Replies

The wonders of PC — “normal” is considered an inappropriate word.

My wife works with special needs kids in an integrated environment. It is considered hateful to refer to the other kids as “normal”. It is considered correct to refer to the other kids as “typical”. Of course the focus is on the “special needs” kids.

My wife knows it’s ridiculous, but the school administration thinks it’s important to note that there are no “normal” kids.

I really think the Devil is behind this whole mess because no human could possible think of evil so deep. Just explore this tiny point in a school environment:

Linguistically, what is the difference between “normal” and “typical”? I think there is none. If you tell a parent that their kid is “normal” they will not be concerned. If you tell a parent that their kid is “typical” they will not be concerned. It makes no difference.

So ... if the schools insist that most kids are “typical”, it’s no big deal, right?

But we create a society which is told to now believe that there are NO “normal” kids. No “normal” people.

And that’s the door through which transgenders and pedophiles and zoophiles walk through.

It’s the Devil’s work.

I had a friend (notice the word ‘had’) who has a PhD in Developmental Psychology. She told me that the American Association of Psychiatrists and Psychologists reclassified homosexuality as a ‘variation on normal’, back in the 70’s. I pointed out to her then, that if homosexuality was ‘normal’ then our species would likely die out. She was not amused. And now whenever I see any spokesperson from these elites, they are always gay or lesbian......I think this area of medicine has been severely compromised by those who are abnormal, but want to pretend they are the actual normal. Yes, the Left has gone wacko and sadly they are taking about 50% of Americans with them.

Linguistically, what is the difference between “normal” and “typical”? I think there is none

To be normal is to adhere to a norm, meaning a set of either ethical or aesthetic standards, the following of which ensures, if not a higher moral or aesthetic ground, at least the avoidance of a lower moral or aesthetic ground. The antonym of "normal" is "deviant," meaning to deviate from the desirable norm.

By contrast, to be "typical" is to be an example of a type, which confers no moral or aesthetic superiority: one type can be as good as any other type, so that to be "typical" is simply to be conforming to the type. It also implies that one can move among types, identifying with one type one day, another type the next, without experiencing any moral or aesthetic decline. The antonym of typical is atypical, which simply means not of the type, without any moral or aesthetic judgment attached.

Herein lies the difference between the concepts of being "normal" and being "typical": you get to define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, what is the type you want to be and what is the type you don't want to be. It makes us to be like gods, knowing good and evil--to be more precise, to think that we are like gods, deciding for ourselves what is good and evil. And that is precisely where Satan likes us to be.