While I agree with you on some of the above, I disagree with your choice to insult both the artist (“insufferable”) and the art (“moronic.”) It really weakens your point when you throw ad hominems into your argument. Your valid criticisms become clouded by an apparent bias, leading people to take your point less seriously.
I didn’t insult the artist, I made an educated guess about details of the interaction based on the clearly-deliberately-omitted information.
I also didn’t insult the art, I insulted the decision made in creating it, as it objectively (and I went into detail as to how) does the literal opposite of what it’s intended to do, for no other reason than a lack of thinking things through even slightly.
While I agree with you on some of the above, I disagree with your choice to insult both the artist (“insufferable”) and the art (“moronic.”) It really weakens your point when you throw ad hominems into your argument. Your valid criticisms become clouded by an apparent bias, leading people to take your point less seriously.
I didn’t insult the artist, I made an educated guess about details of the interaction based on the clearly-deliberately-omitted information.
I also didn’t insult the art, I insulted the decision made in creating it, as it objectively (and I went into detail as to how) does the literal opposite of what it’s intended to do, for no other reason than a lack of thinking things through even slightly.