Non-conforming?

Whats a non-conformist?

0 Replies

Oh sorry

Wiki says:

Quote:

Nonconformism is, in general, the refusal to conform to common standards, conventions, rules, customs, traditions, norms, or laws.

A Nonconformist is someone who believes the above.

0 Replies

No, a nonconformist is one who does the above.

0 Replies

related to the contrarian,

Quote:

a person who takes an opposing view, esp. one who rejects the majority opinion, as in economic matters.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contrarian

0 Replies

Yes that is true, sorry. But I am talking about people who define their personality by being nonconformists are these people just trying to conform to a different group?

0 Replies

I've always thought so.

It's the ones that don't identify as non-conformist that can be non-conformist.

0 Replies

Non-conformists are re-actors.

Rugged individualists blaze independent trails.

0 Replies

Noddy said rugged individulist and here I am.

0 Replies

Non-conformity is an absence of conformity. You can't conform to an absence of something; you can only conform to a something.

Not being a conformist means not subscribing to something just because it is the norm. It means subscribing to things for other reasons, such as because they are good or right.

Everybody conforms to some norm or other. Most of us wear shoes. But some of us are able to, for example, form ethical beliefs based on ethical principles and factual claims, not on social taboos or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions.

0 Replies

Some of us claim to be nonconformists but there are other forces at play.

0 Replies

Quote:

Non-conformity is an absence of conformity. You can't conform to an absence of something; you can only conform to a something.

Not being a conformist means not subscribing to something just because it is the norm. It means subscribing to things for other reasons, such as because they are good or right.

Everybody conforms to some norm or other. Most of us wear shoes. But some of us are able to, for example, form ethical beliefs based on ethical principles and factual claims, not on social taboos or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions.

Exactly the so-called non-conformist must be selective in what they do not conform to. But by doing so they are effectively saying that they are in fact correct about what they decide not to do and that everybody else is wrong. Or are they just doing it for the attention of being different?

0 Replies

To ignore the rules, you have to know the rules.

For the Rugged Individualist, the "rules" either don't exist or don't dictate.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Non-conformity is an absence of conformity. You can't conform to an absence of something; you can only conform to a something.

Not being a conformist means not subscribing to something just because it is the norm. It means subscribing to things for other reasons, such as because they are good or right.

Everybody conforms to some norm or other. Most of us wear shoes. But some of us are able to, for example, form ethical beliefs based on ethical principles and factual claims, not on social taboos or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions.

Translation: Some of them are scum-sucking, leering, lustful paedophiles and proud of it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

agrote wrote:
Non-conformity is an absence of conformity. You can't conform to an absence of something; you can only conform to a something.

Not being a conformist means not subscribing to something just because it is the norm. It means subscribing to things for other reasons, such as because they are good or right.

Everybody conforms to some norm or other. Most of us wear shoes. But some of us are able to, for example, form ethical beliefs based on ethical principles and factual claims, not on social taboos or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions.

Translation: Some of them are scum-sucking, leering, lustful paedophiles and proud of it.

Is this an admission that your ethical beliefs are based on social taboos and/or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions?

If those who do not base their ethical beliefs on such things are scum-suckers,
and if you are not a scum-sucker,
then you must base your ethical beliefs on such things.

That's nothing to be proud of, is it?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Is this an admission that your ethical beliefs are based on social taboos and/or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions?

No, it is not. There is no such thing for me to admit to. It is an explicit condemnation of your constant attempt to portray yourself as a victim of an unreasonable prejudice, which is an unconsidered point of view derived from, in this case, "conformity." In fact, it is a condemnation based upon the scurrility of your professed pathologically morbid obsession.

Quote:

If those who do not base their ethical beliefs on such things are scum-suckers,
and if you are not a scum-sucker,
then you must base your ethical beliefs on such things.

That's nothing to be proud of, is it?

That's a strawman. I did not state or imply that those who do not base their ethics on "social taboos or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions" [sic] are scum-suckers. I am saying that paedophiles, and especially those who attempt to portray themselves as victims of an unreasonable and unconsidered social taboo are scum-suckers.

Your premise is flawed (and therefore a strawman, in that i made no such argument), and therefore your conclusion is invalid. I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my ethical principles. You beg the question in the case of paedophilia because you start from a premise that people who are disgusted by paedophilia simply subscribe to a "unverified" assumption, you have not demonstrated that this is the case.

No, Agrote, i consider you a scum-sucking dirt bag because you are an unrepentant and self-pitying paedophile--not because of the provenance of your or anyone else's ethical system.

0 Replies

I said, "But some of us are able to, for example, form ethical beliefs based on ethical principles and factual claims, not on social taboos or widely-held-but-un-verified assumptions."

You said, "Translation: Some of them are scum-sucking, leering, lustful paedophiles and proud of it."

Were you trying to say that I am not one of those who form their ethical beliefs in the way described?

Or were you trying to say that it is not a good thing to form your ethical beliefs in the way described?

0 Replies

I was not saying either. I was saying that you only advance the proposition (for which you provide neither a logical basis nor any philosophical support) because you are obsessed with describing paedophilia as a harmless "sexual orientation" which is the target of an unconsidered prejudice.

0 Replies

Is this thread just reflecting the semantics of the word "non-conforming"?

I say that since there is inner-directed and outer-directed folk. Inner-directed people, by definition, do not need others for self-confirmation. In effect, they might tend to appear non-conforming, but by virtue of their own preferences. Not by virtue of a preference to appear non-conforming, based on others' definition of conformity.

The term maverick, originally used for wild horses, is also used for people. No inference is meant that there is a desire to be a maverick. The inference, I believe, is it is one's natural tendency.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I was not saying either. I was saying that you only advance the proposition (for which you provide neither a logical basis nor any philosophical support) because you are obsessed with describing paedophilia as a harmless "sexual orientation" which is the target of an unconsidered prejudice.

I only advanced my definition of non-conformity because I think paedophilia is a sexual orientation? I can't see that that makes any sense. Can you explain exactly how the two things are related?

0 Replies