More people who confuse "normal" with "right"

[conuly]

Unfortunately, in this country, it's not normal for one year olds to still be nursing. Tabloids are infamous for lying, of course, and should be commended for this rare occasion of truth.

"How could something natural be not normal?"

Very simply. Clothing? Unnatural. But going naked is not normal. Shoes? Unnatural. Being barefoot is better for (most people's) feet anyway. But it's also, in most cases, not normal. Our infant mortality rate? A VERY GOOD THING. Normal. But not natural at all. The natural infant mortality rate was much higher.

*sighs*

English, people, if it's your native language, please treat it with respect.

*grins* Reminds me of a book I read when I was younger... One More River. Remember that? Girl emigrates to Israel, lives on a kibbutz? Yeah. At one point, another girl calls a guy "just not normal" to mean that she thinks he's hot.

Comments

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I get so sick of that arguement. "But it's NATURAL!"

So is defecation, but you don't do that in the middle of the damned street either.

Usually "natural" as I'm objecting to it is advanced as a reason for not disciplining or addressing some childish misbehavior. Yes, it's "natural" for a toddler to grab at things, even other people's things. It is neither polite nor desirable, though.

[conuly]

Actually, I think it's perfectly reasonable to breastfeed in public. It does not cause anybody harm. My complaint is the faulty connection between natural and normal.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I wasn't comparing breastfeeding to public defecation, don't get me wrong. (I wrote the comment before clicking on the link.)

But I've seen all kinds of rudenesses and misbehavior excused because they're "natural", and it just grates.

Go a bit further down the rabbit hole and you find people who actually equate "natural=GOOD".

[conuly]

1. Oh, okay :)
2. Now, is that more or less annoying than equating normal with good?

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on natural vs. normal, and confusing the two, but I wanted to say something about this:

Our infant mortality rate? A VERY GOOD THING. Normal. But not natural at all. The natural infant mortality rate was much higher.

Our infant mortality rate is higher than any other industrialized nation (can give you stats and sites and stuff if you want) and it's because of increased medical intervention in birth and an almost 25% c-section rate.

The statement that our natural infant mortality rate was much higher is true, of course, but since midwifery has been all but outlawed our infant mortality rate is rising every year.

Which I guess leaves us with natural rate sucked, unnatural rate was okay for a while when there was not as much medical intervention in childbirth, unnatural rate with more unnatural intervention is getting worse.

And now I've confused myself! I guess I was just saying that our infant mortality rate is neither natural nor normal when compared with other industrialized nations.

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

Eep...that's a tough one! :)

[conuly]

Yes, I know it's higher than it ought to be, but I'm still going to hold by the statement that it's a Good Thing since it's lower than what it would be naturally.

And now I've confused myself! I guess I was just saying that our infant mortality rate is neither natural nor normal when compared with other industrialized nations.

Makes sense :) If you average industrialized and third-world nations together, I wonder where we'd be...

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

That's a very good question and I'd like to know the answer, too, so I'm going to look into it.

Sorry about the mini-speech, I'm a huge chilbirth rights advocate and I couldn't help saying something.

Your statement does hold as a good thing, it is lower than it would be naturally. I just find it interesting that if we intervene a little we get a better rate than when we intervene a lot so it makes me curious about how much "natural" or "unnatural" is okay?

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

We rank 184 out of 225. Japan has the lowest, Mozambique has the highest.

I don't want to average it out myself, too tired, and I couldn't find a site that did it for me, but the ranking gives us some idea.

The rates for 2003 can be found here:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/infant_mortality_rate_1.html

[conuly]

how much "natural" or "unnatural" is okay?

It's good until the costs exceed the benefits. Simple.

[conuly]

That really, really, sucks. We're not in the top 50%. Well, of course, SOMEbody has to be at the bottom - it's just arrogance that I'm surprised we're so close to it.

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

Well, we don't wanna be number one on this list, it goes backwards from worst infant mortality rates to best. 1 being the worst.

We should be close to the bottom, but at this point there are 41 countries who have better rates than we do.

[conuly]

Oh, okay. That's better (for kids here, not for kids elsewhere).

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

Sorry I wasn't more clear about the way the ranking went. Forgot you weren't looking at the page with me.

[deceptica]

Well, according to dictionary.com natural and normal share the meaning of "expected, accepted, usual", so they are exchangeable at times. Just felt to point that out in defense of the person you quoted.

And personally I would also argue whether clothes and shoes are so unnatural - what's not natural about wanting to protect your body against harmful outside influences? I think it would be more unnatural to run around naked when it's freezing.

[conuly]

1. Dictionary.com sucks. Seriously.
2. Clothing is NOT natural. What's natural is living someplace warm where we don't need it.

[deceptica]

1. If you say so. I still think it's right in this case, just going by my feeling. I was only using it to check. :-P

2. Makes me curious, what would you consider natural behaviour for humans then? Personally I tend to agree with a guy I met online who said that everything we do is natural because we're part of nature. It would seem hypocritical to say it's natural for animals to build and use things (nests, hills, simple tools,...), but a human using things (clothes for example) is unnatural behaviour.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I get so sick of that arguement. "But it's NATURAL!"

So is defecation, but you don't do that in the middle of the damned street either.

Usually "natural" as I'm objecting to it is advanced as a reason for not disciplining or addressing some childish misbehavior. Yes, it's "natural" for a toddler to grab at things, even other people's things. It is neither polite nor desirable, though.

[conuly]

Actually, I think it's perfectly reasonable to breastfeed in public. It does not cause anybody harm. My complaint is the faulty connection between natural and normal.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I wasn't comparing breastfeeding to public defecation, don't get me wrong. (I wrote the comment before clicking on the link.)

But I've seen all kinds of rudenesses and misbehavior excused because they're "natural", and it just grates.

Go a bit further down the rabbit hole and you find people who actually equate "natural=GOOD".

[conuly]

1. Oh, okay :)
2. Now, is that more or less annoying than equating normal with good?

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on natural vs. normal, and confusing the two, but I wanted to say something about this:

Our infant mortality rate? A VERY GOOD THING. Normal. But not natural at all. The natural infant mortality rate was much higher.

Our infant mortality rate is higher than any other industrialized nation (can give you stats and sites and stuff if you want) and it's because of increased medical intervention in birth and an almost 25% c-section rate.

The statement that our natural infant mortality rate was much higher is true, of course, but since midwifery has been all but outlawed our infant mortality rate is rising every year.

Which I guess leaves us with natural rate sucked, unnatural rate was okay for a while when there was not as much medical intervention in childbirth, unnatural rate with more unnatural intervention is getting worse.

And now I've confused myself! I guess I was just saying that our infant mortality rate is neither natural nor normal when compared with other industrialized nations.

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

Eep...that's a tough one! :)

[conuly]

Yes, I know it's higher than it ought to be, but I'm still going to hold by the statement that it's a Good Thing since it's lower than what it would be naturally.

And now I've confused myself! I guess I was just saying that our infant mortality rate is neither natural nor normal when compared with other industrialized nations.

Makes sense :) If you average industrialized and third-world nations together, I wonder where we'd be...

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

That's a very good question and I'd like to know the answer, too, so I'm going to look into it.

Sorry about the mini-speech, I'm a huge chilbirth rights advocate and I couldn't help saying something.

Your statement does hold as a good thing, it is lower than it would be naturally. I just find it interesting that if we intervene a little we get a better rate than when we intervene a lot so it makes me curious about how much "natural" or "unnatural" is okay?

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

We rank 184 out of 225. Japan has the lowest, Mozambique has the highest.

I don't want to average it out myself, too tired, and I couldn't find a site that did it for me, but the ranking gives us some idea.

The rates for 2003 can be found here:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/infant_mortality_rate_1.html

[conuly]

how much "natural" or "unnatural" is okay?

It's good until the costs exceed the benefits. Simple.

[conuly]

That really, really, sucks. We're not in the top 50%. Well, of course, SOMEbody has to be at the bottom - it's just arrogance that I'm surprised we're so close to it.

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

Well, we don't wanna be number one on this list, it goes backwards from worst infant mortality rates to best. 1 being the worst.

We should be close to the bottom, but at this point there are 41 countries who have better rates than we do.

[conuly]

Oh, okay. That's better (for kids here, not for kids elsewhere).

[priyatelka.livejournal.com]

Sorry I wasn't more clear about the way the ranking went. Forgot you weren't looking at the page with me.

[deceptica]

Well, according to dictionary.com natural and normal share the meaning of "expected, accepted, usual", so they are exchangeable at times. Just felt to point that out in defense of the person you quoted.

And personally I would also argue whether clothes and shoes are so unnatural - what's not natural about wanting to protect your body against harmful outside influences? I think it would be more unnatural to run around naked when it's freezing.

[conuly]

1. Dictionary.com sucks. Seriously.
2. Clothing is NOT natural. What's natural is living someplace warm where we don't need it.

[deceptica]

1. If you say so. I still think it's right in this case, just going by my feeling. I was only using it to check. :-P

2. Makes me curious, what would you consider natural behaviour for humans then? Personally I tend to agree with a guy I met online who said that everything we do is natural because we're part of nature. It would seem hypocritical to say it's natural for animals to build and use things (nests, hills, simple tools,...), but a human using things (clothes for example) is unnatural behaviour.