discounting emotion isn't relevant to the statement. in fact, i do the exact opposite by saying these behaviors *are* emotional - and not common sense. it seems you're trying to redefine the term to suit your needs. common sense refers, as far as i know, to the ability to let go of emotional reactions when such reactions would cause one to expect results that end up being different to those which actually occur. another term for this could be "logic." if your definition of the term differs from that which is known, define it first, because all discourse becomes useless if we simply make noises that could potentially mean anything
depending solely on one's own perceptions for formulating an idea of what is true is a weakness because it relies on ego. the individual is weak, as compared to the world. it is not a huge step to go from there to: the value of the individual is weak as compared to that of the rest of the world. same for the validity of the individual 'truth' as opposed to the unchangeable aspects of the world. calling it a weakness is not a value judgement, unless you see being weaker than something else as a frightening possibility. it's reality, though. bear's brain is weak compared to man's; man's arms are weak compared to bear's.
being able to accept one reality as reality-for-all can mean one of two things. the first is that one takes the limited amount of knowledge they have, and assumes it applies to the universe at large - this would be worthy of destruction, and if this is what you are trying to devalue, i think we're all on your side. but the second is that one accepts that there are aspects of reality of which you, as an individual, are not aware. this means that you are aware that you have significant limitations, as an individual, and that these limitations are much greater than those of the universe as a whole. there are aspects of life to which one is exposed that are not exposed to others, but Boeing 747s do exist even though a Jivaro shaman is not aware of their existence. the earth orbited the sun before Copernicus stated otherwise. these things are not pragmatic to those whose lives are unaffected by them, and thus they CAN afford to be ignored by those same people - but to say that they magically disappear without knowledge of them is to place human knowledge on a pedestal above reality itself. egoism, essentially
as for me not discrediting you - you didn't give an example of anything, so there was nothing i was trying to discredit. retorting with the fifth-grade 'i know you are but what am i' argument is just deflection, as it furthers nothing. the criticism you levied against JewBob's example was empty and meaningless to anyone but your own self, because there was nothing about it that extended beyond how it made you feel. i can't speak for anyone else, but i don't care how it made you feel, just as you shouldn't care how it makes me feel. i found the example valid because it was a metaphor that maintained all aspects of the trait being parodied. if you find it faulty, say how