Subj : Apple Pie To : Todd Henson From : Joseph Voigt Date : Mon Nov 06 2000 08:31 am Monday November 06 2000 03:16, TODD HENSON wrote to JOSEPH VOIGT: >> 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> Not if the person in question doesn't think so. It's all relative. Then you missed the point. If the person in question doesn't think lies are generally considered bad in a rational society, then I'd question their reasoning abilities. Now, go back and read my above again. >> TH> I am neither defending nor condemning her use of that word, but >> TH> your characterization of "bad" as being relative does have some >> TH> relevant philosophical implications whenever you personally >> TH> react to something 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. Perhaps calling you a name is only bad relative to you, >> but perhaps 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) TH> I am not agreeing to the degree of subjectivity as you are, but am TH> merely advancing the argument and the implications. As you are not agreeing only to degree, are you agreeing, nonetheless, with my above? You didn't dispute anything I said above, so I trust you are coming to realize that -bad- is a relative concept. TH> You've invalidated any claims you may have as to the badness of TH> other's actions, because it's all relative. Not so at all, Todd. You are forgetting about that one little thing called reason. >> 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. So, who is is right? Do we simply tally how many people >> think it's 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 TH> That does not objectify anything. I said, " ...in a sense, objectifies it". But are you now admitting that there is no such thing as an absolute bad or good? >> 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> Then you should never get offended at the actions of others. In their TH> eyes, they are good. And again, you miss the point. But, as you did not dispute that good and bad are relative mental constructs, and did not affirm that good and bad are -real- objective things per my above, I have to accept that you agreed with my above and that good and bad are relative. The point you missed, though, is that offense can validly be taken when actions (i.e. lies) are shown to be -bad- via REASONED consensus. Again, reason is the key here. >> TH> The fact that you characterized "bad" as being relative DOES >> TH> cast some fog on your reactions to certain things here as if >> TH> they were "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> But it's not bad to her, it's relative, so it's not truly bad. Again, you are forgetting about that one little thing called reason. If it's not bad to her, then her lapse in reasoning can validly be addressed. TH> A consensus is just that, a consensus. I said "reasoned consensus". Please learn the difference. Reason is not about voting. TH> It doesn;t make it objective. So, you are saying that there is no objective good or evil, then? Thanks for the admission. What does that say about your absolute truths re your judeoxian belief system? >> TH> Hey, perhaps some greater philosophical purpose can be learned >> TH> as a 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. As you made no commentary on any of my immediate above, I'll accept that you agree that no such objective line exists and that -bad- is indeed relative. Thanks for playing. .... Argumentum ad bozum non Christii. "He's not a true xian" R Jackson --- FastEcho 1.46 (reg) * Origin: The Danse - Where Norse Gods Ponder Their Navels (1:387/638) .