Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 KOM,Again, no. Just because you decide to redefine what "bad" means doesn't mean something is actually bad. Say we rate all experiences on a scale , where 0 is totally neutral, -100 is extremely painful, and 100 is extremely pleasant. You're acting as if we need the existence of negative numbers to be able to distinguish between the positive numbers, when that plainly isn't the case. If I need people to be starving to be able to appreciate my burger (or veggie burger), that just makes me a dick. It doesn't make the burger bad. If the only "unpleasant" experience you have ever had is a burger when you want steak how can you say it wouldn't be awful to that person without resorting to your own experience? How can you say "burger but not steak" is objectively good without resort to your own experience? And you are completely ignoring the "burger for vegan" problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.