Only for the first few generations, when inbreeding is common (think thoroughbred horses) the nasty recessive genes are filtered out over time.

Doesn't necessarily have to be that way, there are women who would like multiple husbands etc. Complicates child rearing responsibility a bit, but that's their choice.

I think a lot of people in the poly crowd would think that saying "being poly is bad for society" is very similar to when some people say "being gay is bad for society".

type "define crucify" into google, you will see aside from the first, literal meaning. 2. informal criticize (someone) severely and unrelentingly. "our fans would crucify us if we lost" synonyms: condemn, criticize severely, attack, tear apart, tear to pieces, censure, denounce, arraign, lambaste, pillory, carp at, cavil at, rail against, inveigh against, cast aspersions on, pour scorn on, disparage, denigrate, deprecate, malign, revile, vilify, besmirch, run down, give a bad press to; More

Chances are you knew the intent, purposefully misconstruing things to paint a different picture than intended can be a bit straw-man'ish.

Associative meaning is a thing

Bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

No matter what he believes, he can be tolerant of what you believe in. It is not a 'bigoted opinion' or 'bigoted cause' because no matter what he believes in he can be willing to tolerate your difference of opinion.

"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude."

Being tolerant to the intolerant may be the harder path, but it is the path to a civil society. From what I've seen of the man he seems quite tolerant, if only his detractors were so.

But that's exactly what the gay activists are doing. What about polygamous couples? They're still limited. "But marriage is between two people" .. sounds an awful lot like "but marriage is between a man and a woman". It limits the privilege. Unless you want it to be not limited at all (incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc) but I haven't heard anyone putting that forward.

Being married isn't a right, it's a privilege.

A privilege that gay activists seem to want without extending it past themselves to other groups who are excluded from it also.

How indirect do you want to go?

Talking butterfly effect kind of stuff here, we are all connected, we do not live in a closed system. You could do things that support them even without your knowledge. Would you look at what stock he's invested in and purposefully try to harm those companies through boycotts because purchasing from them would support him?

where do you draw the line?

So long as he doesn't bring it up at work, he gives you a job, you do the job. Politics and personal affairs stay at home. Not a problem.

"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."

A lot of people tend to consider discrimination the using of criteria irrelevant to the problem (like being a certain ethnicity/sex does not mean you are better/worse for the job.. except where it does, like the job of a prostitute catering to heterosexual men). The mans political views do not come into play at work, so he is being discriminated against unfairly.

A lot of slashdotters are problem solvers that really dislike problem criteria that are really quite irrelevant. Does the fact he personally supports homosexuals not being able to marry affect his technical management of a browser? Not really.

From another /. post

"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."

"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "

From another post on the topic.

"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."

"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "

Bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

He holds a different view to them, they were intolerant of his view, enough so to demand his dismissal over something entirely not work related and that had not affected his work in the slightest.

How is this not bigotry?

Liberal: 1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

I'm not sure if not respecting others differing opinions can come under "liberal" in fact I think it's quite the opposite.

Definition of bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

He could plenty well be tolerant of those who have different opinions than his own, he can think gay marriage shouldn't be a thing while respecting that others disagree.

Can you tell me where he said that nobody should be allowed to be gay? Or are you just making things up and assuming things?

Again, citation please? or is this another assumption?

It is rhetoric, because you know nothing at all about the situation and are trying to paint an extremely hateful image of a person simply from them thinking marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Did he say that? or are you assuming this again? It is quite possible to think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed while simultaneously harbouring no ill will towards homosexuals, not caring who couples with who but caring about marriage.

More like the bigoted (in the sense of not tolerating people with different views) left-wing hate machine found him when he took up a job with visibility.

You shouldn't assume so many things about him, when you do so you create a straw man.

There's a difference between not supporting a cause, and actively sabotaging unrelated things because of a persons political affiliation/beliefs.

One results in discussion and peaceful protest. The other results in "You can't work here because you campaigned for x" even if it's just a manufacturing job.

What happens when the latter gets the majority? Similar deal as to 'voluntary segregation' back in the old days, no need for laws to get their will done, those wielding the social power just make life difficult/impossible for anyone that doesn't agree with them.

If a left-wing person had everyone around them refuse to hire/work for them because of a political belief they hold, they'd cry murder. But when the tables are turned, it seems to be perfectly fine..

Where does this "right to be able to get married" come from? Here I thought it was a privilege, with conditions.

the definition of bigotry

"intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."

From other commenters here.

"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."

"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "

It is bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry, and pretty hypocritical at that.

Actually it speaks volumes. It's a thing of "get the job done, if niceties get in the way, prioritize the job over niceties" kind of thinking.

And it can function quite well, or not, depending on the situation.

I'm not sure whether I'd consider being willing to go the extra mile in competition adolescent or not, more.. determined.

Samsungs reaction here is the only sane one. When someone (apple) attacks you over trivial things like "implementing a latch in software" for big money while they are simultaneously using hardware you invented and patented for mere pennies.. that isn't exactly 'fair'.

Apple is the real shit-stirrer here, everybody was playing relatively nicely until they decided to fire the nukes at everyone in terms of software patents.

If apple is allowed to get away with their bullshit, who will be in the firing line next?

That software can even be patented at all is ridiculous.