The primary legitimate way to convince another person is to point to reality -- the simplest way to do so is to point to something observable. If I want to convince you that eggs break when dropped, I drop a bunch of eggs in front of you.

What you call reality is actually a collection of statements that you believe to be true. You just have a very high confidence that they are true. You can point to something but you also have to make an argument which assumes these statements. If I already believe them, then you can successfully build on that. If I don't, then you have to convince me of X, and the only legitimate way to do that is to show that I would have a double standard if I don't believe X when I already believe Y for much less convincing reasons.

I can't really make sense of this statement, but it seems you're implying that all of our knowledge is untrustworthy. I definitely dispute this -- we have to have some certain knowledge or we don't have any knowledge at all. Put it this way -- do you know that "knowledge is another word for bias"? Are you certain? How?

The statement is defining the word "knowledge". And you can't get me to play the game of "are you certain?" Do you know that "knowledge is another word for bias?" What I said is what I believe. You see you used the word "know" but I already told you how I define that word. You can convince me to change my beliefs, but the only ways you'd do that is by exposing a double standard, as above.

I believe that my position is consistent and the one that most successfully models reality, with the least ad-hoc adjustments.

Rand's view is that morality is objective, which she distinguishes from intrinsic.

But you would have to define the word "objective", probably as "independent of whatever any group of people, no matter how large, thinks". But then you can never prove that an objective morality exists, because you'd just be appealing to what groups of people think, as your premise. Some people, such as moral relativists, simply wouldn't agree.

(There are many more logical philosophical problems with Rand's argument, see this: http://www.owl232.net/rand5.htm )

But does the conscious observer then exist? Do they have to exist relative to another conscious observer? Existence has to be absolute or you end up in such paradoxes. Otherwise, I agree that asserting the existence of parallel universes is arbitrary.

The word "exist" is only relative to a conscious observer. So, as far as the conscious observer is concerned, of course they exist. The light from a distant star exists. The star may no longer exist, but it exists in the past because the observer infers that it had to generate the light. If they are wrong, then the star might never have existed, actually.

It's actually not self contradictory. Observers observe things. Obviously.

Let me make crystal clear what I am saying, using another language: mathematics.

I am saying "A exists" is meaningless. "A exists for B" is a binary relation, and its meaning is "B can observe A" or "B can deduce the existence of A from something that exists for B".

I am saying that "A should do B" is meaningless. Instead, moral statements are ternary relations: "If A wants C, A should do B", which recursively means P: "If A doesn't do B, and C doesn't happen, then A can be blamed", which recursively means "If D wants to be considered rational, B shouldn't blame A if A did B and C didn't happen" etc.

What you are saying when you say "You should do your homework" actually has a hidden premise, "... if you want to do well in school". This relative morality makes reasoning easier without ad-hoc rules. Like, you may want to escape a volcano, and thus you might violate some other "absolute principle" such as failing to respond to a question in a debate, in order to run for your life.

Relativism just makes more sense to me and people like me. As I said at the outset, if you are careful to include all your premises, all these "magical" things become pretty straightforward.