transcript of an argument

my roommate sharon and i have had a three part argument that has spanned the last week and a half.  it's an argument, and so i disagree with her.  however, i will try my best to represent her side of the argument without snide or disparaging remarks thrown in.  sharon wanted me to post something about this.  comments welcome.  

the argument started one night after a game of Mexican Train when I called something "lame."  Sharon said, "i don't think you can call something inherently lame.  everything is subjective and something will be awesome to one person while it might seem lame to you."  I said, "no that's not true, some things are generally agreed upon as being lame.  what's your definition of lame, sharon"  sharon did not have a definition of 'lame.'

it continued the next day at sharon's office when i came by to turn in some receipts at the church.  the topic turned to Celtic Woman, the pbs show (hence the post a couple days ago about Celtic Thunder).  I said that this show and love of this show was lame.  Just like wearing tweety bird shirts is lame.  

Sharon said that children and mentally handicapped people love lame stuff unashamedly and that I cannot possibly call them lame.  

I said that children and the mentally handicapped are the exception and that most people should be aware of the larger reality of whatever they love.  It's fine to love Celtic Woman but be aware that it is not held in high esteem by the rest of society.  You should be aware of the arguments for and against whatever you appreciate and be able to stand by your decision to enjoy (fill in the blank).  

sharon brought up the practical implication of my argument.  are we really going to go around to people and make them aware of what society thinks of their hobbies or music tastes?

I said no but we should try to make people aware of reality with truth and love and if they think that everyone in the world really likes tweety bird shirts then maybe we should let them know differently.  

later on that night tony and dean came over and we brought up the argument again.  I don't remember how it came about, but the argument came to whether we should appreciate good art more than bad art.

Sharon brought up the example of one's child coming with a badly-made finger painting and how the parent appreciates and loves this "art" more than a Jackson Pollock painting.

Tony or Dean or I said that there needs to be a difference between emotional appreciation and aesthetic appreciation.  

Sharon said that there isn't, really.  

thoughts?