Do you feel the same way about “Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla”?
Absolutely. It’s why I’m not in related threads telling people who are bothered by it that they shouldn’t be.
I don’t think we were saying anything at all about the Democrats or the Republicans, and I don’t think it’s controversial that favoring gay marriage is a left-wing position and opposing it is a right-wing position.
My issue is here:
(i.e. “But MY side is the RIGHT one, so it’s different”) is exactly why the right wing thinks Trump shouldn’t go to prison and it’s okay when they cheat in elections.
Even if for some reason you want to limit the scope to a generic “Left” and “Right” even after invoking Trump, you’re still creating a false equivalence.
As you acknowledge, we can point to the factual basis for the concerns the Left has about the actions of the Right. The right has misinformation, disinformation, and willful ignorance as the basis for their outrage. “Both sides” thinking they are right doesn’t boil down to the same thing when one side actually is demonstrably wrong.
Do you feel the same way about “Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla”?
Absolutely. It’s why I’m not in related threads telling people who are bothered by it that they shouldn’t be.
Right, that makes sense to me. As long as you’re consistent about it, that makes sense to me.
As you acknowledge, we can point to the factual basis for the concerns the Left has about the actions of the Right. The right has misinformation, disinformation, and willful ignorance as the basis for their outrage. “Both sides” thinking they are right doesn’t boil down to the same thing when one side actually is demonstrably wrong.
So what I’m saying is that supporting gay marriage is not a judgement of fact; it’s a moral judgement. It’s a moral judgement I 100% agree with, but I don’t think it’s for you or anyone to say “You can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board with this moral judgement.” We could compare it to a Christian person saying you can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board for Christian values.
If it was some strictly factual judgement then I’d agree with you. Someone who supported January 6th, I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position anywhere, because that was factually a crime. Someone who supports state surveillance because they “support law enforcement,” I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position of leadership for browser development. But, a browser whose corporate entity’s CEO isn’t a Christian, I don’t think should exclude someone from is a Christian from using that browser, regardless of how deep and abiding that Christian person’s belief that Christian morality is the right morality. I think it’s fine if they evangelize Christian values, but not find if they say no one can get their support unless they have the right morality. Similarly I think it’s fine if you evangelize pro-gay-marriage values, but not fine if you say no one can get your support unless they have pro-gay-marriage morality.
Doesn’t that make sense? Again, I agree with your morality, I just also think people who don’t share that morality should be able to say so, and support whatever they do think, without other people feeling they need to be punished for it.
Absolutely. It’s why I’m not in related threads telling people who are bothered by it that they shouldn’t be.
My issue is here:
Even if for some reason you want to limit the scope to a generic “Left” and “Right” even after invoking Trump, you’re still creating a false equivalence.
As you acknowledge, we can point to the factual basis for the concerns the Left has about the actions of the Right. The right has misinformation, disinformation, and willful ignorance as the basis for their outrage. “Both sides” thinking they are right doesn’t boil down to the same thing when one side actually is demonstrably wrong.
Right, that makes sense to me. As long as you’re consistent about it, that makes sense to me.
So what I’m saying is that supporting gay marriage is not a judgement of fact; it’s a moral judgement. It’s a moral judgement I 100% agree with, but I don’t think it’s for you or anyone to say “You can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board with this moral judgement.” We could compare it to a Christian person saying you can’t support this browser unless all the executives are on board for Christian values.
If it was some strictly factual judgement then I’d agree with you. Someone who supported January 6th, I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position anywhere, because that was factually a crime. Someone who supports state surveillance because they “support law enforcement,” I think shouldn’t hold any kind of a position of leadership for browser development. But, a browser whose corporate entity’s CEO isn’t a Christian, I don’t think should exclude someone from is a Christian from using that browser, regardless of how deep and abiding that Christian person’s belief that Christian morality is the right morality. I think it’s fine if they evangelize Christian values, but not find if they say no one can get their support unless they have the right morality. Similarly I think it’s fine if you evangelize pro-gay-marriage values, but not fine if you say no one can get your support unless they have pro-gay-marriage morality.
Doesn’t that make sense? Again, I agree with your morality, I just also think people who don’t share that morality should be able to say so, and support whatever they do think, without other people feeling they need to be punished for it.