage? What if a leader opposed rights to polygamist marriage? The usual response to this is "Well, OBVIOUSLY X is the right thing." Despite the fact that the country at large does not have anything resembling consensus on these issues. (Just as the supposed "obvious" answer to Prop 8 was evidently very non-obvious to most Californians in 2008.)

geofft 8y ago
I am distinctly not claiming "Obviously X is the right thing." I am claiming that if a leader believes that obviously X is the right thing, and a significant number of employees believe that obviously !X is the right thing, and the issue is likely to affect the productivity or long-term happiness of employees, the leader is a poor choice. This claim does not in any way express an opinion on which of the two groups is right. (Also, the poor choice may still be the best of the available choices.)
- paulddraper 8y ago
  In that case, I suppose I don't see that as a surprising or really even noteworthy occurrence. Statistically speaking, it is very likely that a CEO's political views are at odds with half of his employees.
  - geofft 8y ago
    I didn't say it was surprising or noteworthy. Brendan Eich is one of literally billions of people who are ill-suited to be CEO of Mozilla.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      > I didn't say it was surprising or noteworthy I don't think it's noteworthy that a CEO doesn't vote the same way as some employees; I think it's notable that a CEO was fired for it. How many companies have done that? > billions of people who are ill-suited to be CEO of Mozilla. Specifically (and this is really important -- you can't leave this out) because of their political affiliation.