I will take each point as they come.
nnioR~
[ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Anklebiter ]
Normal behavior = what the standard in the society you happen to find yourself in is.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when nem-x said:
I keep thinking you're Vorago.
Or at least a big bold title of NOT VORAGO, and if not that then a sig that says so.
Its Vorago win an n.
Vorago cry
To the point of the question though I think societies manage to have a standard of morality that isn't just pegged on religion or law. Some amount of mutual acceptance just makes sense to keep people acting in a way that benefits the common good. I think it's particularly interesting to look at cases where law or religion decides to step beyond those boundries, either to provide a protection that the masses can't understand or as a needless layer of traditionalism, passed down through generations (say, Eisenhower's 55mph interstate speed limits in many areas.)
But yeah, there is such a thing as "normal," even without the imposition of arbritrary standards.
quote:
Humans are born with so little instinct that it would be hard to claim we have any "natural" behavior at all.To the point of the question though I think societies manage to have a standard of morality that isn't just pegged on religion or law. Some amount of mutual acceptance just makes sense to keep people acting in a way that benefits the common good. I think it's particularly interesting to look at cases where law or religion decides to step beyond those boundries, either to provide a protection that the masses can't understand or as a needless layer of traditionalism, passed down through generations (say, Eisenhower's 55mph interstate speed limits in many areas.)
But yeah, there is such a thing as "normal," even without the imposition of arbritrary standards.
So, you say that any behavior that does not benefit society is not normal? That is to say, to be normal you must behave in such a way to benefit society?
Just trying to get your point straight before debating it.
nnioR~ [ 09-14-2003: Message edited by: Varagon ]
Natural behaviour would be any type of behaviour that a normally function person could or would do. This includes, happiness, sadness, lieing, cheating, stealing, protecting, fighting, love, hate, just about anything people experience. And because we have such a big range of behaviours some of our unspoken laws/tenets as a society try to keep these in check.
Society as a means of protecting its interests tries to instill some type of normal behvaiour into its enviroment.Most societies value honesty. Reason being it allows for a more even playing field when dealing with people. Since not all people are born with the same abilities some will have an easier time using their abilities to a negative end. And those who would be hurt by this would try to prevent it. Hence things like dishonesty is bad and so on.
Id say basic tenets like these that try to put a check on what people do out lines what normal behaviour is through negation. However these concepts can shift over time or between different peoples so theres going to be a bit of variation over what "normal" is. But overall normal behaviour is what allows for a fair enviroment to different parties of varying degrees of ability to function smoothly and efficently.
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Its Vorago win an n.
And an a instead of an o.
.png)
quote:
Varagon had this to say about Duck Tales:
[QB]So, you say that any behavior that does not benefit society is not normal? That is to say, to be normal you must behave in such a way to benefit society?[QB]
That would be what I'm claiming taken to the extreme. In practice of course society doesn't enforce a set of standards that are always beneficial, even if what is beneficial is common knowledge. Still there is a kind of standard in play. Case in point:
The idea of "safety for work" as regards images and movies and things always seemed a bit odd to me. While I'm greatful to work at a place that doesn't give two hoots what I look at, I can't imagine most places of business would condone my looking at pictures of pretty ladies, whether "explicit" or not--it's just not professional. Maybe I'm wrong, but the line seems sort of arbitrary when looked at in that way. I think it's a kind of self regulation, as there are some times when I just don't want to be exposed to naughty bits--though I don't have a problem with them in general.
Note that for images on the border of NSFW-ness, we haven't crossed a legal boundry (we will assume) and we're past most religious boundries (plenty of SFW images inspire lust, for instance) so we've got a line that is purely self-generated.
For further proof that NSFW isn't entirely for your boss's sake, note the number of text-only threads that have carried that tag. You really can't expect graphic language to raise a red flag from across the room.
So where were we? Oh yeah - whether "normal behavior" is always tied to some benefit to society. I would only agree on the condition that the vision of beneficiality that generates those behaviors is subject to a great deal of warping and twisting--it certainly can stray from what the average person knows is right. Just look at the way the Nazis created a murderous "normalcy" in the '40s. Yet somehow, it must have seemed like a good idea at the time.
There are many kinds of norms, without them, there wouldn't be a society, there wouldnt be civilization.
Take murder for example. The norm is that you don't go around murdering people. To benefit society, you have to follow the norm. Going around murdering will be a huge detriment to society.
Its simple.
quote:
Falaanla Marr thought about the meaning of life:
Yes, you must behave in a normal way to benefit society.
Have revolutionaries ever benefitted society?
quote:
How.... Iulius Czar.... uughhhhhh:
Have revolutionaries ever benefitted society?
Martin Luther.
No, he's not a reformer. 
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper's account was hax0red to write:
Revo's benefitted the new society that they helped to create, but were detrimental to the old one
What he said.
To benefit the society you are in, you must behave within the norms of said society.
If you create a new society out of a revolution, you are benefiting that one, while hurting the other society.
code:re·volt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-vlt)
v. re·volt·ed, re·volt·ing, re·volts
v. intr.1. To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.
2. To oppose or refuse to accept something: revolting against high taxes.
3.
1. To feel disgust or repugnance: to revolt at a public display of cruelty.
2. To turn away in revulsion or abhorrence: They revolted from the sight.
v. tr.To fill with disgust or abhorrence; repel. See Synonyms at disgust.
n.1. An uprising, especially against state authority; a rebellion.
2. An act of protest or rejection.
3. The state of a person or persons in rebellion: students in revolt over administrative policies.
it still works, screw you ECP [ 09-15-2003: Message edited by: Kegwen ]
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
The only real difference between a revolutionary and a reformer that comes to mind right now is that a reformer generally stays within the legal boundry of the current society to the extent that they arent blowing things up or doing any other major violent acts. Revolutionaries have no holdbacks.
The difference iffin I remember right is a Reformer is one that wishes to change an aspect of their society, but does so within the limits of acceptance/norms of that society. A Revolutionary on the other hand is a social deviant who seeks to change society through means outside of acceptance and/or the norms of a given society. Or some shit like that, been a while since my sociology class, Basic idea is that a revolutionary would be deviant were a reformer would not be.
As to the topic of the post, iffin I remember rightly, that two separate things. There is natural behavior, and being normal, and they are both two completely separate things. Society impart on what a person/people believe is normal, On the other hand natural behavior can mean many things depending on if your looking at it from a Scientific viewpoint , or from a more philosophical viewpoint. [ 09-15-2003: Message edited by: Peter ]
There are societal norms, however, which change as the societies change.
Incredibly religious areas, I imagine, would have set definations of normality.
Peter, isnt that just what I said but with 5 more lines?
It's all determined by society as a whole as to what is normal, sane, fashionable, whatever.
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper thought about the meaning of life:
...
Peter, isnt that just what I said but with 5 more lines?
You made a every revolutionary sound like they were so militant nutballo, that is not always the case.
Also a reformer may not stay within the legal boundaries of a society, but will stay with in the norms of society. If I remember right, civil disobedience is something that is normally illegal, but will stay within societal norms.
quote:
Peter thought about the meaning of life:
You made a every revolutionary sound like they were so militant nutballo, that is not always the case.Also a reformer may not stay within the legal boundaries of a society, but will stay with in the norms of society. If I remember right, civil disobedience is something that is normally illegal, but will stay within societal norms.
When has a revolutionary(successful, if possible. I dont remember the details on many unsuccessful revolutionaries)
Reformers, mainly in the form of Civil Disobedience, get around the legal bounderies of society. In the successful versions of these, most notably the black liberation movement, after they did it it stopped being illegal. So while they were "legaly wrong" they werent morally wrong in the strictest of senses.
Bleh, you understand no?
