Subj : Apple Pie To : Todd Henson From : Joseph Voigt Date : Sat Nov 04 2000 09:55 am Saturday November 04 2000 11:17, TODD HENSON wrote to JOSEPH VOIGT: >> >> JV>> Now, are you going to call me a PERVERT again? >> >> >> >> CR> Why? Is there something _bad_ about calling you a pervert? >> >> >> >> JV> Yes, there is. Because I am not a pervert. >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bad is a relative concept." - Joseph Voigt, pervert, >> >> hatemonger >> >> TH>> :-) >> >> JW> Do you really think a flame like that is appropriate in this >> JW> echo? >> >> Just after Todd apologized for calling me that horrible name, he >> sends the above to Constance smiling about it all. One wonders >> about his sincerity. TH> Well, you DID say that bad is relative, correct? Yes, I did, and I stand by it. TH> So, by your own words, the level of "badness" of her actions is TH> relative, a mere matter of perspective, correct? Correct, within reason. From my, and most rational other person's, perspectives, her flames were bad in that they were untrue. Lies are generally considered bad in a rational society. TH> I am neither defending nor condemning her use of that word, but your TH> characterization of "bad" as being relative does have some relevant TH> philosophical implications whenever you personally react to something TH> as being "bad". It does have relevant philosophical implications. Maybe you're finally starting to understand the concept that -bad- is relative. As -bad- is not quantifiable, the best we have is reasoned consensus. TH> Perhaps calling you a name is only bad relative to you, but perhaps TH> to others it is not. You're finally seeing my point, Todd. Now, think about those posts of mine in Matzdobre and see if this is becoming more clear to you. She (and you, IIRC) had labelled me as being -bad- for the nature of my posts there. I think my posts there are good. As my posts there fall within the rules of the echo, and hence ITS societal norm, their being labelled -bad- is certainly relative to one's sensibilities... not the norm of the echo. TH> So, who is is right? Do we simply tally how many people think it's TH> good versus how many think it's bad, and go with the higher number? Not exactly, but close. The consensus of society via -reason- tends always to will out what is good and bad and, in a sense, objectifies it. I maintain that it is through reason alone that the societal good and bad is determined. No appeal to gods required. I trust you think good and bad are -real- objective things with a higher source origin. As you cannot provide any evidence to support that assertion, I'm confident that good and bad are relative mental constructs. TH> The fact that you characterized "bad" as being relative DOES cast TH> some fog on your reactions to certain things here as if they were TH> "bad". Not at all. You might want to really think it through. Via reason it's been determined that her calling me that horrid name when it's untrue, IS bad per the consensus of a reasoning society. Reason is the key here. TH> Hey, perhaps some greater philosophical purpose can be learned as a TH> result of this recent hostility after all... Indeed, maybe it can be. I had hoped that way back when, when my argument that -bad- is relative, was not addressed at all, (except with some absurd nonsense about daring me to cross a nonexistent line), that some would rationally debate -bad- as being a relative concept. Well, if you're up to it, feel free. Show me an objective line and I'll see if I can show you WHY that line does not exist and that -bad- is really relative. Be careful of your parameters, though, as I'll be questioning those as well. .... The preceding was 100% reality. No supernatural fillers. --- FastEcho 1.46 (reg) * Origin: The Danse Macabre 210-623-1395 San Antonio, Tx (1:387/638) .