[MD] suspended in language

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha,

Steve:
You act like I'm trying to force something down your throat.

About 4 hours ago I asked, "What sort of relativism are you talking
about if not ethical relativism when you call yourself a relativist?"

You responded, "As far as I can remember, I've always thought,
informally at least, that everything was relative to everything. That
is why I call myself a relativist." Perhaps you can now see why I
might expect you to agree
based on that phrase?

Marsha:
I mentioned 'perceptual relativism', 'epistemological relativism', and
'ontological relativism'.  I think that you are trying to force
something down my throat and that you are using a deceptive word
selection in the process.

Steve:
I know it is tough to be quoted saying pretty much exactly what you
said you didn't say, but there was no deception on my part. Why do you
think I would have such  motive? Why do you think I would want to
force something on you? I hoped to convince you on the merit of the
argument I made. Is that so wrong?


> Steve:
> Agreed. My point has been that by self-applying the label
> "relativist," you are claiming to be on the losing side of a battle
> fought on the grounds of the traditional/reigious view of morality.
>
> Marsha:
> That is your interpretation and relative to your point-of-view.

Steve:
I thought it went without saying that I've been giving you my point of
view. Did I leave the impression that I was trying to secretly give
people someone else's point of view instead of my own?


> Steve:
> I've been suggesting that I think a better tactic would be to simply
> deny those grounds. You do deny them, but then you take on alabel that
> implies that you are standing on them anyway. In other words, when you
> say you are a relativist, people will assume that you buy into the
> tradition understanding of what morality is and are taking a position
> that you don't actually take.
>
> Marsha:
> A 'better tactic' seems to be one supporting your point-of-view.

Steve:
I never said you should do or not do anything just because I say so.
I've been trying to convince you to see things differently because I
think there is a better way, not just because it is my way. You keep
ascribing to me all sorts of bad motivation that I don't have.

> Marsha:
> This is more saying nothing. Your opinion of my bark is of no relevance to
> me.  By what evidence should I consider you an authority?

What does authority have to do with anything? I never set myself up as
any authority. I'm just someone who mistakenly  thought you wanted to
have a conversation. I guess I should know better by now. In the
future, it would be helpful to let people know right away that when
their perspective is irrelevant to you so they don't bother trying to
engage you.

Is it just me or just Matt and I or is everyone else's perspective
irrelvant to you on this forum, too? What are you doing here if you
don't care about other perspectives. What is the point of saying "I am
a relativist" if you don't care what other people think that the word
means? What did I ever do to you? Why do you hate me so much?

Best,
Steve