i'm testing out the beta of the new FireFox, it does look a lot like chrome. A lot.
The End of Firefox
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
i'm testing out the beta of the new FireFox, it does look a lot like chrome. A lot.
My opinions are much in line with this. Stance on the political issue (which, for reputation's sake might have been best kept private) should have little to no effect on a business executive leading a technical company. He's not a politician - if he were, there'd be more cause for debate and action. But he's not.
He's leading an IT/software company. I fail to see how his opinions on the matter should have an effect on his being hired, or Mozilla's future. Public is trying to punish him for something that should not really be an issue.
I like Firefox and was initially drawn to it because it was not Apple, Microsoft or Google. I have tried Tor but it is way to slow. Any suggestions?
I believe ALL men deserve to be eternely damned.
Our forgiveness is in the grace of God. Its not my job to try to guess who will turn to God and repent of their sins.
The Bible says that all men are in sin, and possible going into a eternal damnation. But the same Bible says we should love unconditionaly every man. Sounds like contradiction to you? It isn't.
For many people, myself included, civil rights and equal protection under the law issues are deeper than the politics of who gets to have what job in the gov. The abolitionists who worked to end the enslavement of millions of Americans were acting politically but were motivated by a deep sense of morality.
Those who are working against affording homosexuals equal protection under the law are not concerned with the political fall out as much as the moral fallout from affording such rights. They act politically to achieve moral gains.
Those working to achieve equal protection under the law for homosexuals are also acting politically for moral reasons.
Mr. Eich exercised his right to engage in the political process to support a position he agreed with. The position he agrees with i find morally reprehensible. I don't like the idea that such a person have control over what is a media company. I also see the opportunity to demonstrate to the cooperate world that some "political positions" have a negative cost factor, especially those corporations involved in media.
The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website,
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
If you believe that gender marks the difference between a holy marriage and living in sin, then how do you feel about people that have both sets of genitalia? According to this belief, they are 'shit out of luck' no matter which way they decide to love. Is this a cruel joke on Gods part? This is not an argument, I am just very interested in how you would advise someone in this predicament. This is not something they chose for themselves. God made them this way. You know, kind of like how he made gay people.
If you believe that gender marks the difference between a holy marriage and living in sin, then how do you feel about people that have both sets of genitalia? According to this belief, they are 'shit out of luck' no matter which way they decide to love. Is this a cruel joke on Gods part? This is not an argument, I am just very interested in how you would advise someone in this predicament. This is not something they chose for themselves. God made them this way. You know, kind of like how he made gay people.
I say this with utter kindness and love- I hope you, at some point, realize that while your belief and perspective is valuable and important, there are so many other equally valid and important perspectives and beliefs out there. I think once you realize that humanity is unique, varied, colourful, and loving - you'll be able to grow and embrace the wealth of knowledge that is out there. Accepting value in opposing perspectives is extremely enlightening and enriching- and I think, as you are a scholar who loves to learn, you'll be blown away by how amazing this uniqueness is.
Last edited:
I appreciate your kind advice.
I think contradicting views can never be 'equaly valid'. And most of the perspective that are in the world are contradictory to each other. So saying "there are so many other equally valid and important perspectives and beliefs out there", its not true. Truth is not in both two contradicting views. God either exist(Christianity), either it doesn't(Atheism).
So Truth is distinct and unique. Truth is not contradictory. Ideas are dangerous, worldviews are dangerous, because they have the potential (from our perspective) to be either true, either false. That's why, it is my position, that I have come to a understanding that to romanticise world and its dieversities of view its dangerous in itself.
But I may get another line of what you're trying to say to me.
Perhaps I am stuborn, overly opinionated, so much to the degree I don't fuly understand and listen to others views. I am what might be called intolerat and dogmatic, with "glasses for horses".
Ok, I do recognise that. I know I have to develop myself in this aspect (mature is the word).
But I think its incorrect that you guys, which clearly represent the majority, be so nervous on me for my intolerance. Its not correct at all. I'm arguing against the majority, and I know the risks of it. This thread is about a guy who is being threatened to be knoked out with his business because he is anti-guy...!
And I'm arguing for my position (which is not very popular), and I am the bad guy!
I always think of it this way: If we were living in 'the age of faith', in medieval times, how many of you would argue pro-guys, and how many of you and I would argue anti-guy?
Or what if we would be arguing in a Muslim country?.
Times and circumstances changes things alot. Some views are not accepted or rejected because of truthiness of falsity, but rather because the view must be accepted or rejected at a aparticular time. Its all about the context. Ideas rarely are adopted for their consistecy.
God doesn't play jokes. Never. Also God is not crude. Never. God is goodness and holiness, and just. Nobody can accuse God, because everything stands in existence to show and demonstrate His glory, and His moral perfection. Keep in mind the accurate premises if you want to really understand how we christians view the world.
What you are asking is a explanation for the direct effects of sin. Sin brings death. Not only spiritual death, but also physical or biological death and destruction. Genetic disease and physical inabilities of all kinds are not a "crude joke of God". They are a joke of sin. Because people are selfsih, self-seeking, hateful, proud, lustful and inclined to every evil and bad thoughts, the natural consequences are affecting our physical health, and all the biological life.
God never intended men to be born blind, or with genetic diseases, with tow sets of genitalia, or other unnatural malformations and mutations. Those are dirrect consequances of our sins.
So don't say "God made them that way", because that's not true. Sin made them that way!
I think its curious that you thought a heated argument was developing, I didnt think so.
You limit yourself by believing there is only Christianity and Atheism...there is much more. In fact, many aspects of Christianity developed out of other beliefs, such as paganism. I know you don't believe this, but many many scholars have research the origins of Christianity and have found this.
I think your values and opinions deserve respect and consideration, but if I am to give that to you, I feel you should also give that to me. I don't think you're the bad guy (but I can speak only for myself), what I think is that you don't always respectfully consider alternative perspectives. Now, I will admit that this might not be the case, it could be a language issue or the fact that the internet doesn't always convey the true emotions behind an individual. But, when you are discussing others' opinions and beliefs, you have to be careful of this, and make sure you don't come across as calling them stupid, ignorant, or some other negative thing that I can't think of right now. This is where tension comes up.
In the real world, you have to have respect for all beliefs. You want us to respect your belief, as much as we want you to respect ours. The great thing about the world is that we are allowed to have our own beliefs (hehehe, I feel this would be a great place for [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] to chime in
), no one can be told that what they believe in is wrong - because when you do that, you are opening the idea that what YOU believe in can be wrong. I think that you should be allow to think that being gay is wrong....because I believe that I should be allowed to think being gay is right. It's difficult to have a discussion around this topic because it can hit home for a lot of people, and bring up a lot of historical hate and discrimination. But you have to be aware of that, and respect it.
Is english your second language? Just interested because I am not sure how you misread some of the things I had written there.
I was not connecting socialism with minority sexual preference, I was however suggesting that the history of emancipatory movements, how they can go wrong despite all best intentions should inform thinking about present movements that imagine they are emancipatory, which I honestly do not believe has happened.
The idea that words can mean whatever anyone chooses for them to mean is fundamental to Orwell's theorising that Big Brother would corrupt the meaning of words to suit their purposes, its the very core principle of Newspeak in 1984, that words mean whatever the most powerful decide they mean.
Marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman, you can call a dog a horse if you really want to but it will still be a dog, the whole idea that homosexuals have been deprived of any rights or are inequal to any other member of the population in relation to marriage is absurd, homosexuals have a right to marry if they choose but I do not understand why they would want to because they are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex. If it is a legal fix which is required to confer a particular legal status upon a couple then, sure, that's fine but dont seek to corrupt the meaning of the word marriage for a political purpose or end.
Freedom is slavery,
War is peace,
Ignorance is strength,
Marriage is any relationship between anyone.
God created free-will, which can lead to (what you would consider) 'sin'. Therefore, God created sin. If you feel that "sin made them that way" then God had a hand in it.
God made them that way.
1. God created free-will.
2. Free will can lead to sin.
3. Conclusion: God created sin.
?????????????????????????????
I think the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
You can't follow that?
Without free will there would be no sin. Free will is Gods creation, therefore, by creating free will, he created sin.
You say that "sin made them that way". Well, then you have God to thank for that.
How long have you experienced this trouble communicating?
I mean, perhaps its part of the reason you want to follow the crowd when forming opinions, however, I really dont believe it will get to the root of your problem and make you any less lonely.
Going online, misrepresenting opinions you struggle with and calling people names may provide you with some sort of an outlet but when you've maybe had time or moved beyond the point you're at now those opinions will be there to embarrass you and probably others who identify with the politics or point of view you aim to represent. Remember what Kirkegaard had to say:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sorenkierk101436.html#zkTkYwDWoJpJjO1Y.99
