Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
From this, I must conclude that your position vis a vis "good" vs. "bad" health is not objectively true in and of itself.

Point blank -- are you actually claiming that "good" health is not objectively "better" than "bad" health, all other things being equal?

422 posted on 05/02/2003 11:07:12 AM PDT by Dominic Harr (When you resort to obvious fallacies trying to support your position . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies ]


To: Dominic Harr
Point blank -- are you actually claiming that "good" health is not objectively "better" than "bad" health, all other things being equal?

I'm not claiming anything. I was merely pointing out that your equating good eating with good health is not universally true.

And I can't help noticing those little quotation marks of yours around "good" and "bad." It's as if you already realize that the definitions of good and bad, as regard health, do not easily lend themselves to objective definition.

426 posted on 05/02/2003 11:55:25 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson