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.
Dude. She never raised a reasonable doubt. Most women at IIN would have taken the initiative to find some data. She seems to think that because she doesn't know that nobody knows. Eventually, she'll get slapped around, beat up and become sorrier bitch.
"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
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
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.
--
Asstastics
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Dude. She never raised a reasonable doubt. Most women at IIN would have taken the initiative to find some data. She seems to think that because she doesn't know that nobody knows. Eventually, she'll get slapped around, beat up and become sorrier bitch.
--
ArayaLioness
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What data must I provide when he was the one that said it was abnormal? How irrational, both of you. Presenting your opinion as fact is illogical.
The rest of your comment is pathetic.
Jweezee: You still misunderstood. I expected it.
--
GigglesGirl
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
*giggles* right. *giggles*
"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.