Subjectivity of a subject

     The steryotypes bug me. When a person gets up to speak and is very narrow on their point of view to the point where it is almost steryotyping or supporting a common steryotpe. Like for instance in English today we watched a women talk about inequality within our own neighboorhoods and giving this idea of what a 'happy' neighborhood was. While some will say she set her definiton for a happy neighborhood, who is to say that a 'happy' neighborhood can still be happy without her definition, or that a 'happy' neighborhood means something to someone else? The defintion of the word to describe this is called Subjective from the Free Dictionary is existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).  Basically it means that different things can be different things to different people(we get this in debate alot!). I get you want to voice your opinion in words and things that are truely you. However, people in general don't know you, they dont know why you say the thngs you do or what those words mean to you. Here's my problem with it though: When you speak back your words up as with as much evidance as you possibly can, the more evidance you have(this is for speaking in general and debating) the more people are cnvinced to believe your defintion, idea, theory, or point, and the less subjective it becomes. Your speech becomes less subjective because the evidance proves your idea is commonly thought of, used and accepted, therefore making less generalization. 

So what's my point of this spill? Evidance, dont create or encourage steryotypes, and go through your speech and solve things that mean different things for different people because that WILL  make points fall.
Until next time, Kalea