Whoa, finally some vitriol in the venue posts! Just felt the urge to clarify something about subjectivism and assertional logic.

When you say "my opinion doesn't coincide with yours" then you're stating something that is simply a matter of fact. I could have the opinion that baby jesus on a purple raptor will show up and resolve this debate, and while it is entirely true that that is my opinion, it seems unlikely to happen.

Everyone's entitlement to HAVE an opinion is of course completely equal, but does that mean the CONTENT of that opinion is as sound as the content of another?

When you say something flat out like "Dick's is overrated" you are stating more than a simple fact that that is your opinion--inherently, you want other people to agree with you, else why would you say it in the first place?

So when you communicate with other people based on your subjective experience you are stating an objective judgement, by definition, an assertion. That is entirely open to evaluations based in reality and is not a complete subjective free for all. The very words you are using are an objective agreement that they signify certain meanings that we all agree on. This is the basis of communication.

Also implicit in this is that your opinion, when stated as if it were objective in assertions, have some soundness in its premise, some internal logic making it valid, and a conclusion that follows from an argued position based on some sort of fact.

The response to art may be entirely subjective--how it makes you feel, etc.--but to imply that we cannot have any value judgments about its worth means that we shouldn't even be talking about it then. What's the point?

If you don't like phish jams, then you might not like Dick's. There, I said it. To me, if you're not there for the jamming I have to wonder what you ARE there for. So justify your claims instead of resorting to that weak, "that's like, your opinion, man" bullshit.