To further the point, the placebo effect is at work even when you take medication with an active ingredient.

Pain reduction, for instance, occurs much faster than is possible by purely chemical effects when you take a tylenol. I've heard up to 40% of the painkilling effect is placebo, and it happens moments after you take the pill. You're anticipating relief from the drug, and so your brain helps things along.

Homeopathy is garbage, and it should be treated exactly as the Australian government is treating it. But it's worth noting that a lot of these people DO have noticeable health benefits from being in contact with a homeopath. But homeopaths take time to talk to their patients and understand what the problem is, and sometimes that in and of itself is of benefit. On top of the vials of water, many of these homeopaths will make dietary and lifestyle recommendations that a regular doctor might not consider at first. Going for a doctor's appointment and feeling ignored doesn't increase one's sense of well-being.

What we should really be doing is providing more layers to our healthcare systems that centre less around overworked doctors prescribing medication, and more around trained health professionals (nurses, nutritionists, etc.) that can take some time and help you figure out what your trouble is and whether you really need to see a doctor, or if maybe you just need to cut things out of your diet or walk more or whatever.

First of all, that was probably a statement of opinion.

But looking at it critically, it may be a statement of opinion based on the fact that as a CEO, his credibility was damaged, and that's a major impediment to his actual ability to do his job. If the employees of the company hold him in low regard, he'll have a hard time motivating them or retaining them. In a year, he may well have been forced to resign for being unable to successfully fulfil his CEO duties, entirely because of this somewhat intangible quality.

Or, look at it this way: Steve Jobs was a great CEO not because he was an amazing engineer, but because he was inspiring to his workers as well as being an interesting and popular public figure. His ability to deliver on his responsibilities as CEO were based almost entirely on his personality. Eich was starting at a bad place, and it was going to be much harder for him to move forward.

I'd argue that it was more about the straight allies of the LGBT community than the LGBT community themselves. OKCupid is run by straight dudes, and they're not a front for any LGBT organisation that I know of.

This was a delightfully broad-based protest, not stemming from any group in particular.

It is, in fact, why I find it so absolutely irritating that bloggers keep going on about how 'damaging' this is to 'free speech'. This was free speech WORKING. This was a whole bunch of people speaking out and saying that it's no more acceptable for CEOs to hold this kind of opinion on equal marriage as it would be for them to hold a similar opinion on interracial marriage.

There's no outrage because he's changed his position (or, possibly, as other commenters have said, he had that position all along and merely claimed he was against equal marriage because that was the political thing to do).

Eich was given the opportunity to recant, but he didn't, strongly implying that this is still the thing that he believes.

I do believe he can think what he wants. He can vote the way he wants and he can donate money to what he wants. What he DOESN'T get is a life absent from scrutiny and consequence for his beliefs. We are all held to account eventually for what we believe in.

He has had no rights trampled upon. He thought a thing, and other people find that thing offensive. As a result, they decided that they didn't want to associate themselves with something that he was involved in. Eventually, the company that employed him decided that the number of people making a free choice based on information that is true was detrimental to their direction and bottom line.

If anything, this is a remarkable example of how our system works well. The government didn't need to intercede. Nobody was hurt. People made their opinions known and all they had to do was turn their back on a particular product. I'm not sure where all the outrage is coming from. This is how capitalism was supposed to go. This may be the least corrupt example of how capitalism works that I've ever seen in my life.

Well, in point of fact, it's likely you don't believe in democracy either. I'm not aware of a true functioning democracy in the world today. (That doesn't mean one doesn't exist; merely that I'm not aware of it.)

The USA is a republic. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. These things are forms of representative government, but they're not democracy per se. We have a vote, but we don't vote on every bill; those things filter through a proxy.

And the reason these things filter through a proxy is precisely to avoid tyranny of the majority. Majority opinions can be dangerous, and we've seen that time and time again through history. The subjugation of minorities isn't something that's hard to find in the history of any western democracy.

I don't believe in firing people for having opinions, as such. He donated money to a cause that sought to remove rights from people. It doesn't matter the group of people that was aimed at, I find such an action deplorable and wrong as a matter of justice. At the centre of our law is the equal treatment of all people. I really just can't abide anyone that swims against that tide.

It is not 'intolerant' to hold people account for their beliefs that some people deserve more rights than others. I don't give a free pass to racists, and I won't give a free pass to him.

The birthrate for gay couples is exactly the same as the birthrate for my marriage, which is zero. It's not a relevant complaint.

Marriage is about a lot more than children, now. It's about stable communities and social structures. I think we could do without government approval for our personal relationships (we can make wills, living wills, etc.), but as long as the government thinks that it's in the business of approving who we spend our lives with, it cannot discriminate against any group of people.

I'd argue that heterosexuals haven't had the best track record of giving back into the system, either. Dysfunctional marriages abound, and at this point, the vast majority of them are obviously hetero.

I'm not convinced you know what the benefits of marriage are, in any case. What do you think straight couples are giving to society (other than procreation, which does not list among its requirements a marriage license) that gay couples aren't?

Unlike him, I haven't contributed to any organisations that seek to remove anyone's rights, and certainly not HIS rights.

I don't have to support him or any company that he's the head of. He can have his opinions, but I'm not obligated to think Mozilla is wonderful no matter what.

There's a big difference between holding an opinion and trying to have your opinion written into law. I'm sure there are homophobes and bigots working at the company that I'm at. (In fact, I practically guarantee it.)

I don't think that people that hold those views should be in positions of authority. It gives the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the company tacitly supports his beliefs.

How many non-CEOs have you seen fired from their jobs because they've done something publicly embarrassing to the company that they work for? I don't see how a CEO should be above that. He's a lightning-rod for criticism (criticism that I think he deserves) and it's a distraction to the goals of Mozilla. Additionally, the LGBT people that work there are reportedly uncomfortable with someone like that heading the company, and I think it should be understandable why. His donation indicates that he thinks those people are second-class citizens--that they don't deserve the same full spectrum of rights that he does.

This is no different from someone donating to anti-civil-rights measures leading a company. I don't see why it's such a stretch to hold racists and homophobes to account for their opinions and actions. They're untenable positions and I won't support them.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's humanity's greatest monster, or that he's sub-human. I just don't think you should be able to walk around with abhorrent views like that and expect everyone to still venerate you as a great person.

All right, what if he tried to have legislation passed that restricted the rights of blacks to vote?

There's a difference between having an opinion and trying to have it written into law. It's substantial. It's the same reason we don't elect people that hold views like that.

Wait, so you think couples that are sterile or very old shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

If you disagree with that statement, you're actually just an asshole, you're not a libertarian. Marriage is a social construct that has very little to do with raising children in this day and age. I'm married, and we have no plans to have children ever. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I agree that the government should have no say in who I have a relationship with, but as long as they do, they're obligated to apply their rules fairly across all groups of people, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, orientation, gender, etc.

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as I recall. https://www.afer.org/blog/14-s...

Whether this is philosophically true or not, it's true in the context of the US legal system. I think it's a fundamental human right to associate with and make a family with whomever you please. If the government provides benefits, privileges and rights associated with marriage, it's a right to receive those, regardless of who you chose to marry.

How can he file a defamation lawsuit? The thing that OKCupid said WASN'T A LIE.

Defamation requires a FALSE statement. He donated the money. It's HIS FAULT that he's a homophobe that wants to deny other people's rights. He didn't apologise for past behaviour, or seek to remedy it.

His opinion is his own, but he tried to have his opinion written into law, which isn't okay with me when it runs contrary to fundamental human rights. You can't deny a segment of the population rights and privileges just because they were born a certain way.

He can't win shit. He has no business feeling angry at anyone other than himself.

It's not a meaningful equivalence because you're making the mistake of believing that marrying people of the opposite sex is what straight people want to do. It just so happens that the people that they WANT to marry are of the opposite sex. LGBT people want to be afforded the same right to CHOOSE their own partner, not just marry any random other-sex person.

My problem with Eich isn't that he has an opinion, but that he's trying to have his opinion made law. He doesn't have to believe in equal marriage--that is, he doesn't have to get one if he doesn't want one--but to have people's rights taken away because he thinks it's icky isn't okay. By donating money to an organisation that was trying to make what is perhaps a deeply held religious belief into law, he's crossed the line between having an opinion and explicitly wanting to deny people rights.