jjgp1112 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 12:21 am
Look man, at the end of the day you just have to explain your position well and hope the other person is close enough to your logical wavelength to see where you're coming from and reassess their own opinions. While I do have my own personal standards and do think a certain way about certain properties and the people who like them (and more importantly, their reasons for liking them), at the end of the day I can't jump into a motherfuckers brain and force them to look for the same thing in art I do. I can tolerate the shitty CGI in a 1990s flick but other people can't and if they can break down why, hey.
I try to argue against logic, not opinions, but I probably fail more than I succeed at that. Most of us probably do, and that's why we're not lawyers
And I'm also pretty certain you're Sadala Elite considering he's banned and all.
IN FACT, this isn't even the first time you've come back from a ban to repeat an argument, Peter!
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=45542&p=1677057&hi ... e#p1677057
Shit, Logan, you've had this same argument with him on his alt before
LoganForkHands73 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:48 am
UI Peter wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:32 pm
Also, your opinions above about Naruto (what is so thematically inconsistent about it?), One Piece (who is the story "bloated"?) and Attack on Titan (what does it fail to attempt?) is easily objectively false (and if you could make a full essay about your views then why haven't you?) and are all objectively better than most of DB.
Most modern Shonen is better than Super, and DB on the whole isn't as self-aware nor as deconstructive as you make it sound. It's a mainly straight forward early shonen series that Toriyama himself said has no message nor major themes.
How are any of those "objectively" better than DB? By what metrics?
Ah, my memory is too good. I distinctly remember when this happened before.
Holy shit, good catch guys. I knew I'd definitely had this exact argument before, probably several times.
I'm stuck in a damn time-loop.
- Writing quality and picture itself is directly observable and in fact can be directly measured. There's even AI created now just for that. And you just contradicted yourself, if no opinions are objectively factual then no opinions have any more weight and value than any other.
From what precious little I know about AI technology (I'll have to phone a friend on that), there aren't many out there that can write coherent fiction, let alone "objectively good" stuff, so that doesn't prove anything. All they tend to do is imitate patterns.
Opinions that have reasoning and arguments behind them tend to be given more attention than ones that don't.
- Its been proven by science as well as common sense that at least 50% of the things and traits people find beautiful or attractive is universal among all cultures and history. a lot of the traits and features people falsely call "Western" beauty standards were already seen as desirable by literally every major culture, civilization and even religions for over thousands of years. And a lot of things seen in other cultures that people falsely use to prove that beauty is just a subjective social construct were never actually seen nor intended to be beautiful by those cultures to begin with. Its mainly insecure ugly people who the deny the reality of objective beauty.
Okay, this is getting into some questionable "where da white women at" territory. When Western beauty standards started getting forced onto other cultures through trade and colonialism, there was an exchange on both sides as cultures took a liking to the exoticism of the other (I mean there's
plenty of shit that the Anglosphere has nicked from other cultures), but that doesn't prove that Western beauty standards are automatically superior.
Superficial beauty isn't even the only litmus test for what makes "good art". Some of Goya's work is meant to be as ugly and disturbing as possible, that doesn't make it any worse than anything by Singer Sargent.
- "In my experience, the exact opposite is true. People who try to peddle their subjective opinions as objective facts tend to be the ones who are incredibly insecure about the validity of their views, so need to find "objective" reinforcement to their beliefs."
You are projecting. Relativism and the belief that there's no objective facts is nothing more than an excuse to believe in any comforting feel-good nonsense they want without any regard for proof or logic. After all, there's no need to eventually face reality if there's no reality to face. It takes real inner strength and maturity to put ones personal biases and desires to the side and see things truthfully even if its negative.
And just because people disagree with something doesn't mean its false, group consensus doesn't equal fact. If the entire world agreed that 2+2=5 it would still be wrong. Also, you can subjectively like or dislike something while also acknowledging that its objectively good or bad.
This is exactly what I'm arguing against, so I guess we don't disagree on everything after all? At the end of the day, all you're basing your objective quality standards on is group-approved consensus.