4 ms·

> If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different. More importantly IMHO, you could just as logic

by mpyne 13y ago

> If his personal opinion* simply differs from what's popular in the community, then it's just that - different. More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage. Individual Republicans' opinions aside, the Republican Party is still running on an opposition platform as of April 2013 after all, and that party has done far more to hurt gay marriage rights than Prop. 8 by itself. Eich is being crucified because he's a viable target, not because of any innate guilt that he alone is imbued with. I find that quite hypocritical.

untog 13y ago
More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc. Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. That would imply that it would be acceptable to associate with dirty anti-gay marriage types if they were otherwise politically useful, would it not? And if that's the case then I do not see how you could logically then "boycott Mozilla" as a consequence of Eich's appointment as CEO, since Mozilla actually does tons of good for people. > Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else. Be that as it may, the vibe I'm getting from Eich's opponents is precisely that "you're either with us or against us". And moreover, that commingling good deeds with foul ones is no excuse. After all I would hope that it's only a very few that think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was an excuse for all the rest. Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here he must have done something really bad, and if it's that bad it's the kind of thing you don't outweigh just by going "Well I also voted against Obamacare!". Again, no single political group has done more to oppress homosexuals from being able to marry than the GOP, however you dress it up. If opposing gay marriage is automatically a bad enough crime to warrant Eich's treatment then it should be bad enough irrespective of other, "nicer" opinions. After all, Eich himself surely has "good" opinions we'd mostly agree with, would he not? He may even be on the whole good for the community, but no one has accorded him the opportunity of a trial or even thought very hard about whether his "goods" outweigh his "bad".
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here Except that no one is doing that. There's a pretty vast gulf between boycott and witch-burning.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Sorry, I'll adjust my comments to be even wordier so that my obvious hyperbole to make a point will be either more obvious or less hyperbolic.

by mpyne 13y ago

untog 13y ago

More importantly IMHO, you could just as logically argue that any CEO who contributed to Republican campaigns is just as guilty as Eich for working to oppose gay marriage Not really. I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. There is also a message of fiscal conservatism, pro-business stances, etc. etc. Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else.

mpyne 13y ago
> I don't think there was a single Republican candidate that campaigned on the issue of gay marriage and nothing else. That would imply that it would be acceptable to associate with dirty anti-gay marriage types if they were otherwise politically useful, would it not? And if that's the case then I do not see how you could logically then "boycott Mozilla" as a consequence of Eich's appointment as CEO, since Mozilla actually does tons of good for people. > Donating money to Prop 8 was a simple and straightforward move to try to block gay marriage, and absolutely nothing else. Be that as it may, the vibe I'm getting from Eich's opponents is precisely that "you're either with us or against us". And moreover, that commingling good deeds with foul ones is no excuse. After all I would hope that it's only a very few that think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" was an excuse for all the rest. Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here he must have done something really bad, and if it's that bad it's the kind of thing you don't outweigh just by going "Well I also voted against Obamacare!". Again, no single political group has done more to oppress homosexuals from being able to marry than the GOP, however you dress it up. If opposing gay marriage is automatically a bad enough crime to warrant Eich's treatment then it should be bad enough irrespective of other, "nicer" opinions. After all, Eich himself surely has "good" opinions we'd mostly agree with, would he not? He may even be on the whole good for the community, but no one has accorded him the opportunity of a trial or even thought very hard about whether his "goods" outweigh his "bad".
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Given that we're tying Eich to a stake here Except that no one is doing that. There's a pretty vast gulf between boycott and witch-burning.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Sorry, I'll adjust my comments to be even wordier so that my obvious hyperbole to make a point will be either more obvious or less hyperbolic.