Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

That was true with original copyright law. Back when it was created, it lasted for only a few years. The idea being "you will have time to make money before this goes into public domain. Unfortunately, corporations have twisted that idea into "we own this idea now and forever, and any who want to use it must pay us even if they thought it up themselves, and even if its creator died nearly a century ago." Which corporations pushed into the law.

As for Paul:
What else could 'private property rights on the internet' possible mean? It's a euphemism for copyright law. You don't own a car on the internet. You don't own land on the internet. Unless he's talking about swords in your MMO, which I highly doubt, he is talking specifically about copyright laws. Hell, just the sheer fact that he does not rail against the dangers of the overly strict copyright law shows he is for it; you can't simply ignore something of that magnitude in a document about internet "freedom" unless you are actively supporting it!

[ggamer]

Pretty soon we'll have two economies, the gay-friendly economy, and the gay-hating economy.

Ed Brayton tends to update this post every year. It gets longer every time.

    “So, what a smart consumer should do is take a look at the Human Rights Campaign workplace scorecard for corporations and just go to the opposite places,” the AFTAH president suggests. “Go to the place with the lower ranking.”

I totally agree with him. Bigots should avoid all of the companies that score well in their treatment of gay people. And then they’ll have to become Amish because they won’t be able to drive a car, go to a bank, eat almost anything or buy any clothes. Here’s an old post I wrote about how to avoid advancing the gay agenda:

You can’t fly on American Airlines or US Airways, both of which scored a perfect 100. You might also want to avoid United, Southwest, Delta, Northwest, Continental and JetBlue; all scored above 80. Who can you fly? Well, you could try Nepal Airlines, the faith-based airline that sacrifices goats to appease God. On second thought, that won’t work either. Nepal Airlines has two planes, both of them made by Boeing; Boeing got a perfect 100 too. Go Greyhound!

In fact, you might want to start boycotting the military too. Most of the major defense contractors scored very well. Honeywell, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman all scored a perfect 100. Lockheed got an 85. Who would have guessed that our good ol’ red-blooded and (presumably) straight American fighting men are using weapons that advance the gay agenda? If they don’t ask, we won’t tell.

Shopping could be a problem too. You can’t shop at Abercrombie and Fitch, The Gap, JC Penney’s, Macy’s, or Nordstroms. Can’t wear Levis jeans or Nike shoes. And even that staple of middle American fashion, LL Bean, scored a 79. Ah well, there’s always K-Mart. And in a pinch, you can always wear a plain white sheet.

It goes on for quite a while from there.

Why is it that people can go on and on about companies that support homosexuality, downplaying it so much, but when Chick-Fil-a founder says he doesn't support homosexuality, everyone goes omg truett cathy spends like gajillions of dollars trying to stop teh gays he is so evil omg.

I am also dumbfounded why people get so up in arms about Google supporting gay rights. It's a personal choice of the founder to devote his company's resources that way, I'm not boycotting google because of that.

Basically, it's a business owner's own... well, business if s/he wants to support or go against anything. I could really care less.

[kaijyuu]

A) It depends what the company's doing with their money. Many donate to various things for publicity reasons; that includes gay and anti-gay organizations.

B) The CEO (and founder, and whatever) represents their company. Of course they aren't their company, but what they do and say reflects on it. You can argue that's unfair and generalizing (which I'll agree with somewhat), but it's not a horrible argument to think that if a CEO supports or is against something, their company's actions will likely reflect that.

[Bauglir]

Additionally, remember that we are capitalists. The company isn't entitled to continued business at any point, and any reason people consider good enough to use the competition is good enough for the system. It's mostly unfair to the employees, really, who would be harmed by a failure of the business through no fault of their own.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why is it that people can go on and on about companies that support homosexuality, downplaying it so much, but when Chick-Fil-a founder says he doesn't support homosexuality, everyone goes omg truett cathy spends like gajillions of dollars trying to stop teh gays he is so evil omg.

Because people are free to judge the actions of others. I have looked upon the standards of Chik-Fil-A, and I find them lacking. Lots of other people do as well. And so, in the course of supporting human rights, I and many others don't support Chik-Fil-A.

I am also dumbfounded why people get so up in arms about Google supporting gay rights. It's a personal choice of the founder to devote his company's resources that way, I'm not boycotting google because of that.

Good for you, then.

[Sirus]

I have never eaten at or even seen a Chik-Fil-A. I don't think they have any in my neck of the woods.

[Jervill]

Chik-Fil-A is a southeastern U.S. based company, and consider yourself lucky Sirus, their food is absolute garbage.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The only two story Chik-Fil-A in the world opened five minutes from my high school. I've never gone there and never will.

[Sirus]

All I'm saying is that any decision of mine to boycott them or not is null, because they wouldn't be getting my business anyway

[ggamer]

A) It depends what the company's doing with their money. Many donate to various things for publicity reasons; that includes gay and anti-gay organizations.

B) The CEO (and founder, and whatever) represents their company. Of course they aren't their company, but what they do and say reflects on it. You can argue that's unfair and generalizing (which I'll agree with somewhat), but it's not a horrible argument to think that if a CEO supports or is against something, their company's actions will likely reflect that.

What, do you think if a gay man walks into chick-fil-a he'll get shot? Or even refused service? No, the only thing he'll be losing is pride, for eating at a chain that thinks homosexuality is wrong.

Like I said, a company's views will usually not affect my patronage there.

Now that I think about it, to steer the subject around, why would you even make your stance known? It would probably be a better business move. Plus, If I owned a company I don't think I would make that thing known, I wouldn't want my personal stance on that to ruin my business.

Why is it that people can go on and on about companies that support homosexuality, downplaying it so much, but when Chick-Fil-a founder says he doesn't support homosexuality, everyone goes omg truett cathy spends like gajillions of dollars trying to stop teh gays he is so evil omg.

Because people are free to judge the actions of others. I have looked upon the standards of Chik-Fil-A, and I find them lacking. Lots of other people do as well. And so, in the course of supporting human rights, I and many others don't support Chik-Fil-A.

I am also dumbfounded why people get so up in arms about Google supporting gay rights. It's a personal choice of the founder to devote his company's resources that way, I'm not boycotting google because of that.

Good for you, then.

Suppor- huh? Since when is Truett Cathy being a poor businessman considered a violation of human rights?

When did homosexuality become a matter of human rights anyway? It's not like a gay man is in any danger, unless he goes to the deepest, most secluded parts of lower pittsburgh or the south. And even then those types of people are against blatant homosexuality, they aren't going to fucking quiz you the second they see you about how gay you are.

Basically, when people who like one type of music look down on somebody who likes another type, is it considered a human rights violation? If that person then looks down at the other person and says "Man, you are so fuckin' dumb for liking that kind of music.", Is the UN going to bust out sanctions? No, it's considered somebody being thick for being so offended by personal choice.

Chik-Fil-A is a southeastern U.S. based company, and consider yourself lucky Sirus, their food is absolute garbage.

Bro, have you ever eaten at a chick-fil-a? Best damn fast food in the south, not terrible at all. Great food for fast food, especially when you have to deal with taco bell.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Like I said, a company's views will usually not affect my patronage there.

So if a company was based in Saudi Arabia but had stores in the US and used their funds to lobby the King to, for example, hunt down and execute underground Christians, that wouldn't matter to you?

When did homosexuality become a matter of human rights anyway?

When homosexuals were denied equal rights to heterosexuals in the United States. Until 2003 sodomy laws were enforced in most US states. Until 1993 homosexuals couldn't serve in the military and until 2011 they couldn't serve openly, which is effectively the same restriction. Homosexuals still can't marry in most of the Union, nor are they protected from employment discrimination. Gay couples adopting children is in a more complicated legal state, but far from desirable nonetheless. Ex-gay camps using horrific and unscientific psychological practices to "fix" homosexuals are legal to send your children to.

And even then those types of people are against blatant homosexuality, they aren't going to fucking quiz you the second they see you about how gay you are.

How does that make a difference? What do you define as "blatent" homosexuality?

Bro, have you ever eaten at a chick-fil-a? Best damn fast food in the south, not terrible at all. Great food for fast food, especially when you have to deal with taco bell.

Yeah, you can really taste the suffering. But no, he's right, Chick-Fil-A is indeed some of the best fast food there is. It just so happens to also be evil.

[kaijyuu]

Mmm, evil. Tasty.

[Sirus]

MSH, you forgot how in many states, gay partnerships are also denied the same legal status are heterosexual marriage. Thus, a gay man's partner would not get visitation rights at a hospital while a straight man could visit his wife, for one example.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

MSH, you forgot how in many states, gay partnerships are also denied the same legal status are heterosexual marriage. Thus, a gay man's partner would not get visitation rights at a hospital while a straight man could visit his wife, for one example.

All the states, actually, as enforced by the Defense of Marriage Act. Knew I missed something.

[Frumple]

Inheritance issues, too, as one of the recent posts in one of these threads mentioned.

It's actually kinda' kinda' like gg said -- if we were discriminating like this because of musical preference it'd be goddamn insane and th'UN'd or someone'd be on that like flies on shit. Unfortunately some folks that don't consider homosexuality to be so trivial got a hold of the lawbooks and social norms and did some bullshit they probably could have just not have and left well enough alone.

Now a good chunk of th'population's trying to fix that mistake. Getting better, in starts and stops! Not there yet. Still work to be done.