2007-08-28 22:03:47 · 5 answers · asked by stinky_pitts_101 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
LOL. I love it. And yes I think that would be the case, it is the perfect example of one being a hypocrite.
2007-08-28 22:12:00 · answer #1 · answered by queen462606 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. You assume that "non-conformity" has an absolute set of principles, which, by definition, does not. The only key "similarity" between non-conformists is their refusal to adhere to a stringent code of ethics or behavior, nothing more. People seem to think that non-conformity and rebellion are one in the same. Rebellion is directly opposing the status quo at just about every level; non-conformity is creating one's own standards while adapting their lives to the reality they live in. They are, in a way, relativists, who use their own judgement based on the situation at hand, not according to societal norms.
Your attempt to group all non-conformists as the same is akin to labelling atheism as a separate religion. Nice try, though.
2007-08-29 15:08:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but to be a true non-conformist, the trick is to not conform to any of the things to which other non-conformists are not conforming.
good luck with that!
2007-08-29 06:57:41 · answer #3 · answered by Always Curious 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
in a sense? no, it IS being a conformist. to refuse to conform for the sake of non-conformity is to conform. there's really no valid thought process behind it. it's closemindedness combined with willfull ignorance, for the sake of petty rebelliousness- childish stuff.
2007-08-29 05:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by That Guy Drew 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
semantic bovine fecal matter first draw the lines of your definition and end the confusion
2007-08-29 05:13:21 · answer #5 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋