and these people vote?

Yep, just as I was saying all along, pretty simple and common, ain't it?But you'd be surprise how SOME people (perhaps to the type of person who would enjoy taking a crap in his pants?) would argue that point. Well, not necessarilly, . . . when it is a universally agreed upon experience it becomes objective. If the experience is non-partisan, has no dissenters, no variety of opinions, then it can be considered an objective experience:

quote:

---

99.99% think eating dog-crap ice cream with glass shards is a bad tasting experience. Based on life experience, one doesn't even have to actually try the experience. Since there are virtually no exceptions to rating this experience, this is a universal objective statement.

---

So, . . . KNOWING that eating vanilla ice-cream is a higher enjoyable experience (at least >1%) than eating dog-crap ice-cream (<.01%), we can conclude that eating vanilla ice cream is a more enjoyable experience than eating dog-crap ice-cream.Pretty self-evident, ain't it?So now that we KNOW some experiences CAN be objectified/rated, we can go on to use a simple diminishing scale of similar experiences that include an objective experience at one end of the scale to accurately compare similar experiences, thusly:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

Pretty simple, ain't it? I didn't even need a Venn diagram to explain it.

Apologies to all. I seem to be typing on my keyboard with "Invisible Lock" on. Apparently this is causing participants to repeat questions I keep answering.I am arguing about COMPARATIVE objective experiences.It seems Tanypteryx understands, at least partly, when he wrote: Sorry, the age of the earth is a historical fact, not an experience, that can be 'proven' in a multitude of different ways. It is not a "universally agreed upon EXPERIENCE" and is way off-topic to my argument. Sorry, not when comparing SOME experiences. The definition of objectivity is non-partisan. Thus, if an EXPERIENCE is regarded as 99.99% true or false, it can be considered an objective experience. Thus:Because 99.99% of people agree that eating dog-crap ice cream is a LESS enjoyable experience than eating vanilla ice cream, it can be considered an objective comparison.Because 99.99% of people agree that breathing raw sewer gas inside an animal rendering plant surrounded by a sulfer mine is NOT a more enjoyable experience than breathing in dewey fresh meadow air, it can be considered an objective comparison.Get it? Not exactly rocket science, eh?Simularly: Because 99.99% of people agree that crapping one's pants is NOT a more meaningful experience than summiting Everest, we can consider this an objective comparison.So Xongsmith, in addition to Ringo, would you also like to attempt to counterpoint my argument by going on record by publicly and truthfully stating that you would find crapping your pants a more meaningful experience than summiting Everest?While doing so may not FULLY disprove my argument, I WOULD have to concede that it WOULD degrade my argument that certain experiences are objectively more meaningful than others.