Took a day, but I figured out the problem

Post #350,723 by drook 11/15/11 9:17:18 PM Reply	Took a day, but I figured out the problem The gender arrangement of this couple is not the most common. You expressed shock at that. (Or at least bogglement.) I'll bet if we looked at the racial arrangement we'd find that that is also not the most common, but you didn't comment on that. We don't know if either of them is left handed, which would automatically make their arrangement uncommon, but again, you didn't comment on that. We could examine their relative (and absolute) incomes ... the number of siblings each has ... their shoe sizes ... their bra sizes ... their favorite colors ... The point is, you chose to compare and comment on this one aspect of who they are. All you proved is that you think it matters. Everyone here has been telling you that it doesn't. You're wrong as soon as you say it's worth discussing. Classic "conservative" framing. Pick something that is completely irrelevant, make inflammatory statements about it, then get everyone tied up debating the details. I'm done playing that game. It doesn't matter if what they're doing is "deviant" or "normal" or "common" or whatever. What matters is it's none of your business, and none of Southwest's business, and none of the business of the busybody who complained. -- Drew
Post #350,724 by boxley 11/15/11 9:25:05 PM Reply	no boggle zone? cmon, mikey can boggle and we can educate If after having this debate would he still boggle or go hmmm? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #350,746 by mmoffitt 11/16/11 8:05:20 AM Reply	Hmmmmm.
Post #350,726 by static 11/15/11 9:45:59 PM Reply	I thought it was just a boring problem of definition. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #350,733 by beepster 11/15/11 11:13:39 PM Reply	wrong on one count It is southwests business if it happens on their plane Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,742 by crazy 11/16/11 5:29:24 AM Reply	Which SW has already admitted to being wrong about It is an incident of a poorly trained and/or biased rep opening her mouth when she shouldn't have. "This is a family airline" is code for "DO WHAT I TELL YOU BASED ON MY RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR GET THE FUCK OFF THE PLANE, YOU F'ING DEVIANTS". So the only thing left is the mop up action, dealing with people like the top poster here.
Post #350,743 by beepster 11/16/11 5:57:54 AM Reply	right, wrong dont matter If the pilot working that flight doesnt like your shirt...you dont fly. You dont have an inaliable right to fly on their plane. The apology is business cover. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,817 by mmoffitt 11/17/11 9:54:20 AM 11/17/11 10:40:20 AM Reply	I took a few days, too. Your first sentence is incorrect. Gay couples hardly shock me. My shock was (and thanks to Scott, I freely admit I may have misread the quote) that anyone would consider a gay couple a normal couple. Normal in the sense that homosexuality is the logical outcome of the evolutionary processes that lead to sexual dimorphism. I wonder if it would still shock the senses around here if instead of saying a gay couple was "a couple that deviates from the norm" or the shortened version "deviant couple", I had instead referred to the gay couple as an atypical couple. I honestly still do not personally distinguish meaning between the phrases "deviant behavior" and "atypical behavior" but I know I am in the minority (especially now). If "atypical" is acceptable, I fail to see the controversy in claiming an atypical couple is not a normal (read: typical) couple. YMMV. Box (with some help from Rand) made me realize something that had eluded my notice. I actually do ascribe some negative connotation to the word "abnormal." I realized this in thinking about how I had inadvertently offended box. I would not personally ever refer to a mixed race couple as an "abnormal" couple (perhaps at least partly because you don't have to go back more than a handful of generations in my own family tree to find a mixed race marriage). Assuming Rand's conjecture that most married couples are of the same race, I might say (with no malice) that the races of the couple deviate from the norm. But I would never say they are an abnormal couple. Technically that might be accurate but I discovered that in my mind "abnormal" somehow contains a tinge of "defective" that I view as wholly inappropriate when describing mixed race couples. So, thanks for that. Edit: I actually typed since instead of sense. Sheesh. Edited by mmoffitt Nov. 17, 2011, 10:40:20 AM EST Expand All History
Post #350,818 by drook 11/17/11 10:03:13 AM Reply	This is why scientists can't do politics That negative connotation you have for "abnormal"? Virtually all of the rest of us who responded here have that connotation for "deviant". Doesn't matter what it means in a laboratory setting. -- Drew
Post #350,819 by mmoffitt 11/17/11 10:15:14 AM Reply	Right - that's the real problem. For me, I have assigned meaning to the word "abnormal" inappropriately and everybody else has assigned meaning to the word "deviate" and its derivatives inappropriately. ;0)
Post #350,820 by pwhysall 11/17/11 10:22:08 AM Reply	Re: This is why scientists can't do politics It is entirely normal and natural for species to have, amongst their populations, homosexual individuals. This is why homosexuality is normal. Different, true. Minority, no question. Abnormal? No way.

Welcome to IWETHEY!