Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-gay marriage controversy

[Puppet]

That's not really true. Again, you are getting pedophilia mixed up with child molestation.

Just being gay is illegal in a lot of countries, no matter if you put it in practice or not, and the same goes for pedophiles.

It's like saying "well if shooting computer generated people was all FPS gamers did then it wouldn't be an issue, but they go out and shoot real people as well so therefore both should be illegal". Actually, it makes even less sense than that since in some situations it is legal to perform the act yourself, but illegal to have a photo of someone else doing it (even by themselves).

 

Just to clarify again, not siding with pedos here [edited]. I think the law is very illogical at times though, and I see a lot of parallels with how homosexuals at treated for acts, and how pedophiles are treated for acts.

 

I'm not trying to create a discussion, I am actually trying to end it :lol:. It doesn't belong in here, although the act of being gay isn't illegal in the country in question, but the act of pedophilia is, you could possibly discuss the whole civil partnership laws but even they are not actually contributing to this thread that much, in fact they are kind of muddling it up.

 

The only sensible conclusion to this thread is that if you are a CEO you can be pretty much be voted out for anything. He could of pissed on the toilet seat in work and still have ended up in this position.

 

I think if you want a gay rights thread or civil partnership thread or a thread discussing the psychology of sexuality, then it should be created separately. 

 

@LAwLz, by the way there are laws against 'lolicon' or simulated child pornography in the US and Canada (also the UK) so technically against our COC. (I edited your quotation in case you want the opportunity to remove it).

[LAwLz]

@LAwLz, by the way there are laws against 'lolicon' or simulated child pornography in the US and Canada (also the UK) so technically against our COC. (I edited your quotation in case you want the opportunity to remove it).

Well in the US it varies from state to state, but I don't think I am breaking the CoC here. We are allowed to discuss illegal activities on the forum, just not encourage it or directly use it for something illegal (like uploading a copyrighted movie).

 

 

 

7. Illegal Use

You may not use our forums for illegal purposes, or in support of illegal activities, as determined by the laws of the United States of America or Canadian Law. Such activities will result in an immediate ban. We will cooperate with legal authorities and/or injured third parties in the investigation of any suspected crime or civil wrongdoing.

[Puppet]

Well in the US it varies from state to state, but I don't think I am breaking the CoC here. We are allowed to discuss illegal activities on the forum, just not encourage it or directly use it for something illegal (like uploading a copyrighted movie).

 

Fair enough, it's not something that offends me personally, just something I came across when looking over the legal stuff.

 

Thought I'd give you a heads up just in case someone else did.

[EclipseSkye]

I think the whole issue is ridiculous, are they gonna hunt down everybody who donate to that cause and make them resign too?

[Puppet]

I think the whole issue is ridiculous, are they gonna hunt down everybody who donate to that cause and make them resign too?

 

Only if it affects employee morale and they threaten to leave the company etc... CEOs have very little in the way of employment rights, their contracts are determined by the company itself (board of directors) and they will all have a clause along the lines of damaging the company or misdirection etc in which case they will have the option to vote them out.

 

It's not the nicest position to be in if you are after secure employment.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

 

This article really sums up my thoughts.

 

There is nothing wrong with not supporting gay marriage. Its worrying that the pro-gays are so powerful.

[Victorious Secret]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

 

This article really sums up my thoughts.

 

There is nothing wrong with not supporting gay marriage. Its worrying that the pro-gays are so powerful.

 

 

The problem people have is that the definition of marriage is based off a fairy tale (Sorry for being that insensitive guys, but deal in the facts) and that is one broken definition to have. Its outdated, irrelevant to modern society and its been ingrained in a lot of people that only a man and woman can be joined in holy matrimony. 

 

Which would be fine, if certain places in the States weren't pulling the kind of shit the pull to block legislation that prevents gay couples to marry and have the same benefits as hetero couples. 

 

Its a clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks because despite church and state being separate, the entire legal definition of marriage comes from a religious institution that is woefully out of touch with the world as it is today. 

[Mooshi]

The problem people have is that the definition of marriage is based off a fairy tale (Sorry for being that insensitive guys, but deal in the facts) and that is one broken definition to have. Its outdated, irrelevant to modern society and its been ingrained in a lot of people that only a man and woman can be joined in holy matrimony. 

 

Which would be fine, if certain places in the States weren't pulling the kind of shit the pull to block legislation that prevents gay couples to marry and have the same benefits as hetero couples. 

 

Its a clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks because despite church and state being separate, the entire legal definition of marriage comes from a religious institution that is woefully out of touch with the world as it is today. 

 

 

Not gonna lie, when the day comes for marriage, it's probably going to be done at a church setting for me. I'm not religious, either. (granted, I more in favour of faith over religion which are not one and the same.) Fairytale or not, this is something that many people idolize because of the grandeur of it all. If a same sex couple wants to live out the fairytale for themselves, all power to them. Those who don't support gay marriage aren't invited to their weddings anyway, this is the problem.

 

It'd be like going to a 5 star restaurant in lumberjack attire then complaining about the stares. You clearly weren't a part of the scene and thus have no right to complain when others look at you funny. I feel gay marriage is kinda like that. If you don't wanna see two men or two women having a wedding, don't go a same sex wedding. Problem solved. You don't have to like gay marriage, that's fine. But to make a stink about it in the form of public humiliation, that's wrong. Especially in a modern society. It'd be as daft as people wearing questionable attire from a  gay pride parade crashing a hetero couple's wedding. Those purely anti-gay fail to realize how much of a butthole they are.

 

I will add this, the media is also a bit of a butthole for blowing issues like this up as well. Like I said before, if someone doesn't want to see a same sex wedding, then don't go to one. However, it almost feels as if the media is purposely pushing it in people's faces and I can understand going from neutral on the subject to disgust. (I've actually ran into people that were fine with gays until constant propaganda and those circuses called gay pride parades changed their opinion) For true equality on marriage, the media needs to stop giving a shit with promoting same sex marriage. Same goes for gay pride parade leaving a bad taste in people's mouth. I've even had gay friends facepalm at those things and feel they are holding the gay community back!

 

Most people do not care if someone is gay or not anymore, the media needs to get with the times.

[mr moose]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

 

This article really sums up my thoughts.

 

There is nothing wrong with not supporting gay marriage. Its worrying that the pro-gays are so powerful.

 

You should read the rest of the thread, then you'd know why your statement is trivial and misses the point.

 

I'll sum up for you:

 

1, no one says it's wrong to not support gay marriage

2, pro gays are not "so powerful" because they can barely attain the right marriage and the privilege of legal protections that come from it.

[Vitalius]

All I'm seeing in this thread now (which, honestly, is all I ever see in threads about this) are the usual arguments that are asinine and/or hypocritical, as usual. 

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." was it?

[beebskadoo]

All I'm seeing in this thread now (which, honestly, is all I ever see in threads about this) are the usual arguments that are asinine and/or hypocritical, as usual.

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." was it?

Do you group your arguments into that category also? Because the same can easily be said about yours.

The fact that in previous threads, your argument was taken upon Philosophical grounds and now you demand scientific evidence even though it was deemed moot by you in the past. That to me is the only hypocrisy here.

Once again, not argumentum ad hominem

[Vitalius]

Do you group your arguments into that category also? Because the same can easily be said about yours.

The fact that in previous threads, your argument was taken upon Philosophical grounds and now you demand scientific evidence even though it was deemed moot by you in the past. That to me is the only hypocrisy here.

Once again, not argumentum ad hominem

Personally no. Obviously others will disagree. I was specifically talking about the many things that I've shown to not be true or explained why they aren't true. The "It's not a choice is a fact" is an example for the former, and "Why does anyone care what two people do in private?" is an example for the latter. 

Yes, two different arguments. I've only ever deemed scientific evidence moot in relation to one argument that I remember regarding the Big Bang and Evolution because I personally take issue with the evidence on scientific principles alone. Maybe I've forgotten whatever you are talking about, but that discussion isn't this one. Apples, meet Oranges.

As always Beeb. As always.

[Misanthrope]

The fact that rehab is largely unsuccessful is for 2 reasons. 

1 The systems in place in this country are absolutely garbage for rehabilitating any criminal, it promotes a vicious cycle for relapse and has needed reformed for years.

2 in many states rehab isn't the first choice. it's more like lock em uup and keep em in the vicious cycle. that's how private prisons make their money. i.e another system that needs reformed.

 

You're talking about it as if pedophilia was entirely dependent on nurture and not at all on nature. So to be clear, I agree with you in regards of most criminals and behavior that does not gets successfully rehabilitated. However there are certain criminals that are impossible to successfully rehabilitate because the reason behind their crimes is pure mental illness. In those cases only psychiatric confinement and to a certain extent, drug treatment is currently the only option. To me a child molester is no different than somebody with anti-social personality disorder or schizophrenia. They can't be treated with group therapy or negative reinforcement or whatever other technique the prison system uses or should use but doesn't, for the same reason you can't talk someone out of having cancer: a disease has to be addressed differently.

[beebskadoo]

Personally no. Obviously others will disagree. I was specifically talking about the many things that I've shown to not be true or explained why they aren't true. The "It's not a choice is a fact" is an example for the former, and "Why does anyone care what two people do in private?" is an example for the latter.

Yes, two different arguments. I've only ever deemed scientific evidence moot in relation to one argument that I remember regarding the Big Bang and Evolution because I personally take issue with the evidence on scientific principles alone. Maybe I've forgotten whatever you are talking about, but that discussion isn't this one. Apples, meet Oranges.

As always Beeb. As always.

I recall being the only one in this argument that gave peer reviewed articles. what you've shown 'not to be true' is based upon personal experience which is the least credible source of evidence one can give. I didn't care because we at that point were arguing on personal experience but when the argument turned scientific and you demanded evidence rather than testimony, you still refuted it with personal testimony. So in fact you did not prove anything to not be true you just simply asserted as fact something which isn't evidently true.

Yes I had a hard time finding scientific evidence but that us not because it doesn't exist, just simply because the peer review system isn't easily accessible without subscriptions.

YouTube is a good place to start to hear peer reviewed debates on this topic. I would start there if you really care about the subject

<3 cheers mate

[beebskadoo]

You're talking about it as if pedophilia was entirely dependent on nurture and not at all on nature. So to be clear, I agree with you in regards of most criminals and behavior that does not gets successfully rehabilitated. However there are certain criminals that are impossible to successfully rehabilitate because the reason behind their crimes is pure mental illness. In those cases only psychiatric confinement and to a certain extent, drug treatment is currently the only option. To me a child molester is no different than somebody with anti-social personality disorder or schizophrenia. They can't be treated with group therapy or negative reinforcement or whatever other technique the prison system uses or should use but doesn't, for the same reason you can't talk someone out of having cancer: a disease has to be addressed differently.

I never stated a nature vs nurture argument in anything in said about that subject, I simply stated the reasons why the system is broken.

Please re read what I said.

[Misanthrope]

I never stated a nature vs nurture argument in anything in said about that subject, I simply stated the reasons why the system is broken.

Please re read what I said.

 

Oh I understand that and I agree that the system is mostly broken. However I think that we're going on like 3 levels of tangents at this point which can be confusing and not to mention derail the arguments here, better to drop it, cheers!

[Byzantine]

I was going to drop my 5 cents here but the argument is so dumb is hilarious.....

[Vitalius]

I recall being the only one in this argument that gave peer reviewed articles. what you've shown 'not to be true' is based upon personal experience which is the least credible source of evidence one can give. I didn't care because we at that point were arguing on personal experience but when the argument turned scientific and you demanded evidence rather than testimony, you still refuted it with personal testimony. So in fact you did not prove anything to not be true you just simply asserted as fact something which isn't evidently true.

Yes I had a hard time finding scientific evidence but that us not because it doesn't exist, just simply because the peer review system isn't easily accessible without subscriptions.

YouTube is a good place to start to hear peer reviewed debates on this topic. I would start there if you really care about the subject

<3 cheers mate

Peered reviewed articles that mean jack diddly in terms of actual evidence for it not being a choice. The authors mention how their sample sizes are small, these things haven't been replicated by other researchers, how we shouldn't read into it too much in determining who is or is not gay, etc etc, and the link to the Psychiatric page explicitly states that no scientific evidence has arisen that solidifies the idea that it is based on biology and thereby predetermined. 

You offered scientific evidence that amounted to nothing. And that was my whole point. It's not a proven fact and what you provided is my evidence for my statement. So, people are free to believe what they wish about it because the best thing we have to go on is no better than anecdotal evidence. If you believe otherwise, I have a tower in Paris to sell you.

That's a poor excuse as you sent me to a place that has access to the entire peer reviewed system which, as I mentioned, said, and I quote:

 

 

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

...

However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

If anyone would have access to peer reviewed research, it'd be an official health organization such as the American Psychiatric Assocation. 

[Victorious Secret]

Peered reviewed articles that mean jack diddly in terms of actual evidence for it not being a choice. The authors mention how their sample sizes are small, these things haven't been replicated by other researchers, how we shouldn't read into it too much in determining who is or is not gay, etc etc, and the link to the Psychiatric page explicitly states that no scientific evidence has arisen that solidifies the idea that it is based on biology and thereby predetermined. 

You offered scientific evidence that amounted to nothing. And that was my whole point. It's not a proven fact and what you provided is my evidence for my statement. So, people are free to believe what they wish about it because the best thing we have to go on is no better than anecdotal evidence. If you believe otherwise, I have a tower in Paris to sell you.

That's a poor excuse as you sent me to a place that has access to the entire peer reviewed system which, as I mentioned, said, and I quote:

 

If anyone would have access to peer reviewed research, it'd be an official health organization such as the American Psychiatric Assocation. 

 

Thank you.

 

As an actual scientist it does piss me off that people whip out articles that 'support' their position yet fail to read the goddamn things and notice that stuff like that has no answer. Its just one. ONE. You need dozens upon dozens of studies coming to the same conclusion before even being able to say one way or another. 

 

Right now thats not happening. Right now its "We just don't know". 

 

If someone wants, I will happily abuse my access to every database out there to grab as many so called valid studies that you want. Go ahead, my access is yours to abuse. Lets see just how scientific this really is. 

[mr moose]

Thank you.

 

As an actual scientist it does piss me off that people whip out articles that 'support' their position yet fail to read the goddamn things and notice that stuff like that has no answer. Its just one. ONE. You need dozens upon dozens of studies coming to the same conclusion before even being able to say one way or another. 

 

Right now thats not happening. Right now its "We just don't know". 

 

If someone wants, I will happily abuse my access to every database out there to grab as many so called valid studies that you want. Go ahead, my access is yours to abuse. Lets see just how scientific this really is. 

We'll, it's only a little off topic and will probably kill the thread completely but seeing as you offered.

 

I also have access to many libraries, however to date I haven't been able to find nor has anyone else been able to find me a research paper that shows the physical link between CO2 and surface temperature rises outside of the "it's a greenhouse gas" statement.  The actually mechanism is never defined and more importantly I have yet to find an article that explains why it's impact on global climate is more significant than other environmental functions/pollutants.

 

feel free to PM if you like.

 

EDIT: 100% not trolling either, I genuinely am interested in climate science.

[Vitalius]

Thank you.

 

As an actual scientist it does piss me off that people whip out articles that 'support' their position yet fail to read the goddamn things and notice that stuff like that has no answer. Its just one. ONE. You need dozens upon dozens of studies coming to the same conclusion before even being able to say one way or another. 

 

Right now thats not happening. Right now its "We just don't know". 

 

If someone wants, I will happily abuse my access to every database out there to grab as many so called valid studies that you want. Go ahead, my access is yours to abuse. Lets see just how scientific this really is. 

You're welcome. Now, we both know that's not acceptable. 

This is the internet, first of all.

Secondly, I question your job security if your colleagues found out you were doing this.

Thirdly, the time it would take for us to come to a conclusion after reading dozens to hundreds of scientific studies is obscene. It's not feasible to do such a thing in a thread on the internet and fully expect participation from everyone involved. If everyone doesn't participate, it's mostly pointless for the sake of discussion, though it'd be interesting on a personal level to see what has and hasn't been verified in this endeavor.

Lastly, ain't nobody got time for that. 

I mean really, I love learning as much as any science geek, but I barely made it through the peer reviewed studies' synopsis that I did make it through as it is. My life in particular is very busy currently (in a job and home transition stage in life), so my time is somewhat limited.

Personally, I feel the need to leave this to the experts, then read the experts reasoning on it while verifying that what they are basing their reasoning on is legitimate.

 

[Victorious Secret]

We'll, it's only a little off topic and will probably kill the thread completely but seeing as you offered.

 

I also have access to many libraries, however to date I haven't been able to find nor has anyone else been able to find me a research paper that shows the physical link between CO2 and surface temperature rises outside of the "it's a greenhouse gas" statement.  The actually mechanism is never defined and more importantly I have yet to find an article that explains why it's impact on global climate is more significant than other environmental functions/pollutants.

 

feel free to PM if you like.

 

EDIT: 100% not trolling either, I genuinely am interested in climate science.

 

Will send a PM. If you have any paper in mind specifically let me know. That entire subject in and of itself is a hilarious (or sad?) mess. 

 

You're welcome. Now, we both know that's not acceptable. 

This is the internet, first of all.

Secondly, I question your job security if your colleagues found out you were doing this.

Thirdly, the time it would take for us to come to a conclusion after reading dozens to hundreds of scientific studies is obscene. It's not feasible to do such a thing in a thread on the internet and fully expect participation from everyone involved. If everyone doesn't participate, it's mostly pointless for the sake of discussion, though it'd be interesting on a personal level to see what has and hasn't been verified in this endeavor.

Lastly, ain't nobody got time for that. 

I mean really, I love learning as much as any science geek, but I barely made it through the peer reviewed studies' synopsis that I did make it through as it is. My life in particular is very busy currently (in a job and home transition stage in life), so my time is somewhat limited.

Personally, I feel the need to leave this to the experts, then read the experts reasoning on it while verifying that what they are basing their reasoning on is legitimate.

 

 

Well, doing this would be the least of my crimes today. I've watched F1 qualifying, studied, YouTube'd like a champ and played some poker. Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is what researchers spend their weekends doing. Work? Pfft. Madness. 

[Vitalius]

Well, doing this would be the least of my crimes today. I've watched F1 qualifying, studied, YouTube'd like a champ and played some poker. Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is what researchers spend their weekends doing. Work? Pfft. Madness. 

Representing Alberta like a champ!

[Victorious Secret]

Representing Alberta like a champ!

 

I'll be crying on Monday, but let me enjoy what freedom I have left. 

[beebskadoo]

Thank you.

As an actual scientist it does piss me off that people whip out articles that 'support' their position yet fail to read the goddamn things and notice that stuff like that has no answer. Its just one. ONE. You need dozens upon dozens of studies coming to the same conclusion before even being able to say one way or another.

Right now thats not happening. Right now its "We just don't know".

If someone wants, I will happily abuse my access to every database out there to grab as many so called valid studies that you want. Go ahead, my access is yours to abuse. Lets see just how scientific this really is.

You're implying that I didn't read the articles when I did certainly do so. I was just giving examples of peer reviewed articles. I know there isn't much we do know and I stated the reasons for that.

It does piss me of when people don't read the discussion properly and make judgements blindly about the contents of a topic.

Vitalius and I were discussing this topic with personal account when he wanted peer reviewed material on the subject so I gave some. I certainly let him form his opinion around it. What we were discussing was whether or not you can change your sexuality, I gave both a slightly biased and a non biased link to peer reviewed content that both stated that it doesn't work and in fact it is harmful and illegal in most states. I also gave personal account much like he did.

I didn't link to just ONE study as you stated, the link I posted contained findings for and against the topic we were discussing. So on that accord I was being non biased I'm giving both arguments.

Now, I think we have beat this dead horse enough. So I bid you all adieu.

Until next time

<3