Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
Wait, what? Since when is price ever embedded in an assessment of a product? The following is a completely rational statement and response:
Bob: My iPhone 5S is clearly superior to your iPhone 5c.
Doug: I don't think the difference in features is worth the extra cost.
There, we've agreed that one product is better than another without taking price into account and then added in the cost element to determine value. None of this is objective, which should be obvious (maybe Doug likes his 5c better because he just loves colourful phones and hates the idea of a thumbprint scanner), but price isn't "embedded" in a qualitative judgment comparing two similar products. This is really the point of contention between you guys - which is really what GGG is getting at.
He's still wrong though, in channeling Sliver. The correct response to "Sat Radio is objectively better" isn't to go back and forth over whether the cost can be considered, it's to imagine a guy named Doug who really likes radio ads, enjoys taking a break from music to hear the radio hosts talk, and gets confused when there are too many channels to choose from. That guy would clearly prefer normal radio to Sirius. Consequently, Satellite radio is not objectively better.
|
The only reason why the value is imbedded in the evaluation is because one is free and one is not, it's cost vs. no cost. For it to be objective, it has to be so on every level. Subjective throws everything out the window.
Even so, you're correct, taking that out of the equation entirely it's still not objective simply because Doug may enjoy commercials.
Though, I doubt I'll ever get through to him. He started PM'ing me about it and said my stretchy cheese statement was subjective. So... we've got a long way to go haha.