Marlowe89 wrote:That's not how it works. You can't say "Oh he did some homages in the past for the manga so that demonstrates the artist's lack of creativity" (it doesn't, by the way) only to turn around and claim that the act of him tracing, a totally unrelated and altogether different action, outlines the same viewpoint.
But I am not trying to convince you, nor anyone, that he is not creative. That is a completely different debate that I am not entering.
The debate here is that you are saying that, and I copy from my previous mesage "if a person that I consider X does something par for the course of an X person and I consider that as a something that underlines my previous opinion, I am being unreasonable". And that is simply a preposterous lie.
Ah, and two different actions can prove the same point. Going by the same analogy I used before, a person that kicks and punches can be labelled violent, and would be absurd to say "you are saying that punching and kicking, a totally unrelated and altogether different action, outlines the same viewpoint".
Marlowe89 wrote:Moreover, one misguided act that lacks creativity doesn't support the viewpoint that the agent lacks creativity as an artist in general. That's asinine, commits several logical fallacies, and reeks of you desperately trying to search for points to support a preconceived notion you had to begin with, which is disingenuous as well as intellectually dishonest.
A lot of verbal diarrhoea to say absolutely nothing, and completely irrelevant too.
I am not saying that the tracing supports my viewpoint, because I have not tried for a single second to support that viewpoint to begin with. As I said, that is a completely different debate.
Marlowe89 wrote:Your analogy on violence actively harms your point instead of supporting it. It would be like suggesting that you're predisposed to violence because you committed a violent action at one point.
No... That analogy would be applicable here if I said "Toyotaro has traced, so he is prone to do so again", which is, then again, something that you came up right now and misses my point, your original point and the source of this discussion.
Marlowe89 wrote:Of course you can't, because then you'd actually have an argument. It's relevant because it's the only thing that could possibly establish a connection of any kind between this instance and the past transgressions of an artist. This isn't complicated.
Aaaaaaaand then again, this has nothing to do with the debate. The reasons I have or not to think that Toyotaro is not creative are not relevant, and I haven't brought any of them to the table. I could think that Toyotaro is not creative because his name starts with a T. That, as stupid as it is, would still be not relevant to this debate.
I repeat, your original position was "if a person that I consider X does something par for the course of an X person and I consider that as a something that underlines my previous opinion, I am being unreasonable". That is false. It has nothing to do with Toyotaro's creativity or lack of it, it is simply a logical mistake.
And that is my only problem, not what you think or I think about Toyotaro's work, that is a debate that could be very interesting and I would like to partake in when his work is finished and if I had time. My problem is that you came here and labelled people as unreasonable for being perfectly reasonable.