Try not to worry about it too much.
I have not seen one reply by you to a point another member brought up on these boards that was not negative. Well, maybe this could be your first, but it's useless too: while you excel at pointing out the errors of others, you fail at acknowledging your own and thus, only error and negativity remain.
I suggest you change your attitude, quickly.
Why? I'm a nihilist, aren't I? Error and negativity are surely the base substance of existence to me. What else, should I be trying to construct a happy society where we can all develop equally?
FYI, I've made plenty of constructive criticism; and what errors of my own (aside from my punctuation mistake) were there in that post to acknowledge?
As for 'conservationist' - I do not support 'relativism' but the deconstructive technique (you seem to conflate the two), and as a nihilist of course believe that nothing can have any inherent value.
Your constructive criticism has amounted to little more than claiming that others are wrong for having standards. As I pointed out to you in another thread, standards and preferences are not completely the result of social conditioning. Anything that involves the transfer of information, including music, can either be congruent with reality or incongruent with it. Human beings have the ability to tell what values are most conducive to this on a basic level, but the truth is we haven't developed to the point to where we are able to, on a wide-scale, recognize this correspondence theory in other forms of information-transfer, such as music. This website has made a more convincing attempt at that than any other attempt I have come across heretofore, barring Arthur Schopenhauer.
If you are unable to explain why the standards that Conservationist has set are incongruent with reality, then you have no valid criticism and should probably leave the discussion to those who do.
Well fundamentally, there is no such thing as reality. There is no rational argument that can tell us that anything actually exists outside of an individuals (my own) mind; so your argument for inherent standards and preferences is already on unstable ground. Like I explained in the other thread there are obviously biological impulses, but these are so easily overturned by our minds. (Yes this is true, for example I have never intended to or managed to reproduce all my life, despite many times indulging in sex.)
The problem is that conservationist's standards could
very easily be incongruent with anybodies reality; anyone can deconstruct them to reveal this.
I have to go now, but I will add some more to this later about how those standards can be easily used to mean different things to different people.