• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Ford's Huge Cock-Up

I think this belongs in general automotive, not political discussion. :oops:
 
It's a pretty political discussion.

Bending to political pressure from christian fundamentalists doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.
 
Specifically, the AFA demanded that Ford stop all contributions to homosexual social events (e.g. gay pride parades), end all donations to homosexual organizations and cease advertising in all gay-oriented media. Yesterday, Ford confirmed that Jaguar and Land Rover will pull their advertising from gay publications, but refused to discuss any other details of the AFA agreement. One thing is for sure: The Blue Oval caved, Big Style.

How do you mean it's not political discussion?
 
zenkidori said:
It's a pretty political discussion.

Bending to political pressure from christian fundamentalists doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.

Bending to political pressure from any fundamentalist group isn't a good idea, christian or otherwise (I see no difference in bending for one group or another). I can see this as a discussion about Ford's decision, but not as a basis for a debate about homosexuality, if that's what this article is about.

I figured if it was a discussion about Ford's decision, rather than homosexuality, it really isn't a political discussion. Eh, whatever...
 
Toyed with putting it in the Auto section. Plus some one reading this in the care section may not give a toss (pun intended) about the lack of blue oval stickers at the next gay pride parade. Better to err on the side of caution.

But then I figured it's more about caving in to the Christian right-wing than it is about the new Focus ST or Mustang.

The worst thing is that Ford is waffling - yes we're boycotting, no some brands (like Volvo) will continue to support, yes all brands are boycotting. You'd think Tom Cruise's PR people are running the show.

I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree...by all accounts Henry Ford was fairly anti-Semetic.
 
anti-semitism isn't anti-gay. Plenty of Jews are anti-gay as well.

If you look at number it sort of makes sense. 80%ish of the US and most of the western world is christian, gays make up a much smaller %. However these christian groups don't have the kind of pull that they would like to, most christians aren't close to the extremes these groups promote, and wouldn't participate in the boycott. It's like the burning of Harry Potter books, most people don't care about Harry Potter, but there is a very vocal minority who denounces HP as satanic.

In the end gays are generally more organized and they may take a bigger hit for this move than they would have. Many non-gays participate in gay rights activism and wouldn't have a problem joining in.
 
zenkidori said:
anti-semitism isn't anti-gay. Plenty of Jews are anti-gay as well.
right, but someone who already displays his narrow mindedness by being one, might very well also be the other...
and of course there are also anti-semitic homosexuals.

anyway, FoMoCo is free to do whatever they want...if they want to be riduculous, they can do as they wish...though i wonder why they wanted to appear so weak as through giving in to some fundamentalists...
however, i bet this company policy won't even make it across the pond.
 
I was only trying to illustrate that Ford has had a history of intolerance and not defending what's right because the moral majority says so.


I thing that extremists do get things done even though there are so few. They are the squeaky wheel that get's the oil. That's why they are so scary.

In the end its a shame that a big corporation could not defend itself and gave in to this group at the cost of who knows what, plus a lot of bad press.
 
I think it's the quite the opposite in America, the moral majority believes that homosexuals don't deserve to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

I hope this gets more press in Canada.
 
///M said:
I think it's the quite the opposite in America, the moral majority believes that homosexuals don't deserve to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Unfortunately true. You'd be suprised how much power the religious fundamentalists carry in the States.

I hope this gets more press in Canada.

I suspect that this policy won't extend into Canada, since this "AFA" is American only. Ford's Canadian marketing department will continue as they have, even in the rather conservative province I live in.

I don't agree with Ford's policy, I think they should have told the AFA to shove it, but I really don't know how big the AFA is or how many people were a part of the boycott.
 
They would't do this in Canada, but it's still bad press for them.

Has anyone heard of a company that suffered due to a boycot from the GLBT community? Just wondering.
 
Special interest groups are abundant, religious AND gay.

Also see the ACLU.

Big companies will fold to ANY pressure from ANY group.

Has anyone heard of a company that suffered due to a boycot from the GLBT community? Just wondering.

I dont think Eminem's CD sales suffered a bit.
 
Zenkidori is correct in saying that extremists (religious, or otherwise) make up a small percentage of any group. They may not wield power directly (ie having a prominent position in a government office) but their methods and tactics wield a great deal of influence. And that's the diff.

Who cares if you don't have power. You can make those that do, carry out your bidding.

GBLT does not have the influence of the AFA.
 
justin syder said:
Special interest groups are abundant, religious AND gay.

Also see the ACLU.

Big companies will fold to ANY pressure from ANY group.

Has anyone heard of a company that suffered due to a boycot from the GLBT community? Just wondering.

I dont think Eminem's CD sales suffered a bit.
eminem is in fact rather popular withing the gay crowd and i have not heard that anybody did not get his records, apart from those who wouldn't get his stuff anyway. ;)

but i don't think big companys fold to any pressure from any group...this is one example here, i bet there are others that did not go the same way...
 
but i don't think big companys fold to any pressure from any group...this is one example here, i bet there are others that did not go the same way...

Should I cite examples?

I could bring many incidents with the ACLU alone, let alone the other groups that pressure big names/companies.

GBLT does not have the influence of the AFA.

GBLT has made many advances in the gay community. When the AIDS epedemic in the US started out many homosexuals, the cause of massive spread of the disease in the 80s, were viewed as deviants from society.

Nowadays a gay man with AIDS is seen or viewed with pity and a hero in some sense. We went from not speaking of homosexuals to calling them "Gay's" because gay means happy and doesn't have a negative conotation.

We have seen more Gay influence or rather Gay culture through movies, music etc. This was not the case 40yrs ago. It is almost to the point of being hip or cool to be gay, the latest trend.

How has this become? Try reading this,

How 'gay rights' is being sold to America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887
 
justin syder said:
Should I cite examples?

I could bring many incidents with the ACLU alone, let alone the other groups that pressure big names/companies.
ok, seems to be an american thing to fold to pressure groups. ;)

GBLT does not have the influence of the AFA.

GBLT has made many advances in the gay community. When the AIDS epedemic in the US started out many homosexuals, the cause of massive spread of the disease in the 80s, were viewed as deviants from society.

Nowadays a gay man with AIDS is seen or viewed with pity and a hero in some sense. We went from not speaking of homosexuals to calling them "Gay's" because gay means happy and doesn't have a negative conotation.
when it indeed spread in the 80s in the homosexual community, it spread because people did not know it even existed. how can you blame someone for aquiring a disase he does not know exists? how can you view such persons as deviants?

is there any difference between homosexuals with HIV and heterosexuals with HIV?

and from todays usage of the word "gay" i would not view it to be something positive...

We have seen more Gay influence or rather Gay culture through movies, music etc. This was not the case 40yrs ago. It is almost to the point of being hip or cool to be gay, the latest trend.
because 40yrs ago homosexuality practically did not exist in straight people's mind.
but it still existed, like it always existed. you can't just pretend it would not exist. that is what has changed.
and please go and ask some homosexual teenager, who suffers from the hatred displayed towards him in school or whereever, if he feels everyone treats him as cool and hip!
 
Homosexuality has existed since long ago, when the greeks made it popular so the notion that straight ppl didnt think it existed is a crazy one.

And even when HIV and AIDS was know it was originally called GRID. It was prodominently a homosexually transmitted disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_related_immune_deficiency

Naturally, it spread umongst gay men because of their deviant lifestyle. Is having sex with hundreds of partners really healthy?

Fine, it wasn't known back then and could be credited with its quick spread.

But what do you say to this then?

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22719.asp

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the most recent U.S. study, conducted in 2003, men who have sex with men accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men, although only 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as men who have sex with men. (Obviously their surveys underestimate the true number of men who have sex with men, but even accounting for this error, the data is overwhelming.)

It is still being spread amongst gay men far more than straight men.

And for the record, I do not hate gays. As a Christian I love my neighbor and even you guys who attack my view and sometimes mock me, I have no hate in my heart. I DO however, appose them marrying and redefining marriage which will allow it to be redefined again and again. I have no problem with two gay guys doing what ever in the privacy of their home.
 
justin syder said:
Homosexuality has existed since long ago, when the greeks made it popular so the notion that straight ppl didnt think it existed is a crazy one.
no it is not, because the church managed to hide that kind of knowledge throughout the medieval. its only lately, that such issues are widely discussed.

And even when HIV and AIDS was know it was originally called GRID. It was prodominently a homosexually transmitted disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_related_immune_deficiency

Fine, it wasn't known back then and could be credited with its quick spread.

But what do you say to this then?

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22719.asp

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the most recent U.S. study, conducted in 2003, men who have sex with men accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men, although only 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as men who have sex with men. (Obviously their surveys underestimate the true number of men who have sex with men, but even accounting for this error, the data is overwhelming.)

It is still being spread amongst gay men far more than straight men.

And for the record, I do not hate gays. As a Christian I love my neighbor and even you guys who attack my view and sometimes mock me, I have no hate in my heart. I DO however, appose them marrying and redefining marriage which will allow it to be redefined again and again. I have no problem with two gay guys doing what ever in the privacy of their home.
your problem is that you just look at the outbreak of the epidemic in the USA (or the western world), where it indeed spread predominently among homosexuals, as i already acknowledged and explained.

you have to look at it globally in order to really see where it spreads. in contrast to the western world, where HIV is spread predominently among homosexuals, you'll notice that in latin america, eastern europe, asia or africa it is spread among everyone.
while HIV is indeed a problem withing the western homosexual community, it has a extremely different scale in the second and third world. in africa you have so many HIV infected people that the economy is affected by it! companys loose so many employees that some employ more than they would actually need in order to make sure the business keeps running!
in asia and estern europe then, its spread among prostitutes...

as i said, its not a matter of sexual preference but of living conditions.


Naturally, it spread umongst gay men because of their deviant lifestyle. Is having sex with hundreds of partners really healthy?
that is not the only reason, as i explained, since homosexuals back then simply did not need condoms like heterosexuals.
not using condoms is also one reason why it spreads so quickly in africa and asia. sex tourists who go to thailand don't want to use condoms and the church does everything to combat the use of condoms in africa...
you can't just single out one reason...

and yes, having sex with hundreds of partners isn't exaclty healthy. but i suspect that has more to do with the nature of men than with the nature of homosexuals. there are also lots of straight men who have hundreds of different sex partners, but i guess there are less women willing to do that than man, a problem which does not exist within the homosexual community. ;)

i consider myself 51% gay, but if there is one thing that annoys me, than it is the extreme poylgamy of the gay community...but we can't change that, its their decision and none of our business.
but i tell you, i feel no mercy for anybody who today infects himself with HIV due to his own stupidity...having unsafe sex with strangers is no different from drunk driving for me...
 
Top