Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, being based on how people define normal, as opposed to what normal actually is. Using your definition devalues rational argument in favor of the whims of the majority.
|
I hate to criticise you, again, but this is a strange statement.
Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity
Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Besides, everyone is deviant. I am a deviant. You are a deviant. It's not so bad not being a robot, is it?
|
This is what happens when you try to apply the term deviant to one persons beliefs.
What you mean is that we are all unique because we are individuals. Deviancy is taken as relative to society as a whole.