----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
> > > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0600 > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > > > > > > > Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even > >possible for > > > something to be "more evil" than something else? > > > > > > >Now that is a ridiculous question! > > > >I think it is easily acceptable to state as a fact that Hitler, Pol > >Pot, or Saddam Hussein were all much more evil than the B#tch who > >dumped me 10 days before our wedding and stole 4 grand from me. > > > >Its not just a question of scale. AFAIK the B#tch never killed a > >single soul. > > > >The kid who tried to beat me up when I was 12 in order to in order to > >improve his "bad ass" cred just doesn't rate. > > > >There *are* greater and lesser evils. > > > >Stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar cannot compare to rape. > > > > > >xponent > >For The Record Maru > >rob > > > I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept > of evil now doesn't it? > Well Travis.......one can make up from whole cloth any kind of definition one wants to, but the problem is that there is already a fairly decent and contemporary definition for the word. My problem with the specific form of moral relativism that you seem to be wielding ATM is that you take a position so extreme that all the meaning *to* and definition *of* the concept of evil is reduced to a single point on the horizon simply because you distance yourself from the entire moral principle that defines the spectrum of behavior in that regard. Now, moral relativism is a very useful concept, but as in all things it is only useful when used moderately. Too much of it explodes the argument one tries too make into nonsense. This is exactly the same effect when one makes adamantine black and white arguments. There are just too many counterexamples that destroy such a stance. The zennish attitude that nothing really matters is the purest crock of crap in existence. Some things *do* matter. Some things *do* make a difference. And if you are gazing at your navel, you are not exploring the inner or outer universe, you are daydreaming a false dream in exactly the same false way ancient Greeks did when they thought they could deduce the nature of reality by pure reason. xponent Plato Or Socrates? Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
