Replies

Dom, I've been predicting evasion on this point since post 197, and so far, I haven't been disappointed. Despite this notion that everything should be objectively knowable, there's this incredible resistance to actually exploring that notion. The question has gone beyond whether or not eating junk food is healthy - for the sake of argument, I am perfectly willing to grant that it is unhealthy to eat nothing but junk food. But now my question is, why is it objectively better to be healthy rather than unhealthy? Why is a state of unhealth objectively wrong, and a state of healthiness objectively right? Why won't you answer that one simple question with something more substantial than a simple assertion of its truth?

Why is a state of unhealth objectively wrong, and a state of healthiness objectively right? Why won't you answer that one simple question with something more substantial than a simple assertion of its truth?

Because you already know the answer, and you know *I* already know the answer, and are only asking *me* to answer it as a distraction.

You already know it *can* be proven, have seen it proven, and know *how* to prove it. You're just hoping I'll get off on an tangent, and you'll never have to admit this is an objective truth.

Objectivism is a very simple idea. Interestingly enough, I'm not even an objectivist. If you had to label me, I think, 'Secular Taoist' might be the closest term I can coin. But I do at least understand it, what it says.

You're acting like objectivism is over your head, too difficult for you to understand. I really don't believe that. I think the truth is that you're refusing to understand on purpose.

I see you are still playing your silly word games, general:

But now my question is, why is it objectively better to be healthy rather than unhealthy?

'Healthy' means you live a normal life.
'Unhealthy' means you live a diseased painful life.
Objectively, it is better to be healthy.
[if 'is' means 'is' in your world]