Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Monday April 06 2015, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the hypocrisy-knows-no-bounds dept.

David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:53PM (#167224)

    I disagree entirely.

    Not surprising, considering how much you're exemplifying the Dunning Kruger effect while discussing the subject. As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion. An atheist as a self-proclaimed expert on religion is laughable.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:13PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday April 06 2015, @11:13PM (#167236)

    Not surprising, considering how much you're exemplifying the Dunning Kruger effect while discussing the subject.

    That's not an actual counterargument, and could easily be applied to you as well. Anyone can make such random assertions.

    As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion.

    What is it that you want? Do you want me to read fairy tale books? That is meaningless.

    I don't know if you realize this, but my position that belief in magical sky daddies is irrational does not require me to have much specific knowledge about any religion.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:19PM (#167237)

    > As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion.

    Sorry, I'm the atheist he's been arguing with in this thread and I say you are totally off.

    For one thing, atheists have the highest amount of general knowledge about religion. [npr.org] Which makes sense - religious people tend to be experts in their particular sect, but know nothing about any other religions. They will have a more narrow knowledge while those not married to a sect will have a more broad knowledge.

    But what I do believe is that as an atheist, Anal hasn't bothered to understand the religious impulse at all. He's so ridiculously dismissive of what he doesn't understand that he can't be bothered to understand. He's taken it on faith that it is all irrational and thus there is nothing of value there. That makes him the worst kind of atheist, the kind that has turned his atheism into a religion itself.

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:26PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday April 06 2015, @11:26PM (#167242)

      But what I do believe is that as an atheist, Anal hasn't bothered to understand the religious impulse at all.

      Not understanding it and calling it irrational are two different things.

      He's taken it on faith that it is all irrational and thus there is nothing of value there.

      It's not faith. It can be plainly observed that a grand majority of religions have supernatural elements to them, which is irrational. I don't think you can just minimize the irrationality by saying that it's just a tiny facet of religion; I believe it's important.

      That makes him the worst kind of atheist, the kind that has turned his atheism into a religion itself.

      Lacking a belief in deities is not a religion. Neither is observing that religion is irrational.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:55AM (#167298)

        > Not understanding it and calling it irrational are two different things.

        It could be, but in your case they are two sides of the same coin.

        You are like the queen of flatland, completely and utterly convinced that there are no more than 2 dimensions in the universe. For you a 3rd dimension is so incomprehensible that you can do nothing more than deny its existence.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:47AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:47AM (#167308)

          It could be, but in your case they are two sides of the same coin.

          So you say.

          You are like the queen of flatland, completely and utterly convinced that there are no more than 2 dimensions in the universe.

          I don't know how you can say what I am or am not utterly convinced about.

          You say the matter of magical sky daddies is, in practice, a small facet of religion. I disagree. I see it as a big problem if you want your religion to be rational. That belief without evidence (not just in god, but in the holy books that are often revered) is irrational. There are other parts to religion, but that is an irrelevant point of discussion to me; you keep acting like I say they don't exist, but that's not what is happening.

          For you a 3rd dimension is so incomprehensible that you can do nothing more than deny its existence.

          You're just not seeing The Truth. You've turned your disagreement with me into its own religion, resembling that of the worst religious fundamentalists. Obviously. The word "religion" can mean anything and any belief is simply a religion, especially if it's a belief you disagree with. Like all those evil hardcore atheists; that's a religion right there. Just use "religion" as a generic insult.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:17PM (#167549)

        Grand majority != All

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:49PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:49PM (#167570)

          Yes, and?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:12AM (#167647)

            Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:03AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:03AM (#167795)

              In practice, it doesn't make sense. What about it? A grand majority of religions are irrational garbage (with the remaining few being rather pointless, as they don't need to be religions), and a few exceptions to the rule won't make me change my statement.

              I see you're more interested in scoring 'points', though. The Religion Defense Force to the rescue!