HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Crap. If he wanted to stay in that position he would have made the standard "Mistakes were made.. I've changed/learnt/grown.. " speech. He didn't, which didn't inspire confidence, so he was unfit to lead.


Why does lying inspire confidence in you? You don't appear to account for that he can hold a view that opposes same-sex marriage and also want to continue doing his job. Why is that not allowed in USA?


But if he made this speech, it may not have been a lie. We may suspect it would have been, but we would have had to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It would also have been a very public statement of position that he could have been held accountable to.


He didn't just hold a view. He actively attempted to detract happiness from the lives of others.


>"He actively attempted to detract happiness from the lives of others."

Go on.

Those who would have Christians deny Christ and embrace sin do the same: ergo anti-Christians should also lose their jobs?


Those who would have park-walkers deny that walking in a park is enjoyable, and embrace a walk-less life do the same: ergo anti-park-wakers should also lose their jobs?

Perhaps - but the question is silly - because there is no such thing as an anti-park-walker.

Just as I'm not so sure there is such thing as a serious 'anti-Christian'. People who suggest there is no God and call others stupid for believing in a God? Yes, they exist. But anti-Christians that would put money into a political campaign that seeked to change the law so that Christians were forced to deny Christ? No, I don't think those people exist in a any meaningful number.

Anti-gays that want to deny gays the right to marry - yes, quite clearly, they exist in large numbers.


Yes...this guy is the devil himself, I bet he spends his free time wondering how he could make other people's life worse.


Yes, quite evidently he does.


Proof? Or is all you have his donation in favor of Prop 8? because if that's it, you can't claim a trend with one data point...


Are you saying that you believe he did not spend his free time deciding to donate?


Are you saying that one data point means you have enough data to infer broad actions?

He may have spent some time deciding to donate, he may also have made a snap decision and donated without consideration. You don't know. You also don't know how he spends his free time. You basically know nothing about him. I also know basically nothing about him, but I'm not making broad statements based on one piece of information.

The principle of presumed innocence has been completely ignored when it comes to Eich's personal life. His life is his to do with as he pleases (to an extent). I disagree with his position on gay marriage, I also think that the one data point coupled with his actions this past week say he probably shouldn't be CEO of Mozilla, but I don't know anything else about him, and can't, and shouldn't, make assumptions based on tiny morsels of evidence.

The only realm of Eich's life that I even microscopically care about (I really don't care all that much) is the public realm. As stated, I disagree with him, and think his selection to the CEO position probably wasn't considered enough, but that doesn't mean I'm fit to make comments on his personal life. Nor are you, unless you're closely acquainted with the man.


Hey he can go try out for a job at Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A, no problem. But in Silicon Valley? No CEO job for him.


It is allowed. No one forced him to step down. They just expressed their own opinions.


No, this statement is crap. If fact, kudos to him for not caving and making some malarkey confession about how he's learned and changed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: