>>13057194>McDonald'sI'm still deeply hurt by the fact that you would disrespect McDonald's like that. See pic related
>>13026488 As an American, this is pretty much the best thing here. I don't get to eat it, but I still get to think of Ronald McDonald, a very delightful character, who, in America as you probably know, brings more joy and happiness into the lives of people than Jesus Christ. I love Jesus, I just love Ronald McDonald more.
It's not that I'm fat, I'm too poor to eat at McDonald's, but the fact that Americans grow up thinking about how much Ronald McDonald loves them and wants them to be happy is pretty important to a lot of us.
> snake interpretations didn't influence reality, snake bites wouldn't existStill, hopefully you see my point that "Subjective interpretations only become relevant when they produce physical actions". It seems that we see eye to eye on this, but we just have trouble expressing this.
>It's based upon quantitative things but that doesn't make it quantitative itself.>Without human interpretation we wouldn't have taxonomy.Yes, this is true, but I'm saying taxonomy is based upon purely objective organization such as the organs and traits of the animals which are not a matter of opinionation. This is like sorting fruits by the colors.
What I argue is less meanigful is subjective qualification, which is "Ordering fruits based upon which one's you think taste the best".
Everybody can agree with a correct order of organizing fruits according to color, thus objective qualification is valid. Nobody can agree about "ordering fruits by which ones they think taste the best.", so trying to use these subjective, opinionated metrics to form or justify decisions becomes incredibly problematic.
Using subjective opinionation to justify arguments is having 20 different people pulling the argument towards their conflicting personal preferences. Using solely objective qualifications, we easily come to an agreement.
