This is an equivocation. — Bob Ross

It isn't. Nationalism simply includes ultranationalism and jingoism.

There’s no trolling intended: there are good forms of nationalism, imperialism, and supremacy. Liberals just get butt-hurt when people use the proper terminology, because they conflate it with the bad forms. — Bob Ross

And trolls just love to get others butt-hurt, it's the objective.

What??? Patriotism is not anti-democratic. I don’t know why you would suggest all forms of nationalism, like Patriotism, are against democracy. — Bob Ross

Read carefully. I was talking about Marxism, not patriotism. Marxism-Leninism starts with ideas of violent revolutions, class enemy and the attitude towards other political systems is not veiled in the thinking.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes
tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They
have a world to win.

Because it is the only set of values that separates church from state; gives people as many equal liberties as possible; has the right to bear arms; and is merit-based (or at least used to be). Any society which is missing some of things is not as good (I would say). Maybe we can disagree on the 2nd amendment; but the others seem obviously better than any alternatives. — Bob Ross

Seems you confuse American set of values with Western set of values. Forgot the Church of England? Nordic countries like Norway, Denmark have state religions, Sweden just cut the link in 2000 and in Finland the link to Lutheran Church is quite strong still starting from religion taught in schools. And only a few countries in the World don't permit citizens owning firearms. Then to say that meritocracy happens only in the West sounds quite strange too.

CC: @Foolos4

I was just about to message you both about this. I've been researching it more, and, as you noted, it is civil and not criminal case; and so he was not found guilty of sexual abuse but rather, given the jury found it more likely than not (i.e., >= 51% chance), they found that he probably did it. I don't think this is enough evidence to say he is a rapist, although he may of very well done it. He doesn't have a great character: I think we can all agree on that. It interesting though that Carroll didn't file the suit until 2019 (initially): that's suspect.

Let's be real though: he was found liable for forcible touching and sexual abuse not once, not twice, but three times....so, in all probability, there's something there. Reading through the evidence, there's nothing really solid indicating it happened; so I am thinking I might be missing something. Essentially the evidence was two people she told about it, the Hollywood tape, and defamation evidence (e.g., things he said about her in malice).

I honestly don't think he would get convicted of rape nor sexual abuse in criminal court given that evidence.

No, no, no. You missed the point: democratic nations don’t go to war at all based off of a vote—that’s not how it works. You are acting like a democratic nation only goes to war if we vote to. — Bob Ross

Exactly. You're wanting to force democracy on other peoples through undemocratic means, at great cost to both your own population and the one you hope to convert.

This opens up the discussion to the question: “what reasons can a democratic nation go to war, which is despite whatever their citizens think?” — Bob Ross

No, it doesn't. If your democratically representative government believes that another nation is doing a great wrong, like genocide, the moral and legal course is through existing treaty organizations, such as the UN, and persuade your fellow signatories, as well your own population to participate in an international intervention.

People haven’t ever voted on when to go to war—that’s not how republics work I’m afraid. — Bob Ross

It's how democracies work.

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? — Bob Ross

It wasn't. The Nazis should have been stopped before they started knocking over the smaller nations around them. Should it have been stopped by force of arms, diplomatic or economic means? By whom? By what right? Consult the treaties and compacts and international laws of the period.
If you want to go back in time and stop them by force before they round up all the mental patients, communists, Jews and Romani, fine. If you expect my help in conquering North Korea, forget it.

You are denying that we should evaluate politics based off of ethics; so we have to start there first. — Bob Ross

I am not denying that ethics should play a role in our evaluation of politics, but without specifics the claim is vacuous. For example, you said you would vote for Trump even if he is a rapist. In this case it would seem that you put political considerations above ethical.

Let's be real though: he was found liable for forcible touching and sexual abuse not once, not twice, but three times.... — Bob Ross

Did you miss the link I provided?

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/28/trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-women

It strains credibility to the breaking point to think that this many women just made things up. The fact that he has never been criminally charged does [correction: not mean] that there is not ample evidence that he is a sex offender.

I will put this in non-legal terms:

Would you leave him alone with your wife or mother or daughter?

I honestly don't think he would get convicted of rape nor sexual abuse in criminal court given that evidence. — Bob Ross

I can't be certain, but I think there was a good chance he would have been convicted. It wasn't taken up as a criminal matter because it happened in the 1990s, if I remember correctly, and the statute of limitations had run out. Let's face facts, calling him a rapist is an accurate description.

Then, you have to deny that there is such a thing as a bad farmer. — Bob Ross

I don't see how you got there.

Morality is useful for knowing what the right thing to do or not do is. — Bob Ross

Not everything is about morality. Morality pertains to human behaviour in relation to the group, by and large. People can and do value things that don't have a lot to do with morality... and can base their decisions for what to do on that. Geo-political decisions also rarely made predominately on the basis of a morality.

Ok, so it sounds like your view is a form of moral anti-realism; because you are denying that moral judgments express something objective; instead, they are inter-subjective. This is just as meaningless to me as if it were straightforwardly subjective: why should anyone care what some group of people think? It literally doesn’t matter, because you are denying that there is anything that actually matters. — Bob Ross

It does matter if you rely on your group for survival, which is generally the case outside maybe modern affluent society to some extend. You risk exclusion from the group.

And I don't think the realism/anti-realism distinction is very helpful here. It's real enough that a certain group of people, grown up with certain moral institutions and traditions, will have certain moral ideas which make them behave in corresponding ways... Morality has real imprints in they way groups are organised, in the people and also real consequences.

Also why should something be objective to actually matter? I don't get it. If I value something 'only subjectively', I do value it... why should I need something extra to actually matter?

I don't see how you got there.

If there is no actual badness, like you claim, then there is no such thing as a bad farmer. A bad farmer is a farmer that is actually bad at farming—this is not relative to anyone’s beliefs or desires about it.

Not everything is about morality. Morality pertains to human behaviour in relation to the group, by and large.

Anything related to behavior is related to morality; and morality is about right and wrong behavior—not “in relation to the group”.

People can and do value things that don't have a lot to do with morality... and can base their decisions for what to do on that

They shouldn’t.

Geo-political decisions also rarely made predominately on the basis of a morality.

Assuming that is even true, should they? Nope.

It does matter if you rely on your group for survival, which is generally the case outside maybe modern affluent society to some extend. You risk exclusion from the group.

Survival doesn’t actually matter under your view: the best you can say is that if you value surviving then you should care about your society.

It's real enough that a certain group of people, grown up with certain moral institutions and traditions, will have certain moral ideas which make them behave in corresponding ways...

Are those moral principles in those societies expressing something objective...or not? Who cares if it feels real!

Also why should something be objective to actually matter?

That’s what it means: I don’t think you understand what actual goodness entails—it is objective goodness: those are synonyms.

If you say something actual matters, then you are claiming to know at least some moral facts.

If I value something 'only subjectively', I do value it... why should I need something extra to actually matter?

That you actually value something, is not the same as that something actually mattering. In other words, that you actually believe or desire for something to matter does not entail that it actually matters. For something to actual matter, it must matter independently of non-objective dispositions.

The evidence wasn't not very solid: that's why I don't believe he would have been convicted. In criminal court, one needs evidence that implies a conclusion without a reasonable doubt: there's a lot about that case, as far as I could tell from Wiki, that doesn't add up. Unless I am missing something, I find it kind of shocking they even found him liable, other than that it was in New York, because, like I said, all the evidence was just two people saying she told them when it happened, a tape that doesn't actually confess to any sex crimes, and defamation facts.

If a person claims you raped them 23 years ago, they have two people (who didn't actually witness anything) corroborating the story, and an irrelevant sex tape; would you say that you should be convicted on that evidence?

I am not denying that ethics should play a role in our evaluation of politics, but without specifics the claim is vacuous

Correct. I believe I already noted I am analyzing this through an Aristotelian lens; but maybe that was with someone else.

For example, you said you would vote for Trump even if he is a rapist. In this case it would seem that you put political considerations above ethical.

Not quite. I have to vote for either Trump or Kamala, and both are unideal options. Ethically, when I am forced to choose between two evils, I pick the lesser of them—which, to me, is Trump because his political positions tend to be way better than Kamala’s. This is, firstly, a political analysis and, consequently, an ethical analysis.

It strains credibility to the breaking point to think that this many women just made things up. The fact that he has never been criminally charged does that there is not ample evidence that he is a sex offender.

I haven’t gone through every single one; but it seems like they are baseless allegations (so far) that were conveniently brought to the light once he took office. I find that suspect, but, yeah, he may very well have committed sex crimes: I take charging someone with being a rapist to be a very serious allegation, and so I will not attribute it to someone unless I have solid evidence to back it up. That 27 women have claimed sexual assault does not itself prove sufficiently that someone is a sex offender. Again, he may really have done it; but nothing so far, that I have seen, really proves to a high degree of certainty that he has done it—and I can’t just make serious allegations about anyone without having serious evidence to back it up.

Would you leave him alone with your wife or mother or daughter?

Oooo, I like this. No, definitely not. I am not denying that someone having these many allegations raises my eyebrows; and I would definitely be protective of, e.g., my daughter(s).

It isn't. Nationalism simply includes ultranationalism and jingoism.

:roll:

Forgot the Church of England?

What about it?

Nordic countries like Norway, Denmark have state religions

Fair enough: I didn’t know that. They are inferior for doing that.

Finland the link to Lutheran Church is quite strong still starting from religion taught in schools

Yeah, that’s objectively bad. No one should be shoving a particular religion down the throats of children at a public school—that’s not how it should work.

And only a few countries in the World don't permit citizens owning firearms

I don’t know about that...only three countries that I am aware of have a constitutional right to bear arms: that’s the US, Mexico, and Guatemala.

He may believe he is so privileged as to do whatever he wants or so delusional that he thinks all women will welcome him grabbing them by the pussy, but bragging about doing this is an admission that he rapes women.

No, no: you are stretching it here. I am trying to be as open-minded and charitable as possible; but that Hollywood tape explicitly states that there is consent, and that he is conveying that women will give you consent when you are famous (which actually tends to be true if you think about it).

but when I give examples of why the claim about being good at farming is problematic, you appeal to a hypothetical, moral anti-realism.

What???

Aristotelianism is a form of moral realism.

I am not denying that one can be a better or worse farmer, but rather that without saying what it means to be better or worse at farming the point is empty

It is relative to the objective, internal goods to farming—viz., relative to what farming has as its purpose.

The question was whether the issue of abortion can be resolved. An appeal to normative ethics has not resolved it. That can be empirically determined.

I genuinely don’t think that colloquial debates about abortion hold up for philosophers in the literature on abortion—irregardless of whether they are pro-choice or pro-life. The colloquial debates have been debunked a long time ago: those have been resolved by normative ethics.

An appeal to ethics gets us nowhere on this issue. Of course it is an ethical issue, but ethicists continue to argue the issue without resolution. The issue of abortion is very much in dispute between ethicists.

We don’t need to appeal to authority to discuss ethics…..

Second, whether or not politics should be governed by ethics, the fact is, it is not

Politics is literally the practical study of justice….which is a sub-branch of ethics. Politics is about how we should behavior and organize ourselves: how could you not say that is morally relevant?!?

The evidence wasn't not very solid: — Bob Ross

I don’t think you have any good reason to say that. Face facts - You support a man who treats women like shit, including sexual assault. The man who’s been chosen to lead this country, the country that is so much better than all the other countries in the world, that is so superior and morally advanced that it should export its values to other, inferior countries.

I don’t generally hold it against people who support Donald Trump, but the hypocrisy here is awful.

Are you saying that that evidence, that I expounded, is enough to convict someone of sexual assault???

I am not saying that Trump is great, nor that he, ideally, should be president. Yes, it would be nice if the US actually had nominees that were virtuous.....still, this does not negate the fact that our republic is objectively better than Talibanian rule.

Are you saying that that evidence, that I expounded, is enough to convict someone of sexual assault??? — Bob Ross

I don't know and you don't know whether he would have been convicted. You didn't "expound" any evidence at all. You just waved around vague allegations. Did you read anything about the trial outside of the NY Post? Fact is, you don't care whether or not he did it. My hypocrisy accusation stands.

I'm done.

If there is no actual badness, like you claim, then there is no such thing as a bad farmer. A bad farmer is a farmer that is actually bad at farming—this is not relative to anyone’s beliefs or desires about it. — Bob Ross

I'm saying there is no objective badness, and you're turning that into actual badness... as matter of definition it seems.

What is considered good or bad farming is subjective, in that you do have different ways of farming that have different values in mind (like say conventional, organic, permaculture etc etc...), where the one only is concerned with producing the most food, and other may be concerned more with doing it in an enviromentally healthy way. Once we agree on the cirteria good farming must meet (the standard of judgement is not objective), then we can go and look if a specific farmer meets those criteria (and that does depend on objective factors). I think you are confused between the standard of measurement and the measurement itself in relation to that standard.

Survival doesn’t actually matter under your view: the best you can say is that if you value surviving then you should care about your society. — Bob

That’s what it means: I don’t think you understand what actual goodness entails—it is objective goodness: those are synonyms.

If you say something actual matters, then you are claiming to know at least some moral facts.

That you actually value something, is not the same as that something actually mattering. In other words, that you actually believe or desire for something to matter does not entail that it actually matters. For something to actual matter, it must matter independently of non-objective dispositions. — Bob

That you actually value something, is not the same as that something actually mattering. In other words, that you actually believe or desire for something to matter does not entail that it actually matters. For something to actual matter, it must matter independently of non-objective dispositions. — Bob Ross

That is true for facts about the world, but not for morality because those are not about "truth" in the sense of corresponding to some objective state of the world.

I just don't agree with what you seem to think follows from definition/is axiomatically true. I don't get what an objective value could mean, how do you find these in the world?

What about it? — Bob Ross

State religion. The Monarch being the head of the Church should make it obvious.

No one should be shoving a particular religion down the throats of children at a public school—that’s not how it should work. — Bob Ross

Lol. Nobody that doesn't belong to the church isn't forced to participate in the classes, yet even today 65% of Finns do belong to the state church and just seven years ago 71% belonged to the Church. When I was in school (in the 1980's) well over 90% of Finns belonged to the Lutheran Church, so it would have been quite stupid not to have religion taught at school for all those that belonged to the Church. Even then children that didn't belong to the Church or were of other religious background naturally were exempt of it.

And btw have you noticed something in the symbolism of the flags of the Nordic countries?


So sorry to upset you, but Christianity has been a fundamental part of what has been called Western culture. If you forget that, you are quite selective in what for you Western culture etc. is about.

I don’t know about that...only three countries that I am aware of have a constitutional right to bear arms: that’s the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. — Bob Ross

That then is quite meaningless, more of an oddity if firearms are mentioned in the Constitution or not. Mexico has quite strict gun laws, similar to other countries and gun ownership is actually quite low with the country being at 60th place of firearms per capita (Guatemala is at number 70). Then you have countries like Switzerland that has a lot of guns and with a militia that has the (government owned) assault rifles at home.

I am not denying that ethics should play a role in our evaluation of politics, but without specifics the claim is vacuous

Correct. I believe I already noted I am analyzing this through an Aristotelian lens; but maybe that was with someone else. — Bob Ross

The specifics of the current political situation is something that Aristotle could know nothing about.

... that Hollywood tape explicitly states that there is consent — Bob Ross

It does not. Here is what he says:

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

Where is explicit consent? How can there be consent when he does not even wait?

he is conveying that women will give you consent when you are famous (which actually tends to be true if you think about it). — Bob Ross

Bullshit! His getting away with it and them consenting are two very different things.

but when I give examples of why the claim about being good at farming is problematic, you appeal to a hypothetical, moral anti-realism.

What???

Aristotelianism is a form of moral realism. — Bob Ross

What you said was:

This is a form of objective goodness: if you are really a moral anti-realist, then you must deny that there is such a thing as a good farmer, or deny that this sort of objective goodness has any relevance to morality. — Bob Ross

Your good farmer is a hypothetical. Rather than addressing what it means to be a good farmer you assume that denying your vacuous claim about the good farmer means you must be a moral anti-realist. "Moral realism", "moral anti-realism", "objective goodness", none of this is about what actual farmers do, which is the only basis on which to base a claim that he is or is not a good farmer.

those have been resolved by normative ethics. — Bob Ross

I mean this with all goodwill and intent: put aside the bloodless, frictionless world of the theoretical and come back down to earth.

An appeal to ethics gets us nowhere on this issue. Of course it is an ethical issue, but ethicists continue to argue the issue without resolution. The issue of abortion is very much in dispute between ethicists.

We don’t need to appeal to authority to discuss ethics….. — Bob Ross

It is not an appeal to authority. The fact is that those who discuss ethics, both casually and professionally, are not in agreement. Normative ethics is not some transcendent or ready made solution to ethical problems.

Politics is literally the practical study of justice….which is a sub-branch of ethics. — Bob Ross

Political science and political philosophy are studies, politics is not. Your man Trump cares nothing about justice or ethics.

The fact that he has never been criminally charged does that there is not ample evidence that he is a sex offender. — Fooloso4

It's actually a pretty damn good indication of this. I can't understand why, if this was your brother or father, you certainly wouldn't rest on these laurels. But if its someone you would psychologically benefit from being charged and convicted you're happy to lay a really dubious claim out there like this. I realise its just a forum, and who cares, but diligence around provability is an important aspect, and the conclusion drawn here is decidedly undemocratic.

Would you leave him alone with your wife or mother or daughter? — Fooloso4

Yes.

Where is explicit consent? How can there be consent when he does not even wait? — Fooloso4

This isn't evidence of any kind, as regards rape. This is a recording of a private conversation which gives us every reason to detest his character. This wouldn't even count as probative evidence in a criminal court.

It strains credibility to the breaking point to think that this many women just made things up. — Fooloso4

No it doesn't. Much weirder, more expansive and stupid shit has happened. Michael Jackson's criminal trials come to mind. Absolute joke. Full disclosure though: I have been the target of more than one completely and utterly false claims of sexual assault/rape. One of those was in fact, a situation in whcih I was sexually assaulted and the woman wanted to get ahead of it. So, it does not strain credibility to think there are several, perhaps scorned, unstable women willing to lie in court for money. That's not at all hard to conceive, in the context of "this is the election for America's future". Ideological commitment is poison.

Let's face facts, calling him a rapist is an accurate description. — T Clark

No. No it isn't. It is a speculative slur, at this point. Bob is right.

No. No it isn't. It is a speculative slur, at this point. Bob is right. — AmadeusD

Alas, if only denial made it true. As far as I can tell, you and Bob don’t even care if it is.

It's actually a pretty damn good indication of this. — AmadeusD

There are many, both men and women, who choose to remain silent or do not press formal charges. They do not wish to undergo a difficult, traumatic, and humiliating ordeal where they are assaulted a second time. This time around by defense lawyers who care nothing about the truth.

Alas, if only denial made it true. As far as I can tell, you and Bob don’t even care if it is. — T Clark

Unfortunately, the case here is that there is no good evidence. Caring if its true has nothing to do with the discussion I've engaged in. I can see the confusion you're doubling down on. The problem is, denial is legitimate in the absence of proof. Concluding guilt in an absence of compelling evidence is the type of thing that gets judges removed from the bench.

They do — Fooloso4

Very true. I am one.

where they are assaulted a second time. — Fooloso4

Sorry, what the heck are you talking about here?

This time around by defense lawyers who care nothing about the truth. — Fooloso4

It seems you're not getting what you want out of hte world stage, and thereby foregoing any sense of objectivity here. THat's fine, i guess. But hte facts indicate other than the conclusions you're drawing.

Very true. I am one. — AmadeusD

One of those who do not care about the truth?

where they are assaulted a second time.
— Fooloso4

Sorry, what the heck are you talking about here? — AmadeusD

Are you just pretending to be clueless? The defense will do what they can to attempt to discredit the accuser. This often amounts to a psychological abuse and an assault on the victim's integrity.

It seems you're not getting what you want out of hte world stage, and thereby foregoing any sense of objectivity here. — AmadeusD

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with me, but when 27 women over a period of 30 years make allegations of sexual misconduct against the same person two things seem likely: there are others who remain silent and at least a few of the allegations are true. Or, perhaps you agree with him that grabbing women by the pussy is acceptable behavior if you are "a star". Or that them "letting you" do is is consent.

But hte facts indicate other than the conclusions you're drawing. — AmadeusD

What facts?

So, it does not strain credibility to think there are several, perhaps scorned, unstable women willing to lie in court for money. — AmadeusD

27 is more than several. "perhaps scorned" is weaseling and a sleazy suggestion. They were not willing to lie in court, 26 of 27 did not bring legal charges against him so there was no opportunity to lie in court or financial incentive. When you do not know the facts they cannot indicate anything.

One of those who do not care about the truth? — Fooloso4

You are clearly doing this in bad faith. This one hit like a shitty Twitter response.

No. I am a victim of several sexual assaults, who has chosen not to press charges. So, kindly, keep your bullshit in your mind.

Are you just pretending to be clueless? The defense will do what they can to attempt to discredit the accuser. This often amounts to a psychological abuse and an assault on the victim's integrity. — Fooloso4

Yes. That is their entire job, and half the purpose of an adversarial justice system. If you have an issue with this, it might be worth having a look into the middle east and how their courts work.

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with me — Fooloso4

Its has everything to do with you. Your biases are writ large, and its clear your have a pre-determined view on the matter. It doesn't seem to matter to you that we have systems in place to adjudicate conflicting accounts of things. You are also intimating that a recording of a private conversation, in a context that has absolutely nothing to do with carrying out a sexual assault is evidence of one. You can't be serious can you?

two things seem likely: there are others who remain silent and at least a few of the allegations are true — Fooloso4

These are two things that seem likely to you. Once again, this is about you. Not the facts.

What facts? — Fooloso4

Fucking, exactly my dude. Exactly.

27 is more than several. "perhaps scorned" is weaseling and a sleazy suggestion. — Fooloso4

It is several. No it isn't. You are having a moment because I've suggested a completed reasonable, and previously known possibility for the persecution of socially controversial men. I didn't even suggest this did happen. I've suggested it does not strain credibility. It doesn't. Your protests aren't anything more than that.

When you do not know the facts they cannot indicate anything. — Fooloso4

Ok. So, why are you coming to all manner of absurd conclusions, foregoing democratic judicially processes and assuming everything but God to get to a position like the one you're in?

The specifics of the current political situation is something that Aristotle could know nothing about.

True, but this doesn’t entail that Aristotelianism has nothing to say about it.

Where is explicit consent? How can there be consent when he does not even wait?
…
Bullshit! His getting away with it and them consenting are two very different things.

I see what you are saying, but no one tends to get explicit consent to kiss a woman: that literally kills the vibe, and women attest this.

Are you suggesting that a man should always explicitly ask to kiss a woman before doing it? I don’t think most women even want that: what they want is for a man to read the situation properly.

Likewise, he said “they let you do it” and he didn’t say “I can do it anyways”.

To your point, the dude is unhinged and unvirtuous; but that tape doesn’t demonstrate he unconsensually kissed women; unless you think it has to be explicated beforehand…

Your good farmer is a hypothetical.

Whether or not a farmer is good at farming is relative to what the purpose of farming is; and this is not relative to anyone’s desires or beliefs about farming. I think you may be conflating conditionals with relativity.

Let’s take another example: a good chess player. There is such a thing as a good chess player, because there are rules to the game of chess; and whatever internal goods exist for chess, which are relative to the purpose of chess, are what is better to obtain in chess; and whatever habits and actions which are more apt to acquiring and preserving those goods in chess are best for chess playing. This is not hypothetical, it is relativistic.

If you think it is hypothetical, then please demonstrate why.

Lol. Nobody that doesn't belong to the church isn't forced to participate in the classes

Is it in public schools? That’s a no-no for me.

And btw have you noticed something in the symbolism of the flags of the Nordic countries?

Lol.

So sorry to upset you, but Christianity has been a fundamental part of what has been called Western culture

I never claimed to the contrary. PS: Christianity is also deeply entrenched in Aristotelianism.

That then is quite meaningless

I am not sure I followed, but my point is that people should have the right to bear arms.

Of course,

If you have a thread called "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism." sooner or later it becomes a Trump thread. There is already a Trump thread.

The loving father when he and she were younger :kiss:

I just don't agree with what you seem to think follows from definition/is axiomatically true. I don't get what an objective value could mean, how do you find these in the world?

There are no objective values: there are objective, moral facts.

A value is a worth assigned to something by an agent, and so is always (inter-)subjective; whereas a moral judgment can express something about what is actually good or bad, right or wrong, and so is objective.

As an Aristotelian, I would say that there are objective, internal goods to things when those things have a Telos. E.g., a good farmer, a bad chess player, a good watch, a bad human, etc.

I didn't steer the conversation towards Trump, and it is not necessary to do so to contend with the OP: I am merely entertaining all avenues of conversation that present itself to me.

I expounded the evidence that, as far as I could tell, were presented in court: did I leave anything out?

Is it in public schools? That’s a no-no for me. — Bob Ross

If over 90% of the people belonged to the same church, why not? Besides, nothing makes people less religious than you make the religion something close to the government. The clergy really doesn't have to compete in any way for the people. They can behave like government employees.

I am not sure I followed, but my point is that people should have the right to bear arms. — Bob Ross

Right to bear arms is in many countries. It really doesn't have to be in the constitution.

I didn't steer the conversation towards Trump, and it is not necessary to do so to contend with the OP: I am merely entertaining all avenues of conversation that present itself to me. — Bob Ross

Hey, nobody hasn't used the Hitler card yet. Or have they???

That proponent of a mixture of nationalism and socialism has to appear sometime.