Alex Jones found guilty in Connecticut Sandy Hook defamation case.

Shit, I must have really stolen his actual response.

So a popularity contest. No objective standard, just whatever fuels your desperate need for validation. An utterly predictable answer.

In what specific way? Are you gonna try to spin "placate entitled stangers" as mere respect and decency?

Or else I had better things to do.

Get a job.

Is there a standard that you would consider "objective"? And if so, on what basis is it objective?

That said, I'm not sure why Crosis brought up society's standard here, as his claim appears to be that you are hypocritical according to your own standard of what it takes to be a "better person." I must confess, I'm not sure what he means by this, but it inherently should mean that you have said to be a good person you should be X, Y, Z and you yourself are not X/Y/Z. I'm not sure I have seen you opine expressly on what people should be or do, other than leave you alone.

I've never seen anything anyone can ever do to gain UA's respect.
But, I'm sure whatever delusional yarn he spins on the subject will be Onion quality hilarity.

Something that doesn't rely on emotion or perception. Something that is true regardless of how anyone feels about it.

Because appeals to popularity are the highest authority to an insecure little man like him.

And he will back that up with nothing but lies and distortions.

That is what I want from people, but I've never claimed it would make them a good person. I really don't care if anyone satisfies some arbitrary definition of "good," so long as they leave each other the hell alone.

And you've yet to explain why anyone would want respect from someone who prefers to be left the hell alone.

You're here flapping all day, so so much for that fable.

Hone up on your calculus, and get some books on theoretical physics, and never pull your head out of them.
We live in an adversarial democracy, not a Borg cube.

What is an example of this in the context of "being a good person?"

I know the classic definitional A=A is inherently true.

But there are always going to be a set of value judgments around what it means to be good, and Person 1 does not have to "feel" the same way about those value judgments.

You might think A is good, but nothing inherently requires another person to agree with you.

And the only motivation you can conceive of is a desire for respect. Not my problem.

The truth is very often an objective fact. Let's start with honesty, rather than "how do I spin this to support my allies and/or indict my enemies."

Lie some more. I'm just holding you to your own jackass standard.
To dish out disrespect, its converse must naturally exist in your moral code.
Unless you just want to confess that you're a misanthrope for its own sake. But then the game would be over, and you don't want that.

False. That is not the only possible answer. Mine is that I don't give a shit that you feel "disrespected," because people constantly redefine that term to mean "give me my way and do what I want at all times."

I'm a misanthrope based on life experience.

That's fucking stupid reactionary crybaby bullshit.
Even the boy who cried wolf eventually cried about a real wolf.

The hell it is. Just try to nail everyone down one singular definition that doesn't boil down to "he did things I didn't like."

What is an example of a truth that is an objective fact in the context of "being a good person"?

For instance, it is "objectively" true that the Washington Monument is about 555 feet. That's because we all define how long a foot is, and what the Washington Monument is and what how to calculate numbers.

Value judgments are almost by definition subjective.

You might think something is not "honest" but an attempt to "spin something to support my allies and/or indict my enemies."

Someone else might think it is "honest" and not at all an attempt at spin.

A third person might say it's both.

A fourth person might say it's neither.

What is the objective way to prove which is right?

Which brings us back around to the notion of "objectivity" when it comes to defining what is good.

If there is not a singular definition or set of criteria, then it can't really be said to be objectively true.

If there is a largely singular definition/criteria in the context of "good," you have already downplayed that as a popularity contest in post #422. So that doesn't count either, I would think.

Seems like it's a Catch-22.

Which brings it back around to what I said about society.
The only real measure of what makes a good person that even comes close to objective truth is based on societal structure (The dreaded "popularity contest" UA always whines about).

UA says he is a good person, but by what measure? He uses slurs, he chooses to be rude without reason, and he objects to requests for respect as an affront to his personal sovereignty.

So, good by whose standard?

Your idea of a "good person" is trivial and superficial. I'm not sure there can be one final objective definition, but people like you put me right off of the subjective.

"People like him" is itself a subjective emotion-driven judgement.
Fucking man-Daria.

His dishonesty is not a matter of feeling or opinion.

That's very convenient for you.
"I have my own definition of good that I adhere to, which is not measured by any standard recognized view of the matter."

Makes it very easy to just shrug your shoulders at a guy who instigated harassment and death threats against parents whose children were brutally murdered.

Actually, it almost certainly is.

He says something that you believe is untrue. There is usually going to be a question about whether that one thing is objectively true or not. That is a first level of it being a matter of opinion. You and perhaps other people think he's dishonest; he and perhaps other people say he's not. What is the objective proof that he is? How is objectively true that he's dishonest if others have the opinion that he's honest? Do you get to just dismiss their opinions by claiming that it is objectively true that he's dishonest?

For discussion's sake, let's say it is something that is objectively untrue like "The Washington Monument is really only two feet tall." Even though Crosis would be objectively wrong about that, there is still miles to go before we can say he's being objectively dishonest about that statement at least by the dictionary definition of "dishonest."

There could be potential explanations for Crosis making that wrong statement that have nothing to do with Crosis being dishonest:
1. He is dumb and genuinely unaware of how tall the Washington Monument is.
2. He is making a joke of some sort
3. He is trying to make a point in some way and isn't trying to convey that the Washington Monument is only two feet tall.
4. His comment about the Washington Monument being two feet tall is being taken out of context.

Whether it falls in one of those categories, some other one, or the category of actual dishonesty is yet another matter of feeling/opinion.

Finally, let's say we could agree that Crosis was dishonestly claiming that the Washington Monument was two feet tall. That shows he is dishonest about that one thing, but not necessarily that he is dishonest in general such that he deserves to be considered "dishonest." To decide if he's dishonest objectively (to the extent there is such a thing) would require looking at if it's commonplace for him to be untrustworthy, another place where opinion plays a role.