Re: virus: The Corruption of Innocence

Brett Lane Robertson (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:28:03 -0500

At 01:13 AM 9/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Brett wrote:

>>Good and bad *are* relative.

>Is this a falsifiable statement?

>Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> (604) 985-4159

First, I don't believe that anything HAS to be "falsifiable". I think your
mother told you that and you believed it...built on it. The falsafiable
nature of something does not concern me. But...

Yes, the pure nature of "good" and the pure nature of "bad" can be defined
so that the one is not relative to the other; such that the *statement* has
no meaning. Or, either "good" or "bad" can be *un* defined so that the
statement looses it's usefulness. The truth of the statement can be negated
(like saying that there is an "opposite tree" somewhere that defines the
nature of tree) by saying that if there is a "good" (I was hungry and I ate,
"good") then there is an objective "bad" (In a world where one doesn't eat
when one is hungry the goodness of the act whould have been "bad"--no such
world, no such non-incident, no such objective bad).

Both the question "Is this a falsifiable statement" and the idea of good and
bad being relative (in an objective sense; that is, out of context of the
conversation taking place--within the above non-contexts, for example)
belong to the same non-category (make-believe). Unless the statement is
taken at face value--without the contengency of "there is a world where
statements can become inherently false"--then all statements become empty of
any value; hence, there is no conversation.


Rabble Sonnet Retort
A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction.