[akomtu]

The type of art you like or dislike is a reflection of your mental state. In this sense, taste is subjective. However some of those mental states are good and some are evil, which is objective. If I suddenly find myself liking aggressive chaotic art, I'll be worried that something's changed in me in a bad way.

But you're right that I'm very confident in my measure of what's beautiful and what's not, and a few people aren't going to sway me. Even if every last human on the earth fell for this demonic art, I wouldn't budge.

[komali2]

Your unshaking confidence in your subjective experience as being representative of something factual about the universe made me peek at your history to see just how far it went. I found this comment:

> It's the Christian version of the Dao.

So far as I can tell, this isn't a thing that actually exists, but you refer to it as "the," meaning that to you, it's an objectively existing thing that we should all recognize.

Alongside that:

> The type of art you like or dislike is a reflection of your mental state

No, this is not objectively true in the way you seem to be implying.

> some of those mental states are good and some are evil, which is objective

No, practically by definition, "good" and "evil" are subjective.

> Even if every last human on the earth fell for this demonic art, I wouldn't budge.

Yes, this is clear.

Out of good faith and frank honesty I tell you this: There is no purpose in conversing with you, as apparently you're only capable of lecturing people of the Verified-by-Jehovah Revealed Truth of your personal ideology.

[fwip]

Yeah, and toddlers are supremely confident that broccoli is objectively bad because it's yucky.

Being incapable of overruling your base reactions is not a flex.