Apple Brainwashes Gay Cure App from iTunes

[Saikonate]

I had to reply to this part. The families and friends of victims that are murdered absolutely benefit from the comfort in knowing that whoever did it can never hurt anyone again.

I disagree that that is a real benefit. I think it's something a lot of people say they want, but I dispute that it brings actual value. I should note that I'm saying this without any empirical evidence to support or deny it (though anecdotally I can say that some quantity of families affected by murder agree with me [http://www.mvfr.org/?page_id=6]. Seeing a murderer murdered doesn't give "closure", and no number of state-sanctioned killings makes up for that loss) - I'm merely raising the possibility that it is not as cut and dry as you've presented it.

Something else to consider: the person the state executes is someone's son/daughter/loved one as well.

You can't tell me you wouldn't feel the same way, no one can unless they've been in that situation. Don't try the "then just put them in prison for life" argument because they can still hurt other inmates and guards or hell even break out. At best you can guess you wouldn't want whoever it was to be put to death, You can't possibly know for certain.

You're right, I might wish violence on someone who hurt my family or friends, and I can't guarantee that I wouldn't without being in that position. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do so, that I'd receive any sort of benefit from seeing violence carried out against them, that society has an obligation to harm them in retribution, or that I wouldn't be able to admit any of these things despite my feelings.

It's really dangerous to mete out justice based on emotion. Personal feelings, however justified, aren't what make something right or wrong.

 

[Sarge034]

I had to reply to this part. The families and friends of victims that are murdered absolutely benefit from the comfort in knowing that whoever did it can never hurt anyone again.

I disagree that that is a real benefit. I think it's something a lot of people say they want, but I dispute that it brings actual value. I should note that I'm saying this without any empirical evidence to support or deny it (though anecdotally I can say that some quantity of families affected by murder agree with me [http://www.mvfr.org/?page_id=6]. Seeing a murderer murdered doesn't give "closure", and no number of state-sanctioned killings makes up for that loss) - I'm merely raising the possibility that it is not as cut and dry as you've presented it.

Something else to consider: the person the state executes is someone's son/daughter/loved one as well.

You can't tell me you wouldn't feel the same way, no one can unless they've been in that situation. Don't try the "then just put them in prison for life" argument because they can still hurt other inmates and guards or hell even break out. At best you can guess you wouldn't want whoever it was to be put to death, You can't possibly know for certain.

You're right, I might wish violence on someone who hurt my family or friends, and I can't guarantee that I wouldn't without being in that position. That doesn't mean I'd be right to do so, that I'd receive any sort of benefit from seeing violence carried out against them, that society has an obligation to harm them in retribution, or that I wouldn't be able to admit any of these things despite my feelings.

It's really dangerous to mete out justice based on emotion. Personal feelings, however justified, aren't what make something right or wrong.

I'm only going to post here because the text block to counter the other post would have been too long.

First off I would like to say good job for avoiding any of my points you could not counter (see post #317/318). Second define benefit, and to clear up ALL confusion I mean that literally. However if you are too lazy to look up references that would help PROVE your point I'll just post it.

World English Dictionary

benefit
-n
1. something that improves or promotes
4. an act of kindness; good deed

The definition of benefit coupled with the fact you can only claim that SOME families agree with you makes me wonder how an ever objective person like you could say that there is no possible benefit.

This is all I needed to read from the personal opinions you linked, "... I now know that it is not a deterrent to homicide, it costs much more than permanent imprisonment, and, in my opinion, permanent imprisonment is a much more suitable penalty. `Bad guys' don't think they will get the death penalty. Career criminals can and will commit homicides without getting the death penalty. The homicide rate hasn't exactly been going down on the graph charts over the years with the death penalty in place," Helene said.

Ok I'll break it down. Her anti-death penalty friend sent her propaganda stories, much like the ones you have been posting with no actual information on them only opinions and conjecture. The death penalty is not a deterrent to homicide because it is not a guarantee that the murderer will be in a state that enforces it. She even says this in her interview (?, don't know what this was as it sounded like a persuasive argument with no supporting information at all). "`Bad guys' don?t think they will get the death penalty." If the standard treatment was death two years after sentencing and that was common knowledge, I wonder how it would act as a deterrent then.

The fact that you are unwilling to discuss the possibility of a middle ground makes me think you are so anti-death penalty that you are blinded to the possibility that our side might have some valid points. Saying that, I think you only came here to argue with people. I was hoping to find someone willing to talk and discuss the pros and cons of BOTH sides.

 

[Saikonate]

First off I would like to say good job for avoiding any of my points you could not counter (see post #317/318).

You mean like you ignored the entire post responding to you?

The definition of benefit coupled with the fact you can only claim that SOME families agree with you makes me wonder how an ever objective person like you could say that there is no possible benefit.

You said it yourself - objectively, there is no benefit. Some people have the subjective view that there is. They're wrong.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to homicide because it is not a guarantee that the murderer will be in a state that enforces it.

Hahahaha WHAT? "I might get lucky and not be in a death penalty state when I kill this dude, MAY AS WELL DO IT!" is seriously what you're arguing here? Sweet absurd argument, bro.

If the standard treatment was death two years after sentencing and that was common knowledge, I wonder how it would act as a deterrent then.

I bet murder rates would drop to 0 because all the people worth killing would get the fuck out of that shithole. (Hypotheticals are fun!)

The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent even in areas where it's universally applied. Remember, the U.S. != the world, and there's usually a country or two that can serve as an example for stuff like this.

The fact that you are unwilling to discuss the possibility of a middle ground makes me think you are so anti-death penalty that you are blinded to the possibility that our side might have some valid points. Saying that, I think you only came here to argue with people. I was hoping to find someone willing to talk and discuss the pros and cons of BOTH sides.

I do tend to overstate my position, and that's totally my fault. When I say "there are no benefits" I really mean that there are no meaningful ones. It's not that I think you can't find some party somewhere who comes out slightly up in some way as a result (though at this point I have no reason to believe that's the case, regardless), it's just that I don't think it fucking matters.

So far, you've re-hashed only arguments that I've already heard (benefit to victim's families) or repeated things that reinforce the idea that you're just out for blood ("fry the murdering scum"), which is the real reason virtually everyone supports the death penalty, even if they won't admit it. Neither of those things have led me to believe that you're going to make some sort of amazing insight into state-sponsored killing that's going to blow my mind.

I don't think your side has any valid points that outweigh the possibility of executing a single innocent person.

Initially I came here to post about how this was the first app store removal I agreed with, ironically. Then I saw someone post some ridiculous shit about gay people, responded, and days later, here we are.

 

[blindthrall]

But this does not make sense, as dumb matter does not have the capacity to create even a single celled organism. Dump all of the dumb energy you want into a system, but matter does not have the level of intelligence required to assemble and kick-start life, let alone make decisions about biological functions which must be first encoded into a life form's DNA so they are present when Adaptation makes a choice.

I usually leave more of somebody's post than that, but I think this is essentially the point we're arguing right here. "Dumb matter" deserves more credit than you give it. Without stars, there are only two elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium. Stars create all other natural elements, but are mindless explosions. It's not the amount of energy dumped into a system, but the amount of time given. After a billion years of particles randomly bouncing into each other, strange things happen. The only prerequisite for proto-life is that it copies itself, a kind of natural nanotech. If it can assemble matter into a rough copy of its own simple self, evolution will take over from there. No thought required, no growth, not even a metabolism at that stage. Look up how viruses reproduce to better understand what I'm talking about.

And I never claimed the universe was without cause, just that it is without purpose. That's what the Big Bang is, the cause. I would think that believers would like the Big Bang, since it's something science is pretty sure happened but also echoes what lots of religions support, as well as admitting that science does not and probably cannot know what happened before it.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

I don't see anything wrong with it, if someone wants to change, why wouldn't they?

Maybe cure isn't the right word but I don't see the fuss with it, then again I didn't see anything wrong with Michael Jackson being white. I mean, who cares?

Michael Jackson had his skin bleached because he was suffering from Vitligo, he was losing skin pigmentation in patches which looks pretty disgusting.

Also when someone has a desire to do something perfectly natural with other willing men and gets pressured by society into doing something like this the result is deep psychological problems down the line. It leads to massive amounts of self hatred from viewing yourself as wrong, this leads to depression and suicide.

I did know that Michael had that disease, but even if he did it on purpose, I wouldn't condemn it, it's his choice, as is someone who is gay and doesn't feel right about it.

Though I doubt an iTunes app will solve their problems.

 

[TheRealGoochman]

Hmmmm would I rather buy "the gay cure" app or buy "Born This Way" on itunes.

awesome party music wins every time.

 

[gh0ti]

I'm not Apple's biggest fan, but they have every right to censor content produced on their platform - that is the business model they've adopted, and the one you subscribe to if you produce said content.

Of course, you'd have to be pig ignorant to think homosexuality is a disease, or can be treated as any other kind of affliction. As prejudice goes, homophobia is up there with racism.

However, if Apple were a government, or began to intervene in other areas of media, then they would be overstepping their bounds. Legislating against freedom of expression where there is no obvious intent to incite violence has to be watched carefully.

 

[Imat]

Good for Apple! Gay Cure my arse, science even has a reason for homosexuality these days, its perfectly natural!

Wait, what? When did this happen?

I'm thinking the idea of homosexuality being a "disease" that needs to be "cured" is really the only problem here. Having an app that supposedly turns homosexuals straight wouldn't cause any commotion, or at least not any valid commotion, because then whoever uses it is doing so of their own volition. Poor wording is poor, in this case, but I can't disagree with the basic functionality.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

"Discrimination of thought and belief obstructs essential dialogue and authentic diversity." He actually said this about the gay cure app being taken down. The hell. He doesn't realise that the idea of a gay cure app is entirely against this statement.

 

[Blood Countess]

the exodus group fails to realize that calling homosexuality a disease makes them bigots and apple was wrong to allow it in the first place.If left then it would open up letting the KKK or Islamic Hate groups to allow their message of hate to be allowed as an app on the iphone cause they would have had a leg to stand on.I salute apple for removing it, I don't speak highly of apple often either

 

[JaymesFogarty]

This is disgusting! People should not be able to use 'religion' as an excuse for casual discrimination! There's a line that you shouldn't be able to cross like that; whether you follow Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion. It's like the old saying goes;

Spoiler

"Religion is like a man's penis. It's perfectly fine to admit you have one, but please don't start lecturing me on mine, and for gods sake don't try ramming it down my throat!"

you'll find everything in existence is comparable to penis, in one way or another.

Well, as 'sex' is such a taboo subject in society it is common to see sex everywhere, and to mentally compare everything in a sexual way. Whether dry or wet, thick or thin, large or small, there is also a word you could associate with your [ahem] little friend.

 

[Riobux]

"It's official, the @ExodusInl App is no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you. #freedom," Chambers' Tweet read [http://twitter.com/#!/AlanMChambers/status/50367690149347329].

"Oh no, my freedom is being oppressed!" doesn't work when you're using it in reference of something that crushes someone else's freedom. "Lack of freedom" doesn't come into the equation of why homophobic content was removed, since the content was aimed to crush the freedom of people with alternative sexualities.

 

[Riobux]

I would like both of you to tell me right now how this app in any way restricts the freedom or free speech of others.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Directly it doesn't, but indirectly it encourages the idea that the freedom of people with alternative sexualities should be reduced. After all, why let diseased people do what their condition makes them do? It puts them in the same category as people with schizophrenia, people with a condition that must be treated.

 

[Mad World]

Because they're objectively wrong and it's awesome that Apple's not allowing such ridiculousness in their store.

How do you know that it's objectively wrong?

 

[Dexiro]

Eh, apples store, apple can choose what to host.

Although removing something simply because it might offend people is just silly >.> Grow up guys

It's the same as someone releasing an app called "Blacks should be slaves!". Sure you could let it fly but you're just encouraging discrimination and pissing people off for no good reason.

 

[Dogstile]

Eh, apples store, apple can choose what to host.

Although removing something simply because it might offend people is just silly >.> Grow up guys

It's the same as someone releasing an app called "Blacks should be slaves!". Sure you could let it fly but you're just encouraging discrimination and pissing people off for no good reason.

Or whites are racist or whatever. Yeah, I get everyones viewpoints. Its offensive, someone might cry over it.

Personally? I think people need thicker skin.

 

[Riobux]

Holding the belief that homosexuality is a disease is NOT discrimination, nor is reflecting that belief through a goddamn app.

While believing homosexuality is a disease is prejudice, through-out the app in question clearly referring to homosexuality as a disease to be treated is discrimination. Sure, it's at worst virtual discrimination/prejudice, but it's like, as someone mentioned before, making an app that blacks should be slaves. The act it's self doesn't inflict harm on the freedoms of black people, but it encourages a racist ideology. No one is worried that this game will kill homosexuals or force them into insane asylums, but a lot of people are worried about the possible indirect events of publishing it.

However, one thing is incredibly important: Apple is a corporation and not a government body or a charity. It can portray any view it wants, even if it doesn't reflect an equal ground for all their customers. If it doesn't want a particular ideology to slide in and interfere with their business, then it is allowed to do that by any means necessary. If they feel something they are doing may lose customers needlessly, they will stop it. Even if the developers (who personally, I feel are people should keep their opinions to themselves) could prove that Apple diminished their freedom to sell something on their online shop that is perceived to be contradictory to what Apple wants to allow to be sold, they can take it off. Which they have, most likely because the amount of problems that would occur in allowing this to happen would outweigh the benefits of letting it be sold. Minority groups are usually sensitive about material that they perceive to be discriminative against them, so Apple most likely perceived the possibility to lose sales over this. So, because they own the shop, they got rid of it. They don't need to justify themselves since it is borderline impossible to argue that it was in prejudice against a particular group.