Which is not a defense of the actions in Nevada - at best it is yet another indictment of the NYPD (and LAPD, and...)
none of which were brandished by the protesters, let alone used in a threatening manner.
Bullshit, unless you're going to claim the photos going around of not merely brandished but aimed weapons were staged.
Are you terrified because they don't share your ideology, or what?
Terrified that they've decided to toss the rule of law out the door and point guns at people to get their way.
The Dust Bowl was caused by a trifecta of over-farming, monoculture (wheat), and a massive drought - not grazing. It was also caused by activities performed primarily on private land, so the comparison is invalid on two fronts. Methinks you're reaching too much for hyperbole to support an otherwise somewhat valid point.
I don't see how it's hyperbole.
lso, why does the federal government have to supply this management, instead of by the state whose borders encompass the land in question
Because it's land held by the Federal Government. I'm sure Nevada could offer to purchase it.
But look at Nevada, a 1,000 man militia. Probably the first time a battalion size militia has been active in the U.S.
Terrifying. Unaccountable quasi-military organizations that tend to be high on ideology and low on reason. What happens if they were to try and pull the same shit to enforce their own rules (like they effectively did here) beyond just allowing a freeloader to not pay for grazing rights? These guys scream about "liberty" all the time but, down the line, they're either anarchist or authoritarian.
But one can also argue the Feds enacted unethical policies and mis-used laws, in an abusive way.
Hardly. Managing land to keep it from being destroyed like it was during the Dust Bowl is important and costs money. Otherwise we end up with a Tragedy of the Commons and the land is left in ruins, grazed down to barren earth.
The point of the Second Amendment is for those times when what is legal (or what is illegal) is WRONG!!!!!
Or you think it's wrong but your rationalizations are arbitrary and capricious, and somehow you use that to justify murdering people (or at least threatening to.)
Apple tried to save us from an Amazon monopoly and failed.
Hahaha! No they didn't. They tried to insulate themselves and their profits from having to compete with Amazon. It had nothing to do with "saving us" at all. Amazing how quickly fanboys will rewrite history for the sake of their favorite corporation, no matter how evil they're shown to be.
They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported.
That the majority supported it is meaningless. Eich put money behind an initiative that sought to deny equal rights to a subset of the citizens of this country, and for no legitimate reason.
They could have championed free speech instead.
No, the man fell on his own sword. It was not Mozilla's to fall on and he recognized that.
Knowing that Mozilla is now a "social justice" organization, who would trust their software?
I see comments like this one cropping up constantly, and it is at best deliberate misrepresentation.
They could be cataloging everyone's surfing habits in order to use it against them later.
Or given that Mozilla is open source, you could go check for such behavior. Or even sniff packets coming out of Firefox and check.
Or you could just be stupidly paranoid because people got up in arms that Mozilla was now being led by someone who backed a regressive, short-sighted politician and a lie filled campaign that ran on misinformation.
They deserve a backlash.
No they don't. We, as a nation, need to look at what equality means and realize that while Eich is forced to leave office, you still have politicians in states like Arizona and Mississippi still trying to protect discriminatory behavior towards gays.
The issue has nothing to do with gitmo.
You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with gitmo - we can tell, because your "side" was dead silent when gitmo was established.
Nor the fact that he's a man, or that he is Black.
Not that he's a man, but for far too many it is because he's black.
The real issue here is the massive deficit that we now have
That was massive, but hidden, before he was in office. And the fact that there are lots of extremely rich people in this country who endeavor to pay far less, as a percentage, in taxes than they should.
that was called unamerican when it was half as big
We would love to do something about it but a certain party has decided to play obstructionist.
also the issues we have with drone warefare on americans without trial
If your points were salient or rational I'm sure you'd find you have more allies on these issues.
and also obamacare
Which sucks because the GOP forced it to suck.
Yet We get called racists for that statement I just made all the time....
If you're being called racist, it's probably because you're saying stupid, racist shit. Or spouting off in an irrational and incoherent manner that is indistinguishable from "I hate him cause he's black" rather than resembling a valid, well constructed argument.
And that differs from same-sex marriage... how?
Because presumably gays do not choose to be gay. Gun owners choose to be gun owners.
I'll tell you a little secret... not all heterosexuals want to get married... nor do all marry... ditto for homosexuals.
While being straight or gay may not be a choice... marrying is... ditto for firearm ownership... or are you implying that cracking down on one ok... but not permitting the other the other a denial of a right?
Irrelevant. All of it.
Clearly you've an reading comprehension issue or lack a sufficient attention span, if you read the thread, you'd see he was responding to someone who asked:
I don't know, are the Democrats supporting reprehensible legislation that places a segment of society beneath others for arbitrary and ill defined reasons?
'Gun owners' is a answer to that question...
No it isn't. Gun laws impact all people in the country equally. Prop 8 and similar laws impose an explicit and unjustified inequality on the execution of marriage laws.
you know, the fact that Democrats support 'reprehensible' legislation
Reprehensible? Like what? Most of what I've seen in terms of gun legislation is idiotic and poorly thought out, but hardly "reprehensible" on the level of Prop 8. Even less of it has been implemented, compared to Prop 8 style laws and DOMA.
If they were able to legally get the list of Prop 8 backers, then so be it. Your contribution was not private or anonymous. Don't forget that he also publicly donated MORE to the campaign of an anti-gay politician.
Additionally, this isn't a reprisal. This is criticizing the appointment of someone whose public donations show his stance on matters of equality. A reprisal would be a corporation searching the list for supporters and systematically firing them - which is not what happened here.
Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.
A gun owner does so optionally.
What exactly is your issue with that?
...other than an inability to respond.
Because he made no argument. He just spouted off "gun owners" as if it was in any way equivalent.
By virtue of you labeling it a "nonsensical argument"... it's safe to say that you are intolerant of it.
I am tolerant of the point being made, evidenced by the fact that I don't demand that you be silenced. I reject your argument on the grounds that it is unsound and an attempt to falsely equate people criticizing someone for taking an oppressive stance with that same oppressive stance. No one is attempting to silence him, but they are saying, very loudly, that he is unfit to both hold those views and be CEO of Mozilla.
they acted in a mob fashion
So large numbers of people independently standing up and criticizing the decision is acting like a mob? Or are you just stunned by the fact that so many people were willing to voice their opinion?
I'd wager... we could find plenty of others who would meet such a definition... hell, the current President was elected with similar views, seeing marriage as between one man and one women... is he then unfit for office because of his views?
The people who were opposed to Obama for his lack of support for gay marriage in 2008 were obviously outnumbered by everyone else. Not necessarily by those who supported those views, but those who were indifferent or thought other things mattered more. There are enough differences between appointment of a CEO and election of a President that I think this is an unhelpful comparison.
his appointment was an act of tolerance
No, this is feeding into the "tolerant of intolerance" nonsense.
Some of us are able to separate our personal and professional lives you know, maybe he, unlike you is able to do that.
Given his relative lack of power over Mozilla's non-technical policies and short term as CEO, we'll never know if this is true. And you can't claim shit about me, frankly, so stop trying.
Correct, it wasn't false equivalence. It was broad-brush stereotyping and pigeonholing. You're engaging in false equivalence by suggesting that criticism of and opposition to Eich is bigotry.
The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Cite what? What have the people opposed to Eich done in voicing their opposition to his being appointed CEO, that is in any way equivalent to pushing laws that specifically bias against a segment of society for specious reasons?
Gun owners in this country have to deal daily with existing and proposed new laws that seek to criminalize their usually safe and lawful behavior...?
Gun owners choose to be gun owners - and while I will happily agree with you that a great many gun control laws are shit as written and ineffectual, to try and push the "plight" of gun owners as equivalent is farcical. Unless you're going to also argue that people who are gay choose to be gay, in which case you're wandering down a very dark rat hole.
You mean... like the anti-Prop 8 folks and other bigots such as yourself who were so outraged with a person like Eich at the top and will accept nothing less than his removal, but forgive others who have done far worse and in higher positions?
First off, criticizing Eich's position is not bigotry (otherwise criticizing any such position would be bigotry, and down that path lies madness) and criticizing Mozilla for appointing him is not bigotry.
This presumes two things:
1. That Eich should be left alone because no one is arguing against others doing worse. This does not follow because Eich's actions are independent of others.
2. That no one is arguing against those others who do worse. A great many people spend every day campaigning and opposing those who they think do terrible things.
Don't talk to be about trying to shut down debate when you try to engage in the exact same kind of rhetoric you accuse me of.
No, I do not engage in the type of rhetoric you do. I do not attempt to deliberately construe criticism of someone's position as bigotry. I also don't deliberately construe your argument against me as bigotry or intolerance, I simply point out that it is hollow and banks on a number of irrational points, including pigeonholing, attacking stereotypes, and false equivalence.
That's pretty funny, right there. Get back to me when you decide to actually construct an argument.
Correctly, and your intolerance of it demonstrates the need for people to educate you.
Intolerance of what, exactly? A bad argument? Am I supposed to simply accept your argument without question, and any attempt to rebuttal it is simply "intolerance?"
You really need to look up the definitions of the words you are using.
From bigotry & bigot respectively:
1: the state of mind of a bigot
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Really? You're going to try and argue that people are being bigots because they're opposed to the appointment as CEO of a man who is known to have supported politicians and campaigns centered around denying equal rights being made CEO of an organization whose philosophies are antithetical to such a stance? You're not presenting a convincing argument here.
In addition to your not knowing the meaning of the word 'bigotry'... you clearly also do not understand the definition of the word hypocrisy, allow me to assist again:
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2: an act or instance of hypocrisy
Unless Brendan Eich went out and got married to someone of the same sex... I'm quite unclear as to how he meets that description.
The appointment of Eich to CEO was hypocrisy, as it put someone known to support intolerant views in charge of an organization defined by its tolerance and acceptance. It could also be argued that Eich was a hypocrite for accepting the position, there's no way he could claim ignorance of how opposite his beliefs and those of Mozilla as an organization are.
this is the hypocrisy we usually see from the left who will scream: "____ is bad!!!"
... except for when they do it. in this case, ____ == blacklisting.
False equivalence. The people opposed to Eich here (whom you casually pigeonhole as the "left") have done nothing to the degree that the supporters of Prop 8 and similar laws across the country.
Until you can address the above two points, I'm not going to waste more time replying to someone who clearly does not have their head on straight.
Condescending and insulting. A masterful attempt at shutting down debate.
They were criticizing Mozilla for hiring a man whose personal opinions they don't like.
Just the same. Mozilla's board felt he was the best person for the job, and a great many people disagreed.
But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
This line is bullshit. They did not attempt to silence him, they opposed his being appointed CEO. Please stop trying to equate the protests as an attempt at censorship, because it's not.
Marriage is not a right. For anyone.
Actually it is. That we apply legal benefits to it makes it even more apparent that if it is to be denied to anyone, there needs to be a damn good reason to deny it. Eich's side of the issue has never delivered such a reason.
I see both sides of the issue have valid arguments
The Prop 8 side never had a valid argument. They relied entirely on emotion, fear, and bigotry.
booting somebody out of an organization for having a different political opinion does not speak of a "culture of openness."
Eich's beliefs lie in opposition to a "culture of openness," and while he was free to work within the organization he was a poor, poor choice for the most public face of Mozilla. He also wasn't "booted," he stepped down because he realized that the furor would only damage Mozilla.
It's open and inclusive until you vote in a way we don't like. Wow.
If there's one thing I've learned over the past few days, it's that critical thinking is a weak point among a great many Slashdot posters.