No. I'm an objectivist. I don't believe in relativism, "opinions" or "disagreements". In every disagreement, one person is correct and the other is wrong, one just has more information than the other. It is impossible for both people to possess the exact equal amount of information.
Guns n roses is better than Beatles because low, heavy and aggressive hard rock is more appealing to higher testosterone people. This is why metal audiences are 98% male whereas high pitched melodic pop audiences are 98% female. There is an objective correlation between your testosterone/estrogen levels and the music you find appealing
Every heterosexual male values having sex with women above all else, and if they are Beatles fans they are also probably unaware of the importance of masculinity, because they would recognise it as effeminate and counter to their reproductive goals.
Therefore the male guns n roses fan has a more accurate working model of reality than the male Beatles fan. The guns n roses fan is objectively more correct. He understands correctly that masculinity is necessary in acquiring attractive women (every male's ultimate biological imperative) and so has a positive view of masculinity, so becomes more masculine, and so becomes a guns n roses fan.
People will say this is crazy or stupid but try actually refuting it. The average male John Lennon fan would be objectively more effeminate and beta than the average hard rock fan. That's a fact you know intuitively. And since all males want to attract women first and foremost, the hard rock fan is objectively better and more fully integrated psychologically. He had s higher level of reality awareness than the male Beatles fan, who thinks incorrectly his emotional sensitivity and artsy personality will be attractive to women.
Sorry it's the truth.
And don't use the Beatles getting laid as an argument. They got laid because they were the first superstars, not because of their genre.
