On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> [This is becoming a rat-hole, and I'm not interested getting too far into
> it. I think most of you understand my point.]
Yeah, you're fast running out of points that aren't dull.
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> > > Different societies have different definitions of evil; some evils are
> > > hard to justify by any means, however.
> >
> > They people engaging in them certainly felt justified. Whether you agree
> > or not is really a different question. It also demonstrates the
> > relativity of 'good' and 'evil'.
>
> Of course.
Then you admit the primary failure in your assertion.
> > If we were for a moment to accept the concept of 'universal evil' then we
> > are faced with a simple litmus test. If it is really universal than a
> > rock, rabbit, or person will find it equally offensive.
> >
> > Or are you perhaps suggesting that people are somehow 'universal' (ie
> > anthropocentric)...
>
> I am not stating that there is any act of "evil" necessarily offensive to
> all societies, past, present, and future. However, I am stating that there
> *are* acts of "evil" that are not tolerated by any society currently in
> existence.
Now you're changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Naughty on you...
The assertion was there are concepts of 'good'/'evil' which are accepted
by ALL human societies.
--
____________________________________________________________________
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
George Santyana
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------