>>47023158Literally no part of your argument was proved. Those standards are all created subjectively, you absolute moron. That's why people can debate them and give games different scores, because it's inherently subjective. You can't rationally debate objective truths, like 1 + 1 = 2, because they are not based on what you think, but you can debate whether a certain game has good graphics, gameplay, story, etc. You have no clue what objective means.
>>47023178Everyone sharing the same subjective standard does not make it objective. You are confusing objective with absolute or unquestioned. Even people of the same religion debate over what is moral, and you know this. Murder, slavery, etc are justified in most religions as well under certain circumstances; read your holy books. All religion does is enforce a stricter law on a particular moral code; it doesn't suddenly make something objective. It only makes it that you get executed if you question the subjective command. And if you think people don't have a generally similar moral code, ask random people if they believe it is ok to kill innocent people for fun. Most will say no. Not all, but there is no such thing as an unquestionable subjective idea.
