NEWS: Lesbian Sues eHarmony for eHomophobia

hor said:

How much you love me, big daddy??

Zarth said:

That's right, we have a very, very imperfect democracy. But the only way to make it work is to try to make it work. And, in answer to your question, I do all of those things.

I think that there two things you're doing here that are leading you into what I would, in my admittedly titanic arrogance, consider an error. First, and most obviously you seem to believe in a dichotomy of state and subject that, while seductive, is incompatible with the demonstrable assertion that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. That consent may to some extent be the result of intimidation, or apathy, but even in outright dictatorships there is a popular involvement in the apparatus of state that's easy to underestimate. But in short, I think you're seeing the shadow of tyranny where there is virtually no material harm.

The second problem I see is that you're focusing entirely on procedure at the expense of outcome. It was Montaigne, I think, who derided "the laws which in their majesty deny to the rich and poor man alike the right to sleep under a bridge. The same procedure for everyone, but a profoundly different effect depending on who you are. Conversely, focusing exclusively on outcome was what allowed the Bolsheviks to murder millions in the name of "building a better world." Justice means balancing both considerations.

Zarth said:

If you have a better idea as to how racism, sexism, and homophobia can be compensated for and eroded without any recourse to government and legal intervention, I'll be happy to it.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

joker_c said:

Uhm, I have an idea.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Some of the xthians call it:

The Apocalypse!

yourfashionwar said:
but it's BUSINESS and that makes it totally different. the market will protect everyone. *sarcasm, clearly*

mydcmbr81 said:
Very well put. I do focus more on the procedure rather than the outcome. I do not want to end up as one of those people that at the end of their days look back and say, I should have handled that differently. The most important step in righting a problem is in developing a procedure that allows you to reach the correct solution. I personally don't feel that we are using the right procedure.

Hidden said:
Well, I've learned that internet dating services are as vital as food. I've also learned that I need to find a gay dating site based in Cali for some quick cash and a spot in the paper. I'm also pissed that these "womens only" gyms won't let me join. I can't wait to sue these people who "hate" (or just don't service) me so I can send them my money.

You might actually have the law on your side in all that. But you'd be a total ass for pushing it. And that's what really matters, here.

Zarth said:
You're clearly not interested in any kind of civil discussion.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Bye-bye now.

Hidden said:
Well, I've learned that internet dating services are as vital as food. I've also learned that I need to find a gay dating site based in Cali for some quick cash and a spot in the paper. I'm also pissed that these "womens only" gyms won't let me join. I can't wait to sue these people who "hate" (or just don't service) me so I can send them my money.

wildswan said:

Are you saying that it was vital, in a life or death way, for blacks to be allowed to eat at certain lunch counters? Black citizens certainly didn't *need* to eat at lunch counters. It is an issue of discrimination against a vulnerable group.

Optionality is irrelevant, here.

Plus, your tone of being personally put-out underscores an avaricious attitude towards social issues that is fairly grotesque.

KMFCM said:

I thought everyone knew eHarmony was a christian breeding scam

Colinism said:
One thing I'd like to point out is that Eharmony is an internet dating site not a business establishment that you can go to so that statute unless it also covers what you do online is moot.

Hidden said:

Equating food services with dating web sites is ridiculous. But I agree that discrimination against avunerable group is wrong. But E-Harmony isn't a monopoly. So I assume you agree that gay only *datinng websites and things like mens/women only gyms are wrong? Right, you're consistent, which I all I hope for.

attn_ho said:
jesus fucking god, i wish i could create an empathy gun. id aim it at every fucking white male i see.

id be taken down by the cops in like 6 hours, but the trail of weeping denial-less assbags would so totally be worth it.

wildswan said:

Did you just effing say that I was being ridiculous?


You are a right nice little twerp, aren't you?

Shimarisu said:
but if you read the founders books you'd see why much of the site (the same race couples) and stuff is the way it is.

attn_ho said:
jesus fucking god, i wish i could create an empathy gun. id aim it at every fucking white male i see.

id be taken down by the cops in like 6 hours, but the trail of weeping denial-less assbags left in my wake would so totally be worth it.

Hidden said:

Can someone ban this racist?

attn_ho said:

me hate pale face. me am pale face.

Hidden said:
Equating food services with dating web sites is ridiculous.

But I agree that discrimination against a vunerable group is wrong. But E-Harmony isn't a monopoly. So I assume you agree that gay only *dating websites and things like mens/women only gyms are wrong? Right, you're consistent, which I all I hope for.

Oh and don't remark on my tone, you don't know me. Should I assume you're a smarmy judgemental Dbag?

Hidden said:

Lots of thinking going on here!