[THREAD SPLIT] - LQTBQ/Homosexuality/Etc

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Your problem is that you think that something that is not normal is therefore somehow 'bad', at least when it's something you don't like. I've demonstrated how this is extreme breathtakinginanity again and again and again. The few objections you've raised to those were also breathtakinginanity as I've also demonstrated, and the objections to those too were breathtakinginanity as I demonstrated, which you failed to address.

As a generality I believe things outside the norm are negative/bad. I already argued this point though. People should be aware of the fact that I don't believe in absolute arguments. I am considering the topic in regards to context and basis of MAJORITY and MINORITY.

If you are unsure of what I mean then ask clarifiers otherwise you'll rely on other context assumptions which may or may not be correct of my opinion.

Your problem with gays is you don't like them and have to concoct various ways to demean and vilify them to mask your bigotry, but your concoctions only serve to prove it. [There's likely a lot of great cock jokes there but I'm too tired to go there]

No one has proven bigotry. Burden of proof is on you or anyone claiming bigotry on my part in order to legitimately claim bigotry.

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person"

You have to prove that it is unfair in order to dislike people based sexually deviant or harmful behavior. I believe I gave the example of dudes giving head and jacking each other off in public (gay pride parade). Is it unfair of me to levy intolerance of public sexual acts? Yes or no?

Also it has to be established that this is a strongly held opinion. That is at ODDS with the fact that I have gay friends and in fact tolerate them. If they are my friends do I like them?

So really the dislike/hate one could argue is that it is reserved for very limited aspects of gays and the like. So really I call bs on the claim of bigot.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

It isn't even correct to concede homosexuality as 'abnormal' based on minority representation in a population. Normal has never referred to "greater presence in comparison to". Tanker trucks are vastly underrepresented when discussing vehicles on the road; to then conclude that their presence is somehow abnormal, as though it's unusual to see a tanker truck rolling down an interstate or pulling up to a gas station, is absurd.

Something statistically abnormal would be, for example, 90% of patrons at a gay bar being straight men.

That would be an abnormal of an abnormal though. Vast majority of bars are heterosexual. That isn't a very good argument/example. That would still be an exception of an exception.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

That would be an abnormal of an abnormal though.

No, it wouldn't. Gay bars aren't abnormal, after all. It makes perfect sense that a marginalized community would have its own places where they congregate, given that they're often disenfranchized by the majority of society, and it makes sense that one such place would be a bar, as gay people still consume alcohol.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that a minority is abnormal by virtue of being a minority in the first place. What would statistically be considered normal would be the status quo, after all, and a majority implies a minority, that one thing being more represented in a sample means that another thing is less represented in that sample.

The air you breathe isn't 100% oxygen. There's carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, all sorts of chemicals. Nitrogen being less represented in a representative sample of a given town's air doesn't suggest that the nitrogen is abnormal; it suggests the exact opposite, that it's normal to find traces of nitrogen in the air. It would actually be abnormal, totally contrary to the status quo for the air you breathe to be 100% oxygen.

This leads in to another point, that what is statistically normal is heavily dependent on context. Going back to my initial example of vehicles, it would be more normal, more in line with statistical likelihood that you would see a tractor on a farm as opposed to a city street. Is the tractor inherently abnormal, then? Is it not? Is a city or a farm inherently abnormal? These ideas that a context can be dismissed for being bizarre or that a minority representation is inherently abnormal render us incapable of understanding the world around us in regards to what is abnormal and why.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

No, it wouldn't. Gay bars aren't abnormal, after all. It makes perfect sense that a marginalized community would have its own places where they congregate, given that they're often disenfranchized by the majority of society, and it makes sense that one such place would be a bar, as gay people still consume alcohol.

Number of gay bars are a vast minority compared to straight bars. Number of gays are likewise a small proportion. It isn't normal or usual to see gay bars in the majority of cities as they are in fact minorities and tiny minorities of bars.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that a minority is abnormal by virtue of being a minority in the first place. What would statistically be considered normal would be the status quo, after all, and a majority implies a minority, that one thing being more represented in a sample means that another thing is less represented in that sample.

The air you breathe isn't 100% oxygen. There's carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, all sorts of chemicals. Nitrogen being less represented in a representative sample of a given town's air doesn't suggest that the nitrogen is abnormal; it suggests the exact opposite, that it's normal to find traces of nitrogen in the air. It would actually be abnormal, totally contrary to the status quo for the air you breathe to be 100% oxygen.

It would be abnormal for a human to breathe 100% nitrogen. deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying. Meeting more and more people in public would mean that it is expected to be heterosexual not gay.

This leads in to another point, that what is statistically normal is heavily dependent on context. Going back to my initial example of vehicles, it would be more normal, more in line with statistical likelihood that you would see a tractor on a farm as opposed to a city street. Is the tractor inherently abnormal, then? Is it not? Is a city or a farm inherently abnormal? These ideas that a context can be dismissed for being bizarre or that a minority representation is inherently abnormal render us incapable of understanding the world around us in regards to what is abnormal and why.

It would be abnormal. What is the tractors purpose in the city? You can't exactly till fields with it in the city can you? You can't exactly mix concrete or any other purpose useful in an urban setting.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Number of gay bars are a vast minority compared to straight bars. Number of gays are likewise a small proportion.

These statements are obviously true and utterly trivial.

It isn't normal or usual to see gay bars in the majority of cities as they are in fact minorities and tiny minorities of bars.

It is entirely normal to see gay bars in the majority of cities; those cities are by their nature incredibly likely to have minority populations, which will almost certainly have their own locations which they congregate at, which will almost certainly include bars.

On the contrary, it is highly abnormal to see a major city that doesn't have a gay bar; so abnormal, in fact, that it would be highly indicative of some externality, such as city policies that discriminate heavily against either gay people or bars in general.

The likelihood of some hypothetical outsider, lacking all biases as to what they wish to see in a given city and lacking all knowledge of what there is in a given city, may have a low likelihood of coming across a gay bar. This we could argue is true, though also utterly trivial.

It would be abnormal for a human to breathe 100% nitrogen. deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.

It would be abnormal for a human to breathe 100% oxygen. That type of air purity has to be carefully achieved through mechanical means, if it can be accomplished at all. Even air in the wilds contains traces of other compounds, such as methane.

Meeting more and more people in public would mean that it is expected to be heterosexual not gay.

Statistical data of a population would suggest that the likelihood of meeting a straight person versus meeting a gay person would be X:Y, where X and Y are determined by percentage straight people versus percentage gay people. The number of people you meet in a given period of time has no bearing on this.

Population statistics don't describe individual people. If you wanted to talk about this as a binary, for sake of simplicity, then a person is either straight or gay. They're not X% likely to be straight, dependent on local population metrics.

It would be abnormal. What is the tractors purpose in the city? You can't exactly till fields with it in the city can you? You can't exactly mix concrete or any other purpose useful in an urban setting.

So what makes it abnormal? Is the tractor inherently abnormal, ie abnormal in all circumstances (the tractor is abnormal regardless of whether it's in the city or on the farm)? Is the city inherently abnormal, ie all objects in this context are abnormal (a skyscraper in the city is abnormal)?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

It is entirely normal to see gay bars in the majority of cities; those cities are by their nature incredibly likely to have minority populations, which will almost certainly have their own locations which they congregate at, which will almost certainly include bars.

On the contrary, it is highly abnormal to see a major city that doesn't have a gay bar; so abnormal, in fact, that it would be highly indicative of some externality, such as city policies that discriminate heavily against either gay people or bars in general.

The likelihood of some hypothetical outsider, lacking all biases as to what they wish to see in a given city and lacking all knowledge of what there is in a given city, may have a low likelihood of coming across a gay bar. This we could argue is true, though also utterly trivial.

Such bars are in decline not at an incline. Majority of cities are not major cities. The majority of cities will not have gay bars. Not trivial but certainly has nothing to do with my argument about deviancy in a deviant community reference gay pride parade and gross and potentially damaging behavior for sex acts in public. It is likewise abnormal to have sex in public yet it is celebrated in gay pride parade or wherever gays congregate.

It would be abnormal for a human to breathe 100% oxygen. That type of air purity has to be carefully achieved through mechanical means, if it can be accomplished at all. Even air in the wilds contains traces of other compounds, such as methane.

Irrelevant I don't remember making an argument referencing absolutes.

Statistical data of a population would suggest that the likelihood of meeting a straight person versus meeting a gay person would be X:Y, where X and Y are determined by percentage straight people versus percentage gay people. The number of people you meet in a given period of time has no bearing on this.

Population statistics don't describe individual people. If you wanted to talk about this as a binary, for sake of simplicity, then a person is either straight or gay. They're not X% likely to be straight, dependent on local population metrics.

Yes majorities and minorities already suggest this.

So what makes it abnormal? Is the tractor inherently abnormal, ie abnormal in all circumstances (the tractor is abnormal regardless of whether it's in the city or on the farm)? Is the city inherently abnormal, ie all objects in this context are abnormal (a skyscraper in the city is abnormal)?

Inherently abnormal due to their function. Likewise gays are abnormal precisely because of their function. Species like I have argued earlier rely on heterosexual reproduction. To be gay you cannot be bisexual otherwise you are bisexual and still partially both - still relies on heterosexual reproduction/acts.

To see a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere would be abnormal and a waste of resources unless the local population regarding a company for example made it make sense but usually that only happens once a certain population threshold occurs.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Such bars are in decline not at an incline.

I suppose this could be true? Progressive movements should eventually render the concept of a gay bar moot simply by embracing gay people into mainstream society.

Majority of cities are not major cities.

My bad.

The majority of cities will not have gay bars.

I'm tempted to just let that one go, seeing as how you so confidently asserted it.

I suppose you have some reason for that confidence? Not gonna lie, I'm not gonna be all that impressed if you just reiterate what I said just above.

Not trivial but certainly has nothing to do with my argument

If it has nothing to do with the argument, then in what way is it non-trivial?

about deviancy in a deviant community reference gay pride parade and gross and potentially damaging behavior for sex acts in public. It is likewise abnormal to have sex in public yet it is celebrated in gay pride parade or wherever gays congregate.

So it wasn't about population metrics, after all.

In your opinion, are gay pride parades an accurate representation of how gay people live?

Irrelevant I don't remember making an argument referencing absolutes.

The point isn't about absolutes.

Let me put it this way: if City X, whose population has remained consistent for 10 years, was polled for those 10 years, and in those 10 years, we had the following population breakdown:

Year 1 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 2 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 3 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 4 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 5 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 6 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 7 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 8 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 9 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 10 - 90% Straight, 10% Gay

Year 10 would be abnormal.

Yes majorities and minorities already suggest this.

Yes, what? Are you agreeing with me? Are you reasserting your previous argument?

Inherently abnormal due to their function.

What is? The tractor? It's inherently abnormal as a result of its function? Is it therefore abnormal to see a tractor on a farm? Maybe you should read what you just responded to again.

Likewise gays are abnormal precisely because of their function.

So their being a minority group had nothing to do with anything. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the conversation, but you could've told me from the start that I wasn't addressing your actual concern.

Species like I have argued earlier rely on heterosexual reproduction. To be gay you cannot be bisexual otherwise you are bisexual and still partially both - still relies on heterosexual reproduction/acts.

'Gay' describes a sexual attraction. It doesn't describe a specific course of action. It's entirely possible for a gay man to be stimulated by a woman, for said gay man to ejaculate into her vagina, and for his sperm to impregnate her. All these things have happened, many times.

However.

All populations have to contend for resources which, if they do replenish, only replenish at a certain rate. It's entirely possible for a resource to be depleted, resulting in the complete collapse of an entire population. Overpopulation is as much an issue for a given population as lagging birth rates are.

Simply put, I see no reason whatsoever to grant your characterization of whatever function you believe gay people serve as being deviant, unnatural, or worthless.

To see a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere would be abnormal and a waste of resources unless the local population regarding a company for example made it make sense but usually that only happens once a certain population threshold occurs.

I honestly think you should read that part again.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

If it has nothing to do with the argument, then in what way is it non-trivial?

Relative to the argument made about acting in gross/potentially dangerous ways.

So it wasn't about population metrics, after all.

....deviant behavior is the argument here always has been.

In your opinion, are gay pride parades an accurate representation of how gay people live?

Gays seem to be more ok with public sex acts - my gay friends included. I just leave when they start.

The point isn't about absolutes.

100% oxygen like you said is only possible through artificial means. I am talking about generalities, majorities and minorities.

Let me put it this way: if City X, whose population has remained consistent for 10 years, was polled for those 10 years, and in those 10 years, we had the following population breakdown:

Year 1 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 2 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 3 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 4 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 5 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 6 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 7 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 8 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 9 - 70% Straight, 30% Gay
Year 10 - 90% Straight, 10% Gay

Year 10 would be abnormal.

Straights would still be the majority. Gays would still be the minority. That isn't abnormal.

What is? The tractor? It's inherently abnormal as a result of its function? Is it therefore abnormal to see a tractor on a farm? Maybe you should read what you just responded to again.

It is not normal to buy something given a general area when it has no purpose relative to the area that it is in. If I bought say an APC and parked it on the corner of my house that would be very abnormal or out of the ordinary. No different with a tractor given the context.

So their being a minority group had nothing to do with anything. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the conversation, but you could've told me from the start that I wasn't addressing your actual concern.

I've made multiple arguments. Being out of the ordinary by their function is one such argument. The actual problem being more specific to what they actually do not how many of them there are in population.

'Gay' describes a sexual attraction. It doesn't describe a specific course of action. It's entirely possible for a gay man to be stimulated by a woman, for said gay man to ejaculate into her vagina, and for his sperm to impregnate her. All these things have happened, many times.

Not true. I've posted this definition multiple times but I don't think anyone is actually paying attention. If you commit sexual acts with both or "all" genders" by definition you are bisexual.

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females, or to more than one gender."

If your example by definition that person would be a bisexual not strictly gay. It is far more accurate due to the fact of the definition. They might lean more to liking gay sex more but regardless because they are willing to commit to both they are bisexual by definition or at least this definition.

Therefore if they were to adhere to being gay and I mean GAY then no they wouldn't be able to have heterosexual sex to remain gay they would in fact be bisexual.

All populations have to contend for resources which, if they do replenish, only replenish at a certain rate. It's entirely possible for a resource to be depleted, resulting in the complete collapse of an entire population. Overpopulation is as much an issue for a given population as lagging birth rates are.

Why don't you look up the birth rates country to country as well as globally then try to make this argument. It is in decline and is not a stable growth rate to even maintain let alone outpace natural and unnatural death.

Simply put, I see no reason whatsoever to grant your characterization of whatever function you believe gay people serve as being deviant, unnatural, or worthless.

They are deviant by definition. I don't believe I made the argument of them being unnatural gays do exist in nature. I don't think I argued them being worthless.

I honestly think you should read that part again.

You don't think it is consistent or normal to require lots of population in order to warrant the structure of a sky scraper? Remember the conditions I laid out?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

In your opinion, are gay pride parades an accurate representation of how gay people live?

Yes.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Gays seem to be more ok with public sex acts - my gay friends included. I just leave when they start.

Jesus. I have had gays bend over and show me there ass and tell me its mine and beg to suck me off and everything. This was at work. My ex girlfriends best friend owns a very popular gay bar where I live. Jerking off seems to their way of saying hello there. lol

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Jesus. I have had gays bend over and show me there ass and tell me its mine and beg to suck me off and everything. This was at work. My ex girlfriends best friend owns a very popular gay bar where I live. Jerking off seems to their way of saying hello there. lol

Yes it isn't uncommon in my experience for gays to commit sex acts in public which is degenerate deviant stuff.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes it isn't uncommon in my experience for gays to commit sex acts in public which is degenerate deviant stuff.

I am a pretty hardcore Christian fundamentalist. I would not assume any particular homosexual to be more of a degenerate than you or I am.

Jesus didn't go around telling everyone how great we all fucking are. He said He is good and we are all evil and that the people who think they are the most good are the most evil. And he said even though we are evil, He made us and He loves us and he was tortured and killed so we can live in paradise forever with him, if we want.

 

[*SD*]

sex acts in public which is degenerate deviant stuff.

You're as entitled to your view as everyone else is here. However, do you hold the same position on heterosexual sex acts in public? I would assume the answer is yes, which would mean it isn't the homosexual component you really have issue with, it's simply the performance of sexual acts in public.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

You're as entitled to your view as everyone else is here. However, do you hold the same position on heterosexual sex acts in public? I would assume the answer is yes, which would mean it isn't the homosexual component you really have issue with, it's simply the performance of sexual acts in public.

Sure - kids don't have a clue what is going on. Gay or straight doesn't matter. There is no context with that act - just the act.

 

[*SD*]

Sure - kids don't have a clue what is going on. Gay or straight doesn't matter. There is no context with that act - just the act.

Yeah, I don't think that's particularly controversial, I only brought it up because I think posters are led to believe you're only applying this to homosexual acts. I would imagine most people don't want to see sexual acts in public, whatever the orientation.

 

[mechtheist]

No, it wouldn't. Gay bars aren't abnormal, after all. It makes perfect sense that a marginalized community would have its own places where they congregate, given that they're often disenfranchized by the majority of society, and it makes sense that one such place would be a bar, as gay people still consume alcohol.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that a minority is abnormal by virtue of being a minority in the first place. What would statistically be considered normal would be the status quo, after all, and a majority implies a minority, that one thing being more represented in a sample means that another thing is less represented in that sample.

The air you breathe isn't 100% oxygen. There's carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, all sorts of chemicals. Nitrogen being less represented in a representative sample of a given town's air doesn't suggest that the nitrogen is abnormal; it suggests the exact opposite, that it's normal to find traces of nitrogen in the air. It would actually be abnormal, totally contrary to the status quo for the air you breathe to be 100% oxygen.

This leads in to another point, that what is statistically normal is heavily dependent on context. Going back to my initial example of vehicles, it would be more normal, more in line with statistical likelihood that you would see a tractor on a farm as opposed to a city street. Is the tractor inherently abnormal, then? Is it not? Is a city or a farm inherently abnormal? These ideas that a context can be dismissed for being bizarre or that a minority representation is inherently abnormal render us incapable of understanding the world around us in regards to what is abnormal and why.

I'm kinda done with this topic, but I couldn't ignore a couple of things. 100% oxygen at 1 atmosphere is lethal. And air is mostly nitrogen, 70% if I remember correctly.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes I didn't lead on otherwise. Freedom of Speech is always a legal issue. So why did you say I don't know anything about it?

If you knew that, then why did you bring it up in this reply? I did not think you knew anything about it based on your actions.

Well again you say I both defined it and didn't define it. That is literally polar opposites. So which is it? Did I define it or didn't I?

I have never said you defined it. I keep saying that you have failed to define it but have only implied what it means. I also pointed out that I was correct in parsing out what you were trying to define based on only your implications. Those are not opposites by any stretch of the word. Now care to address my point, or would you rather keep dodging?

"Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females..."

No literally they are bisexuals at that point by definition not homosexual. You literally cannot be homosexual if you commit sexual acts with the different gender.

Again, you are exposing your biases and shallow thinking on this topic, literally.

You have used that statement as an insult. What you saying is basically I am incompetent - which is an insult.

You are incompetent. You have demonstrated that several times. Look right above this for an example. I suggest you get thicker skin.

So again I ask did I define or didn't I define it? I don't think you even have a clue you are arguing both.

Again, you have not defined it, only implied it. I have already pointed this out. Just because you cannot employ deductive reasoning does not mean others are equally as incompetent.

The most significant number of a specific group.

Right so the argument doesn't apply then.

What? Are you now saying that your argument about majorities does not apply? That is what this answer would mean since I was answering what a majority means.

Just as soon as you admit that you have no idea that I have or have not defined society then. You are so contradictory it is hilarious. First you argue my definition sucks and then you say I haven't defined it. Which is it for the fourth time?

And for the fourth time, you have not defined it but merely implied it. Furthermore, I corrected summed it up as:

Yes, homosexuals are a minority group. However, I would disagree that they are not a part of normal human society because of that. Perhaps if you tried defining a normal human society you would also see that just because there are minority groups among it does not make them harmful. Otherwise, it just appears that you are arguing that minorities do not belong in a normal human society. But, of course, you are a bigot after all, so this could be the case.

Now, care to move forward, or do you want to keep dodging your burden.

Again the examples have to do with you claiming I haven't defined anything and yet I have defined society according to you. Obviously you cannot logically make the argument that my definition of society sucks and then in the same thread claim I haven't defined it. For the fifth time which is it did I define society or not?

You have not defined it, and you implied it. Care to move forward, or would you rather keep dodging?

I believe I gave the example of dudes giving head and jacking each other off in public (gay pride parade).

Citation needed.

That is at ODDS with the fact that I have gay friends and in fact tolerate them.

I doubt that.

Such bars are in decline not at an incline. Majority of cities are not major cities. The majority of cities will not have gay bars... It is likewise abnormal to have sex in public yet it is celebrated in gay pride parade or wherever gays congregate.

Citations needed.

Not true. I've posted this definition multiple times but I don't think anyone is actually paying attention. If you commit sexual acts with both or "all" genders" by definition you are bisexual.

I have addressed this definition every time you have brought it up. Why you keep bringing it up as if your simplistic explanation did not address it is asinine.

....deviant behavior is the argument here always has been.

Lie.

I've made multiple arguments. Being out of the ordinary by their function is one such argument. The actual problem being more specific to what they actually do not how many of them there are in population.

And in the same post, we have an admission that BoganUSAFFLClerk's above statement was a lie.

Gays seem to be more ok with public sex acts - my gay friends included. I just leave when they start.

Laughable yarn.

Sure - kids don't have a clue what is going on. Gay or straight doesn't matter. There is no context with that act - just the act.

So we agree. If only you would define normal human society and not just imply it, we might move this conversation forward over a topic like this. However, I do not doubt that you will dodge this again.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

I'm kinda done with this topic, but I couldn't ignore a couple of things. 100% oxygen at 1 atmosphere is lethal. And air is mostly nitrogen, 70% if I remember correctly.

In other words the majority of the air that we breathe is nitrogen. So if we say inhale minority make ups of air we would die. One is inherently a majority or normality and lead to life and normalcy. The other does not. A vague argument but one I have levied already.

 

[mechtheist]

In other words the majority of the air that we breathe is nitrogen. So if we say inhale minority make ups of air we would die. One is inherently a majority or normality and lead to life and normalcy. The other does not. A vague argument but one I have levied already.

Your ID implies US air force. This post makes me think english is not your first or even 2nd language and that you ain't all that good in your native tongue. The 1st sentence I got, seems OK, then things just go weird and I can't fathom what you mean. And why are you extracting taxes for arguments?
Look, your ideas about what's OK and not OK based on numbers of folks who fall into whatever categories you have in your head is fucked up, it's dangerous, and it's the kind of thinking that is behind an awful lot of the crap humanity has put itself through and likely will be a big reason we off ourselves.

And trying to use physical science data as useful for ideas like normal and minority/majority etc as applied to cultural issues is just daft, John Waters was on Carson or maybe it was Leno, and was telling stories that hjad a lot of folks he knew that had been in jail so Carson says something like 'wow, you know a lot of folks who've been in jail. Waters smiles and said 'yeah, I guess I do, I don't really trust anyone who hasn't been in jail.' In a lot of categories, being a normie ain't exactly a good thing, I would hate to be a normie in a whole fuckton of categories and thank god I'm an outlier in a lot of them but nowhere near enough to satisfy me. You think a society full of normies who shit on the others is a good thing and that's all that needs to be said about who you are.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Your ID implies US air force. This post makes me think english is not your first or even 2nd language and that you ain't all that good in your native tongue. The 1st sentence I got, seems OK, then things just go weird and I can't fathom what you mean. And why are you extracting taxes for arguments?
Look, your ideas about what's OK and not OK based on numbers of folks who fall into whatever categories you have in your head is fucked up, it's dangerous, and it's the kind of thinking that is behind an awful lot of the crap humanity has put itself through and likely will be a big reason we off ourselves.

Not Air Force.
Bogan USA FFL Clerk has nothing to do with the Air Force or membership in any armed forces. An FFL is a gun dealer. I sell firearms and teach firearms as an instructor and RSO.

I am not using arguments related to taxes to explain normalcy. What are you talking about?

This is the internet don't expect people to be willing to use grammar especially when the arguments here are so taxing.

Humans categorize things that is their natural inclination we all do it.

And trying to use physical science data as useful for ideas like normal and minority/majority etc as applied to cultural issues is just daft, John Waters was on Carson or maybe it was Leno, and was telling stories that hjad a lot of folks he knew that had been in jail so Carson says something like 'wow, you know a lot of folks who've been in jail. Waters smiles and said 'yeah, I guess I do, I don't really trust anyone who hasn't been in jail.' In a lot of categories, being a normie ain't exactly a good thing, I would hate to be a normie in a whole fuckton of categories and thank god I'm an outlier in a lot of them but nowhere near enough to satisfy me. You think a society full of normies who shit on the others is a good thing and that's all that needs to be said about who you are.

Normalcy implies normal function. You want normal function of a society correct? You want the normal operation and successful operation of society. This is all I have argued.