Print

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

[BlindKitty]

2. I think that person should be allowed to do whatever they want. I don't understand so-called anti-discrimination laws, that lead to crazy results. If a business owner doesn't want to hire black people, or Polish people, or women, or whoever else, nobody should force him to do that. But you can stop buying there, if you don't like it. That's simple and effective way to make everybody happy, because if somebody is unacceptable to other people, he will be driven out of business. Why make government intervene*?

*Mind you, government itself might need some form of such laws (see: slave states). It's just that I don't really see the difference between prosecuting racists and members of a race. Let live and let live, and hang the criminals.

Because so many businesses are effectively extensions of the government; like all the communications monopolies Cable/Telephone/TV Stations; companies that do business with the government (janitorial/printing/construction contractors, etc); or businesses that the govt. and those companies depend on indirectly, such as restaurants their employees eat at.

See, there's your problem. Cut the government, and you will solve so many problems at once...

[Sheb]

Have you looked into Chromium? It's basically the open-source version of Chrome. Some of its derivative (like Epic Browser) seems cool too. Still, I guess I'll stay with Firefox for now, I like my add-ons too much.

[Cheeetar]

I don't think a program can be anti-gay.

I'm envisaging some sort of ultra advanced browsing history analytical thing that locks you out if you spend too much time looking at pictures of well oiled abs.

[Sheb]

What's wrong with watching the Turkish national sport?


((Seriously, not only do they wrestle covered in oil wearing nothing but leather pants, you actually win by getting your hands in the other guys' pants))

[Cheeetar]

you win by getting your hands in the other guys' pants

And while playing the sport, I assume.

[Sheb]

Well, yeah, just like you can't win a football match by going on the field at night and scoring goal against no opponents....

[Mictlantecuhtli]

What's wrong with watching the Turkish national sport?


((Seriously, not only do they wrestle covered in oil wearing nothing but leather pants, you actually win by getting your hands in the other guys' pants))

This stuff is actually kinda impressive. Looks damn hard.

[kaenneth]

Well, he's a new "Corporation being bullied by the internet" story...

Chili's cancels fundraiser with National Autism Association

(misleading quote) "Everybody was all heated up and wanting to boycott. It was bullying. It was orchestrated by a small number of people who wanted to deny assistance to families that we serve through our program."

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/07/news/companies/chilis-autism/index.html

[lemon10]

Chili's on Monday canceled a fundraiser with the National Autism Association, a group that links autism to vaccinations.

This is completely fair. Groups that try to link vaccines to autism are horrible and are anti-science/medicine/progress. They are killing people because of their stupidity.
They are a legitimate charity though. And they do help people with autism, but I still find what they are espousing (eg. Don't have your child get a vaccine that can save his/her life) terrible and unsupportable.

[Putnam]

http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

[GlyphGryph]

Well, he's a new "Corporation being bullied by the internet" story...

Chili's cancels fundraiser with National Autism Association

(misleading quote) "Everybody was all heated up and wanting to boycott. It was bullying. It was orchestrated by a small number of people who wanted to deny assistance to families that we serve through our program."

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/07/news/companies/chilis-autism/index.html

Taking action against a company because of the company's policy  is exactly the sort of thing every single person in this thread has been totally cool with. So not... really relevant at all to the contentious issue previously being discussed.

It's the difference between pro-life folks boycotting a company because it advocates abortion, and between them boycotting a company because the CEO once had an abortion.

Though too be honest, I could totally see a bunch of conservative assholes boycotting a charity because the CEO once had an abortion. -_-

[Leafsnail]

Chili's cancels fundraiser with National Autism Association

Good.

Though too be honest, I could totally see a bunch of conservative assholes boycotting a charity because the CEO once had an abortion. -_-

This analogy is very clearly invalid.  It would have to be the CEO making a donation to a pro-abortion cause for it to be comparable, which I don't think is too ridiculous a situation.

[GlyphGryph]

Though too be honest, I could totally see a bunch of conservative assholes boycotting a charity because the CEO once had an abortion. -_-

This analogy is very clearly invalid.  It would have to be the CEO making a donation to a pro-abortion cause for it to be comparable, which I don't think is too ridiculous a situation.

Whatever, same difference. Go with whichever you prefer. The point is "CEO once did a thing we think is wrong, so we need to make sure that this organization suffers for employing them", the details are relatively unimportant.

[Graknorke]

It would have to be the CEO making a donation to a pro-abortion cause for it to be comparable, which I don't think is too ridiculous a situation.

Which is where our opinions differ. Has that been established now?

[Glowcat]

Whatever, same difference. Go with whichever you prefer. The point is "CEO once did a thing we think is wrong, so we need to make sure that this organization suffers for employing them", the details are relatively unimportant.

You realize the terms to that are so broad that your argument works against anything like, oh to go extreme, murder, and other things I'm pretty sure nobody would have issue boycotting against, right? Would anybody seriously have an issue if people wanted to boycott Mozilla for hiring Charles Manson as their CEO?

But yes, they could boycott a female CEO who had an abortion once, but they wouldn't be horrible people for attempting to get political change via boycotting... they'd be horrible people for victimizing a woman based on her choice of bodily autonomy. They'd be horrible for supporting such an ignorant yet harmful view. There are plenty of reasons they'd be horrible people but boycotting a business based on their CEO appointment decision due to personal actions that person has taken which they find morally appalling wouldn't be one of them.