These are two different meanings of the word “right”. Yours is “correct fact about objective physical reality”. Hers is “right for someone” meaning “appropriate [for someone]” meaning “serving well a certain purpose for that someone: e.g. making them happy”.
Alternately, it implies a very muddy set of beliefs about the underlying nature of objective causality. Potentially, a belief that the universe is actually different for different people, or just some incoherent mess of sloppy reasoning and rationalization that doesn’t compress down into a nice compact philosophy like reductionism.
It’s easy to forget, when trying to understand the opposing side of an argument, that the bulk of humanity does not hold their ideas to the same (admittedly not very strenuous) standards that self-professed rationalists do.
Alternately, it implies a very muddy set of beliefs about the underlying nature of objective causality. Potentially, a belief that the universe is actually different for different people, or just some incoherent mess of sloppy reasoning and rationalization that doesn’t compress down into a nice compact philosophy like reductionism.
It’s easy to forget, when trying to understand the opposing side of an argument, that the bulk of humanity does not hold their ideas to the same (admittedly not very strenuous) standards that self-professed rationalists do.