Slashdot Mirror
Apple Removes Gay Cure App From App Store
recoiledsnake writes "Apple has removed the Gay Cure app after the pressure on Apple to remove the app started to snowball, culminating in an online petition initiated by Change.org which collected over 140,000 online signatures from people who wanted the app removed. Searching for the app now yields zero search results and Exodus International President Alan Chambers tweeted the following on Tuesday night. 'It's official, the @ExodusInl App is no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you. #freedom' Gay Cure isn't the first app Apple has removed for touting an anti-homosexual philosophy. Apple back in November removed an app called the Manhattan Declaration which advocated the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman." I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an app to cure bigotry.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Isn't there a 10 day waiting period required for that app?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
I knew a guy once who claimed to be one of those "reformed" gay men. Still acted effeminate, still loved musicals, still had a house with incredible interior design. But I guess because he managed to catch himself every time he looked at another dude's ass and found a wife willing to believe that he loved vagina, he magically had become a heterosexual. But he still went "antiquing," so apparently Jesus had only led him *part* of the way to heterosexuality. Yay!
I suppose I could convince myself I loved dick if I was motivated and deluded enough. But deluding myself still wouldn't make another man's hairy ass any more attractive. And it sure as shit wouldn't make me want to go antiquing. It would just make me a heterosexual in denial.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why would Apple want the vast bulk of their customer base cured?
(I jest, big Apple fan here.)
Trolling is a art,
thanks apple, now how are we gonna cure all the gay people?
Or the Anti-Bible app? Was that removed too? If yes then Apple is being consistent, but if not then they are not.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Everyone complains about Apple's tight control over what apps can be installed -- until that power is used to ban an app they disagree with. Sure it's a bigoted, ridiculous app. But just who's phone is it?
So Visa/Mastercard can turn you away if they don't like your politics. Apple can turn you away if they don't like your ideology. What's next? And does this bother anyone besides me? Could it not be argued that things like card payment services and the iPhone platform are public accommodations that should be open to all on a non-discriminatory basis? If not, we risk granting de facto censorship ability to private organizations, relinquishing a substantial part of the freedom gained over the past few hundred years. This concerns me.
And yes, I would feel the same way regardless of the beliefs and ideologies being rejected. Freedom is freedom, regardless of one's beliefs.
In all seriousness, why take this down? The only people who would legitimately download this are people who are uncomfortable with being homosexual (for whatever reason - I wouldn't, but there may be some). Why would you want to deny those people that opportunity? It may not be society or their family that pressures them to want to be heterosexual - it could be individual free will. I can totally get why the word "Cure" would be offensive - that would insinuate that being gay is a disease. Rename the app to something more PC, but I don't think pulling the app is correct.
DISCLAIMER
I have several gay members of my family, have no discontent or ill will toward them - LOVE THEM TO DEATH. Do NOT believe that gay is a disease. My point is simply about choice.
I may not like Apple, but this is the game you play when a single private entity controls a distribution channel.
Granted, I really don't like the app or it's message either. So this is kind of a win/win from my perspective.
On the one hand, it's offensive and Apple has a previous precedent of banning things it deems controversial. Despite complaints and a few inconsistency it seems like they reasonably adhere to this. Which is good since even if you disagree with the policy, at least you can more or less expect what will happen if you push it. Thus I was surprised when this got approved.
on the other hand, if all it takes is a petition to remove an app then boy is that a bad precedent to set. Consider how the SF library system in the mid 80s bolderized mary popins to remove the uncultured ebonics of the black maid because they deemed it portrayed black women badly. One can go on. but everything pisses some group off. That in fact was the rationale Ray Bradbury gave for writing Farenheight 451. All books offend so burn them all.
And when I think about it, what do I care if there is a gay cure app? I'm not planning on buying it. If you think about it, the urge to ban that app is pretty aligned with the urge to write that app. that is, the writer of the app is probably concerned about what gay people might be doing in bed behind closed doors but he will never encouter that himself. and the people offended by it will never buy that app. yet both want to eliminate things that abstractly bother them
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
They didn't remove it from the App Store. They just put it back in the closet.
I have a house with incredible interior design and sparsely filled with designer furniture. Does that make me gay ... I hope not? I hope not, maybe I should tell me wife. It just means that I have a distinct appreciation for something that you can't comprehend (it has a few pieces by Eames and Jacobson with a few LC2s and LC4s mixed in ... for those interested).
I'm EXTREMELY glad they removed that app. I'm sure I speak for all open-minded, freedom-loving people when I say that I don't want anyone exposed to that kind of material.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I'm a developer and I'm selling programs for Mac OS, but as long as Apple decides which app to include in the app store and which not I won't buy or use an iPhone and won't develop for iOS. It's as simple as that. There should be no restrictions about which app someone can legally run on their computer, phone, or any other device they have bought, and Apple has set a bad precedent with the app store model.
Before people complain that company X can sell on their own store whatever they want: Sure they can. If others can legally open another app store for the same device, that should be fine. But locking devices/only allowing whitelisted apps should definitely be illegal, and I hope that future legislation will make it illegal (but doubt it will happen).
The modus operandi of the nut-jobs is becoming very effective. They create a "gay cure" app. Thousands of sane people get indignant, sign petitions, etc. and get it taken down. So now a portion of indignation, enthusiasm to participate in causes, proclivity to donate to causes - such as say 'stop bullying of gay school kids' - has been used up in protesting an app. The app is much cheaper to produce than say, an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative.
By the time the nut-jobs get around to ballot initiatives on gay marriage (yes, I know California's already had one), on teaching creationism in public schools, abolishing minimum wage, etc., the sane people are too jaded from fighting all these little battles, or they're too preoccupied with defending attacks on one thing to pay attention to something else, such as say, net neutrality.
Write the app for android and distribute it via your site. I'm guessing this wouldn't get removed from marketplace.
Apple has the right to remove anything. If you don't like it don't support them by buying their products, otherwise deal with it. The app store is like a cable channel. If comedy central doesn't want to run your ad no matter how you pay them they don't have to.
Keep writing letters saying you want to be able to install your own apps via websites, but other than that Apple can do what they want. I just buy Android even if it isn't quite as nice, because lets be honest...of the 100,000s of app only about 1,000 are worth anything. ie. like my banks native app...and although I had to wait 6 months I got it on the Android. Angry brids has been on the android for a long time now...what are these magical apps that you can't get on Android or at least some kind of a clone.
I really don't care about the specific app. I just want to know why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive. I can understand if an app were to be removed because it is illegal (and only removed from those areas where it is illegal). I cannot understand why Apple should remove apps just because they are offensive.
Censorship is wrong, whatever the reason. Apple harms all developers and users by doing this.
Never! nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.
also how could an iphone app cure the gay and why couldn't the company have made an app that cures cancer?
lose != loose
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this? You don't have to fully 100% approve or disaprove of homosexuality, and as a Catholic I take offense when being labled as one of them.
The Catholic Church knows that there's a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts, something that many people on "both" sides often forget. Homosexual attraction, like any other kind of sexual preference, is influenced by a variety of factors; most important of all of those factors is conditioning (like, allowing/encouraging yourself to think homosexual thoughts, or hanging around with homosexuals, for example). Some people can't help that they have homosexual attractions and I completely understand that, as does the Catholic Church believe it or not. The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity. And no, that's not "supressing your desires" like most anti-Catholic people make it sound like. Self-control is never a bad thing, last I checked.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality, but not for the reasons that many think. Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely. For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
Yes, I've heard there's a "g-spot" "in there" (cough), and I know that animals engage in homosexual behaviors. Animals do lots of things that aren't socially acceptable (killing, flinging poo, not wearing clothing... I could go on for pages). The mere existence of all of these doesn't change the fact that I'm allowed to have an opinion about sticking reproductive organs into germ-infested digestive tracts for little reason besides pleasure. There are "bigots" out there like WBC, but please don't label the Catholic Church (whether or not you were) as one of them. I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position...
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Now all gays who want to switch to being straight must use Android!
(no, they don't need to download any apps. Owning an Android phone alone will make them manly enough.)
(also, if that app worked, wouldn't it be a threat to bulk of Apple user base?)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Too bad Apple didn't have the huevos to keep the app. There is more than one opinion to everything. They could group it right in with "gay rights" apps.
The Gay Mafia has silenced him and deprived him of his #freedom.
The gall of these assholes makes me sick. Not content with being evil, he smugly portrays his evil as morally superior and himself as a persecuted victim.
Pot meet kettle. . .
Could YOU be any more intolerant?
Who would possibly be the market for this app? Consider the fraction of the population which is gay, say around 10%:
- Of these, what fraction is not in some level of denial? (guess 20%)
- Of these, what fraction think they can be "cured" (guess 1%)?
- Of those, how many would actually believe that they could be cured by an Iphone app? (guess 1%)
- Of those, how many would actually be willing to risk being discovered by their friends/spouse with such an app on their phone? (guess 10%)
That gives two people in 10^7 who would download the app, or about 60 in the U.S. and 1200 in the world. Why is anyone even bothering to worry about it?
While I am on the fence about the app being taken down (I think 'curing homosexuality' is silly at best and dangerous at worst, and I also believe that everyone has a right to free speech which in my non-lawyer opinion this covers) I wonder how much it was actually downloaded? Is this thing worth the fury it unleashed? Or did it do a Streisand effect for the group's visibility? Did we cause this organization a favor by getting the app pulled?
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
As the leader of the Bigot Anti-Defamation League I take offense at something in your post. I'm not sure what exactly, but I'm sure there is something there that offends me and i want to pre-emptively register my outrage.
On another note, this is yet another example of why the Android platform is light-years ahead of the iPhone platform. Never would have been removed, and even if it had been, the developer would have been free to distribute it themselves. While I completely understand that it is within Apple's rights to remove any app for any reason, I can't help but think that this sets a very bad precedent. If all it takes is a petition and enough public pressure to remove an app, who's to say what other legitimate apps might be taken down? I'll take my open(-ish) platform, thank you.
-- There, everybody likes a gorilla.
It has been indicated in the past that when you are taking steps to control a thing, you will be held responsible for when you do not control it enough or when you control it too much.
The unfortunate reality of Android's market, for example, is that they do attempt to control the content in a rather mild way and end up with a LOT of apps which are simply pornographic wastes of space and time (and are probably trojan horses).
The other side is Apple's often over-reaching control. And as bad as it is, some people don't think they go far enough! Amazing.
I guess in the end, if you seek to control something, you are assuming responsibility for it. It's the argument used with regard to UUCP news groups... if you filter, you may be held liable for anything that comes across it.
I can't say which is worse, but I can say I find the amount of "garbage" and "crap" on the Android market annoying as hell. But then I find a lot of things annoying like smokers... they think just because they are outside, they should be able to smoke... no... not when I walk on the same sidewalk. One of these days I'm going to get a can of "fart" and blast it around every smoker I pass. "What? Don't like the smell? I don't like yours either jacckass!"
You are basically saying that Jews should not be worried about nazi propoganda. Because no Jews will be affected by Mein Kampf, because they won't read it.
I think history has proven just how wrong you are.
Bigots rarely are content to keep their views behind closed doors.
Now what am I supposed to do if I suddenly wake up some morning and discover I'm gay?
Proverbs 21:19
Look, free speech isnt the right to get app's published by Apple. Beside that, this kind of app is clearly a swindle, or a religeous secte acting out (same thing really).
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
So Apple is basically saying that Christians are wrong about a theological point. And yet the let Mecca-finder stay.
It seems to me that you should be charging Apple with bigotry against orthodox Christians.
According to the latest Gallup poll on homosexuality, 48% of the US population believes that homosexuality is immoral. That's more than 44% who believe that doctor-assisted suicide is. Yeah, you could pander to homosexuals and remove the app, and then offend the other half of the country by thus giving implicit support to an activity they consider immoral. That's the problem with "offensive" censorship: everything offends someone. Once you start censoring, you can't really stop until you censor everything. Or, of course, Apple could assume that all iPhone users are left wing and the rest of the population's opinions do not matter, which seems to be what happened.
i talked to a number of friends here in SF and was shocked how many were in favour of having apple remove the app.
sure it's bigoted, etc, but censorship is not the answer.
"I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position..."
Yes, thank you for sharing your rationalization for your bigotry.
Animals do lots of things that aren't socially acceptable (killing, flinging poo, not wearing clothing... I could go on for pages)
Humans do a lot of things that aren't ethical (killing humans in the millions, animals in the billions, poisoning natural resources with our waste .. I could go on for pages).
But that's true, at least we have clothing...
Considering how bigoted the Slashdot hivemind generally is concerning people who use Windows, or oppose OSS, or aren't technically inclined, or some of the rather rough things people here say about the Chinese, or the religious... it's rather hypocritical for Slashdot to be calling anyone else bigoted...
by not displaying my political banners on the front of your house. Censorship is bad and evil you jackbooted thug!!!
Be very careful about your assumptions. "whereas in the US, the majority of the country supports gay marriage" is likely very false since there are very few states that support this, and those that do, do so by a very narrow margin. I very much believe that there is a large population that simply doesn't care, but a very small minority that actually "supports gay marriage".
I find the concept grossly offensive and am quite disgusted that it is believed to be socially acceptable. It is accepted by those who have no understanding of human history and the damage to society that those beliefs cause. Nature (and God) made us to be one way and one way only and I am totally sick and tired of those that say that moral absolutes are intolerance. You can believe whatever you want but, don't push those beliefs on the rest of us that understand right and wrong. I am not a bigot or a "homophobe". I have a strong disgust for deviancy and that is something very different.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Proof right here.
dont underestimate the power of not giving a fuck
i am an iOS user (well, i have an ipod touch with some apps, that is), and i dont give a crap either way if they do or do not remove this app, so i wouldnt bother with this petition either way (also add in the extra treshold of having to give up my email/name to some guy running a petition).
Morally, i object against that app, but what apple does in their playground doesnt bother me at all, and i would guess that most people are that way, and simply dont vote, even if they have an opinion on the morals here
People, what a bunch of bastards
You think that the following two statements are morally equivalent:
"I'm gay and that's okay"
"You are gay and need to be either cured or persecuted"
They aren't.
Apple didn't ban because somebody somewhere was offended, they banned the app because a large group of people was *legitimately* offended. Point out a serious app with the theme "You are straight and need to be either cured or persecuted" if you want to prove me wrong.
Sorry, if you think homosexuality is "deviancy", you are pretty much by definition a homophobe.
Nature (and God) made us to be one way and one way only
What made homosexuals, if it wasn't nature?
So if I may ask (and I do so honestly without sarcasm or intent to malign), what in your mind differentiates you, with your professed inherent disgust for what you perceive to be sexual/cultural deviancy, from the bigots and homophobes that are out there.
You state your position very well, and you make a good point about moral absolutes and intolerance. Your statement gives credence to your position that you're not a bigot or homophobe. The problem is that your stated beliefs are close enough to what actual bigots and homophobes state, that you get tarred by the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. So I'd like to understand how you view yourself as being different from them.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
What does the app do? Does it contain videos of Aria Giovanni, Luba Hegre or Zuzanna from bodyrock.tv? I'm pretty sure they cured any gayness I might have have. The app store isn't a wild west free-for-all (chaps anyone?). I'm perfectly satisfied with my Android.
No remote kill, it's still on my phone, but I guess it's not extreme enough to warrant such action.
Summation 2
If Apple has removed this app on the basis of political correctness, then that is a shame and is just censorship. If on the other hand, someone can show that the app does not do what is claimed, then it should be removed on the basis of fraud (even if it is free - there are other considerations involved). Perhaps, since the claim is rather extraordinary, the burden of proof should be on the creators of the app, themselves.
they've had a locked down software model for years. Hell, what about Maytag and Frigidaire? you've had devices in your home with microprocessors capable of running software for years but it's not a problem until Apple does the same thing, right? Do you have any idea how many processors are in your car?
You aren't Gandhi, nobody cares about your self-launched freedom struggle. You are a whiny little brat. Get a hobby, discover girls, move on with your life.
We all know Apple doesn't give their customers and developers much freedom, so this story isn't a surprise. That being said...
Obviously they are afraid of offending vocal minorities and such, but it's annoying when corporations pick sides on a moral issue when said corporation's industry has little to do with morality. To be sure, I am not advocating for the app, and in fact I think it silly and representative of conservative religious culture, but to not tolerate them because they are considered intolerant seems hypocritical. Similar to Larry Flynt being censored by conservatives for his pornography: if you don't like it, don't buy it.
And to think I'm considering an iPhone now that they've finally come to Verizon.
One one hand if you're selling it in your store, you're saying "We support this product/service and think people should have access to it"
on the other hand, the way apple's walled-garden approach works, is saying "We don't think ANYONE should be able to run this, even if they truly want it".
In the 'ideal world', you remove it from the store, so apple shows they're not anti-gay or whatever, but the company still makes it freely avaliable on their own websites, in case people actually want to use it. Its called freedom.
But Apple won't allow that.
There's a cure?!? I didn't know it was a disease! ;-)
No strip clubs, either. And the Westboro Baptist church isn't allowed to protest in front of Space Mountain.
I assume you are just as pissed about that.
Idiot.
If the omnipotent magic man in the doesn't like something, he can say it outright. But guess what? he hasn't said anything in thousands of years. And even then there's no evidence that he actually said anything then, there's nothing actually innovative at all in the bible.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The GP is referring to a recent nationwide study that found support for full gay marriage to be at 53%--a clear majority.
Clearly not, or homosexuality wouldn't exist in the animal kingdom or amongst humans in anything like the numbers we see.
They are "intolerance" (in the bad sense of being bigoted, not the good sense of "I'm intolerant of rape") when they're contrary to reality. Homosexuality is widespread amongst humans, and by an overwhelming majority is reported to be essential, not a "choice". People who are gay virtually always say that they're simply that way, not that they decided to be that way--any more than you could decide to be gay. Could you decide not to be heterosexual? I don't mean decide to have gay sex, I mean could you decide to feel romantic attraction to someone of the same sex?
Yes, you are. The fact that you have strong convictions behind your bigotry makes it no less bigoted.
I pity you. In fifty years we'll look back on you the way we now look back on people who fought to preserve anti-miscegenation laws: at best misguided and trapped in your particular perspective, unable to consider what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Was your hair blown around as stuff *whooshed* by your head?
> 48% my ass, I doubt it's even near 20% nationally.
You need to get out more. I'm guessing that you regularly only read Slashdot and other left-biased sites, where most opinions conflicting with the current left-wing policy are modded down immediately. Consequently, you believe the number of people who have a worldview similar to your own is much greater than it really is. Of course, the same is true of people who watch Fox news or read www.freerepublic.com. The internet makes it easier than ever to stick to your own clique and pretend that your opinions are the majority. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't really know.
Gay people aren't sick. They just like different things from the majority. It's not something that can be cured. So the app doesn't work. It has never worked. It will never work. It's just a provocation. And they fell for it. I wonder if I write an app that'll cure Indian or Mexican people from eating spicy food, will it get yanked? Will there be a petition against it? Or will everyone just laugh thinking there must be something wrong with me for writing that made me write such an useless app? I understand that gay people have to push their agenda and that's ok, but the other side has a right to have their say too... I don't really care for either of those opinions... We all have our right to free speech...
The community can't have it both ways. It can't insist that Apple censor some apps and then complain that Apple has set "arbitrary" rules for approving apps.
Just because a majority believe something, doesn't make it right. A majority of people in the US seem to believe in deities (I could be wrong as athiests don't advertise as much as theists and could be under-represented), and a majority of white landowners in the south used to believe slavery was fine.
And what they wanted was: Attention. Streisand Effect. Apple, YHBT.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
I find the concept grossly offensive and am quite disgusted that it is believed to be socially acceptable. It is accepted by those who have no understanding of human history and the damage to society that those beliefs cause. Nature (and God) made us to be one way and one way only and I am totally sick and tired of those that say that moral absolutes are intolerance. You can believe whatever you want but, don't push those beliefs on the rest of us that understand right and wrong. I am not a bigot or a "homophobe". I have a strong disgust for deviancy and that is something very different.
Ok, so that's your view, and you're entitled to it. But not to impose it on others, as this (slightly dated) video explains.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
What else did you expect? This is what you get when you buy Apple, they control your experience.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
i believe that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a biological, natural, innate malformed sexual orientation. both are malformed in the darwinian sense, the sense that neither, biologically, results in offspring
however, socially, homosexuality is harmless because it occurs between consenting adults. therefore there is no social reason to have any attitude towards homosexuality except to shrug: it doesn't matter, no big deal
unfortunately, pedophiles are oriented towards children. children are not able to make informed consent. of course, children can be fooled into consenting, which many pedophiles think they are doing, but a child is in no position to make decisions about their sexuality, since their sexuality is not formed yet: there is no INFORMED consent possible. furthermore, the influence of the pedophile's advances on that child is harmful to that child's development of their own sexuality. what is appropriate and what is not. therefore the genetic future of the parent of that child is threatened. therefore there is an innate darwinian biological revulsion fear and hatred towards pedophilia: it threatens your genes by threatening the proper formation of the sexuality of your children, which is needed to pass on your genes
so pedophiles, unfortunately, have an innate sexual orientation which utterly and completely dooms their entire lives. in this respect i think of pedophilia like i think of cystic fibrosis or huntington's disease: you are genetically doomed to a life of suffering. either the pedophile can try, often unsuccessfully, to suppress their sexuality their entire lives, or they can engage in activity that is not only criminal, and trangressive towards the healthy psycholigcal development of an innocent child, but you could get killed by enraged parents. there is no way a pedophile can exercise their sexuality without being a criminal. castration doesn't even work: the desires stay in the mind
i really see no solution to pedophilia except banishment to northern greenland. it is a horrible curse. pedophiles just are innately incompatible with human society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That is a fair critique--many people do not care. I was thinking of a recent survey I remembered putting the numbers around 53%, but to be fair, that will include people who don't care a great deal and I don't recall whether it was for gay marriage specifically or for gay service in the military.
Note that what the law is doesn't necessarily reflect what people support, because mobilization matters a great deal, as do procedural bars and the fact that people vote for whole people, not for individual issues.
I agree that it is accepted by those without an understanding of human history--but then, very few people have an understanding of human history, and it is also vehemently disliked by people with no understanding of human history.
What damage to society? If we put aside the people who are both gay and promiscuous, at least? Is it that it encourages people to engage in behavior contrary to the will of God (i.e. like Milton, where the crime was disobedience to the will of God regardless of whether you ate an apple or led a war on heaven)? Or do you mean that it somehow harms a community to have families in it that don't have a male and female parent?
I don't think that belief in a moral absolute--a moral absolute from the perspective of those who believe in it--is necessarily a bad thing. It *is* intolerance, but that is okay. I am intolerant of people who kill for fun. I am intolerant of the twenty-year old who guns someone down while laughing at him, or the children who steal airplanes and ram them into buildings. The question is when we should be intolerant--to what degree and when should we be open-minded, and to what degree and whenshould we be stubborn and idealistic in a way which disagrees with and judges the lives and/or decisions of many others.
I used to be fairly intolerant of gay people. I wouldn't mock them or deride them, but they were something I didn't know and I found the entire concept weird as hell. Then I met some. They're generally no better or worse than anyone else, so far as I could tell, Some of them are good people. Some aren't. So as to them as a class, I became more tolerant.
Now I don't believe they'll burn in hell for it, and if I did, I would obviously encourage them to be less gay, since I don't think good people should burn in hell. And good people can do bad things--as when I encounter people doing something bad, I try to get them to think about it.
I know someone who works with kids to prevent dehumanizing women and get them before they become customers for the trafficked women who operate as prostitutes in most cities around the world. (Many in the US.) The kids don't think of it as wrong to put the girls down and call them names and be absuive toward them until you make the connection in their head to child abuse. They come from poor families, and they all know child abuse, either from their families or from people they've known. It makes them think. Sorry, bit of a tangent there.
I do agree the "homophobe" label is ridiculous. But I also have seen nothing to indicate that being gay threatens society or traditional marriage.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
While Apple has full right to say what can and cannot be in the app store. Apple should have known from the get go that this "app" would stir up the hornets nest. So with that said who's with me to write an app with a cure for religious bullshit?
And not even related to censorship or how destructive or bigotted the app is (both of which it is).
The app is essentially a fraud, promising a "service" that is impossible to deliver, which would be plenty of reason to remove it I think.
Of course it was removed on other grounds that maybe should have had less impact, but yeah.
try looking that up.
No strip clubs, either.
WTF are you talking about? That's not even a complete sentence. Are you saying Apple doesn't allow apps from strip clubs? Because then you're arguing about censoring someone's opinion/theology versus censoring explicit sexual content... but you wouldn't do something that dumb, so please explain.
And the Westboro Baptist church isn't allowed to protest in front of Space Mountain.
Right... they're not allowed on private property... so what's your point? That the app store is private property? I already said Apple can do whatever they want, but if you honestly think that carrying an app is really comparable to protesters shouting in your face while you're trying to enjoy a theme park you paid money for, then welcome to the world of social and political hyperbole, where no exaggeration is too ridiculously extreme.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I don't think Apple should have banned it: they should have just packaged it with an App to cure Bigotry.
Well thank you, Taco, for calling everybody who doesn't approve of homosexuality a bigot. Have you, or any of the other homosexuality-supporters, ever considered that there are more than two sides to this?
The difference though with the Catholic opinion is that we believe that people who experience severe homosexual attraction are called to chastity.
I see your Gay Chastity and Raise you on Catholic Sex abuse cases.
Many pro-LGBT people with misunderstandings of the Catholic religion (such as lumping it together with all of the other Christian faiths) think that it's just "forbidden" and "sinful" and an "abomination" for little reason, while the real reason why it's sinful to the Church is that it denies the life-giving aspect of sexuality entirely.
No you're more likely to be equated with Mormons who have to deny the existence of True Hermaphrodites in order to justify their view that "The Gay" can be cured, or that it must be suppressed (see Chastity). That and the catholic view and Mormon view on woman and the priesthood is oddly similar.
For more information, read any of the many books or articles out there summarizing Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body; the Catholic Church's opinion on sexuality is a lot more reasonable than many people make it sound like.
I would have trusted his words more if he had done something reasonable when the Catholic pedophile priests were exposed. Like maybe a full blown public inquisition with all the trimmings. Heck the victims of the past inquisitions were dealt with by the local governments so that the Church wouldn't have blood directly on it's hands then, they just did the rooting out of evil part. Instead he did a timid denouncement of them and thought the matter closed.
I hope I've made sense explaining the Catholic position...
You only succeed in confirming a stereo type. Sorry for the aggression directed at you. Religion is more then just a hot button for me, and I'm feeling a bit Trollish.
Homosexuality was once widely considered to be a mental disorder until the APA deemed it not to be one back in the 1970's. Exodus International happens to have disagreed with that decision and has acted in accordance the beliefs that it is in fact a mental disorder. That those screaming "Intolerant Bigot!" are demonstrating their own intolerance of an opposing view is somewhat telling all by itself.
The app was named that way as advertising of their point of view. I don't think people searching for "cure" should be subjected to such blatant advertising via app name.
Since homosexuality is exhibited in other mammals and birds, it's clear that God didn't make anyone to be "one way and one way only".
My point is that your smug outrage at Apple's draconian control of the App Store is hypocritical unless you are similarly outraged at why Disneyworld doesn't allow unsavory third parties from setting up shop inside their own little walled garden.
People who bought iPhone specifically bought a ticket into Apple's walled garden--they knew what they were getting themselves into and they did it for legitimate reasons just like people who buy tickets to Disneyworld are happy with the limitations; so why are you outraged about the existence of Apple's walled garden and not Disneyworld's?
maybe the church should shut up about homosexuals and preach against anal sex. A quick tour to youporn will teach you it's not just the guys who take it up the sewer...
And with a population explosion threatening our very future, the church would be advised to ease up on the requirements for "life-giving" aspects...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
something.
So the "App Store" is the discourse commons now? Not the internet? Seriously?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're still making a completely invalid comparison... parents don't book a family trip to Disney for liquor and strip clubs. The parks was designed as a family getaway, a place specifically for kids. Also, when you're in the park, and there's a strip club right on main street with dancers in the windows (or there's WBC protesters), you have no choice but to be exposed to their "content." You have no such problem in the app store.
Your analogy is ridiculous.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are also a lot of people who think it's wrong to think "gay-ness" needs a cure. That teaches that it is a choice that needs "curing", and most of apple's target demographic finds that idea wrong.
Hmm...so what's apple's target demographic's position on emotional exploding birds? For or against? Is this a lesson we really want our children to take in?
Just because it's an app, doesn't make it frigging gospel. If it offends you, develop a 'Straight cure' app.
Oh, and btw, I find it quite offensive when people are offended 'on behalf of' other people who they've never met and never asked if they find it offensive or not. I don't much care for the app, I think it's unnecessary and quite tacky, but I'm not going to get all up in arms about it unless one of my friends who happen to be gay tells me this hurts or offends them personally. Perhaps you have heard such comments from your homosexual friends, in which case you have every right to be offended on their behalf. If, however, you've heard these comments from your straight friends, or from random people on discussion forums, then please get your head out of your arse.
Oh, and as for your little sarcasm fest above: The first point is ridiculous, since denying a person employment based on the colour of their skin is an action that violates that person's human rights. The employer can think what they like, as long as they act within the law. And the second point...are you proposing thought policing now? If some misguided soul thinks it would have been better if your GPs died in the holocaust, well, they do have the right to think that. They just don't have the right to cause you harm, or incite others to cause harm to you, because then it would violate your human rights.
People don't have the right to be liked, just to be free and safe from harm and generally left alone to live their lives how they choose. By the same reasoning, idiots who judge an entire group of people based on their nationality, gender, religion or sexual orientation have the right to nurture their cherished preconceptions in their otherwise empty skulls, as long as they don't act on them in a way that will violate another's human rights.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The first church I went to was a Presbyterian church. A very conservative, Calvinist one. Their position was very similar, but they added that all sex outside of God's plan is an abomination to Him. The practical difference is that it's natural, but sinful, to have sex with your girlfriend. If you turn to your own gender, children, animals, etc. that is "more of an abomination" in a practical sense. What it means is that you are truly starting to stray into the darkness; the orientation itself is a symptom of one turning toward Satan in a meaningful way.
Liberals respond to this typically with the assertion that for some people it's inborn and "why would God knowingly create a defective person." To that we conservative Protestants respond that God didn't make them be born a homosexual, but rather the sin nature they inherited afflicted them at birth. In others, it gives them a wicked temper or other burdens with which they must contend.
What liberals haven't faced up to is that homosexuality exists in at least three different forms: congenital predisposition (the theoretical biologically-based minority), childhood trauma (homosexual pedophilia, primarily) and freely chosen deviancy. When you see two otherwise straight women have sex at a college party, that is a perfect example of the third category. It is also the sort of behavior which is unequivocally condemned by Christian churches because it has no mitigating circumstances that warrant a merciful, light-handed approach to correcting.
This. Your right to disapprove of someone's choices that only affect that person ends at disapproval.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Niggers and Fags aren't real people. Who's with me? Hurrah!!
If you are offended by the second sentence, then you probably should not have read past the first sentence. Who cares whether or not you agree its ok for me to say the second sentence? It was your choice to read it in the first place...
Here's the problem with that argument: it assumes that it doesn't hurt me or anyone else if you have an attitude of "Niggers and Fags aren't real people." In reality, it does. You may encounter Black People and Gay People whom you discount as real people. This not only means I live in a less tolerant society, it means I live in one where there is a racial divide, and I am bringing my kids up in that society. It also means that you discount those people, which hurts the market by taking many people out of it and introducing inefficiencies that come from not letting qualified people work in jobs they're qualified for. In addition, it makes you less likely to treat Black People or Gay People with the basic dignity with which we should treat all human beings. I happen to think it harms me to live in a society where people don't respect one another a tiny bit by default. You may not trust everyone, but there is no reason not to be a little bit courteous. It's not a zero-sum game. It makes everyone happier.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
n fifty years we'll look back on you the way we now look back on people who fought to preserve anti-miscegenation laws: at best misguided and trapped in your particular perspective, unable to consider what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us.
When the anti-(gay)marriage laws were being voted on here in CA, I was truly surprised that the pro-(gay)marriage groups didn't dig out every piece of propaganda that they could from the anti-miscegenation days. Since the anti-(gay)marriage groups were using almost word for word, the same arguments that were used to argue against interracial marriage.
Homosexuality was once widely considered to be a mental disorder until the APA deemed it not to be one back in the 1970's
Imagine that - societies brainwashed by hundreds of years of religious indoctrination thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Wow. Next you'll be telling me that people used to think Witches needed to be burned at the stake.
That those screaming "Intolerant Bigot!" are demonstrating their own intolerance of an opposing view is somewhat telling all by itself.
Absolutely: any moral human being should be intolerant of intolerance. That you see this as a bad thing speaks volumes about your own moral code.
The one legitimate argument for Apple's draconian system is to protect the consumer. An app like this is just as much a fraud as one claiming it can cure cancer, and if they want even the slightest credibility... On the other, they blew that by letting it in in the first place.
Imagine that - societies brainwashed by hundreds of years of religious indoctrination thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Wow. Next you'll be telling me that people used to think Witches needed to be burned at the stake.
Alternatively, societies brainwashed by decades of political correctness to bring about their own destruction because they're oblivious of the historical precendents they're repeating.
Absolutely: any moral human being should be intolerant of intolerance. That you see this as a bad thing speaks volumes about your own moral code.
And who exactly are you to tell me what I should or should not believe? Do you insist that I don't have the right to choose my belief system and world view, or do you instead believe the all powerful State or some other group of people should dictate to me my beliefs?
...but I am totally against curing lesbians.
Seriously though, you should be able to have whatever you want on the hardware you pay for - Apple could just put a disclaimer on there, or put it in a special "religious weirdness" category, and do the same with porn or whatever else. Besides, isn't this "app" and many others just a package of content you could probably browse with your phone without restriction anyway?
Here's the problem with that argument: it assumes that it doesn't hurt me or anyone else if you have an attitude of "Niggers and Fags aren't real people." In reality, it does. You may encounter Black People and Gay People whom you discount as real people. This not only means I live in a less tolerant society, it means I live in one where there is a racial divide, and I am bringing my kids up in that society. It also means that you discount those people, which hurts the market by taking many people out of it and introducing inefficiencies that come from not letting qualified people work in jobs they're qualified for. In addition, it makes you less likely to treat Black People or Gay People with the basic dignity with which we should treat all human beings. I happen to think it harms me to live in a society where people don't respect one another a tiny bit by default. You may not trust everyone, but there is no reason not to be a little bit courteous. It's not a zero-sum game. It makes everyone happier.
It obviously would make me less tolerant if I actually believed that, but it doesn't make me less tolerant if I say it, and it certainly doesn't make society less tolerant for allowing an app to be downloaded and installed that said it. Quite the opposite is true in reality and logically. If you disallow the app because you don't agree with it, you are being intolerant. Funny thing about tolerance, you have to be tolerant of intolerance, or you aren't actually tolerant.
If you are offended by the second sentence, then you probably should not have read past the first sentence.
Why shouldn't I have? Are you assuming I have a problem with being offended in and of itself, and that my only goal is to avoid being offended? Well that assumptions is wrong and stupid.
No, what I have a problem with is ignorance, bigotry, and hate. And you don't deal with those problems by avoiding them so you can pretend they don't exist. I read your second sentence because you informed me in advance that it would be offensive, which in context of this thread, probably means full of bigotry.
Do I think it's "okay" for you to say that? No, not really. Do I think it should be allowed? Why yes, yes I do. Especially because you don't get rid of bigotry by silencing bigotry. However, do I think I, or Apple, or any other private entity is within their rights to not provide you a platform by which to say that? That they are not required to publish your thoughts? Yes, I believe that too.
The KKK is free to hold a parade in the middle of town. They are not free to hold a convention on my lawn.
The enemies of Democracy are
Alternatively, societies brainwashed by decades of political correctness to bring about their own destruction because they're oblivious of the historical precendents they're repeating.
Yep, those eeeebil homersexuals are going to wipe us of the map! It's just like in the animal kingdom - gay Bonobos enslave straight Bonobos to work in their underground dildo mines!
No, numbnuts, acknowledging reality is not "political correctness". You can try to disguise your bigotry by pretending to be "fighting PC!" but don't for a second think that you're fooling anyone other than like-minded simpletons.
And who exactly are you to tell me what I should or should not believe? Do you insist that I don't have the right to choose my belief system and world view, or do you instead believe the all powerful State or some other group of people should dictate to me my beliefs?
I didn't tell you what to believe - I said that you're immoral. Learn to read. If you want to believe that a flat earth was created 6,000 years ago by an all-powerful invisible man who hates gays but created them in every species on the planet, that's awesome! I have absolutely no desire to change your mind - you're way too entertaining in your present state.
It is not sarcasm. Sarcasm implies a bitter or cutting remark. I merely point out the arguments could be made with the same rationale.
I agree, it is an action. That action is more likely when people harbor certain thoughts. But regardless, the action can be justified on the same ground as the thought--i.e. you should just have a thicker skin about it, it's still okay to do this thing. (In one case, the action, in the other, the thinking, but in either case something the person should have a thicker skin about.) There are other reasons why they're different, but the same justification can help someone support a defense of either.
The point here is not the law. The point here is right and wrong. Not necessarily moral absolutism, but certainly morality. The law is a series of rules with loose policy justifications. It is entirely possible for someone to act within the law and still be doing something they should not do.
Is it leaving someone alone to say they need a cure for their sexual orientation? Is it supporting that position to allow someone else to say that using your infrastructure? Apple here was in the position of allowing or not allowing that position to be advocated on their platform. They are not a government. From a legal standpoint, they have wide discretion.
As I said, being offended for someone else may make it better or worse, but certainly different. You think it's worse. I think it depends. Here, of course, it was mostly groupthink. But I'd imagine there are also a lot of legitimate supporters. It depends on the reason why someone supported it, and that will vary from individual to individual.
Also, nobody got up in arms except change.org, and they probably did only a little bit. Most people just--what, signed an online petition? That takes under a minute.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The day Disneyworld becomes a place which Disney markets as an open forum for everyone to come speak their mind on a subject, your comparison will be valid. Your completely asinine comparison is especially ironic, given that you're so damn rude about it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Did anyone actually checkout the app? Here are some screenshots. It wasn't a "gay cure app", it was content + videos, mostly events and FAQs and other stuff you can easily access through the Exodus website. As much as I disagree with the entire message of Exodus, I feel like I've been hosed by the clever marketing campaign by Truth Wins Out.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Though Christians are against homosexuality and do not want public displays of sexuality, they have chosen not to limit freedom behind closed doors and to be tolerant if it does not effect their own family. Sex outside of a committed marriage relationship is only for personal pleasure and is perversion wether it is straight or gay.
Homosexual activists want to encourage the behavior in children in our schools!!!!!!!! They think that their preference to engage in sexual activity trumps a parents right to raise the child how the Parent's prefer.
I'm straight and like to consider myself tolerant of diverse views but I find the above comments disturbing [let alone from the bad spelling].
A person's gender and sexuality is innate and cannot be changed-- religion is not (it is acquired - voluntarily or otherwise)
Religion is a lifestyle choice -- as far as I'm concerned you're free to exercise that choice yourself but not to impose your lifestyle on others. This approach is taken for many things but for some reason religion seems to want/have a special exemption.
What if the app was titled. Cure for masturbation? or Cure for your Christan attitude? or Cure for liberalism? or Cure for conservativeness?
Would people be so terribly offended? either it is wrong or it isn't.
Why is 'being gay' a sacred cow.
Either it is possible to make the transition or it is not. Many people claim they personally have made the transition , so what is the harm in letting people who want to try try? Or is it rather that it undermines a particular political agenda?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Do I think it should be allowed? Why yes, yes I do. Especially because you don't get rid of bigotry by silencing bigotry.
I mostly agree with you. However, silencing prejudiced opinion might reduce prejudice. I say this because I think most of us have prejudices which we keep in check, because we know they're irrational and wrong. However if an impressionable person encounters a few other people who are willing to express their prejudices, they begin to think it's socially acceptable, and that prejudice blossoms into full scale hatred.
I still feel uncomfortable about gagging people; I'd prefer to keep them quiet by ridiculing them.
It obviously would make me less tolerant if I actually believed that, but it doesn't make me less tolerant if I say it, and it certainly doesn't make society less tolerant for allowing an app to be downloaded and installed that said it. Quite the opposite is true in reality and logically. If you disallow the app because you don't agree with it, you are being intolerant. Funny thing about tolerance, you have to be tolerant of intolerance, or you aren't actually tolerant.
A good point generally--the last one especially. The first people whose rights must be defended are the most offensive, as a general rule. We still don't believe in absolute moral relativism--you have to be tolerant of intolerance to a degree, as far as most people I know are concerned. But not absolutely. And sometimes the way to respond is with the truth and better ideas. (At least, that is the theory behind free speech in law. It's been pretty much disproven by modern advertising and campaign techniques, but it is a very hopeful and almost idealistic and noble theory that nobody wants to go against).
That being said, there is at least one significant flaw. While saying "Fags aren't real people" here, in the context of making a point, does not change how you feel, saying it or even hearing it enough, being exposed to it, does influence the way we think. If you are surrounded by people who hate people, or the behaviour around you is that of disrespecting people, it influences the way that you interact. It does make you and other people less tolerant if you say it. We have a society that glorifies pimps and pimping. If people stop to think about it, even then, many don't realize how horrible that is--you have a great many pimps in this country and around the world who are slavers renting out slaves. But we still have a pop culture which often glorifies pimping. That celebrities or musicians or the kids in your neighborhood say it doesn't matter so long as they don't think it, so long as they know the truth. But they often don't know the truth, or don't think about it, and they're saying something that isn't true hurts a lot of people. Among others, tens of thousands of slaves in the US who are paid for by a society that doesn't speak against pimping. Many more around the world.
Intuitively it's a weak argument, because we know we can think or say one thing and believe another. But in reality, notice how your behavior or the behavior of others changes in response to the environment you're in, in response to what seems to be acceptable or said there.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Well, for a "NOT American" who places a high value on tolerance, you sure do have that intolerant, narrow-minded, bigotted, view of those who disagree with you down pat. That's right, we're all ignorant Christian red-necks with nothing better to do than shoot abortionists and beat up gays. Yup, you have us all in sharp focus in your brian.
No.
First of all, nobody said anything about persecution. Believing that homosexuality is a mental illness implies that it may be possible to cure it, and if so, this cure should be made available to anybody who needs it. But just as nobody suggests persecuting you for having diabetes or cancer or any other disease, persecution of homosexuals is not appropriate either.
Second, both statements are merely statements of someone's opinion. Taking offense at other people's opinions is something anybody is entitled to do in this country, but that does not in any way imply that I'm required to care about your offense at my opinions. After all, the offense is also your personal opinion. Personal opinions come from personal values. To say that some opinions are "legitimate" while others aren't is to imply the existence of a universal code of values that everyone must adhere to (or be persecuted, I suppose, if I apply your logic to your own beliefs). Catholicism proposes that there is a universal code of values and that it is defined by God. By supporting homosexuality, you are violating that code. Therefore, when you utter any opinions that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice, you are the one with illegitimate opinions. Or would you prefer to be a hypocrite and say that universal values are only universal when they are yours?
the customer into the Disney experience while they are there. So must we require Disney to allow Westboro Baptist Church to protest in front of Space Mountain? What's the difference?
Nature (and God) made us to be one way and one way only and I am totally sick and tired of those that say that moral absolutes are intolerance. You can believe whatever you want but, don't push those beliefs on the rest of us that understand right and wrong. I am not a bigot or a "homophobe".
You may want to read this because you don't seem to understand what the word 'bigotry' means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
But if it's tl;dr, the short version is: Yes, you ARE a bigot and a homophobe.
Most people purchase an iPhone/iPad specifically (at least in part) because they want a safe curated experience in that one little part of their lives--pretty much for the same reason people go to Disneyworld. I certainly don't want to worry about my kid stumbling across some app on his iPad that teaches people that homosexuality is wrong and needs to be cured. Sure, there are some subjective judgments involved in what gets in and what gets out--that's going to happen whenever you have a curator. I still prefer the curated experience to the non-curated one.
If you don't, then don't buy an iPhone--but don't pretend that you are some kind of holy freedom fighter unless you also are going to criticize every other company-sponsored curated experience the same way.
Since when.?
Apple has been quite consistent:
1. The Internet is wide-open, they provide an extremely standards-compliant browser into the unfiltered internet subject only to your choice to apply parental safety settings. They exercise no editorial control over the Internet or any standards-based web apps.
2. The App Store is literally "Apple's Store" just as if you were shopping in one of their retail stores. They exercise editorial control over things offered in that store consistent with their corporate policies and image.
This is a corporate-curated user experience, people know that going in--just like Disneyworld. So where is all your righteous indignation over Disneyworld?
Physical fences around private property are a lot more natural than centrally controlled cryptographic restrictions built into computing devices.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Why is it a defect? Is it mandatory for all members of a species to procreate? And gays are not sterile.
Is it leaving someone alone to say they need a cure for their sexual orientation?
Is it leaving someone alone to bombard them with advertising for diets / weight loss 'cures'? I wonder how many calorie-counting, BMI calculating or other unhealthily-skinny-promoting apps are on the Apple marketplace, especially targeting women and young girls? Perhaps a petition is needed...
My point is, this app expresses an opinion. There are other things that you could do with apps that could facilitate action, but (as far as I can find, anyways) this one expresses a simple, albeit misguided, opinion. It is not running around self-downloading onto phones, or performing any other action unless the user invites it in with the overt action of downloading the app.
You mention morality as a justification, but morality is a socio-religious construct. In some parts of the world, it is not considered moral for women to leave their hair or faces exposed, is it therefore 'wrong' to do so? Of course not? Why, then, is it 'wrong' to expose the rest of one's body in public except under certain restricted conditions? Who, exactly, does it hurt (well, other than the exposee if it's bloody cold out)?
The law is a series of rules with loose policy justifications. It is entirely possible for someone to act within the law and still be doing something they should not do.
[emphasis added]
Such as having gay sex? Or having sex before marriage? How about overeating? Who defines 'should'? IMHO, laws should exist solely to determine where your fist ends and my face begins. Unfortunately, law-makers are human, therefore laws are often flawed. As far as I'm concerned, as long as your statements or actions do not impede my life or freedom, you are fully entitled to them, as are others. You are free to try to make me feel guilty or abnormal by expressing your opinion, and I am free to argue with and/or ignore you and those like you (e.g.: christian world-view vs.atheistic world-view).
That's a thought. Would people have been so upset if an 'Atheist Cure' app were released? How about a 'Christian Cure' app? True, these are belief-based, not physical 'conditions', but these hypothetical apps would still simply be supporting an opinion: that the 'condition' in question is wrong and needs to be 'cured'.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Mother Nature disagrees.
Disney doesn't have anything close to an oligopoly over theme parks, nor is speech one of the major functions of a theme park.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Do you have any shred of proof that it is one?
I don't think Apple refusing to sell and app in the app store is censorship. Here's the wikipedia definition:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."
Limiting distribution of any app does not have the impact as stated by the definition above.
Yes it does. "Media outlet or other controlling body." That's Apple in this case.
Bow-ties are cool.
I mostly agree with you. However, silencing prejudiced opinion might reduce prejudice. I say this because I think most of us have prejudices which we keep in check, because we know they're irrational and wrong.
Your two sentences are contradictory. "Keeping them in check" is not reducing the prejudice, it is simply constraining it. Keeping it bottled up. Festering is another way to say it.
Or, better put, being intolerant of intolerance is intolerance exemplified. You cannot fight against that in which you are actively engaged. It is also called "hypocrisy", since everyone is intolerant of something.
I still feel uncomfortable about gagging people; I'd prefer to keep them quiet by ridiculing them.
Why yes, ridicule works so well in dealing with prejudice and bigotry. Avoid education and reasonable discourse at all costs. Put pressure on those who have opinions you disagree with so they will not express them and allow you a chance to discuss those opinions openly and frankly. Or even to know WHO you need to discuss them with because everyone avoids speaking to you about them. Good idea.
Be very careful about your assumptions. "whereas in the US, the majority of the country supports gay marriage" is likely very false
It's almost certainly false. In 2009, the Pew Center found that 54% of the Americans they polled opposed same-sex marriage. This figure has fluctuated over the years, but in only one 2008 poll did the figure slip below 50%, and then only by a mere percentage point. Explicit support for same-sex marriage never breaks 40% in any year that article reports.
The good news for the future is that younger cohorts are more likely to accept same-sex marriage, though even among 18-29 year-olds, there's about an equal number of opponents and supporters.
Heh. Awesome.
The reason I added that as my tagline is because far-left twits kept assuming I was American, and calling me a right-wing christian hick. I found that adding the disclaimer tended to cut down on pointless flamewars because it let them know that I wasn't sticking up for the US due to mindless militant nationalism. It was a response to people who DO hold the views you accuse me of having.
I'm not at all surprised that someone like you would completely misunderstand, and go for the opposite extreme.
However if an impressionable person encounters a few other people who are willing to express their prejudices, they begin to think it's socially acceptable, and that prejudice blossoms into full scale hatred.
Yes, but the problem is that people will still express their prejudices, just more quietly. They could still find other, impressionable people. And when they do, that person will be able to say -- legitimately! -- that their views are being oppressed. That they are the victims. You've made it harder for them to connect with others, but you've also lent strength to their arguments.
I see this as self-defeating.
The enemies of Democracy are
Maybe he caught it?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
yet another example how "political correctness" voids the constitution...
They didn't come for anyone. Apple App Store is (as the name implies) Apple's property. Their store, their service, not funded by any money anyone was forced to pay (such as taxes). They also don't put anyone in jail, fine or inflict any other punishment on anyone. If you don't like Apple, don't buy their products - there are alternatives. Next are you going to go after McDonalds for not service some ethnic food as censorship?
There are a small number of companies which control the overwhelming majority of theme parks--and none of them provide an 'uncurated' experience, yet somehow democracy has not crumbled.
I don't see how political speech is a major function of the App Store, either--it certainly isn't positioned that way by Apple. There are completely functional and far more popular avenues for political speech which reach everyone the App Store reaches (and far more)--Apple is doing nothing to block those.
Dude, you've lost this argument, this isn't a free speech issue and it has nothing to do with the discourse commons. This is a private company making a very successful product. Maybe you want this product, but you don't like some small parts of it (like the inability to run arbitrary code for your personal needs), you don't like the politics of it (like Apple's curation philosophy), or maybe you don't like the people that buy them (maybe you feel they are too technically unsophisticated to be worthy of a powerful smartphone); whatever the reason you've concocted some silly rationalization about the fracturing of 'discourse commons'. Guess what? you're not Gandhi.
Apple's iPhone/iPad/App_Store ecosystem == Disneyworld, tolerate both or hate both.
with them--I think that speaks volumes about what "most" people who purchase those products want.
Apple does absolutely nothing to limit access to the raw, unfiltered, standards-compliant internet for all who want it--so how you can argue that this has anything to do with censoring access to information is beyond me.
We aren't talking about a censored world, we're talking about a curated store for buying little applications to run on a phone. You aren't a freedom fighter, you are just an ass-hat who wishes that some $100 billion dollar corporation would make exactly the phone you want rather than the one that makes them the most money.
Because that yard doesn't contain every other political sign? What about an American flag?
Are you saying that millions of people who display these items in their front yards are engaged in "bad and evil" behavior?
physical walls?
What about the Disney channel on TV? do they have to run Westboro Church's commercials during Handy Manny episodes?
---
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, by the way.
iOS/Android users can access the same raw/unfiltered/standards-compliant internet that any other user can access.
The idea that Apple would modify the name of your application even if it's a hateful application to make it appear as something completely different is wrong. The right thing to do was just to remove it. Anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit dim.
Microsoft did not have total control of the PC marketplace (after all, they don't make PCs). They also did not have control over what apps could run on the Windows platform---they just refused to remove parts of the Windows platform.
Apple, however, has total control over the iPhone platform. They sell the hardware, software, and control what apps are available. This is an obvious monopoly of a fairly popular platform (at the end of FY2010, 73.5 million iPhones had been sold).
One could invent all sorts of imaginary things to worry about, most of which would be no-more farfetched than your ridiculous implication that Apple is somehow planning to limit access to the internet.
I noticed that you aren't denying the pedofile claim. Doesn't matter, denying it would just make you look more guilty.
Do you think the programmer wrote the app with (a) LISP?
So initially this was about the "discourse commons", meaning that Apple's tight control was somehow a threat to democracy.
You've now retreated into fairly raw foot stomping that while it should be allowed for a company to be successful or to offer a "curated experience"; they shouldn't be allowed to be both successful AND to offer a "curated experience". We are all left to speculate on the basis for why you think this is some sort of obvious moral imperative.
The only generally-accepted social/economic/legal concept that even marginally lines up with that way of thinking has to do with capitalist monopoly abuse. But you won't go there because you can't even come close to claiming that Apple has a monopoly (just look at Android) or that they are abusing their market position to restrict competition from a competing ecosystem.
So I am left completely befuddled about this world view in which you accept the existence of curated outlets all around you, including ones with honest-to-god real walls (e.g. Disneyworld), but somehow you become indignant when faced with Apple doing a fairly tame [and arguably less restrictive] version of the exact same thing.
I'm calling bullshit. I don't think you understand anything about political science or economics, and probably not about technology either. You are a whiny brat who wants a $100 billion corporation to make exactly the product you want eventhough they can make more money by making the product that millions of other people want. I think you are cloaking your disgust in a completely fabricated veil of intellectualism with a mixed in Chicken Little impression about how the future freedom of the internet is at stake.
You have been thoroughly destroyed, and it was the easiest thing I did today.
Well you're the one who said "bad and evil." I simply agreed that, in general, allowing ideas we don't like or agree with to be expressed is preferable to suppressing them. We do make exceptions, such as hate speech, or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But that doesn't necessarily make that speech "evil" (if there is such a thing); it's just an example of the common good trumping an individual's freedom, like conscription, or taxes.
As for your political sign analogy, if I put one (or a thousand) signs in my yard, that's self-expression. If I provide space in my yard for others to display whatever signs they like, but specifically prohibit you from displaying a particular sign because I don't like the content of it, then I'm censoring you.
People load that word up with all sorts of baggage, but it simply means ... well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of the word censor:
If I consider your speech objectionable and decide to suppress it on those grounds, I'm censoring you.
Whether others consider that act to be "bad or evil" would probably depend on how they feel about censorship in general, and the content of your sign in particular.
I don't care why you're posting AC
There is a difference between the desire to have sex with someone of the same gender, and actually having sex with someone of the same gender. The desire may or may not be a conscious decision, the action is.
.. is nose picking natural?? Animals do it, so why not people. Should be start passing laws that forbid the open discrimination of nose pickers??
... sexual discrimination.
Everyone has ideas of what types of behaviors are acceptable and which are not for a variety of reason. It is also normal to disapprove of behaviors that carry higher than normal health risks.
Let's take something innocuous like nose picking. The majority of people probably do not find public nose picking acceptable. I would also guess that close to 100% prefer that boogers not be wiped onto the bottom of their dining room table. There are health issues associated with it, germs are present in the mucous in the nose, and picking can spread those germs.
Yet every day, many people do it. I remember a study somewhere that says the a fair number of people do it in their car. Those that pick their noses are embarrassed by it because of the social stigma, and do their best to hide it.
And many people that want to do it, just won't do it
So
While I find gay sex disgusting (at least male gay sex), that doesn't mean I won't accept someone as a friend who participates in that behavior. But I might not accept someone who violates another of my unacceptable behaviors, such as lying.
It is everyone's right to decide who to associate with based on the behavioral rules each individual establishes, and which rules they may bend. It is also my right as a parent to encourage certain behaviors in my children, and discourage others.It is the right of society to decide which behaviors society will tolerate, ignore, or punish.
Those rights are often in conflict. Some people do not tolerate any smoking or drinking, yet society allows it within limits. I smoke cigars and drink, yet I encouraged my children to stay away from those behaviors until they are adults.
It's time for the homosexual community to accept that some people will always find their behavior unacceptable, and get on with their lives. Stop trying to force society to accept it, and change any law that favors married couples to favor any adults in a committed relationship, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or even non-sexual.
After all, if two heterosexual guys want to share an apartment, shouldn't they have the same rights as a gay couple? Not giving them the same rights would be
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
And don't try to impose it on others who don't share your beliefs, because you have no right to do that whatsoever.
Then explain the pressure by LGBT activists to make people approve of homosexuality then. Is that not bigoted? I believe we have a right to hold and express our opinions, whether or not that makes someone upset.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Since the release of the Gay Cure app, the market has seen a steady rise in Android adoption.
You are in the phase of your life where you are trying to fit some simple rules to how the world works and how it should work--as your brain develops you will develop the capability to cope with additional complexity. One of the things you will learn to distinguish is the difference between the morality of an opinion which serves only to isolate and persecute class of people vs. an opinion which is intended to uplift a class of people without denigrating another.
It's naked tribalism, old as sin--but unfortunately a concept that many people can't get their heads wrapped around until they get a little older.
Nobody "becomes homosexual" or "becomes heterosexual", they only can choose whether to come out of the closet and stop hating themselves.
I realize to you this is a fun abstract argument, but for many people this is literally a life or death issue. Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide because they are wrestling with the puritanical shame vortex created by the people trying to 'cure them'?
no "straight cure" app, then you will have yet another example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.
Not all beliefs are equal--some are just downright meanspirited and need to be smacked down.
Sure, some great points there. In my view however, the roles are getting ever more sticky. From the govt side, one of the biggest attempts at censorship is coming from the proposed new laws to the effect "unauthorized streaming" (not even copying anymore!) "is a (potential) felony because somewhere, some kid may die from an illegal episode of SpongeBob". So then cue Apple, with their nice cozy walled garden of eden, "everything in the garden is safe, but you wouldn't want to play in the ghetto outside on da internetz".
So then you get Apple in the position of "certifying" stuff, and then it very much matters what the "private comany" decides is kosher. (Pickle extra.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
No one wants to legislate how you feel about homosexuality, just like no one wants to legislate your feelings on an ethnicity different from yours. You have every right to be totally racist if you want.
What you can't automatically have is society backing up your feelings with laws. Back when anti-miscegenation laws prevented inter-racial couples from marrying, there was widespread support for them. They were overturned because we recognized that even widespread feelings of discrimination don't justify continuing with a historically well-regarded injustice.
Homosexuals don't really care if you like them or not. They care if you prevent them from doing what, in their terms, everyone else is free to do. Forcing acceptance of gay marriage isn't about you. It's not about getting you to feel like they're not second class citizens. It's about them being allowed to marry each other. It doesn't hurt you to allow them to marry; it only hurts them, and your feelings of disgust don't justify that.
No, not in any meaningful sense of the term "sexual discrimination".
But perhaps you mean something like "what if two heterosexual males got married for the tax breaks?" Well, so what? What stops a man and a woman getting married for the tax breaks, even though they're only platonic friends? Does the government insist on a videotape of them consumating the relationship to prove that they're not somehow exploiting the institution for personal gain? No, because honestly, it's not a real problem. It's probably happened somewhere and will happen again, but it simply doesn't matter enough to bother with. Same thing if gay marriage were allowed.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Well you're the one who said "bad and evil." I simply agreed that, in general, allowing ideas we don't like or agree with to be expressed is preferable to suppressing them. We do make exceptions, such as hate speech, or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. But that doesn't necessarily make that speech "evil" (if there is such a thing); it's just an example of the common good trumping an individual's freedom, like conscription, or taxes.
As for your political sign analogy, if I put one (or a thousand) signs in my yard, that's self-expression. If I provide space in my yard for others to display whatever signs they like, but specifically prohibit you from displaying a particular sign because I don't like the content of it, then I'm censoring you.
People load that word up with all sorts of baggage, but it simply means ... well, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of the word censor:
If I consider your speech objectionable and decide to suppress it on those grounds, I'm censoring you.
Whether others consider that act to be "bad or evil" would probably depend on how they feel about censorship in general, and the content of your sign in particular.
Baloney. You can put your damn sign up in your own f@cking yard. If I come take it away from your yard, that's censorship.
Yes, I can put my damn sign in my f@cking yard. And you can decide who gets to put their damn signs in your f@cking yard.
But if you allow others to put their damn signs in your f@cking yard, but don't allow me to put my damn sign in your f@cking yard because you don't like the content of my sign, the word that describes that is censorship.
The key here is that you make your yard available to people to put up their signs, but single mine out because you don't like the content of my particular sign.
If a newspaper publishes letters to the editor, but choose to not publish mine (even for a good reason, like to avoid a potential libel suit) they are censoring me. Doesn't make them "bad or evil" (at least in that particular case), but the word that describes that action is "censor."
People censor all the time. You did it yourself when you put the @ in f@cking. Presumably, you believed spelling the word out completely might cause offense to someone, so you censored yourself by replacing the "u" with "@."
I don't get why that damn word causes so much f@cking confusion.
I don't care why you're posting AC
(if they haven't already). Add a clause saying that apps that are racist, sexist, discriminatory etc will be rejected, and Apple reserves the final say in this matter.
I'd be surprised if they haven't already done so. In which case, there's no need to paint them as an arbitrary enforcer of morality. The app violated their TOS and was banned, plain and simple. Don't like the terms? Tough luck - it's their playground and their rules. If I've got it right, First Amendment applies to public or govt. owned places and the Appstore doesn't qualify as one since it's owned by Apple.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
Overwhelmingly owners of iPhones/iPads are happy with them--I think that speaks volumes about what "most" people who purchase those products want.
It says nothing... just because someone chose an iPhone as their best choice doesn't mean that they are happy with everything about it.
Apple does absolutely nothing to limit access to the raw, unfiltered, standards-compliant internet for all who want it-
So why can't people run the applications they want?
You aren't a freedom fighter, you are just an ass-hat who wishes that some $100 billion dollar corporation would make exactly the phone you want rather than the one that makes them the most money.
Well, now you're just being a dickhead... first of all, I want no such thing (I don't want an iPhone/iPad at all, in fact). I also never argued that Apple didn't have every right to censor, just that I disagree with censorship and treating your customers as if they can't make their own decisions, as well pushing an ideology based on popular demand... nobody was forced to buy that app, nobody was forced to be exposed to the content of said app - your analogies are ridiculous, and just because you like having your hand held so you're not exposed to the "evil" content of people who think homosexuality is a choice, you believe you speak for all iPhone users.... any justification to support your ideology will do, I suppose.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I know experts, credible in other things I know more about, who say that they have helped persons wo self-identified as "gay but wanted to become "straight" to do so, and others who insist that this is impossible. This isn't my area of expertise, but evidence, including scientific evidence, and the First Amendment and freedom and competition in ideas are among those in which I do have expertise. I've read a number of things by experts on both sides of this issue, and, frankly, come away with the impression that both sides' cases leave much to be desired. I have talked to people who tell me they have chosen to anfd successfully changed, and others who say it can't be done but none of those who have talked to me, in or out of privileged and confidential relationships, tell me they really tried. Apps are a form of expression, and I think Apple, etc., set a dangerous precedent when they allow organized pressure groups' petition campaigns, threats, etc., to persuade them to suppress expression on controversial issues, regardless of which side has the current temporary majority on them. What's next, caving to pressure by the same people to pull Biblical and religious apps because the Old and New Testaments both contain strong language about this issue? Sprint, my cell phone carrier to which I am indentured for years, is going to offer the Android HTC but not the iPhone4, and I'm having trouble getting detailed information about its capabilities and available apps relevant to my legal and other interests to help me decide whether to upgrade or not. Do we really want Apple, Microsoft, Google, GE, or the Democrats or Republicans, or some of their big money backers, or whoever, effectively censoring apps or Ebooks on the basis of the authors' opinions?