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 /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------