Subj : Apple Pie
To   : JOSEPH VOIGT
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Sun Nov 05 2000 07:16 pm

> 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.


Not if the person in question doesn't think so. It's all relative.


> 
>  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)


I am not agreeing to the degree of subjectivity as you are, but am merely
advancing the 
argument and the implications. You've invalidated any claims you may have
as to the badness 
of other's actions, because it's all relative.


> 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


That does not objectify anything.


> 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.
> 


Then you should never get offended at the actions of others. In their eyes,
they are good.


>  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.


But it's not bad to her, it's relative, so it's not truly bad. A consensus
is just that, a consensus. 
It doesn;t make it objective.


>  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.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.