Yes I am guilty of moral relativism, that I am not alone in that is interesting, so the article is one I find interesting. But it is flawed, your example is apt and that's not the only one:
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”
The blank stare on his face said it all.
...
I also tend to stare blankly at people when I'm thinking "Duh" too. He could have done better than accept a blank stare as freedom to interpret whatever he wanted.
With a mathematical operator: Fact > Opinion, one is a higher form of truth.
What does it mean for something to be 'a higher form of truth'? More valuable, according to some appropriate standard? More useful, according to some appropriate standard?
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”
The blank stare on his face said it all.
...
I also tend to stare blankly at people when I'm thinking "Duh" too. He could have done better than accept a blank stare as freedom to interpret whatever he wanted.
With a mathematical operator: Fact > Opinion, one is a higher form of truth.