Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
No, it's a fact a good community offers leisure opportunities. It's also a fact a lake community offers more leisure opportunities than a non-lake community. Therefore, it's objective.
|
Maybe if these weren't actually "pond" communities, you'd have a point. Even then, I don't care at all about the "leisure opportunities" of a pond, and care quite a lot about having plenty of dining, shopping, and boozing within walking distance, so your 'objective" measurement is shown to be entirely subjective.
Nobody is saying that having a pond to splash around in is a bad thing. It's just not enough to elevate another mediocre suburb into one of the "best" communities on offer.
To make a car analogy, which I think is unassailable argumentation on the internet, you're like a guy who says "Big engines are an objectively better component in a car, because they make you go faster. Therefore, all cars with big engines are better than cars with small engines". Well, ok, but what if you don't care about going fast? Or what if another car goes faster with a smaller but more efficient engine? Or what if you value speed, but also value handling? You can't just say "x is objectively good, therefore any set including x is necessarily better than any set not including x". Well - I guess you can, but you look like a fool if you do.