I don’t know you well enough to know if you’re normal enough.
First, define what you mean by normal and then give me some examples of your normal-ness.
Who is Oppie?
I am dangerous too. Its what makes me normal. I’m not the one who started all these world wars.
You definately could havebeing normal and the rest not being like you. It is a small step from there to wars. And from wars to genocide. 
That’s too broad a perspective. You would only be normal based on the circumstances and the intentions of your being dangerous.
Psychopaths , sociopaths, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, serial killers are all dangerous - but are they normal?
Your answer to this question will reveal just how normal you are. 
The point is that they will say that they are normal; while the average goofball will have no problem saying he or she is crazy; and laugh about it.
Yes, I understand this thinking. I often say I’m nuts and perhaps I am . Had he responded as you did, my answer would have been different.
I sometimes can’t figure out when he’s being serious or facetious, mocking whatever. lol
I got that, I am quite sure this whole topic is a joke to him/her. If I thought it was not, I would have been much more careful with my replies. I would have chosen comments that would have opened one’s mind to more self reflecting (preferrably by means of a therapist), but the fact that he/she can do this as a joke actually suggests he/she is far less dangerous than my comments might suggest to the untrained eye.
Yes, the He/She is joking, but the He/She also put in a universal set of relativistic polar coordinates that amwsers Arc’s assertions in the OP (I put that Globe there for a reason Arc)
So its also a Puzzle, and its only really funny once you understand the psychological mechanism that processes and legitimizes it, as well as a process that breaks it down to its paradox where that aforementioned psychological operation ceases to be.
Then… then it gets really funny. I’m a mime, you gotta crack the code to my act in the OP.
Well, I don’t believe that Turd is actually dangerous except when it might be necessary for his or another’s survival (I could say the same about myself) but I’m not so sure that just because someone is capable of making a joke out of a thread like this, he/she couldn’t be dangerous in an insane way. Insane people can and do look normal, can be funny and charming so. …But of course, you were speaking of him here.
I’m sometimes of the sort who is not capable of knowing when someone is serious or fooling around - I don’t like to assume and I’ve gotten serious about threads which were quite meaningless to the person creating them - which actually just goes to show how a subject can evolve into some more real. 
Anyway, as per the subject’s thinking - that’s not really true I don’t think. Is there a standard for judging what is normal. I mean we can’t actually look at someone and know. What is normal in this day and age? It’s like asking What is Moral in this day and age? There must be some standard of measurement. I believe that Jr. Wells touched on this subject in another thread a few months back.
Turd’s normal may not necessarily be mine because our likes and disliked are different, our behavior is different. Some who consider their self to be normal may look at me hugging a tree lol and think I’m downright crazy but honestly that wouldn’t be what makes me insane and who wouldn’t want to hug a tree? Is that so un-normal? See what I mean. Many biases get in the way of what we see as normal.
Turd, what happened. You forgot whether you’re a guy or a girl today? What’s up with this he/she thing?
Anyway, I couldn’t make heads or tails out of your graph because it’s so large but maybe it was just me. I’m more a text kind of guy.
I love puzzles I just couldn’t get that one. And you’re not a mime to me - though I love to watch them - you’re more of an enigma to me. I would have to maybe be the reincarnation of Alan Turing to understand you.
I need layman’s terms.
That sounds highly interesting but as is difficult for me to understand. Is there actually such a thing as a paradox or do our brains simply not see what’s there as of yet?
Yes, there is No-Thing as Paradox, nothing would exist exists without them, everything is Dualistically built up from them.
Its why I say “At the root of all things is Paradox”. I always presume its present, without it, we couldn’t think, there would be no dialectic, no reason, no awareness.
Okay, so could another term for paradox here be “the other side of the coin”? or does your paradox go deeper?
But I don’t understand why you would say that it’s always present, unless you just mean that it capable of being present at times depending on the thing itself - -at times it might be hidden because we just don’t have enough information or because we aren’t thinking as clearly as we need to - like the puzzle, there is an answer but we just have to get it. For those who haven’t gotten it as yet, something can be seen as a paradox. Is my thinking wrong - to You?
If you have information, you already have the paradox. Don’t think of it as a thing, as thingness depends on paradox.
The answer precedes the question, we couldn’t ask otherwise, nor answer meaningfully.
People often need confirmation in order to lift themselves up to a new understanding. People often feel as if they were lifted up though. Funny thing that is.
Normalcy bias everywhere based upon authority.
So very convincing…
The false dictomy of conformity versus noncomformity.
Take it up with Only Humean Joker, he us the one who is obsessed with such things.
With a finite grid mapping you need limits. Someone must stand for the abnormal meridian or the spherical antithesis to whosoever elects himself as the normal guy. If knowledge about everyone is kept to a minimum, this could right now be anyone who doesnt believe in Jesus and the moral union of people and government. Crucial to keep personal info at a minimum to keep the graph spherical and prevent it from becoming a semblance of ill baked pastry or even totally collapse.
If you paid attention, I offered 4 people. Two people at the poles as the fixed, and two dynamic people.
This allows for comparison at the power if 4, with 3 given points for comparison. Its not so much the people at the poles being judged, but the two between relative to the two poles.
So every function or idealism has multiple points for analysis, by degrees of congruency and in alignment. IRS hardly a perfect system, but that’s the humor of of, but its more than robust enough to overcome the limitations you pointed to.
The idealistic people be warned, they are also relative to each other, or may be, but until such vagrancies as ferretting out the true diatibes of reason, as such,
as exist such anomalies as those existing on the maturity continuum, which have also running through it various semblance of assemblages of various kinds,
thought processes running parellel but touching, nevetheless at crucial ponts of identifiable, or put it bluntly self referential synapses, there is little point.
Say what? Someone’s knockin’ but not knocking you, by any means , no means. (Xcept in case of mergency or, political expediency) How low can you go?