how could anybody believe that quality isn't objective?

>>8394473
They are stupid.

Quality is objective, however no one may ever know the full range of best to worst and everything in between. Should someone defend something that is bad, they believe it is good because they haven't seen something good, and will have difficulty adjusting to the good thing if they tried because they are so used to their definition of good (which is bad). Similarly, in reverse, someone might call a good author shit because they were someone who only read good things, and do not know or care about actually bad authors.

>>8394473
Quality is objective. Judgement and experience of quality isn't.

Is this a meme? How do so many people on here actually defend the claim that quality is objective? I thought this board was supposed to be filled with smart people.

>>8394473
Try to define "quality" and not sound like a moron. If you can do that, I might bother to read your argument for some ultimate objective measure of it. But it'll still be silly as hell.

>>8394473
I don't think quality is objective. Whenever you say a book is better than other (for example), you must clarify «better at what».

The only absolute arbiter of value is God
But God is everything
Preferring one part of the body to the other is only healthy if you're comfortable with all parts; ie, as long as you're happy with every part of the body, you can be happier with one part than another
As above so below
Only plebs in league with Satan dislike anything
Healthy taste is only a matter of liking some things better than others, which is relative on a positive spectrum only
QED

>>8397137
QEPD

File: FurryFreak-Exam-sm.jpg (205KB, 1000x431px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1000x431px

Come on, Schiller, let's hear your objective universal standard of quality.