What is Normal? Does it Exist...

[disneyboy20022]

Normal....it's a thirst everyone thrives on....but....Does it Exist.....I'd say....yes.....and.....no....I personally don't think anyone is "normal" including myself...

For Example

If someone told me I was "not Normal" for thinking that way, I'd agree and say it's true...however I would also say to the person who told me that that they are not "normal" either....in my view I don't think there is a such thing as "quote" normal.....however....a type of Normal does exist though, however it's in the eye of the beholder....

My mom said to a teacher one time when I was 10, and one of the special education teachers asked my mom if she wanted me to be treated normally, she replied....No, not until the teacher said what normal was....

What's Normal to me may not be normal to you..and visa versa....

I'll add more to this post later....it's a work in progress...maybe I want to become a inpirational speaker...my campaign....Normal...Does it exist?...I've got more wisdom of things I've seen that most 24 year olds today has never dealt with and might not deal with until their 40s or ever...

[Dr Frankenollie]

Believing something to be normal or abnormal is really nothing more than a viewpoint. In some countries, child brides are cited as normal; in countries like America and England, it is not only cited as abnormal but also paedophilic and illegal (and rightfully so).

The concept of normality was made up by us like the concepts of rights, religion, etc. Calling something or someone abnormal is the equivalent of saying you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know enough about other cultures, beliefs or whatever they're calling the someone or something for.

[PatrickvD]

Each culture on earth has its own definitions of normal. That[s just how it is.

[Disney Duster]

The concept of normality was made up by us like the concepts of rights, religion, etc.

In your opinion. But perhaps normalness, rights, and/or religion all have a definate subjectively truthful existence. You never know. : )

But whatever happens or you make happen that doesn't hurt anyone, or yourself, I say that's all true normalness. : )

[Dr Frankenollie]

The concept of normality was made up by us like the concepts of rights, religion, etc.

In your opinion. But perhaps normalness, rights, and/or religion all have a definate subjectively truthful existence. You never know. : )

No, I do know. Normality is nonexistent, and so are rights inarguably (ever heard of George Carlin?). Most religions can be proven to be contradictory, nonsensical and obviously stupid, but admittedly not all religions have been definitively proven to be wrong (although they could be).

[David S.]

I do agree that "normality" is relative and subjective to the individual. Too many people are bullied and persecuted for not being "normal", or themselves deny their true selves, in order to be try to be "normal".

I say just be yourself, and don't worry about conforming to other people's opinions!

No, I do know. Normality is nonexistent, and so are rights inarguably

I think as sentient beings we are BORN with our rights. Unfortunately, some governments or individuals choose to not recognize these natural rights, but the right of any living being to live their life freely (as long as it doesn't take away another's right to do the same) is inherent to simply being alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_sovereignty

[Goliath]

'Normal' derives from the word 'norm'. What's the norm in any given society, is considered normal. This can be an artificial norm, like an age limit on sexual contacts (in Somalia I can marry a 10 year old, in Holland I go to jail for the same thing) or a quantitative norm (90% of people are heterosexuals, so being straight is 'normal'). The first rests on moral judgements, which are generally agreed upon by a majority of a society; the second rests on empirical findings and doesn't involve a moral judgement (e.g. just because homosexuality is not the 'norm' doesn't mean I think it is 'wrong').

Like I said, what's considered normal and abnormal varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. E.g. it was once considered normal that children worked in factories alongside their parents. Nowadays, this is punishable by law (at least in the West, not in Asia where our Disney merchandise is being produced). This doesn't mean I agree with or even respect everything which is considered 'normal' in other cultures. There are people who say we should respect every habit from other cultures because there is no inherit 'right' or 'wrong', so we cannot objectively say our customs are 'better' than others. These people are being called 'cultural relativists'. It's considered the progressive and liberal thing to do. However, I must object.

I consider myself a progressive and a liberal, and that is why I believe that most of our Western habits and customs *should* be labeled as 'normal' and should be spread around the world as much as possible. Because I don't care what is considered 'normal' in Pakistan or Afghanistan; I just don't want to see women locked up in burquas, I don't want to see homosexuals on the gallows; I don't want to see women being stoned to death. I say: fuck them for thinking that's 'normal'. I don't only think equal rights, democracy and freedom of religion are our 'norm'; I think they are better.

End of rant.

[PatrickvD]

End of rant.

Oh no, keep going. Love your new avatar as well.

[Dr Frankenollie]

No, I do know. Normality is nonexistent, and so are rights inarguably

I think as sentient beings we are BORN with our rights. Unfortunately, some governments or individuals choose to not recognize these natural rights, but the right of any living being to live their life freely (as long as it doesn't take away another's right to do the same) is inherent to simply being alive.

In my opinion, we should have certain 'rights', but nevertheless human rights are made up. The U.S. Bill of Rights has been amended 27 times; rights vary from country and country and change all the time because we choose (based obviously on our own opinions and our own upbringing) what all people should be allowed to have and/or enjoy.

In 1942, the Japanese-Americans were put into concentration camps and had all their rights taken away. And in the words of George Carlin, they're not rights if they can be taken away - they're only temporary privileges.

[David S.]

I think as sentient beings we are BORN with our rights. Unfortunately, some governments or individuals choose to not recognize these natural rights, but the right of any living being to live their life freely (as long as it doesn't take away another's right to do the same) is inherent to simply being alive.

In my opinion, we should have certain 'rights', but nevertheless human rights are made up. The U.S. Bill of Rights has been amended 27 times; rights vary from country and country and change all the time because we choose (based obviously on our own opinions and our own upbringing) what all people should be allowed to have and/or enjoy.

In 1942, the Japanese-Americans were put into concentration camps and had all their rights taken away. And in the words of George Carlin, they're not rights if they can be taken away - they're only temporary privileges.

I think our difference of opinion here can be explained at least partially by that we are looking at it two different ways. I am looking at it from an abstract, theoretical, philosophical, point of view, and you are looking at it from how rights are carried out, concretely, in practice. So I think we are both using the word "rights" in two different contexts.

Obviously, I agree that some governments take human rights away in practice, whether from certain groups or from everyone. But just because they use force to take them away, does not make it right to do this, or that they are taking away the inherent theoretical birthright to live freely, which I am referring to. Taking away rights in practice is of course not right, because ALL people have the right to live their lives freely, which goes back to the idea that this is a natural, inherent birthright, and NOT "made up", as expressed by influential writers like John Locke and Thomas Paine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man )

The idea that our rights are "given" to us by "the State" is too much of a statist philosophy and gives the state too much credit, IMO. If they forcefully take away our rights, they are wrong, but by acknowledging our universal natural rights, they aren't "giving us" anything that we should be "grateful" for or indebted to them for.

For instance, if you buy something from me that cost 5 dollars and you give me a ten, when I give you your five dollars back I am not "giving" you five dollars. I am doing what should be done, and giving you what is inherently yours. But if I didn't give you your five dollars back, I'd be wrong. So there is no need to be thankful to me because I gave you your RIGHTFUL five dollars, even if there are other, less honest people out there who would have tried to cheat you out of all or part of your five dollars.

And this, I think, is a perfect metaphor for how I feel about rights, and that they are Natural, and DON'T come from "the State". The state can only take them away in practice, by force, but they CANNOT "give" me what I am already conscious of as being naturally mine by the mere fact that I am alive.

I believe ALL people are "soverign nations", and just because all governments don't acknowledge or respect this, or may act against soverign individuals by force to try to take away this soverignty, does not make this any less inherently true, IMO.

And I am frankly too much of an individualist, libertarian, idealist, and "individual soverignist" to feel any other way! (as this philosophy is at the cornerstone of all of my political/philosophical beliefs about these type of things)

But as this is getting off-topic, please let us agree to disagree, or take it to PMs (I had a similar discussion with another poster awhile back via PMs)

[disneyboy20022]

But as this is getting off-topic, please let us agree to disagree, or take it to PMs (I had a similar discussion with another poster awhile back via PMs)

I second the motion...now let's continue our on topic talk about normal or er lack there of which is good....

There are these buttons on ebay regarding Autism and ADHD...I'll have to get some next month....here's the link to the auction that has the pictures of the Buttons...I love them....I would just post the picture, but i'm not sure how to get that picture through a jpeg

http://www.ebay.com/itm/260836709545?ss ... 1423.l2649

I love them...they're so funny....well maybe to me...

[Goliath]

The idea that our rights are "given" to us by "the State" is too much of a statist philosophy and gives the state too much credit, IMO. If they forcefully take away our rights, they are wrong, but by acknowledging our universal natural rights, they aren't "giving us" anything that we should be "grateful" for or indebted to them for.

But without some form of authority to implement and guarantee our rights, we wouldn't have any. If there was no state to make sure every citizen had equal rights, citizens amongst themselves could take away each others' rights on a constant basis. For example: whenever an employee is being discriminated against on the basis of their race or religion, they can sue, and the judicial system (set up by the state, though supposed to be impartial) will rule against the discrimination based upon the laws that were put into place by the government.

And, as we've been seeing in recent developments in the Middle East, without the intervention of organisations like the UN and NATO (made up and ruled by state governments) a lot of people would have lost their rights.

[David S.]

The idea that our rights are "given" to us by "the State" is too much of a statist philosophy and gives the state too much credit, IMO. If they forcefully take away our rights, they are wrong, but by acknowledging our universal natural rights, they aren't "giving us" anything that we should be "grateful" for or indebted to them for.

But without some form of authority to implement and guarantee our rights, we wouldn't have any. If there was no state to make sure every citizen had equal rights, citizens amongst themselves could take away each others' rights on a constant basis. For example: whenever an employee is being discriminated against on the basis of their race or religion, they can sue, and the judicial system (set up by the state, though supposed to be impartial) will rule against the discrimination based upon the laws that were put into place by the government.

And, as we've been seeing in recent developments in the Middle East, without the intervention of organisations like the UN and NATO (made up and ruled by state governments) a lot of people would have lost their rights.

Agreed, but as I stated, I was talking theoretically, in response to the idea that they were "made up". Like if someone takes a swing at you, you INSTINCTIVELY block it. Why? Because deep down you KNOW you have the right to "life". Yes, it is important for the state to recognize this right and enforce it, but my point was you are born with it. You don't block the punch and protect yourself because the Magna Carta or the UN or whatever says you can, you do it because you instinctively KNOW you have this right, without having to read about it somewhere.

I could give similar examples for other rights. Like, if someone tries to kidnap you, you INSTINCTIVELY would defend yourself, because you KNOW you have the right to be free, whether your government recognizes this right or not

And that's what I meant by "our rights are Natural from birth". In the theoretical sense. And not something made up, or something that we only have because the state says we do. (although in the practical sense, I do agree that we need the state to aknolowledge and support these rights in order to completely practice them)

But again, this is getting off topic, and we will end up arguing in circles again, so please lets take this to PM if you want to continue. After all, I agreed with you, in the PRACTICAL sense. Just not THEORETICALLY, which is where I was coming from.

[ajmrowland]

Believing something to be normal or abnormal is really nothing more than a viewpoint. In some countries, child brides are cited as normal; in countries like America and England, it is not only cited as abnormal but also paedophilic and illegal (and rightfully so).

i dont know if personal opinions are really appropriate here, or at least stated that way.

anyway, i found two articles related to your post and the topic here. they are not explicit. one even throws religion into the mix.
http://www.utterpants.co.uk/notpants/ki ... print.html

and the follow-up
http://www.utterpants.co.uk/notpants/ch ... print.html

edit: i think i can sum up most of my reactions with those badges.

[bradhig]

I don't believe in normal.

[Disney Duster]

Dr. Frankenollie, you can say that in your opinion, but I do know that some rights and some things in some religions are true and normal, and if you disagree, at all, saying you "know" it's wrong or whatever, it will still only be your opinion and I say it's wrong. We won't be able to ever agree, sorry. Some things are too important for that, I hope you understand importance such as that. : ) You may be too logical to understand, or you may be too logical to not be bothered by what I said. But some things are not all about logic. ; ) You can apply logic too anything, but that doesn't mean that logic is all there is, Mister. There's more.

[Linden]

Dr. Frankenollie, you can say that in your opinion, but I do know that some rights and some things in some religions are true and normal, and if you disagree, at all, saying you "know" it's wrong or whatever, it will still only be your opinion and I say it's wrong. We won't be able to ever agree, sorry. Some things are too important for that, I hope you understand importance such as that. : ) You may be too logical to understand, or you may be too logical to not be bothered by what I said. But some things are not all about logic. ; ) You can apply logic too anything, but that doesn't mean that logic is all there is, Mister. There's more.

You're a Christian too, right, Disney Duster? Logic can work with religion. Have you ever read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis? It deals with that a little, although, I admit, I haven't finished it yet. What I have read is really good, though.

"Normal" in terms of people is relative.

[Disney Duster]

Oh yes I know some logic works with religion, but depending on logic alone destroys many feelings, and not just religious ones, either. Logic is simply not all there is, so it's only important in as much as I use it for certain things.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Oh yes I know some logic works with religion, but depending on logic alone destroys many feelings, and not just religious ones, either. Logic is simply not all there is, so it's only important in as much as I use it for certain things.

The frequent usage of logic led to modern sciences, the development of technology, the development of Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements, the creation of the telescope and the understanding of the world we're in and the universe around us, not to mention the creation of countless great pieces of music, film and literature. Your regular disregard of it is more than a little silly.

Religion is only for the ignorant, the desperate and those unwilling to differ in views and actions to their parents. Christianity is something incredibly archaic, that is fortunately slowly but steadily fading.

[Disney Duster]

Merely in your and others' opinion Dr Frankenollie. You don't know everything and you never will. But I can tell you I don't want to be much like my parents at all and yet I'm religious so you're already wrong there. Also I already pointed out how sometimes I do find use for logic. It just isn't everything.