4 ms·

In what possible way is it relevant? Why would it even be something anyone attending would care about? The conference is about programming, not gayness. Good o

In what possible way is it relevant? Why would it even be something anyone attending would care about? The conference is about programming, not gayness. Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same.

nawitus 13y ago
>Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same. I don't actually think it's good that people donate money on advancing discriminatory policies, even if they believe in them.
- bolder88 13y ago
  Is the word "waitress" discriminatory and sexist as well? Should we campaign to get that word redefined so it includes men? People who say yes to the above are the ones sapping all the fun and enjoyment out of the world in the name of their crazy political correctness bullshit. I don't think it's fruitful to get into such an argument here, so lets just agree to disagree.
  - egeozcan 13y ago
    I don't see anyone suggesting to put anyone in jail. It is important for a lot of people to know the stance of person they're supporting (by buying tickets or listening) towards such subjects. There's no harm coming from informing people as long as it is not a call for a witch-hunt.
  - m0a0t0 13y ago
    Gay marriage and the word waitress. One of them is a human rights issue, the other is a word for people with a certain job and, like many other words for people who have a certain job, changes depending on the gender of the person. This is a useful distinction and is really just a matter of words, however denying gay people the right to marry obviously is not.
    - bolder88 13y ago
      The majority of people against redefining the word marriage to include same sex unions, aren't against it because they want to deny anyone any rights. Waitress - a woman who waits on people Marriage - The union of one man and one woman Either both words are sexist and discriminatory, or neither is, or you do not accept the common meaning of the word 'marriage'. As Stephen Fry said, give them all the same rights, just call it something else. "Civil Union" or something.
      - m0a0t0 13y ago
        In my opinion having marriage and civil union is worse than waiter and waitress. The former makes a civil union feel inferior - there is a weight to the word marriage. I also see no problem with changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples. Are you suggesting Eich was dontating to stop the misuse of a word as opposed to stopping gay people having equality?
        bolder88 13y ago
        Why not change it to include interspecies marriage next? Man+sheep+frog. What about inanimate objects! A man and a lamp? May as well allow people to marry trees while we're at it. I am suggesting that yes.
        m0a0t0 13y ago
        Because lamps, for example, cannot give consent and have no concept of a union/marriage/tax arrangement between two things. If you do not understand this then you should have no part in this conversation. Likening gay marriage to interspecies marriage is demeaning and offensive. I would appreciate it if you would stop.
        bolder88 13y ago
        demeaning and offensive? Don't you think animals or other possible future species should have rights too? Shame on you. "It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?" - Stephen Fry I'm done here.
egeozcan 13y ago
I didn't say it would be relevant to the theme of the conference. I did say it could be relevant for the people who might attend. For example, I don't want any business with the people who support the ban on gay marriage. If this is their call to support it, it can be my call to do my best in legal terms to prevent them from earning more money and donating more to these campaigns. Btw, I'm talking about acting as an individual, not managing an organization.

nawitus 13y ago

>Good on him for standing up for what he believes in, and putting his money where his mouth is. If only more did the same. I don't actually think it's good that people donate money on advancing discriminatory policies, even if they believe in them.

bolder88 13y ago
Is the word "waitress" discriminatory and sexist as well? Should we campaign to get that word redefined so it includes men? People who say yes to the above are the ones sapping all the fun and enjoyment out of the world in the name of their crazy political correctness bullshit. I don't think it's fruitful to get into such an argument here, so lets just agree to disagree.
- egeozcan 13y ago
  I don't see anyone suggesting to put anyone in jail. It is important for a lot of people to know the stance of person they're supporting (by buying tickets or listening) towards such subjects. There's no harm coming from informing people as long as it is not a call for a witch-hunt.
- m0a0t0 13y ago
  Gay marriage and the word waitress. One of them is a human rights issue, the other is a word for people with a certain job and, like many other words for people who have a certain job, changes depending on the gender of the person. This is a useful distinction and is really just a matter of words, however denying gay people the right to marry obviously is not.
  - bolder88 13y ago
    The majority of people against redefining the word marriage to include same sex unions, aren't against it because they want to deny anyone any rights. Waitress - a woman who waits on people Marriage - The union of one man and one woman Either both words are sexist and discriminatory, or neither is, or you do not accept the common meaning of the word 'marriage'. As Stephen Fry said, give them all the same rights, just call it something else. "Civil Union" or something.
    - m0a0t0 13y ago
      In my opinion having marriage and civil union is worse than waiter and waitress. The former makes a civil union feel inferior - there is a weight to the word marriage. I also see no problem with changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples. Are you suggesting Eich was dontating to stop the misuse of a word as opposed to stopping gay people having equality?
      - bolder88 13y ago
        Why not change it to include interspecies marriage next? Man+sheep+frog. What about inanimate objects! A man and a lamp? May as well allow people to marry trees while we're at it. I am suggesting that yes.
        m0a0t0 13y ago
        Because lamps, for example, cannot give consent and have no concept of a union/marriage/tax arrangement between two things. If you do not understand this then you should have no part in this conversation. Likening gay marriage to interspecies marriage is demeaning and offensive. I would appreciate it if you would stop.
        bolder88 13y ago
        demeaning and offensive? Don't you think animals or other possible future species should have rights too? Shame on you. "It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?" - Stephen Fry I'm done here.

egeozcan 13y ago

I didn't say it would be relevant to the theme of the conference. I did say it could be relevant for the people who might attend. For example, I don't want any business with the people who support the ban on gay marriage. If this is their call to support it, it can be my call to do my best in legal terms to prevent them from earning more money and donating more to these campaigns. Btw, I'm talking about acting as an individual, not managing an organization.