Viewing last 25 versions of comment by BigOnionbean on image #2273776

"[@FlutterButterButt":](/images/2273776#comment_8807201
)  
Well here is the thing, the first thing wrong is that you are proclaiming it is a car even though there is no solid shape for it to be defined by. Secondly, to place it into a shape or format that you are claiming as such is to believe what you think of it. Not that it is the "right" or correct interpretation of it. That is not to say that I know what it is meant to be either. But such is why it is open for criticism, despite what you or the author may say.


 
It would be like you saying that Star Wars TROS is a masterpiece of a movie and that it was meant to be that "kind" of movie, even if it is a objectively problematic, flawed, and overall terrible film to install into a pre established franchise/universe with rules and other details that cannot be simply overwritten.


 
Also just because you proclaim that it is meant for a targeted audience is still to ignore the possibility of those not deemed that "targeted audience" coming upon it with opinions and thoughts of their own of it. That doesn't make their opinions any less valid nor superior to anyone else's when looking at the piece.


 
So why do you then have the superior opinion to declare what the content is and what it really means? A polished turd to you could be a masterpiece of beauty and appearance and that is all that matters. Even though in the end it is still objectively a turd at its center.

"@FlutterButterButt":/images/2273776#comment_8807201
Well here is the thing, the first thing wrong is that you are proclaiming it is a car even though there is no solid shape for it to be defined by. Secondly, to place it into a shape or format that you are claiming as such is to believe what you think of it. Not that it is the "right" or correct interpretation of it. That is not to say that I know what it is meant to be either. But such is why it is open for criticism, despite what you or the author may say.

It would be like you saying that Star Wars TROS is a masterpiece of a movie and that it was meant to be that "kind" of movie, even if it is a problematic, flawed, and overall terrible film to install into a pre established franchise/universe with rules and other details that cannot be simply overwritten.

Also just because you proclaim that it is meant for a targeted audience is still to ignore the possibility of those not deemed that "targeted audience" coming upon it with opinions and thoughts of their own of it. That doesn't make their opinions any less valid nor superior to anyone else's when looking at the piece.

So why do you then have the superior opinion to declare what the content is and what it really means? A polished turd to you could be a masterpiece of beauty and appearance and that is all that matters. Even though in the end it is still objectively a turd at its center.

"@FlutterButterButt":/images/2273776#comment_8807201
Well here is the thing, the first thing wrong is that you are proclaiming it is a car even though there is no solid shape for it to be defined by. Secondly, to place it into a shape or format that you are claiming as such is to believe what you think of it. Not that it is the "right" or correct interpretation of it. SThat is not to say that I know what it is meant to be either. But such is why it is open for criticism, despite what you or the author may say.

It would be like you saying that Star Wars TROS is a masterpiece of a movie and that it was meant to be that "kind" of movie, even if it is a problematic, flawed, and overall terrible film to install into a pre established franchise with rules and other details that cannot be simply overwritten.

So why do you then have the superior opinion to declare what the content is and what it really means? A polished turd to you could be a masterpiece of beauty and appearance and that is all that matters. Even though in the end it is still objectively a turd at its center.