Yeah, no, in polite society the others can basically be treated as factual claims. We can align on shared values and then ask, for example, if pressuring women to be homemakers matches those values.
I think your sentence is accurate if you replace the word "factual" with "accepted". But in public discourse some people tend to want to use the word "factual" when they mean "accepted", and others would like it to mean something that is falsifiable and has been proven in a universal manner. Thus this argument is reduced to semantics.
Society does not dictate the truth; the truth should dictate society. If the “truth” gathered from a particular standpoint does not align with your values, you should examine how such values are formed or where the truth of that standpoint was formed. Only then will you begin to form any concept of the “truth” which is in itself a fascinating and multi-dimensional entity who can dissolve your ego and your convictions.
Surely truth (or lack of truth) is an attribute of factual claims? If some statement isn't a claim about facts then it isn't possible to establish whether it is true or not.
Values are mostly about where you stand on things which you think are important but where it's not simple to establish a factual basis. This is (for example) why we don't have religious sectarianism about whether (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) forall a,b,c in C, but we sure as heck do about a bunch of stuff which you can't establish factually one way or another.
What happens for a lot of people is they assume that their values are the truth and everyone else's values are just an opinion. Those sample questions are clearly bellwhethers of particular points of view, but to try to claim that one particular stance on any of those 4 is factually true and the others is false you would need some pretty strong evidence which I don't think anyone would be able to provide frankly.
What does "truth" even mean here? All of these things are about society, culture and the human experience. There's no universal truth to be found there.
The best I can do is apply the categorical imperative influenced by my cultural context, upbringing and personal experiences.
The problem I have here with your statement, is you have no idea what your definition even entails energy/entropy wise. Just defining the axioms here will take much more time and energy than we have until the sun blows up.
Then the combinatorial explosions of ought conditions to step your simulation forward means you'll need Grahams number of time/entropy.
