[Beliavsky]

Homosexuals want to stamp out disapproval of their lifestyle, which explains why people who don't want to bake cakes or photograph homosexual weddings are being sued for discrimination. Homosexuals could certainly find people who are willing to bake cakes or photograph their weddings. Hounding Eich is part of their campaign to silence dissent.

[echelon]

Way to generalize an entire group of people there. I can assure you "homosexuals" aren't conspiring to do anything. There is a wide distribution of opinion on Eich; many are pragmatic and support him, others are indifferent, and yet others still want him gone. There are straight people who want to see the man removed from his post as well.

This same story happened back during the peak of the civil rights movement, and I can guarantee you that someone just like you and I had this same exchange. History repeats.

FWIW, I'm pragmatic on Eich. I don't like his behavior, but people change. He's been scalded enough and put under such global scrutiny that I imagine he will not attempt the same prejudicial behavior. He's entirely well-equipped, outside of this issue.

[mercurial]

I'm not American, but it was my understanding that in the bad old days of the fights for civil rights, some politicians had the following stance: "I'm not racist, but I support the right of shopkeepers to who they want" (read: to white people only). Discrimination wasn't OK back then, discrimination is not OK now. Not that it has anything do do with the issue at hand, I'd be surprised if the majority of people arguing on this very forum against Eich didn't turn out to be straight.

[JoeAltmaier]

I was with you right up to the Ad Hominem attack.

[mercurial]

I'm sorry, which Ad Hominem attack did you mean (or any other kind)?

[Beliavsky]

Utterly unfounded speculation about the sexual preferences of other posters does not advance the conversation.

[JoeAltmaier]

The part about branding everybody on the wrong side of your argument as some pigeonhole category.

[mercurial]

Er. That would be an Ad Hominem attack if saying people are straight was an attack. It is a statement, just like saying "most women have long hair" is a statement and not a judgment.

Now, you may opine that it does not reflect the facts. It just seems to me that:

- a majority of commenters on the forum disagree with Eich's position

- as gays form a fairly small part of the population at large, and I'm not aware of any overrepresentation of gay people on HN, it follows that the majority of commenters are straight

Ergo, it's likely that most people protesting against Eich's appointment on HN are straight, and that it's not a gay conspiracy.

I'm not sure where you saw a "wrong side" to my argument either. For the record, I disagree with his position, but I also recognize that it is shared by the majority of the population of California, and that it is entirely possible that for a man like Eich, 1000$ represents pocket change. In any case, I'm of the mind of letting his actions as CEO speak for him.

[JoeAltmaier]

Yeah I agree with you really. It just seemed odd to throw the irrelevant detail in about 'its probably all those straight guys causing the problem', sounded like a slam. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.