>>5144051>>5144058In case you didn't get the point, kid, let me drill it in even deeper again.
>know objectively by knowledge if that something is better than another thingYou can know things a priori or a posteriori, according to Kant. We know whether something has more or less quality than something else according to empirical judgment. If that empirical judgment can be reproduced in another person by logic, as in "2+2=4" according to the times table, it is objective. If it is subjective, then it cannot be reproduced in a general case. What you have failed to understand, friend, is everything. You have literally claimed your opinion is objective.
Moreover, because I am capable of parsing the utter sadness and confusion that is your thought, I will reiterate. The argument that has been made is, you are confusing subjective and objective.
No one is barking about the subjectivity of quality like you are, retard fag dog. In fact, quality is a composite of subjective and objective evaluation.
Lesson learned, bud?
