It is totally relevant, you were making the same argument about the subjective nature of the observer. You are not of that culture, nor have you ever been, you cannot have a more valid POV.
Where did I make that argument?
No, the terms are not contradictory, at all.
In fact you canot even bring yourself to explain how they contradict.
Subjectivity is the feelings held by the observer, IE, the individual perceiving the object. These are varying and hold no credence to reality. Validity is rational following of a logical assertion. Subjectivity cannot be properly measured, as it is neither bound by the truth nor is it an effective measure for truth, and as such, arguing "subjective validity" is absurd.
Atrocious is totally subjective, the question, again, comes down to who has the most valid view.
No, atrocious is not "totally subjective." If it were, we couldn't use it as a word. We use it as a word because it holds meaning, and recklessly using the word in a context that does not call for it is very disingenuous.
It is not you as already explained
What do you mean by that?
LOL....
Atrocity:
1: the quality or state of being atrocious
2: an atrocious act
Fair enough, stating both are reckless. Interesting that the definition is no longer subjective, however. I guess it's totally subjective but not TOTALLY subjective.
That is totally in the eye of the beholder.
Then how do we use it as a word? There is a common understanding buddy. That's how words work!
You claim it is not atrocious, the Afghan president says it is.
Yes, and I explained why. What is the Afghan's presidents reasoning?
Who has the most valid viewpoint
Whoever brings forth the most valid reasoning.
when it concerns an Afghan.
How is this relevant?
You have the audacity to claim a better understanding of their culture, their POV?
Their culture is irrelevant. What's relevant is the commonly held weight of the word atrocity, which is blind to their cultural conventions. Furthermore, I claim no such thing. I simply put forward an opposition, and, instead of actually addressing the opposition, you all go on this sophistic rant. I'm more than open to reconsidering my viewpoint, but the problem is, you've presented nothing to make me reconsider it except saying I can't know because I'm not him, which is absurd.
Do what ever you like, it won't change the fact that you cannot have a superior Afghan POV.
So basically you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge the thousands of years of thought given to the subject and instead come in on your own tear about how it's okay that I can't contradict mr.x because I'm not him? Is it audacious to do such a thing? Oh wait, no because it's subjective! But wait, if it's subjective, how can any position be audacious? Because, ya know, words are totally subjective. But wait! If words are totally subjective, how can any use of any word at any time be wrong? Oh, subjective is subjective! Of course!
If you actually want to have an argument about something, say so. Otherwise, you and Catawba can play words with each other all night long by yourselves.