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.
I mean it’s simple as if you are talking about them, then it’s their context that matters if it is normal for them or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If they were talking about you it wouldn’t be normal even if they considered it normal since they were talking about you and your context.
It’s just how normalcy works…
“it’s normal for them so it’s normal” to “it’s normal for them but not to you”
I’m not sure how you’ve understood it like this. It’s normal for them has been the thing the whole time. You said it’s not normal but it is normal for them though, you can’t decide normalcy for their context
Same as I can’t say it’s not normal for people in Peru to eat guinea pigs. But it is normal for them, it’s just not normal where I live. Do you see now?
But you’ve never explained why that is. You just… kinda like it that way. Their normal takes precedence (it didn’t for a bit, but I called you out on it and now it does again) only because you say so. No definition you put forward included whose normal goes first when two normals happen at once.
To be clear, normal doesn’t work like that, it’s not what I meant and you fully understand this. But if we play by your definition, nothing in your definition decides which normal is the more normal. I say my normal goes because I’m the speaker and my set of expectations define normalcy in my speech. You have provided no argument against this.
It’s just the definition of the word. What is typical etc. for some context. Those people consider it normal to do that because to them it is normal 🤷♂️
For example if these people would be from Finland then yes it would be normal. It is just what people in Finland do which makes it normal.
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.
I mean it’s simple as if you are talking about them, then it’s their context that matters if it is normal for them or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If they were talking about you it wouldn’t be normal even if they considered it normal since they were talking about you and your context.
It’s just how normalcy works…
I’m not sure how you’ve understood it like this. It’s normal for them has been the thing the whole time. You said it’s not normal but it is normal for them though, you can’t decide normalcy for their context
Same as I can’t say it’s not normal for people in Peru to eat guinea pigs. But it is normal for them, it’s just not normal where I live. Do you see now?
But you’ve never explained why that is. You just… kinda like it that way. Their normal takes precedence (it didn’t for a bit, but I called you out on it and now it does again) only because you say so. No definition you put forward included whose normal goes first when two normals happen at once.
To be clear, normal doesn’t work like that, it’s not what I meant and you fully understand this. But if we play by your definition, nothing in your definition decides which normal is the more normal. I say my normal goes because I’m the speaker and my set of expectations define normalcy in my speech. You have provided no argument against this.
It’s just the definition of the word. What is typical etc. for some context. Those people consider it normal to do that because to them it is normal 🤷♂️
For example if these people would be from Finland then yes it would be normal. It is just what people in Finland do which makes it normal.
Not by your definition. By your definition it’s “what’s expected or usual”, it doesn’t say anything about who decides what is expected or usual.