Sure, but.. Would you object similarly to my saying that strawberries objectively taste better than poo? Not just 'better to me', but 'really better'. (Of course all food-taste-experiences are tastes experienced by someone, somewhere - are 'subjective' in that way.)

How is there, for example, any such thing as a good/great chef, one being better than another, if it's all just 'subjective'?

It's proverbial that there's no arguing about taste (in the broader sense), but it's also a commonplace that nothing else is worth arguing about. There are better and worse reasons for things.

> Would you object similarly to my saying that strawberries objectively taste better than poo?

Yes.

> How is there, for example, any such thing as a good/great chef, one being better than another, if it's all just 'subjective'?

“good” and “great” are invariably either relative to some specific purpose or subjective.

> It's proverbial that there's no arguing about taste (in the broader sense), but it's also a commonplace that nothing else is worth arguing about.

I disagree with the second half. It's sometimes worth arguing to the point of determining that the source of disagreement is a fundamental difference in taste (or, say, root moral principles, which aren't really that different from a logical point of view.) But once you've reached that point, there is no further use in arguing.

Ok :-) Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Hah, good catch ;) I'll offer "just tastier" as a logically consistent, and transparently opinionated replacement.