Originally Posted by Hutnicks
You're not getting it there Warrenpeace! Everytime the O word gets mentioned they school like starving sharks and start demanding "proof" of everything under the sun.
There could be no legitimate demands of "proof" if the so-called "subjectivists" were in fact subjectivists and not what I've called "pseudo-objectivists." And that's largely why things have been so contentious. Typically those who would self-identify as being subjectivists, aren't really content with being subjectivists. Instead, they take their subjective experiences and go on to make what are effectively objective claims. And objective claims should always be open to question or challenge. But when they are, the pseudo-objectivists get their panties all in a bunch and start whining about the big bad objectivists.
If one is going to call themself a subjectivist, then damn it, be a subjectivist. Accept your subjective experience for what it is and don't try and take things beyond that. If you do that, then there can be no legitimate challenge to your experience. But if your ego and vanity are not comfortable with that and you try and pass off your subjective experience as some sort of unerring reflection of the objective reality, then expect to be questioned and/or challenged and don't go whining about it when you are.