You are not the arbiter of what cancel culture is.
Irrelevant.
There is no set definition and there are many loose interpretations of what qualifies, including but not limiting to firing someone for a perceived moral transgression
Convenient for one who has just argued that there is "no set definition." If you're going to argue that you're applying a different definition of "cancel-culture" then your equivalence is undermined. You would have to establish how your definition equates to that of the conservatives you're criticizing.
Yes, I do.
I'm going to abandon this regress.
Was the passage of the Civil Rights Act informed by the notion that characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc. couldn't be changed?
How?
That wouldn't make sense given that they included religion which can be changed,
Right, I said that.
No, you said that religion wasn't inherent to one's identity. But your argument is that the Civil Rights Act was informed by the notion that particular characteristics couldn't be changed. The Civil Rights Act includes religion. So if we were to operate on this premise, religion would/should not have been included, right? So how you explain its inclusion, while also maintaining your premise?
It was a good natured joke about Jewish people. That's why I said "lol." I don't feel the need to explain it if you don't get it.
I'm not questioning the nature of your joke. And there's a bit of a disconnect here: if I did "get it," why would you then feel the need to explain? I'm asking you to elaborate expressly because I don't know what you mean. If you don't intend to, that's fine. It's your prerogative.
Little kids are not researching the terms and should not be privy to sexual knowledge prematurely
Kids don't ask adults for explanations? Is that not research?
If they are, it is not the fault of gay people using the terms "husband" and "wife." Research the terms "mother" and "father" and they will lead to sex as well.
Their concern is not herterosexual sex, especially if it's sex among an adult male, and an adult female who are in a legally binding, long-term monogamous relationship (marriage) a la "husband and wife." Their concern is their children's impressions of homosexuality, which once again, they see as a perversion. And yes, the terms "mother" and "father" also indicate sex.
What I said was if the terms "husband" and "wife" conjure up thoughts of sex, then the parent has already failed at protecting their kid from knowing what sex is. As in if I referenced my "wife," little kids should not be thinking about us fucking. The same goes if I referenced my husband.
I extend my previous statement.
Right, and that's as idiotic as a parent saying they don't want their kid to know deaf people exist. Again saying "this is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband." Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father. You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships. I doubt anyone is talking to young children about their parents having sex, and if they are they should be investigated.
It's not. According to the aforementioned cultivated evangelical Christian base, homosexuality is an abomination; deafness is not. They're using their capacity as political participants to conscript the government into prohibiting the normalization of homosexuality, thereby insulating their children from any undesired impressions they may form of homosexuality. And once again, I extend my previous statement about their concerns.
I never said they were synonyms.
You didn't have to. I scrutinized psychology, not neuroscience. How would you explain your mentioning neuroscience at all if you weren't attempting to create an equivalence? Was it just a non sequitur?
Should so-called "Blacks" be deprived privileges by the State commensurate to their deviation from the mean?
No.
Why not?
Do so-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges?
Arguably, yes.
So-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges because of their recorded average I.Q.? Give me an example of few such privileges.
What about men and women, and their alleged psychological differences? What about adults and children?
What about them?
For one, the arguable differences between men and women in their psychological profiles--i.e. women's profiles being more identical to those of children's particularly as it concerns fear, embarrassment, anxiety, and insecurity? What about the adult's capacity for reason in juxtaposition to a child's capacity? If you're arguing that similar psychological conclusions with respect to any given characteristic should eliminate discrimination, then would it not stand to reason that dissimilar psychological conclusions should encourage discrimination?
I still have no idea what your point is. I referenced psychology because the field has studied sexuality. Psychology research has been used to achieve civil rights victories. For example, the well-known Clark doll study was an integral part of the Brown v. Board of Education case as scientific evidence regarding the detrimental psychological consequences of segregation.
My point is to ask, what utility is there in citing a psychological standard in discrediting discrimination when it's just as useful in encouraging discrimination?
Yes, only because not being able to change something is the logic behind the CRA, and that is the topic of this thread.
So why were religion and color included?
Nobody wants to follow the Bible.
That is incorrect.
We'd have to criminalize tattoos, shellfish and masturbation for consistency which conservatives never advocate.
1961-1997 New York would have disagreed with you. And it's not a sin to masturbate. This is often misinterpreted. The reference was in a brother's not inseminating his dead brother's bride, instead letting the "ejaculate" spill on the floor. That's the sin, because it was a brother's duty to marry and inseminate his dead brother's bride.
Yeah that's how people make educated and informed decisions: sensing, observation and research.
Consensus does not inform truth statements, unless it's in direct reference to the consensus itself.
What's your preferred alternative for finding the answer to this question? If you have nothing to offer explaining why sexuality (attraction) is a choice, then this useless tangent is boring me and a waste of my time.
I've already explained this though:
Athias:
Actions, even sexual ones, are results of choices; and attraction is in someone's head.
There are a couple components to sexuality: attraction and sexual action.
Thanks for pointing out that people can choose to have sex thereby demonstrating a choice in their sexuality. You must be very proud of yourself for that astute observation using one definition of the term, and you are indeed correct.
Well, I wouldn't say "proud." Maybe, "slightly impressed"?
But I said change your sexuality. You described having sex i.e. sexuality in action, which does not reference anything that you have changed or can change. The definition of sexuality includes a person's identity in relation to the sex or sexes to which they are typically attracted; one's sexual orientation.
Not really. If I was having sex with women exclusively for, let's say, 10 years, and I started having sex with men, that would be a "change."
Choosing to have sex with someone you are not attracted to doesn't change whom you are attracted to.
Attraction does not define sexuality. With whom one has sex is also a component of one's sexuality, regardless of how one identifies oneself. And one can "CHOOSE" with whom one has sex.
I don't understand the point of you responding to me. You don't disagree that excluding sexuality comparative to the other metrics in the Civil Rights Act is nonsensical, but for some reason you want to argue useless points tit for tat as if you're turning my worldview (or even my view on this single issue) upside down which you're clearly not. It just looks like you're desperate to argue over nothing.
This thread is asking why sexuality should specifically be excluded from legislation that the majority of people support regarding non-discrimination. If you don't support it, that's okay but not relevant. The obvious answer to my question is that religious/conservative people find homosexuality to be an immoral choice as opposed to a morally legitimate, inherent identity. Mocking that notion or arguing against anyone dull enough to believe that notion would be on topic.
The point of my response is to highlight that employing psychology as a standard is a double-edge sword, and as you clearly demonstrated, you do understand the reason conservatives are opposed to the bill you mentioned in the O.P. You are clearly "mocking" them, but you are doing so using your metrics, not theirs.
But you're here pointing out sExUaLiTy Is A cHoIcE bEcAuSe YoU cAn ChOoSe WhOm YoU hAvE sEx WiTh which is like... I don't even care enough to have this pointless conversation.
Because sexuality's being a choice should be irrelevant. Why would it matter? Discrimination is justified as long as one doesn't choose to whom he or she is attracted or with whom he or she has sex? It's a slippery slope argument.
Spare me. If you want me to pat you on the head for how smart you are in making these "accckchually" points, just pretend I have done that and hopefully that fulfills you for the day.
I don't let strangers touch me, both literally and figuratively. So I can't even pretend to receive your much solicited "pat."
