Normality is defined by what happens around them. For them it is normal, for an outsider it might not be. If they would be talking about you then the roles and normality would be reversed
Normality isn’t meaningless it’s just dependent on the surroundings
I don’t understand why you think normality is defined by the object of the sentence rather than the subject.
I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what’s normal, right? That’s not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don’t like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what’s normal when I speak because normal is “the state of being usual, typical, or expected” and I’m the one having the expectations here.
The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.
I’m not struggling, I’m telling you how it is based on your own parameters. You could have argued that normalcy is relative, but you didn’t you got stuck on the dictionary definition and decided that the set of expectations that apply are the expectations of the group and not my expectations.
I’m saying either you have a logical reason for that set of priorities or your argument doesn’t follow. There was not problem with clarity on that sentence, the ambiguity was introduced by your caveat.
To be clear, this is irrelevant and a waste of time. We established that up top. We both understand what I was saying and why your response is what it is.
But I’ve explained to you many times how it is relative. It’s just that they live in place where it is normal and you don’t. So you don’t feel what they’re doing is normal but for them it is
No, you’ve said many times that it being relative means the bar for normalcy that takes precedence is theirs and not mine. Which doesn’t follow from your premise. And whenever I tell you that you just repeat the wonky premise.
Alright, that’s harsh, you just quietly backed away some by moving from “it’s normal for them so it’s normal” to “it’s normal for them but not to you”, which is not the same thing you were saying before. I guess I’ll take the small compromises in a conversation we both knew was a waste of time from the first post.
No, wait, why can you phrase it that way but not “it’s not normal but they think it is”.
Why is one of those statements not equivalent to the other?
Because for them over in wherever it is normal. If they lived where you live it wouldn’t be normal.
Okay, but what says their perspective takes precedence? You’re saying it’s normal for them. Cool. I’m saying it’s not normal for us.
Why is their normal a higher priority than our not normal? Either “normal” is a meaningless concept or you need a better justification than that.
Normality is defined by what happens around them. For them it is normal, for an outsider it might not be. If they would be talking about you then the roles and normality would be reversed
Normality isn’t meaningless it’s just dependent on the surroundings
I don’t understand why you think normality is defined by the object of the sentence rather than the subject.
I mean, if you take your definition of normal, surely the person speaking determines what’s normal, right? That’s not a good thing, because your working definition of normalcy is bad and nonsensical and only determined by your desire to antagonize somebody online on a nitpick, so you probably don’t like it much yourself beyond that. But if we take it, then I get to say what’s normal when I speak because normal is “the state of being usual, typical, or expected” and I’m the one having the expectations here.
The surroundings are my surroundings because it is my post.
I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this so much. Of course it makes sense to consider what is normal for the people we are talking about.
If you would’ve wanted to make your first sentence really clear you could’ve said “it’s normal for them but not for me” or something.
I’m not struggling, I’m telling you how it is based on your own parameters. You could have argued that normalcy is relative, but you didn’t you got stuck on the dictionary definition and decided that the set of expectations that apply are the expectations of the group and not my expectations.
I’m saying either you have a logical reason for that set of priorities or your argument doesn’t follow. There was not problem with clarity on that sentence, the ambiguity was introduced by your caveat.
To be clear, this is irrelevant and a waste of time. We established that up top. We both understand what I was saying and why your response is what it is.
But I’ve explained to you many times how it is relative. It’s just that they live in place where it is normal and you don’t. So you don’t feel what they’re doing is normal but for them it is
No, you’ve said many times that it being relative means the bar for normalcy that takes precedence is theirs and not mine. Which doesn’t follow from your premise. And whenever I tell you that you just repeat the wonky premise.
Alright, that’s harsh, you just quietly backed away some by moving from “it’s normal for them so it’s normal” to “it’s normal for them but not to you”, which is not the same thing you were saying before. I guess I’ll take the small compromises in a conversation we both knew was a waste of time from the first post.