Subj : Apple Pie To : Todd Henson From : Joseph Voigt Date : Tue Nov 07 2000 07:53 am Tuesday November 07 2000 02:47, 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 >> >> TH> actions is 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 >> TH> 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> Nope, you can't have it both ways. Have WHAT both ways?? Nothing was said about ANY way, much less two of them. What are you even talking about? TH> You cannot take the consensus and hold it as objective. I certainly did NOT do that. LOL. Read what I said again. TH> Bad is still relative. Indeed it is. I left my entire above and below intact so you can go back and read what I said about relative re rationality and -reasoned- consensus again. But thanks again for your admission that there is no such thing as an absolute good. Ergo, you have shown your biblical belief in such to be flawed per your own reasoning. >> >> TH> I am neither defending nor condemning her use of that word, >> >> TH> but your characterization of "bad" as being relative does >> >> TH> have some relevant philosophical implications whenever you >> >> TH> personally 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 >> TH> am 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 need to re-read what was said. You just said above that bad is relative. Either your belief in an absolute good is a lie or your belief that bad is relative is. Which is it, Todd? >> 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. TH> Nope, you didn't say that bad was reasonably objective, but that it is TH> relative. I said that bad is relative, and that reasoned consensus tends to will it out and, in a sense, objectify it. My point clarifies it in that a rational society generally considers lying to be bad. TH> You can't have it both ways. You already said that, but I had nothing to say about ANY way, much less two of them. But please focus on YOUR having it two ways: 1) You claim that bad is relative. 2) You believe in an absolute good. >> >> 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? TH> I have no idea where you got that from. From your claim that bad is relative. >> >> 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 >> TH> their eyes, they are good. >> >> And again, you miss the point. But, as you did not dispute that >> good and bad TH> Again, you miss the poiint. Not at all, Todd, as you never made one. You did, however, admit that bad is relative. You must then address those absolutist beliefs of yours about good and evil, don't you think? >> 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 TH> You don't seem to be able to understand things outside your own little TH> paradigm. You mean I don't accept your having it both ways, i.e. your belief that bad is relative yet there is still an absolute good? Sorry, Todd, but I generally don't even consider flawed reasoning of that sort at all, much less see a reason to understand such. TH> And you have a sad tendency to turn everything into an ego contest. And again, my ego has nothing to do with it. Your flawed reasoning merely needs to be pointed out is all. TH> Yet again, I have wasted my time. Your flawed arguments are nonpersuasive and unable to rebut my own. Well, I actually knew the outcome before I started. >> 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> 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> And this is the perfect illustration. With that I see you are now reflecting on my immediate above. Thanks for all those admissions of yours, too. TH> Conversation over. It was fun weeding out those problems you are having with your beliefs about absolutes, though. .... "Okay guys, let me down. I was only kidding." - Jesus --- FastEcho 1.46 (reg) * Origin: The Danse - Where Norse Gods Ponder Their Navels (1:387/638) .