Reply #60: I've Actually Changed My Position Now. I Agree With The Decision. Here's Why: [View All]

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

First, let me say that the way I always go about any opinion on anything is to take my emotions completely out of the equation, and look from the top down with nothing but cold and raw objective logic. I start out by taking no side of the argument and see where the logical streams take me. When I run into a logical error, I back up or dismiss the stream altogether. Eventually, I get a logical stream that goes from the top to bottom without perceived error, and then I go over it a few times to check if it's solid enough. If it is, I will generally then take that side of the argument and use that logical stream as my justification.

That's what I did here, but now I chose to revisit it. I think the problem with my initial mode of mental analysis was confining the argument to an online realm, since eharmony is an online service. I think that causes perception to be skewed a little, since you picture going online, clicking dots, picking choices etc. Using that perception and while being in the mental image of one way input that the internet is, I arrived at my initial position.

But what I just did now was started from the top down but without the limited 'online' perception. I turned it instead into a two way real world tangible scenario. I imagined there was a business down the road that offered date matching, by say showing you videos and you get to pick who you want etc. I imagined myself being gay, and walking in and stating to the receptionist that I wanted a date as well, and wanted to see some videos. No little dots to click. Just talking to someone live asking to see some videos. Based on eharmony's current practice, the receptionist would have to say "no, I'm not allowed to show you any videos. I'm only allowed to show videos to you if you are looking for a woman". That would absolutely be discriminatory, when viewed with a real world tangible perception. If the answer was simply "ok, but we don't have any videos of gay men" that would be fine, if they really didn't have any. But if they did (which in my previous examples they'd HAVE to or they'd be discriminating by not allowing gays to join, so if they're allowed to join they're allowed to make a video), then if I as a gay man walked in and wanted to watch one of the videos of another gay man, the only recourse the receptionist would have would be to say "we have videos of other gay men, but you aren't allowed to watch them. You can only go in the back room if you choose a video of a woman".

That is 100% discriminatory, and I feel confident in my conclusion now. It's funny how perception can change when mentality is limited to a one dimensional realm that is the online realm. Thinking of it exclusively as an online dating service, and creating mental pictures in my head associated with that, I had come to a completely different conclusion because it seemed like the missing option was in fact just a different product. But by expanding my mentality to perceive it in a real world example, I'm able to see how discriminatory it actually is.

Hope this post makes sense to ya lol.