After being around for 32 years you get a sense of what is typical among fellow humans and getting sexually aroused from watching a woman defecate is not on that list. How do you know people that fuck animals are a small portion of the population? How do you know that people who drink blood are a small portion of the population? It's common knowledge. I'm defining normal as something typical of a large percentage of the population. I'm not putting him down, I'm simply saying it's not "normal."
How about throwing sliced pears at a midget's genitalia while singing the Canadian national anthem? Would that be a judgmental biased opinion to say that's an uncommon fetish? Look, I'm not saying it's completely unheard of to enjoy scat porn. I am saying the majority of people do not find it sexually arousing to incorporate feces into their sex routine. If you are under the impression that this is somehow a closet fantasy held by a substantial portion of the population then you're wrong. I really don't have statistical data to show this. Like I said it's common sense. Just as I know it's not common to fuck the neck holes of decapitated chickens. That's an extreme example but it's based on the same knowledge of human behavior. I think maybe you're misunderstanding the use of the word normal. The definition is: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Now, are you going to tell me that this is normal?
1) It's NOT common sense. Common sense would be to acknowledge the very real fact that YOU DON'T KNOW if the majority of the population do/not enjoy this fetish. So you can't make a judgment on it other than it being your own opinion.
Yours is a biased perspective. There's a difference.
2) There are many definitions of normal. If I were to go by your dictionary definition, then men who wear high heels would be ABnormal because that's not "usual, typical, or expected". But how can a preference of clothing be ABnormal? Just because one society says a man should wear particular clothing while others don't care?
Another definition would be "not mentally ill".
Yet another one is "behavior that is consistent with the most common behavior".
Finally, there are subjective/personal definitions such as my own: "If it harms no one and nothing, then it is normal".
I'm using my own.
If I were to use your dictionary definition, it is also "normal". It's "expected"/"typical"/commonly "usual" in many sexual escapades that someone might have a fetish. This fetish is just one of many. Whether or not a wide variety of people share it is irrelevant. It is still a fetish and many people have fetishes. That makes it normal (to me).
I can't say whether that particular fetish is ab/normal using your definition because--and this is rational logic--I DON'T KNOW how many people indulge in it.
So I'm not going to make a judgment on something I DON'T KNOW.
Every definition of normal but your own hurts your argument. That's neat by the way. We get to make up new definitions for existing words with established ones. "Your honor, that's not my definition of consensual sex." And by your logic eating a hamburger is not normal because it violates your definition by harming someone or something, in this case an animal. Let's get this straight. Using the example above, throwing sliced pears at a midgets dick while singing the Canadian national anthem. This is normal behavior because A) it's hurting no one and B) because I can't prove that a lot of people don't do this? Haha.
"Every definition of normal but your own hurts your argument."
No. It doesn't.
It's not mentally ill as described by the APA. It's a normal behavior among a group of people who perform such behaviors in that group. And your definition has already been shown that it would not work unless if people knew the facts.
The animal is dead when the hamburger is eaten. Someone's not eating a live cow. Try again.
Common sense isn't that hard to obtain. Using the midget scenario, I would consider it normal for someone to do that. Seems like fun though the Canadian anthem is boring as hell.
B is referring to YOUR definition. I didn't say that per YOUR definition that the OP's fetish is normal or not. I just implied that I wouldn't be as foolish to judge based off of it when I DON'T KNOW if the majority conform to this.
That's what I've repeatedly said: I CAN'T SAY whether it's normal or not (based off of that definition) because I would have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the majority did this or not.
If I wanted to be a judgmental dolt, I would say something about it. But I'm not.
The issue that I had was not whether or not the OP's fetish is normal. It was your biased opinion being pushed as "common sense" when it's not. If anything, it's irrational and judgmental. But it's not logical. I don't like when opinions are being pushed as "common knowledge".
Do I really need to make a list of harmful things deemed normal by society? Here's just one, smoking cigarettes. If you think the example I provided in the last comment is normal behavior and that people who enjoy mixing sex and shit are not in the minority is a matter of opinion then this conversation is over. Good day.
"Every definition of normal but your own hurts your argument. That's neat by the way."
No, it doesn't. Someone with this fetish is not mentally ill as described by APA.
The normal "behavior" has more to do with social/behavioral psychology and this behavior is normal among a group of people who perform such behaviors as is their fetish. And again, yours doesn't work as explained.
Also, the animal's DEAD when the hamburger is given. It's not like someone is biting the live cow. Try again.
Common sense isn't your forte apparently, unless if you're using your own definition. By what it appears, you're mixing in my personal definition with the dictionary definition.
That ludicrous midget comment would be normal behavior to me. It harms no one.
If one were to use "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected", then it stands to reason that the person would have to know--unless if they're biased--what the majority typically do. And there is no way to know that unless if you were making an assumption...which isn't logical.
This is where you seem to be confused: per YOUR definition of normal, I didn't dictate if the midget or the OP's situation was normal or not. I've said time and again that there is NO WAY TO KNOW unless if you give a biased perspective.
The issue is that you are using YOUR biased perspective as "common sense"...when it's not.
IIN that I have an efro/backdoor brown fetish?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
After being around for 32 years you get a sense of what is typical among fellow humans and getting sexually aroused from watching a woman defecate is not on that list. How do you know people that fuck animals are a small portion of the population? How do you know that people who drink blood are a small portion of the population? It's common knowledge. I'm defining normal as something typical of a large percentage of the population. I'm not putting him down, I'm simply saying it's not "normal."
--
ArayaLioness
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No. It's not common knowledge. Common sense dictates that fetishes that are not "generally accepted" among a certain society will not be spoken aloud.
My point is YOU DON'T KNOW if "a large percentage of the population" does this or not. So it's merely a biased judgmental opinion.
--
Jweezee
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
How about throwing sliced pears at a midget's genitalia while singing the Canadian national anthem? Would that be a judgmental biased opinion to say that's an uncommon fetish? Look, I'm not saying it's completely unheard of to enjoy scat porn. I am saying the majority of people do not find it sexually arousing to incorporate feces into their sex routine. If you are under the impression that this is somehow a closet fantasy held by a substantial portion of the population then you're wrong. I really don't have statistical data to show this. Like I said it's common sense. Just as I know it's not common to fuck the neck holes of decapitated chickens. That's an extreme example but it's based on the same knowledge of human behavior. I think maybe you're misunderstanding the use of the word normal. The definition is: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Now, are you going to tell me that this is normal?
--
ArayaLioness
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
1) It's NOT common sense. Common sense would be to acknowledge the very real fact that YOU DON'T KNOW if the majority of the population do/not enjoy this fetish. So you can't make a judgment on it other than it being your own opinion.
Yours is a biased perspective. There's a difference.
2) There are many definitions of normal. If I were to go by your dictionary definition, then men who wear high heels would be ABnormal because that's not "usual, typical, or expected". But how can a preference of clothing be ABnormal? Just because one society says a man should wear particular clothing while others don't care?
Another definition would be "not mentally ill".
Yet another one is "behavior that is consistent with the most common behavior".
Finally, there are subjective/personal definitions such as my own: "If it harms no one and nothing, then it is normal".
I'm using my own.
If I were to use your dictionary definition, it is also "normal". It's "expected"/"typical"/commonly "usual" in many sexual escapades that someone might have a fetish. This fetish is just one of many. Whether or not a wide variety of people share it is irrelevant. It is still a fetish and many people have fetishes. That makes it normal (to me).
I can't say whether that particular fetish is ab/normal using your definition because--and this is rational logic--I DON'T KNOW how many people indulge in it.
So I'm not going to make a judgment on something I DON'T KNOW.
--
Jweezee
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Every definition of normal but your own hurts your argument. That's neat by the way. We get to make up new definitions for existing words with established ones. "Your honor, that's not my definition of consensual sex." And by your logic eating a hamburger is not normal because it violates your definition by harming someone or something, in this case an animal. Let's get this straight. Using the example above, throwing sliced pears at a midgets dick while singing the Canadian national anthem. This is normal behavior because A) it's hurting no one and B) because I can't prove that a lot of people don't do this? Haha.
--
ArayaLioness
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
ArayaLioness
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Every definition of normal but your own hurts your argument."
No. It doesn't.
It's not mentally ill as described by the APA. It's a normal behavior among a group of people who perform such behaviors in that group. And your definition has already been shown that it would not work unless if people knew the facts.
The animal is dead when the hamburger is eaten. Someone's not eating a live cow. Try again.
Common sense isn't that hard to obtain. Using the midget scenario, I would consider it normal for someone to do that. Seems like fun though the Canadian anthem is boring as hell.
B is referring to YOUR definition. I didn't say that per YOUR definition that the OP's fetish is normal or not. I just implied that I wouldn't be as foolish to judge based off of it when I DON'T KNOW if the majority conform to this.
That's what I've repeatedly said: I CAN'T SAY whether it's normal or not (based off of that definition) because I would have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt if the majority did this or not.
If I wanted to be a judgmental dolt, I would say something about it. But I'm not.
The issue that I had was not whether or not the OP's fetish is normal. It was your biased opinion being pushed as "common sense" when it's not. If anything, it's irrational and judgmental. But it's not logical. I don't like when opinions are being pushed as "common knowledge".
--
Jweezee
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
Do I really need to make a list of harmful things deemed normal by society? Here's just one, smoking cigarettes. If you think the example I provided in the last comment is normal behavior and that people who enjoy mixing sex and shit are not in the minority is a matter of opinion then this conversation is over. Good day.
"Every definition of normal but your own hurts your argument. That's neat by the way."
No, it doesn't. Someone with this fetish is not mentally ill as described by APA.
The normal "behavior" has more to do with social/behavioral psychology and this behavior is normal among a group of people who perform such behaviors as is their fetish. And again, yours doesn't work as explained.
Also, the animal's DEAD when the hamburger is given. It's not like someone is biting the live cow. Try again.
Common sense isn't your forte apparently, unless if you're using your own definition. By what it appears, you're mixing in my personal definition with the dictionary definition.
That ludicrous midget comment would be normal behavior to me. It harms no one.
If one were to use "conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected", then it stands to reason that the person would have to know--unless if they're biased--what the majority typically do. And there is no way to know that unless if you were making an assumption...which isn't logical.
This is where you seem to be confused: per YOUR definition of normal, I didn't dictate if the midget or the OP's situation was normal or not. I've said time and again that there is NO WAY TO KNOW unless if you give a biased perspective.
The issue is that you are using YOUR biased perspective as "common sense"...when it's not.