0
Opposing questions to an original question sometimes have as much to do with an innate dichotomy between whether a thing is or not normal. That said we must remember our questions are the result of other questions and end up resulting in other questions.
The thing is the validity of being normal or not depends on how much advantage it can give you to be normal or abnormal socially. I do not think it garners one advantages when they conform to the standard or norm imposed by the Masses. It would be more advantageous socially to define normal or abnormal not based on popular or public opinion but from a rational perspective.
That said it depends on the situation and the possible advantages that can be gained from being abnormal or not and we also need to factor in that since the definition of normal and abnormal is not always going to be determined by common sense whether or not it is profitable to act in a certain way under a certain set of rules in an abnormal or normal way is simply relative.
Bookmarks