|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DuMonde TrAnCeR
yeh shame after all that you read me wrong. i was pretty sure my point proves that normal is taken quantitativley,
I don't think it is.
What is that quantity? Does society have this number where if you don't fit in you're abnormal?
Cos I'd sure like to know what it is.
Is there some sort of "normalometre" that measures people in "normalograms"?
you cant judge normal qualitatively because normal is not a quality which can be defined.
Nor is it a quantity. Like I say, I'm dying to hear what this measurement is everyone goes by.
its like saying "whats your shoe size" and someone replying "triangle"
Or like saying "I am precisely 3.64% abnormal". Doesn't happen. It is not defined and never can be, there is no definite means of doing so, however a liberal acceptance of what does not fit the medium band, by finding the extremities and finding the mean average, is probably the best method, and is the way most people would "define" abnormal.
It's a case by case thing, but patterns emerge, for example cultural differences.
the normal used in the worlds everyday is by how much something conforms to the normal, defined by the most popular example of whatever your talking about
Yes, by "how much". But that how much has no official quantity. It's measured by each and every persons instinct, but the vast majority of people agree on what's normal, and in my opinion anyone who doesn't is a pedant or abnormal themselves.
specifically, just anyone in general) because they dont confine to some bent unwritten social rule. a good example of this would be racism.
Racism has nothing to do with "unwritten social rules". Tell me, where is being white an unwritten social rule? It's not, it's an ideology of a few people. The abnormal people are the racists, not the members of, to use that horrible term, "ethnic minotiries".
And like I said earlier, it is acceptable to persecute racists. Their views are not normal. Your explanation would advocate that we all leave racists alone, because we should leave alone minorities, like racists. I don't think we should. They are socially destructive, their views wander way outside the social norm.
its been practically stamped out now, but we all know its only idiots who are racist these days, and are looked down upon because of it, maybe one day it will be the same with cultures, ie. the different social groups within cultures like the united kingdom, the dance culture etc.
This won't happen for obvious reasons. You might think taking ecstacy and dancing into the small hours is perfectly harmless, but others would disagree with the use of drugs. You might think buying chips from McDonalds is perfectly harmless, but many far Eastern cultures despise commercialism and capitalism. So rather than encouraging the acceptance of social and cultural differences, which couldn't happen at all since many work in direct contradiction, you'd prefer everyone were the same culture. An interesting viewpoint and not totally flawed, but personally, I think cultural differences are interesting and enlightening.
i on the other do not judge what is normal and what isnt normal, i judge what is right or wrong.
Like it or lump it the two are separated by a fine line. What you consider normal, others don't. What you think is "normal", such as capitalism, is "wrong" in some cultures, such as Saudi Arabia.
In Australia the aborigines when they have twins fill the nostrils of one baby with sand to kill it, because they cannot afford to raise the two. To them this is normal, to me it is wrong. But it's the way the cookie crumbles.
for example, to go in the army and shoot peopel its normal, but its not right.
Well the Army are restricted by stringent rules, and many a soldier suffers from post battle stress. It is far from considered normal.
MUCH more British Falklands War soldiers committed suicide than were killed by the enemy, solely from the trauma of battle. I sincerely doubt they found it so "normal" they chose to end their own life through grief.
|
