1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

The world male:female population ratio is 3,360,742,758 males to 3,310,483,706 females, approximately 50 million more males than females.

In this case, the more 'common type' would be male. Therefore, using definition of 'normal', being male is normal and being female is... abnormal?

This just begins to show how retarded the concept of normality is.

If a guy says 'Step out of the norm, be your own person, be unique,' using what I have just worked out above, could be translated to 'Be a girl.'

I'm not just twisting definitions here, if you think about it it actually makes a lot of sense. Normality is a stupid concept, people who look down on people because they're not 'normal' have no argument at all.

If a guy tells you that you're not normal, you can say 'that's right, I'm a girl. =P'
If a girl tells you that you're not normal, you can say 'Just like you, right?'

heh. I thought of this randomly today, but you have to admit that it raises discussion on 'normality'. If normality gives us the right to prevent gay marriage, it also gives us the right to put down females and humans (humans are a minority in terms of animals on earth, eg. ants would be superior in terms of normality).

The funny thing is, in the past when the whole world was sexist towards females, I'm sure that the female:male ratio was something like 52:48. backwards reasoning much?

So to anyone who opposes 'abnormal' people, gay marriage, certain races, animals, certain gender, your logic is completely flawed. Why can't anyone else see this ==;



steph said...

Not to wholly divert from your once again deep and well-thought-out discussion. But seriously WTF. I feel so damn naive and childish. Seriously Winnae your ability to think up and mentally debate these kinda issues astounds me. (particularly at 9:39 in the morning) My blog = mindless blabber (:

....hi there.


Like your train of thought, Winnie. However I am slightly astounded by the fact that you're basing a good argument stemming from the word 'common' basis retrieved from is it (um i'm guessing this as it came up on google).

Nevertheless, I have to add this: (it made me lol)The definition specifically states, 'natural' right. Well ha ha. If one is trylu, honestly and utterly being themselves, i.e. natural, and due to the fact that we are all different from anyone else(however minorly).. sooooooo, we shall never acheive a real conformity/common ground throughout humanity. (Thus final step: Put down everyone)
Aiya, stupid dictionary!, contradicting itself how silly. Just goes to show > your sources may be unreliable la :/

Oh on a side note - where did you get the figures.. this is likely assuming only the number of 'tagged' (w/ passported) people in the world . . i mean i swear there will be scores more people in china, saudi arabia etc. alone~

On the topic of gay marriage, Can someone please explain to me why it is so utterly, completely unacceptable? What, just because those people won't be able to reproduce children like a man+woman=(pregnancy)=>baby way, then it must be WRONG?!
Well for Christians, your oh-so-preaching Bible always refers to God creating the universe/everything included in it/blahblah. Then HE must considered it acceptable to have created this emotion called LOVE between people of the same sex. Wow, I think HE must be trying to say sth? No kidding, man.
And to Non-christians, You are highly likely simply erecting a feeble attempt to hide your own insecurities by striking out at others, targeting those weaker in numbers. Similarily (like previously sexist towards females) strength in numbers will eventually overcome this ridiculousness. This goes for those politicians manipulating foolish people like those mentioned above too.

Haha sorry winnie - such is my succinct comment :P It's the result of 2 vodkas at home cuz sigh i'm in a bad mood...
Anyways thx for the discussion :)