Well, both of your questions are really subjective...lol Who said, "there are no absolutes.?" Everyting is relative at some time, to some thing, or it would not exist, right? Good question!

I think it's a valid answer to a lot of statements, but not necessarily for all. For instance 2 plus 2 is 4, always and without being relative to anything else. But, saying "$2 is a good wage" is relative to where you live and how much that amount of money buys you. So in some developed countries, it is not considered a good hourly wage, but in some underdeveloped countries it's considered a great day wage, so it's all relative to your position in life. I'm not sure how it could be considered an offensive outlook to life's questions, so I won't comment on that.

I think it is basically true as there is alsways something to compare a situation with. I agree that it could be potentially offensive - or at least insensitive, for instance if someone has lost their partner through cancer, say and someone says, 'Well,it could be worse, you could have lost your family in the tsunami/earhtquake/9/11/whatever...' It just doesn't help, diminishes that person's feelings of natural grief and makes them feel domehow guilty for having 'selfish' emotions. Yet loss is loss and equally painful whatever the situation - tho' there are situations which can make it harder to get over.

"One common argument against relativism suggests that it inherently contradicts, refutes, or stultifies itself: the statement "all is relative" classes either as a relative statement or as an absolute one. If it is relative, then this statement does not rule out absolutes. If the statement is absolute, on the other hand, then it provides an example of an absolute statement, proving that not all truths are relative. However, this argument against relativism only applies to relativism that positions truth as relative – i.e. epistemological/truth-value relativism. More specifically, it is only strong forms of epistemological relativism that can come in for this criticism as there are many epistemological relativists who posit that some aspects of what is regarded as "true" are not universal, yet still accept that other universal truths exist (e.g. gas laws). However, such exceptions need to be carefully justified, or "anything goes". " "A very different approach explicates the rhetorical production of supposedly 'bottom-line' arguments against relativism. Edwards et al’s influential and controversial "Death and Furniture" paper takes this line in its staunch defense of relativism. Part of the rhetoric discussed here involves the portrayal of relativists who say (for example), "torture is not an absolute evil", as saying, in effect, "we don't disapprove of torture as strongly as you do". Relativists argue that this is a rhetorical trick, akin to claiming "you can't throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby too": denying absolute truths still leaves relativists free to be utterly and passionately opposed to torture. Further cultural relativism only implies that differing cultural contexts have to be taken into account when making judgements about what is good or bad relative to that culture. It does not limit one's ability to disagree with a cultural norm." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism#Criticisms

Points are relative to what the answerer can give. I like giving points better than giving answers. it is so easy to give points. answering life's questions is difficult because we have to answer our own life's questions at the same time.