Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8

[Damocles]

I just love the attempt to make people fear pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It's the "If we make you think you are just like Newt because you notice hypocrisy that he also noticed then you will fear being like Newt, who isn't libertarian, and silence yourself the claimed libertarian" strategy of argument.

One cannot mention something that is accurate and factual if somebody that isn't necessarily libertarian also noticed that fact.

Ergo: Newt noticed that fact, therefore you aren't libertarian! (The argument of a four year old. It's like saying "Our car is green, therefore you never graduated college!")



It's a fallacious argument. A logical fallacy. Useless in the extreme. It's like listening to the Bigfoot hunters on TV... "Nobody says a growl in the forest is a dragon because dragons don't exist, but they do say unknown growls in the forest are bigfoots because bigfoots exist!" Even my 10 year old laughed at that logic.

 

[Bonestorm]

I just love the attempt to make people fear pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It's the "If we make you think you are just like Newt because you notice hypocrisy like he does, then you will fear being like Newt, who isn't libertarian, and silence yourself the claimed libertarian" strategy of argument.

One cannot mention something that is accurate and factual if somebody that isn't necessarily libertarian also noticed that fact.

Ergo: Newt noticed that fact therefore you aren't libertarian!

It's a fallacious argument. A logical fallacy. Useless in the extreme. It's like listening to the Bigfoot hunters on TV... "Nobody says a growl in the forest is a dragon because dragons don't exist, but they do say unknown growls in the forest are bigfoots because bigfoots exist!" Even my 10 year old laughed at that logic.

You and SF aren't libertarians because you aren't libertarians. The fact that you are reading from Newt's script is just funny.

 

[Timshel]

So the man has done his job and done it well for years. A co founder of the company. Inventor of Java. Never had any complaints against him at work. Yet they force him out because of a political contribution that he made six years ago because he refused to recant that position or discuss it further at this time? Yes... they forced him out for his personal beliefs. Not his work history, not his actions at work... but for his THOUGHTS. No Libertarian would support such nonsense. Bawk baw bawwwwk

They did not forcibly interfere with Eich's rights. Are you arguing that firing someone is an initiation of force?

Are you going to answer or just runaway, chicken?

 

[Damocles]

You and SF aren't libertarians because you aren't libertarians. The fact that you are reading from Newt's script is just funny.

Which is again the argument of a four year old. "You aren't a democrat, because you aren't!" It's just silliness. It doesn't add to the thread, it doesn't support one side or negate the other, it simply is useless nonsense, a childlike logical fallacy. "Nobody thinks dragons exist therefore nobody claims they are in the forest because they don't exist, therefore when they claim bigfoots are in the forest it is because bigfoots exist!"

I asked several times what you would support. You said (paraphrasing), 'Because there is no law I will be a hypocrite, you should support a law! Then we'd be on the same side!'

I don't support a law, don't think we need one. Nor do I think Mozilla should have caved to this nonsense. Simply point out the ultimate hypocrisy of the accusers and move on. We need to stop trying to make people fear, or caving to it.

 

[Truth Detector]

You have not addressed it. How does him being fired violate his rights? What right? How is it that the state could interfere without violating Mozilla's rights?

You have not offered reference to any libertarian material that agrees with you. You have taken a general statement out of context and evade requests to answer how it applies.

Your contradiction is your claim that you are not bringing the state into it yet you are arguing that it violates a valid law. But it does not. There is no law this violates.

Libertarians would argue that Mozilla has every right to fire Eich (they did not he resigned). Such an act does not violate libertarian beliefs or Eich's rights.

This debate isn't about someone getting fired or resigning you idiot; it is about the Fascist tactics used to FORCE Eich to resign; those tactics used by a tiny vocal minority denying anyone the right of free speech if that speech does not march lock-step with their ideological views.

Damn you people are painfully stupid.

 

[Timshel]

ROFLMAO... so the libertarian party platform has nothing to do with libertarians beliefs? Ok String.

Quoting something and providing the link to where that quote came from is not using it out of context. You can see precisely where it came from. The meaning of the quote did not change by posting it by itself either.

LOL... yeah, you posted an older plank... that had nothing to do with the current situation. Your other links also referenced the GOVERNMENT and its actions against the individual. Again, which had nothing to do with the current topic.

What you quoted has nothing to do with this specific topic. It is a general statement that you have taken out of context and misrepresented. You have done nothing but cowardly evade requests to answer how it applies.

I linked to a part of an older platform that SPECIFICALLY related to this topic. I linked to a release from the party Chairman that SPECIFICALLY related to this topic. The articles I linked and the reference to Rothbard all SPECIFICALLY relate to this topic.

LOL... you referenced libertarian 'titans'... ok String. Again, those libertarians do not support your nonsense.

Yes, they do.

Show me in there where it says libertarians believe a company can fire you for your outside beliefs. I will wait.

I already did it. Read the plank I posted.

Again you show us all what a coward you are. I have addressed your baseless accusations on this thread over and over again. Yet you call it 'hiding'.

You refuse to provide anything else because you know you are full of shit... and you are a lying coward.

Telling him he HAS to recant his personal beliefs if he wants to keep his job? Are you kidding?

Thanks for proving again you are a fake libertarian.

You truly are a fucking retard.

You have not addressed the questions or accusations. You don't have any source that is related to your claim about libertarian views on the subject. You are lying about those views and you have evaded every question I have put to you.

 

[Timshel]

I just love the attempt to make people fear pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It's the "If we make you think you are just like Newt because you notice hypocrisy that he also noticed then you will fear being like Newt, who isn't libertarian, and silence yourself the claimed libertarian" strategy of argument.

One cannot mention something that is accurate and factual if somebody that isn't necessarily libertarian also noticed that fact.

Ergo: Newt noticed that fact, therefore you aren't libertarian! (The argument of a four year old. It's like saying "Our car is green, therefore you never graduated college!")



It's a fallacious argument. A logical fallacy. Useless in the extreme. It's like listening to the Bigfoot hunters on TV... "Nobody says a growl in the forest is a dragon because dragons don't exist, but they do say unknown growls in the forest are bigfoots because bigfoots exist!" Even my 10 year old laughed at that logic.

It's not accurate. Obama publicly opposed prop 8.

You don't seem to be misrepresenting libertarian views on this the same way sf is, but the knee jerk reaction to Obama betrays that your premises are probably not libertarian.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What you quoted has nothing to do with this specific topic. It is a general statement that you have taken out of context and misrepresented. You have done nothing but cowardly evade requests to answer how it applies.

This quote: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

has everything to do with this topic you lying hack. It is not taken out of context. It is quoted on its own as it was on the website that I linked to. You are simply making shit up because you don't want to address it.

I linked to a part of an older platform that SPECIFICALLY related to this topic. I linked to a release from the party Chairman that SPECIFICALLY related to this topic. The articles I linked and the reference to Rothbard all SPECIFICALLY relate to this topic.

No, you did not. It had nothing to do with this topic.

Yes, they do.

No, they do not, which is why you just link to them and then refuse to discuss. Those links you provided talk about the GOVERNMENT forcing things upon people.

I already did it. Read the plank I posted.

Quote the portion of it that YOU think applies to this situation. Can you do that coward?

You have not addressed the questions or accusations. You don't have any source that is related to your claim about libertarian views on the subject. You are lying about those views and you have evaded every question I have put to you.

So again, you are going to ignore the Libertarian party platform and you are going to pretend that their comments have nothing to do with libertarian views?

Thanks again for proving you are a fake libertarian.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I just love the attempt to make people fear pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It's the "If we make you think you are just like Newt because you notice hypocrisy that he also noticed then you will fear being like Newt, who isn't libertarian, and silence yourself the claimed libertarian" strategy of argument.

One cannot mention something that is accurate and factual if somebody that isn't necessarily libertarian also noticed that fact.

Ergo: Newt noticed that fact, therefore you aren't libertarian! (The argument of a four year old. It's like saying "Our car is green, therefore you never graduated college!")



It's a fallacious argument. A logical fallacy. Useless in the extreme. It's like listening to the Bigfoot hunters on TV... "Nobody says a growl in the forest is a dragon because dragons don't exist, but they do say unknown growls in the forest are bigfoots because bigfoots exist!" Even my 10 year old laughed at that logic.

Just wait until someone who holds dear the liberal ideals, reports they've "resigned"; because of what others within the company had to say about their beliefs.
The loony left will claim that the person should sue, for the company allowing a "hostile" work place; even though the person voluntarily resigned from their position.

 

[Damocles]

It's not accurate. Obama publicly opposed prop 8.

You don't seem to be misrepresenting libertarian views on this the same way sf is, but the knee jerk reaction to Obama betrays that your premises are probably not libertarian.

It is accurate, we can pull up video after video of Obama opposing gay marriage in 2008. Over and over and over he stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. He did more to help that thing pass than this guy's $1,000. Obama tried to have his cake and eat it too by saying the law was "unnecessary", but this "he was publicly against it" is simply BeeEss....

Hypocrites/Democrats (same thing in this instance) will pretend that it's all good to be against something so long as you are just paying lip service (suggest you think this thing here is "unnecessary" while supporting its general meaning with constant statements that flat say you believe it), but the reality is his support of 1 man/1 woman "Tradiational" marriage helped the thing pass.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread. I was against it and stated flatly so in 2008... I didn't say that "marriage is between one man and one woman" repeatedly then say the Prop was "unnecessary".

 

[Timshel]

This quote: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

has everything to do with this topic you lying hack. It is not taken out of context. It is quoted on its own as it was on the website that I linked to. You are simply making shit up because you don't want to address it.

It has nothing to with the topic. It is taken out of context and misrepresented. Again, how did firing Eich forcibly interfere with his rights?

No, you did not. It had nothing to do with this topic.

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/foaagd.html

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION


Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.


We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals.


Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.


The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#Libertarian

All the others were SPECIFICALLY related to the topic.

No, they do not, which is why you just link to them and then refuse to discuss. Those links you provided talk about the GOVERNMENT forcing things upon people.

I have not refused to discuss them. That's what you are advocating, is for a law forcing people to associate.

Quote the portion of it that YOU think applies to this situation. Can you do that coward?

See above.

So again, you are going to ignore the Libertarian party platform and you are going to pretend that their comments have nothing to do with libertarian views?

Thanks again for proving you are a fake libertarian.

I have not ignored your out of context quote. I have asked you to demonstrate how it applies several times and you have done nothing but run away from that request.

How did firing Eich forcibly interfere with his rights? What right? How can Mozilla be prohibited from firing him without violating their rights?

 

[Timshel]

It is accurate, we can pull up video after video of Obama opposing gay marriage in 2008. Over and over and over he stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. He did more to help that thing pass than this guy's $1,000. Obama tried to have his cake and eat it too by saying the law was "unnecessary", but this "he was publicly against it" is simply BeeEss....

Hypocrites/Democrats (same thing in this instance) will pretend that it's all good to be against something so long as you are just paying lip service (suggest you think this thing here is "unnecessary" while supporting its general meaning with constant statements that flat say you believe it), but the reality is his support of 1 man/1 woman "Tradiational" marriage helped the thing pass.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread. I was against it and stated flatly so in 2008... I didn't say that "marriage is between one man and one woman" repeatedly then say the Prop was "unnecessary".

It's not accurate. Obama PUBLICLY OPPOSED Proposition 8.

http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It has nothing to with the topic. It is taken out of context and misrepresented. Again, how did firing Eich forcibly interfere with his rights?




http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/foaagd.html

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION


Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the expense of other people's rights by laws at any level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.


We support repealing any such laws rather than extending them to all individuals.


Discrimination imposed by government has caused a multitude of problems. Anti-discrimination laws create the same problems. While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.


The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of this right depends upon mutual consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#Libertarian

All the others were SPECIFICALLY related to the topic.



I have not refused to discuss them. That's what you are advocating, is for a law forcing people to associate.





See above.




I have not ignored your out of context quote. I have asked you to demonstrate how it applies several times and you have done nothing but run away from that request.

How did firing Eich forcibly interfere with his rights? What right? How can Mozilla be prohibited from firing him without violating their rights?

How did him staying as CEO affect the companies ability to their job?

 

[maineman]

unless you were an employee of that company, how could you possibly judge that?

 

[Teflon Don]

How did him staying as CEO affect the companies ability to their job?

It doesn't but that doesn't matter to the 1%

In fact queers aren't even discriminated against but they want to make up victim hood.

I hope there is a drug shortage of all AIDS drugs

 

[J Craft]

Yeah because aids drugs are only used for "queers". Seriously twisted thinking

 

[Airstrip One]

I actually didn't know that Newt had commented on this, and I'm actually a registered Republican who doesn't pretend to be libertarian (although I did vote for Gary Johnson and caucused for Ron Paul, WOOT!!).

 

[StormX]

LOL

 

[Timshel]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...erty-university-fire-openly-gay-choreographer

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera is demanding the notoriously anti-gay Liberty University fire theatre artist Geoffrey Goldberg, who was hired to choreograph the school’s production of Mary Poppins, because he is gay. On Voice of Christian Youth America’s Tuesday edition of Crosstalk, LaBarbera and host Vic Eliason ganged up on Liberty University and demanded Goldberg’s ouster.


Liberty University has responded to news reports by saying that Goldberg is an “independent contractor supplied to the university through a third-party association who has never been employed or applied for employment” at the school.


LaBarbera name-dropped fellow anti-gay activists at Liberty including Mat Staver, Matt Barber and Rena Lindevaldsen, and urged the school to “do the right thing” and part ways with Goldberg. He even demanded Liberty and other universities refuse to allow “open homosexual advocates as students” and called on Grove City College to fire professor Warren Throckmorton over his criticism of ex-gay therapy and anti-gay laws in countries like Uganda.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/l...rapher-assisting-in-campus-production-117576/

"For decades, Liberty University has hired only faculty members who affirm the university's doctrinal statement," reads a statement from the Lynchburg, Va., school...

 

[StormX]

[h=1]Why Hillary Clinton can’t be president of Mozilla or the United States[/h]

No position on a major issue can be truly Clintonian without a certain amount of doublespeak, and Hillary’s gay marriage stance was very Clintonian.


Asked about her opposition to gay marriage in 2007, she said,”I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions.” Clinton told the YearlyKos Convention that her continued support for the Defense of Marriage Act was an elaborate ruse to stop the federal marriage amendment, which by then stood no realistic chance of passing. “I believe marriage should be left to the states,” Clinton said, by way of touting the pro-gay marriage effects of the Defense of Marriage Act. “I support civil unions as I’ve said many times with full equality of benefits and so I think that DOMA appropriately put the responsibility in the states where it has historically belonged and I think you’re beginning to see states take action.”


California had domestic partnerships with “full equality of benefits” at the time Eich donated in support of Prop 8. Gay activist Ethan Leto defended Clinton by saying, “In the 2008 cycle, I don’t think any candidate can come out and say, ‘I am for gay marriage.’”


Hillary Clinton finally announced her support for gay marriage a little less than a year after Obama. You might argue that it is unfair to disqualify her from the presidency based on a position she used to take. She’s evolved, matured, grown.


But nobody bothered to ask if Eich had evolved before he got canned. They just looked at his 2008 contribution on a Los Angeles Times database. As Slate’s William Saletan pointed out, he was far from alone.


Most of the people in that database have less power than Hillary Clinton did circa 2008. Justice delayed is really justice denied.


Do we live in what 2008 Democratic gay marriage opponent John Edwards described as Two Americas? In one America, you can oppose gay marriage and get to be president of the United States. In the other, gay marriage opponents can’t even be president of a company competing with Internet Explorer. In one America, you don’t have to support gay marriage until 65 percent of the voters in your party do. In the other, you can’t donate to a ballot initiative that had 70 percent support among Obama’s strongest voting bloc.


So let’s give Hillary Clinton the Eich treatment. After all, she’s not going to stand up for you until it involves absolutely no political risk. Why stand up for her in the new America, where people on the losing side of political debates are supposed to lose their jobs?

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/04/w...f-mozilla-or-the-united-states/#ixzz2yWvWSMm3




If it wasn't for double standards, democrats would have no standards at all.
​

​