What a nice world that would be. Are all your ideas correct? How can you know?
I see gay rights as a human rights as well, but I realize that's partially because I learned about it in a context permissive to that interpretation. If someone was raised in a society where they were taught gay people were abominations, and their mind is no longer plastic enough to eliminate that impression, perhaps they're safe as the COO.
At some point, some idea you don't agree with will become central to society's values. Maybe you'll be able to understand why you were wrong, or maybe you won't, but I don't think your job performance will be affected either way. I think political litmus tests for positions should make us all extremely uneasy. Would you accept a job that requires you to swear an oath to protect gay rights? What about the rights of trans* individuals? What about the rights of polygamists? The biblical literalists?
For me, I suppose it depends on what the oath means by 'rights.'
I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Eich is an overt homophobe. His intentions are still unclear.
This is always an interesting word definition to me. Just because someone donated against something, might mean he's against it it, but doesn't mean he's "scared" of it (the definition of "phobia" being "fear").
The equivalence of the two words into it's current meaning has always been interesting to me.
Honestly, they can say they're "not scared of gay people" all they want, but the actions of a person who would donate their money or time to get same-sex marriage outlawed speak much, much louder than their words.
That's the same attitude you're accusing them of. It's not helpful on either side of the debate.
There's a difference between being scared & disagreeing. Your refusal to acknowledge the difference says more about your desire to perpetuate your viewpoint of them rather than attempt to understand their background. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to refuse to come to the table with them at all in the first place.
I think we could continue to go back & forth all day, but you don't seem very open to the idea of listening to people with opposing viewpoints :).
See that's where we fundamentally disagree. I respect all opinions - even if they're wrong, offensive or I disagree with them completely. That's the whole point of free speech
This latter interpretation is how we get creationists demanding equal time be given to teaching their "theory" in schools. They certainly have a right to not believe in evolution, and even shudder to promote that opinion, but that doesn't mean that opinion isn't stupid and somehow deserves to be given equal standing to evolution in the public sphere.
Well the line on racism seems to keep getting moved. Everyone got all up in arms about #cancelcolbert recently about something he said out of context.
I'm curious about the urge we feel to protest/boycott everything & making people we disagree with "go away" rather than having difficult discussions with people who hold different viewpoints than us.
I suspect it has to do with the fact that the latter is much more difficult & it often is tough to directly hate someone once you take the time to personally know them.
Aristotle believed women had less teeth than men. If someone states that belief now, is it wrong to say "no that's wrong", and then laugh/ignore them?
If someone stated that men and women have different numbers of teeth, why not encourage an experiment? It's not an absurd statement unless you've gathered evidence or trust the evidence you've read elsewhere.
The challenge in this case is that morality can't be determined objectively without reference to some other framework, which itself is likely subjective. So it doesn't tell us whether Eich can reason or incorporate evidence. He likely formulates his view from a different set of assumptions.
I'm not sure I know which ideas are "correct", but I know this particular idea you've just expressed is terrifying.
Perhaps my phrasing was off - I didn't mean to imply that other ideas shouldn't exist, just that they should not be accepted as true, nor should every issue be two-sided and seek a balance.
Even so, if we could all agree on basic axioms and goals, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say we'd all like to arrive at correct ideas.
No, we should not. We should live in a world with correct ideas, full stop. Some ideas are stupid, like racism, creationism, or flat-earth models, and don't deserve "balance". What you call "pro-gay" is actually a human rights issue.
Certainly everyone would be all over him if he was promoting racism, right? Or donating to groups to track down and execute people that have committed apostasy? Certainly Stormfront shouldn't be ostracized for having "political views".
Where do you draw the line? Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals?
Edit: I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to hold incorrect (untrue) beliefs - free speech and thought should be strongly defended. But beliefs are obviously invalid and it should be fair to judge and dismiss people stating untrue things. We don't leap to someone's defense when they say the Earth is flat, why should we defend "two sides" for human rights depending on sexual preference?