You're right, actually. Your position is that people you don't like can lose their livelihood on a political whim. That's exactly the opposite of you yourself being in that position, which would be abominable, totally against all the laws of nature and the good ordering of society.
How....how bad are you at reading that you make this claim even when you respond to me saying "for example what if I was the one being boycotted" two paragraphs down?
Your position sets up two classes of people with two sets of rights, and the world is placed into one class or another based on your personal preferences. If that bothers you, stop arguing for it.
No, it sets up one class of people with one set of rights -- where they spend their money, and what they're willing to do for money.
Read the fucking thread. Either answer the objections to this fallacy, or stop committing it.
You keep calling it a fallacy, and yet your description of how it is a fallacy is usually to just repeat it.
First of all, the suggestion that lawfully engaging in an act of political advocacy by supporting a campaign that he, for whatever reason, believes in, is morally equivalent to killing babies is so off the mark,
Fine, suppose CEO Z likes clubbing baby seals. It doesn't really matter -- you're not going to get me to agree that supporting a campaign to remove basic human rights is morally good, or even neutral. You're not even claiming, as Brace and T-Form were able to, that it could be a tactical measure to ensure that rights are eventually recieved for all groups.
The right to support your political views is one that everyone has, and which everyone must support, or else give up.
And he still has exactly the same access to that speech as he did when he first made it. Viewing this as Eich
being silenced is the fallacy, as he's lost none of the means he used to make that statement.According to you
, the reason why his speech must be unassailable is that he didn't make it in his capacity as a representative of Mozilla -- that means you're also arguing that removing him from Mozilla does not prevent him from making the same statement
. It's ludicrous to argue that he's being "silenced" by removing a bullhorn you claim he would never use.
If you claim the right to engage in the boycott, then you are claiming the right to advocate for your political positions, and your chosen approach is to try to prevent other people from engaging in political advocacy.
Nope. That's a totally baseless interpretation. No one who participated in the boycott could reasonably have thought that Eich would no longer be able to vote or donate once removed.
What they thought, and what has, you know, actually happened, is that people using the product are no longer having their money go toward a cause and a person they abhor.
Therefore you are admitting that you do not believe in civil rights except for those you deem acceptable - which is exactly what you correctly accuse Eich of doing.
The right to murder is not one that anyone claims is held generally, or should be held generally, and it's not one that most people claim for themselves. The comparison fails, and your argument has completely shit the bed in the first sentence.
Well, you raise the whole "abortion rights" thing in the next paragraph, so I could make the point that, yes, the right to kill babies is
one that is claimed generally, but instead I'll just move onto what it was actually
an analogy for...
(WTF??? A boycott? Could you not call 911 and get the police in on the baby-killing CEO? Maybe make the calls to end the boycott afterwards? End of digression)
Hmmm, I wonder who legally uses dronestrikes that kill children...and how much ability I have to call the police on him.
It's almost like, holy shit wow, I used that example to point to a real-world issue where a boycott (or more accurately, voting against someone) is about all the real opportunity for removing this person that I have.
And if I were to be in line to be a CEO, this would be well known, and in the world you're constructing, I could not both engage publicly in supporting women's rights to choice and also indulge any hope of taking a leadership role in a company like Mozilla. Is this really what you want to convey to kids today?
That the price of holding strong personal convictions is that not everyone will line up behind you and feel free to give you money? Yeah.
It means they actually f***ing believe in what they do, and don't just do it because it's convenient.
Meanwhile, society endeavors to make
it convenient to be a good person.
Did you miss the distinction between actions taken as CEO and personal beliefs of the holder of that office?
No no, I got the distinction, I just hoped that, in trying to attack me, you'd actually notice the contradictory claim that you're making: that Eich is innocent because he didn't use his post for speech, but that he should be able to use his post for speech and that removing him from that post is silencing him. You are almost literally trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If you missed the discussion of the compatibility of your right to buy the products that you wish and the principle that it is evil to attempt to use force to compel someone's beliefs, you know what to do.
I read it, but the constant contradictory positions that you hold to defend it have been amply dismantled by other's posting in the thread, I think.
This is an attack? The guy can't support his views. That's embarrassing. Or at least, I do him the honor of assuming he's capable of shame. Do you not think he is?
Given the pottymouth on this guy, I think it's a fair handle for him.
I'm not the one who tried to use tone policing to shut anyone down. I'm merely pointing out that the guy's claim (that you are just this nice, friendly little lovebug) was without merit.
By all means, go on attacking everyone in the thread. That's between you and the mods, I have no reason to stop you.
jsharpminor wrote:Let's not. You are entirely missing the point. Eich is being held accountable here not for his actions (murdering babies) or even for his donations (prop 8) but for his viewpoints.
Bull. He's being held accountable for giving material support to a campaign to remove human rights. Not even merely going around with a bullhorn, he gave direct material support.
who cares what the views are of the leader of a software company? The answer is clear: Nobody cares, unless his views happen to be the wrong ones. Then suddenly everyone cares.
...duh. That's always been true, since I would think around the nineteenth century, when the views of the corporation leaders became both publically knowable and relevant. "Bad publicity" has been a concern of top business leadership for ages, I can't figure out why you seem to think it was created by the PC crowd.
Pfhorrest wrote:People are saying that OKCupid setting out specifically to get Eich fired for his opinions was a not-nice thing to do, and that if Mozilla actually fired Eich because a bunch of people lead on by OKCupid demanded it, that would also have been a not nice thing to do (and should maybe not be a legal thing to do, according to some people).
What OKCupid did -- arguably slimy, sure.
What Mozilla did -- as absolutely within its remit as promoting him in the first place. Choosing a CEO is as much the board's speech as Eich donating to whoever he wants. Mozilla's leadership spoke that they are more interested in popularity than principles, I'm not arguing that, and sure, that makes them come off slimy, but if you want to say they are at moral fault, then they were at moral fault for ignoring their employees and hiring a guy as their representative to the world based on just his skills rather than whether he fit the company's principles. They're failure is they were too lazy to do a thorough vetting.
A vetting that is pretty gotdamn standard
, and if anything, usually acts in the other direction (i.e., straight WASPs).
Is it maybe unfortunate that CEOs are the representatives of their company, and are expected to behave as such? Maybe so. That's what happens when you give most of the company's money and power to one person and ask them to lead you, in a society that deems that money is as much speech as writing a novel espousing the same views, or otherwise going around making sure everyone knows your views.
If it is in some way moral for someone to be allowed to use their money to encourage others to share their voice, then it is just as moral for someone else to use their money to encourage others to not share the first person's voice by giving the first person more money. It may be sad that someone lost their job for their oh-so-earnestly-held beliefs, but that's the cost of equating money with speech -- it gets treated as speech.
You can't have it both ways.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.