"My taste in music is better than yours"

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

GreySeal9

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

MrGeezer

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

MrGeezer

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]I guess that means this song's actually good then.

I'm sorry mate, I'm sorry. But quality is not ALWAYS sunjective and there IS bad music

DmadFearmonger

But it is bad music in your opinion, making it subjective.

If someone did like that song, can you prove to them that it is bad using only facts?

If you can't, then the song can't be objectively bad.

It really doesn't matter if I can find someone that likes the song.

If someone hypothetically liked the song, how would you prove to them without stating an opinion and only stating cold hard facts that the song is bad?

The most you could do is give a well-reasoned argument as to why the song is bad. You couldn't prove it in any objective way even though most everybody would agree with you.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

Nibroc420

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

DmadFearmonger

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But it is bad music in your opinion, making it subjective.

If someone did like that song, can you prove to them that it is bad using only facts?

If you can't, then the song can't be objectively bad.

GreySeal9

It really doesn't matter if I can find someone that likes the song.

If someone hypothetically liked the song, how would you prove to them without stating an opinion and only stating cold hard facts that the song is bad?

The most you could do is give a well-reasoned argument as to why the song is bad. You couldn't prove it in any objective way even though most everybody would agree with you.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

MrGeezer

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

If he honestly believes it isn't, to him it isn't. You may think it's wrong, but clearly he doesn't.Nibroc420

And you think that "subjective" stuff like "murder, rape, and torture are bad" doesn't have anything to back it up that's more concrete than "it's just my opinion"?

I mean, if you had to explain to a little kid WHY murder and rape is bad, don't you think you'd be able to come up with something a little bit more concrete than "I just plain don't like it"?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

MrGeezer

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

He's wrong according to our society's standards of morality, but he's not objectively wrong because the "wrongness" of somebody's actions is dependant on moral judgments, which are inherently subjective.

This would be an objective statement:

John Doe raped a dog.

This is a subjective statement:

Raping dogs is bad.

We might all think that raping dogs is bad, but it still remains a subjective judgment because morality is inherently subjective. As far as the first statement is concerned, he either raped the dog or he didn't. There's no room for "judgment" as it were.

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] If he honestly believes it isn't, to him it isn't. You may think it's wrong, but clearly he doesn't.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Well, they don't know how to play, write or sing. I DARE YOU to find someone who likes that songDmadFearmonger

It really doesn't matter if I can find someone that likes the song.

If someone hypothetically liked the song, how would you prove to them without stating an opinion and only stating cold hard facts that the song is bad?

The most you could do is give a well-reasoned argument as to why the song is bad. You couldn't prove it in any objective way even though most everybody would agree with you.

That that particular song is bad? Of course.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Are you daft?DmadFearmonger

Where did he justify raping dogs?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Are you daft?DmadFearmonger

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]If he honestly believes it isn't, to him it isn't. You may think it's wrong, but clearly he doesn't.MrGeezer

And you think that "subjective" stuff like "murder, rape, and torture are bad" doesn't have anything to back it up that's more concrete than "it's just my opinion"?

I mean, if you had to explain to a little kid WHY murder and rape is bad, don't you think you'd be able to come up with something a little bit more concrete than "I just plain don't like it"?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's not that nothing is "bad" and that nothing is "good."

It's just that people have differing ideas of what's "good" and "bad".

If you think that something can be objectively good, you have to be able to prove it using only cold hard facts and no value judgments. Do you think you could do that?

GreySeal9

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

He's wrong according to our society's standards of morality, but he's not objectively wrong because the "wrongness" of somebody's actions is dependant on moral judgments, which are inherently subjective.

This would be an objective statement:

John Doe raped a dog.

This is a subjective statement:

Raping dogs is bad.

We might all think that raping dogs is bad, but it still remains a subjective judgment because morality is inherently subjective. As far as the first statement is concerned, he either raped the dog or he didn't. There's no room for "judgment" as it were.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

For the sake of argument, imagine a dude who likes to rape dogs. He gets arrested, gets sentenced to prison, and then his family refuses to have any further contact with him because what he did was just that bad.

This man then says, "no way...raping dogs isn't bad at all."

Are you seriously telling me that neither of those people is just plain WRONG?

DmadFearmonger

He's wrong according to our society's standards of morality, but he's not objectively wrong because the "wrongness" of somebody's actions is dependant on moral judgments, which are inherently subjective.

This would be an objective statement:

John Doe raped a dog.

This is a subjective statement:

Raping dogs is bad.

We might all think that raping dogs is bad, but it still remains a subjective judgment because morality is inherently subjective. As far as the first statement is concerned, he either raped the dog or he didn't. There's no room for "judgment" as it were.

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] No, just objective.

GreySeal9

Where did he justify raping dogs?

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

He's wrong according to our society's standards of morality, but he's not objectively wrong because the "wrongness" of somebody's actions is dependant on moral judgments, which are inherently subjective.

This would be an objective statement:

John Doe raped a dog.

This is a subjective statement:

Raping dogs is bad.

We might all think that raping dogs is bad, but it still remains a subjective judgment because morality is inherently subjective. As far as the first statement is concerned, he either raped the dog or he didn't. There's no room for "judgment" as it were.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]If he honestly believes it isn't, to him it isn't. You may think it's wrong, but clearly he doesn't.MrGeezer

And you think that "subjective" stuff like "murder, rape, and torture are bad" doesn't have anything to back it up that's more concrete than "it's just my opinion"?

I mean, if you had to explain to a little kid WHY murder and rape is bad, don't you think you'd be able to come up with something a little bit more concrete than "I just plain don't like it"?

Nobody is saying that. Of course there are excellent reasons for murder, rape and torture being deemed bad.

It's just that when you say something is good or bad or right or wrong, it is a value judgment, which cannot be objective. Vaue judgements are simply not in the scope of objectivity.

The notion that murder is wrong is a subjective idea that most people agree on for extremely good ethical and pragmatic reasons.

He's wrong according to our society's standards of morality, but he's not objectively wrong because the "wrongness" of somebody's actions is dependant on moral judgments, which are inherently subjective.

This would be an objective statement:

John Doe raped a dog.

This is a subjective statement:

Raping dogs is bad.

We might all think that raping dogs is bad, but it still remains a subjective judgment because morality is inherently subjective. As far as the first statement is concerned, he either raped the dog or he didn't. There's no room for "judgment" as it were.

GreySeal9

And if that's the standard that one is to apply to words like "good" and "bad", then it seems very much to me that they cease to have any meaning whatsoever.

It'd be pretty pointless for me to try to convince my dad to say, stop smoking crack (hypothetically speaking), if all of the logical, valid, and well-studied reasons I present to him are secondary to the fact that "I think his crack-smoking is bad because I just plain don't like it".

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Actually, I think you might be daft. Anyone who justifies raping dogs is mentally unwell. They are WRONG!DmadFearmonger

Where did he justify raping dogs?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Actually, I think you might be daft. Anyone who justifies raping dogs is mentally unwell. They are WRONG!DmadFearmonger

Where did he justify raping dogs?

That's not what he said though.

What he said is that the dog raper might not think he is wrong.

Nibroc never gave his own opinion on the matter.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]If he honestly believes it isn't, to him it isn't. You may think it's wrong, but clearly he doesn't.GreySeal9

And you think that "subjective" stuff like "murder, rape, and torture are bad" doesn't have anything to back it up that's more concrete than "it's just my opinion"?

I mean, if you had to explain to a little kid WHY murder and rape is bad, don't you think you'd be able to come up with something a little bit more concrete than "I just plain don't like it"?

Nobody is saying that. Of course there are excellent reasons for murder, rape and torture being deemed bad.

It's just that when you say something is good or bad or right or wrong, it is a value judgment, which cannot be objective. Vaue judgements are simply not in the scope of objectivity.

The notion that murder is wrong is a subjective idea that most people agree on for extremely good ethical and pragmatic reasons.

I don't have a better taste. I just like what I like.

Even I'll admit murder isn't completely bad. I believe in the death penaltyDmadFearmonger

:lol: what?

And if that's the standard that one is to apply to words like "good" and "bad", then it seems very much to me that they cease to have any meaning whatsoever.MrGeezer

How do they not have meaning? When one says "I think this is good", they clearly mean something by it and other people understand what they mean by it.

It's just that the idea of "what is good" varies among people.

It'd be pretty pointless for me to try to convince my dad to say, stop smoking crack (hypothetically speaking), if all of the logical, valid, and well-studied reasons I present to him are secondary to the fact that "I think his crack-smoking is bad because I just plain don't like it".MrGeezer

I never implied that the valid, logical, and well-studied opinions should come secondary to saying "I just plain don't like it".

You can still use your valid, logical, well-studied arguments and they would still hold water. I am not implying that you should use "I don't like it" as an argument. What I am saying is that the realm of objectivity doesn't deal with value judgements which is what statements like "such and such is bad" and "such and such is good" are.

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Nobody is saying that. Of course there are excellent reasons for murder, rape and torture being deemed bad.

It's just that when you say something is good or bad or right or wrong, it is a value judgment, which cannot be objective. Vaue judgements are simply not in the scope of objectivity.

The notion that murder is wrong is a subjective idea that most people agree on for extremely good ethical and pragmatic reasons.

Victorious_Fize

The f*ck...

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Even I'll admit murder isn't completely bad. I believe in the death penaltyDmadFearmonger

The f*ck...

But that you even have a stance on morality, it has to be subjective.

Or did you mean to type subjective?

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

The f*ck...

GreySeal9

But that you even have a stance on morality, it has to be subjective.

Or did you mean to type subjective?

Nobody is saying that. Of course there are excellent reasons for murder, rape and torture being deemed bad.

It's just that when you say something is good or bad or right or wrong, it is a value judgment, which cannot be objective. Vaue judgements are simply not in the scope of objectivity.

The notion that murder is wrong is a subjective idea that most people agree on for extremely good ethical and pragmatic reasons.

GreySeal9

Now...suppose I were to cite 1000 well-studied and "excellent reasons" for not murdering/raping/torturing and then closed my argument by saying that raping is bad.

Does using the word "bad" somehow negate my supporting comments?

Look...if you order a chicken sandwich from a restaurant and they serve it to you raw, then that's BAD. You can say "that's just your opinion that it's bad", and then I can say "I said it was bad because I could've died eating that ****". Then you can say, "well, it's just your opinion that dying from eating raw chicken is bad", and then we could keep on going on all day.

But I don't think that's what ANYONE had in mind when they said that being "good" or "bad" depends on opinions. "It's bad because I just plain don't like it" is a hell of a lot different than "It's bad because I'll probably literally poop out my own intestines if I eat this garbage". People are going to like what they like. But saying "this band sucks because I don't like it" isn't saying ANYTHING about the actual music. That's NOTHING more than a statement about the listener. Above that, someone might say "this band sucks because not a single one of those people knows how to play a musical instrument", and that WOULD be a more substantial argument for them being god-awful. There's criticism which is backed up by facts, and there's criticism which is based on nothing more than "I just like it". But "I just like it" is not saying ANYTHING about the actual music. It's a way of resorting to opinion as a way of avoiding dealing with peoples' facts. It's a lazy way of not having to know ANYTHING about what is being discussed, while still acting like both opposing statements are equally valid.

I totally ruined this thread...I dont even know how it wen't from opinions to murder and rape...:?

How do they not have meaning? When one says "I think this is good", they clearly mean something by it and other people understand what they mean by it.

GreySeal9

Not if "good" doesn't amount to any more than "I like it".

Now...suppose I were to cite 1000 well-studied and "excellent reasons" for not murdering/raping/torturing and then closed my argument by saying that raping is bad.

Does using the word "bad" somehow negate my supporting comments?MrGeezer

I didn't say that and I'm not sure where you got that from.

The word bad is the conclusion of your argument and your supporting comments are premises. Therefore, your supporting comments strengthen your argument that raping/mudering torturing is bad.

So, although "bad" is a subjective value judgement, you can still make an incredibly strong case that something is bad. It's just that that the "bad" part wouldn't be objective. However, you'd still be making a strong argument that most people would agree with.

Look...if you order a chicken sandwich from a restaurant and they serve it to you raw, then that's BAD. You can say "that's just your opinion that it's bad", and then I can say "I said it was bad because I could've died eating that ****". Then you can say, "well, it's just your opinion that dying from eating raw chicken is bad", and then we could keep on going on all day.MrGeezer

But in normal conversation, I wouldn't tell you "that's just your opinion". It would be your opinion, but it would be a sensible opinion that I should listen to for my own sake.

In short, I would agree that serving a raw chicken sandwhich is not a good thing, but whether something is good or bad still falls under the realm of the subjective because objectivity can only contain cold hard facts.

But I don't think that's what ANYONE had in mind when they said that being "good" or "bad" depends on opinions. "It's bad because I just plain don't like it" is a hell of a lot different than "It's bad because I'll probably literally poop out my own intestines if I eat this garbage".MrGeezer

The difference between those two statements is that one is an opinion that is not supported and the second statement is an opinion that is well-supported. But they are both still opinions. However, the one that is supported is certainly more valid. It's just not objective.

People are going to like what they like. But saying "this band sucks because I don't like it" isn't saying ANYTHING about the actual music. That's NOTHING more than a statement about the listener. Above that, someone might say "this band sucks because not a single one of those people knows how to play a musical instrument", and that WOULD be a more substantial argument for them being god-awful. There's criticism which is backed up by facts, and there's criticism which is based on nothing more than "I just like it". But "I just like it" is not saying ANYTHING about the actual music. It's a way of resorting to opinion as a way of avoiding dealing with peoples' facts. It's a lazy way of not having to know ANYTHING about what is being discussed, while still acting like both opposing statements are equally valid.

MrGeezer

I don't disagree that a supported opinion is better than one that is not supported, but they are still opinions. That's what I'm getting at. You can argue on the side of a band "sucking" and you can argue on the side of a band "not sucking" and you can even support both opinions with facts.

An objective statement on the other hand can't be debated. It simply is. That's all I'm saying and I'm not sure why it's such a controversial notion.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How do they not have meaning? When one says "I think this is good", they clearly mean something by it and other people understand what they mean by it.

MrGeezer

Not if "good" doesn't amount to any more than "I like it".

I will agree that if one doesn't support their opinions, then it is going to be less valid than the opinion of someone that does supported it.

But supporting an opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion. It just makes it a well-explained, informed opinion.

I totally ruined this thread...I dont even know how it wen't from opinions to murder and rape...:?

mexicangordo

lol. It's not your fault.

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"]Even I'll admit murder isn't completely bad. I believe in the death penaltyDmadFearmonger

The f*ck...

I was just referring to how this thread took a ridiculous turn.

[QUOTE="DmadFearmonger"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

The f*ck...

Victorious_Fize

I was just referring to how this thread took a ridiculous turn.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Now...suppose I were to cite 1000 well-studied and "excellent reasons" for not murdering/raping/torturing and then closed my argument by saying that raping is bad.

Does using the word "bad" somehow negate my supporting comments?GreySeal9

I didn't say that and I'm not sure where you got that from.

The word bad is the conclusion of your argument and your supporting comments are premises. Therefore, your supporting comments strengthen your argument that raping/mudering torturing is bad.

So, although "bad" is a subjective value judgement, you can still make an incredibly strong case that something is bad. It's just that that the "bad" part wouldn't be objective. However, you'd still be making a strong argument that most people would agree with.

Look...if you order a chicken sandwich from a restaurant and they serve it to you raw, then that's BAD. You can say "that's just your opinion that it's bad", and then I can say "I said it was bad because I could've died eating that ****". Then you can say, "well, it's just your opinion that dying from eating raw chicken is bad", and then we could keep on going on all day.MrGeezer

But in normal conversation, I wouldn't tell you "that's just your opinion". It would be your opinion, but it would be a sensible opinion that I should listen to for my own sake.

In short, I would agree that serving a raw chicken sandwhich is not a good thing, but whether something is good or bad still falls under the realm of the subjective because objectivity can only contain cold hard facts.

But I don't think that's what ANYONE had in mind when they said that being "good" or "bad" depends on opinions. "It's bad because I just plain don't like it" is a hell of a lot different than "It's bad because I'll probably literally poop out my own intestines if I eat this garbage".MrGeezer

The difference between those two statements is that one is an opinion that is not supported and the second statement is an opinion that is well-supported. But they are both still opinions. However, the one that is supported is certainly more valid. It's just not objective.

People are going to like what they like. But saying "this band sucks because I don't like it" isn't saying ANYTHING about the actual music. That's NOTHING more than a statement about the listener. Above that, someone might say "this band sucks because not a single one of those people knows how to play a musical instrument", and that WOULD be a more substantial argument for them being god-awful. There's criticism which is backed up by facts, and there's criticism which is based on nothing more than "I just like it". But "I just like it" is not saying ANYTHING about the actual music. It's a way of resorting to opinion as a way of avoiding dealing with peoples' facts. It's a lazy way of not having to know ANYTHING about what is being discussed, while still acting like both opposing statements are equally valid.

MrGeezer

I don't disagree that a supported opinion is better than one that is not supported, but they are still opinions. That's what I'm getting at. You can argue on the side of a band "sucking" and you can argue on the side of a band "not sucking" and you can even support both opinions with facts.

An objective statement on the other hand can't be debated. It simply is. That's all I'm saying and I'm not sure why it's such a controversial notion.

Now imagine that no one can agree on what "good" or "bad" mean.

If I say, "it's a bad idea to eat raw chicken" and we end up in a discussion about whether or not eating raw chicken sandwiches is actually bad, then on some fundamental level the very use of the word doesn't work. If we can actually sit here debating the "goodness" and "badness" of murder and rape, then what we're clearly looking at is a breakdown of communication: when Billy says it to Jimmy, neither person knows what the hell is actually being communicated.

And at that point, it clearly makes sense to not use those words at all.

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

MrGeezer

No, it means that you personally think that "Nickelback is a horrible band," However even a Nickelback fan could simply shrug it off with a simple "alright, you may feel that way. However, they're a fairly popular band in general. And I enjoy them."

Art is, and always will be subjective. To force your opinions on someone by claiming they're facts is silly.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

Nibroc420

No, it means that you personally think that "Nickelback is a horrible band," However even a Nickelback fan could simply shrug it off with a simple "alright, you may feel that way. However, they're a fairly popular band in general. And I enjoy them."

Art is, and always will be subjective. To force your opinions on someone by claiming they're facts is silly.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

Ace6301

No, it means that you personally think that "Nickelback is a horrible band," However even a Nickelback fan could simply shrug it off with a simple "alright, you may feel that way. However, they're a fairly popular band in general. And I enjoy them."

Art is, and always will be subjective. To force your opinions on someone by claiming they're facts is silly.

"Who produces bad music" In your opinion.

So long as one person enjoys it, it is not "bad". That is the beauty of Art.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

Nibroc420

No, it means that you personally think that "Nickelback is a horrible band," However even a Nickelback fan could simply shrug it off with a simple "alright, you may feel that way. However, they're a fairly popular band in general. And I enjoy them."

Art is, and always will be subjective. To force your opinions on someone by claiming they're facts is silly.

Wrong. By me stating that they are horrible, we haven't even established that I don't like them.

Now, some dude could get all DESCRIPTIVE and remove all such statements as "good" or "bad". The dude could then OBJECTIVELY describe why they are good or bad without ever including those words. "Why not", he figures? "Anyone who reads this 100% OBJECTIVE description should realize that I'm saying that they suck."

But that's obviously gonna leave almost everyone out of the discussion, since most people don't know jack **** about music. Most people simply CAN'T discuss music (or just about any art, for that matter), in a capacity beyond "I like it" or "it's really bad".

The point isn't to force opinions, the point is to AGREE ON LANGUAGE so that we know what the hell the other person is talking about. Right here, we've just established that it's IMPOSSIBLE to objectively discuss this stuff with a mass audience. Because making it presentable and understood by a mass audience sort of requires invoking language that no one can agree on.

Now imagine that no one can agree on what "good" or "bad" mean.MrGeezer

But why would this occur? We all do understand what good or bad means even if we might not agree on what is good or bad.

The sticking point is not the words themselves, but rather different opinions on what is good and bad.

If I say, "it's a bad idea to eat raw chicken" and we end up in a discussion about whether or not eating raw chicken sandwiches is actually bad, then on some fundamental level the very use of the word doesn't work.MrGeezer

Perhaps the other person simply doesn't think that eating raw chicken is a bad idea. There are people out there with some very weird opinions.

And yes, you guys both would be stating opinions. The difference is that your opinion makes more sense. But it is not objectively right because the realm of objectivity cannot deal with opinions. Opinions is not in its scope.

If we can actually sit here debating the "goodness" and "badness" of murder and rape, then what we're clearly looking at is a breakdown of communication: when Billy says it to Jimmy, neither person knows what the hell is actually being communicated.MrGeezer

Why do you assume this? Maybe it is simply a disagreement.

You're assuming that people should inherently share the same opinion or else there's some kind of hitch in communication and that is not true.

The vast majority people share that opinion because making rape and murder a bad thing makes ethical and pragmatic sense, but there are some people that don't think murder is a bad thing at all and there are some people that think that murder is sometimes justfied.

]And at that point, it clearly makes sense to not use those words at all.MrGeezer

Why not? Good and bad do still have clear definitions. It's just that the individual decides what they think is good or bad.

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

MrGeezer

I don't get where you're getting this from.

Everybody knows what you're saying: they're a **** band. But not everybody is going to agree with it (though I do agree that Nickleback sucks), which is why such a statement is subjective.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

What we've established here is that when I say "Nickelback is a horrible band", that no one here has any freaking idea what I am trying to say.

Ace6301

No, it means that you personally think that "Nickelback is a horrible band," However even a Nickelback fan could simply shrug it off with a simple "alright, you may feel that way. However, they're a fairly popular band in general. And I enjoy them."

Art is, and always will be subjective. To force your opinions on someone by claiming they're facts is silly.

It is impossible for a human to make an unbiased subjective judgment.

One can only be unbiased when they state facts.

"Who produces bad music" In your opinion.

So long as one person enjoys it, it is not "bad". That is the beauty of Art.

Nibroc420

And again, I like a HELL of a lot of stuff that I consider to be "bad". It is simply mindboggling to me that ANYONE can honestly say to themselves that everything that they like is "good".

So...either you just have a VERY high opinion of yourself, or the words "good" and "bad" simply do not mean the same thing to you and I.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

No, it means that you personally think that "Nickelback is a horrible band," However even a Nickelback fan could simply shrug it off with a simple "alright, you may feel that way. However, they're a fairly popular band in general. And I enjoy them."

Art is, and always will be subjective. To force your opinions on someone by claiming they're facts is silly.

GreySeal9

It is impossible for a human to make an unbiased subjective judgment.

One can only be unbiased when they state facts.