Subjectivist Fallacy

Let's start with one of my favorites, the Subjectivist Fallacy. Trouble with it is, it's not a normal fallacy at all because its problem is arguably one of philosophy instead of logic. However, I maintain that a philosophy that openly, intentionally ignores essential rules of logic (not to mention language) is in fact using a logical fallacy. Or it's a dimwitted rhetorical trick. But for now, I'll put it here.

Subjectivist Fallacy
Other name(s): Relativist Fallacy
Type: Informal
Category: Presumption

Definition
Claiming something is subjective (true for someone, but not for someone else) when empirical evidence demonstrates that it is objective (true for everyone).

Usual Form

Person 1 states objective fact X (supportable by empirical evidence).

Person 2 claims that X is true for some people, but not for everyone.

Explanation

Objective claims are either true or false for everyone: Earth is either flat or it is spherical, but whichever is true is true for everyone; it is not flat for some and round for others.

Subjective claims may be true or not true depending on the situation or observer: "Pizza is delicious" may be widely accepted as true, but may not necessarily hold true for every person, or for every pizza.

Lack of possession of final proof does not change an objective claim to a subjective one: One may not know how many were injured in a particular train crash, but however many there were will not change from one person to the next, either by faulty observation or fervent wishing.

Most of the time, I encounter this fallacy when obvious truths are dismissed as "just your opinion," or, when the relativist wishes to appear more high-minded, as a matter of "perspective." No, a thing is a thing from any angle you choose to view it.

Examples

Bill: Your argument is full of contradictions.

Ted: Contradictions only apply to the carnal mind, not the spiritual one.

Ted has abandoned logic and reason in order to support his position, which may mean that other fallacies are along for the ride, a not uncommon situation. (From an example found at logicallyfallacious.com)

A version of that which I have, astoundingly, actually seen and more than once, runs something like this:

Aaron: "Your position results in a contradiction, so it does not work."
Erin: "Logic and reason are oppressive, Eurocentric, and patriarchal, but I am above all that. Therefore my position is just fine."

"I believe that 2+2 sometimes does equal 5. It depends on how you feel about addition."

Note
Though I have never found any discussion of an Objectivist Fallacy, it would make sense that such an inverse would exist. In fact, it's not too uncommon in actual conversation. Such a fallacy would have as its definition a claim that something is objective truth when it is in fact subjectively true.

Examples:
"Shark Boy and Lava Girl is the greatest movie ever!"
"Driving on freeways is very dangerous."
"Tofu should be an important part of your diet."