Arigatomyna wrote:Stuff Stuff Stuff that will make this post even longer
Well I did address the "100% accuracy" numerous times, but you continued with the same thing over and over and thus I figured I'd redirect the topic to the beginning in hopes that you might see where it stemmed from. The point is still relevant since it all goes back to who has the true ability to reject something...you or the creator. This ties in 100% with accuracy and you being able to comprehend something fully...
If you did not create the work of art, you do not and cannot have the ability to 100% understand it. Since you cannot understand it fully, you can never truly 100% reject it. My redirection was based on the possibility that you misunderstood this concept of "ownership" and so on. I guess I'm incorrect in saying that, but since you and I were saying the same thing, it was easy of me to assume that perhaps something earlier had been misunderstood, thus my attempt to *try* and bridge this misunderstanding. If you're going to take all that as dodging the topic, so be it, but I have addressed this issue at least twice and thus figured it was something else.
If you'd like me to repeat it (again since I've already said it in this reply alone), a human being can never fully understand another human being (100%), how can a human being who doesn't understand another human, fully understand something that other human creates? Notice how I don't say "disagree" or "dislike" or anything of the sort. You seem to be stuck on this statement even though it doesn't exist. I never said you can't have tastes or choose to hate something, but I am saying you can never fully understand. That's impossible. Sure you can *try* to and probably be right ABC.XYZ% and perhaps even be close, but you can never be 100% sure. You can base your conclusions based on that percentage, but you will never fully be correct, but that's your perogative and obviously human beings wouldn't get very far if they tried to make judgements based on 100% understanding..it would rarely ever occur.
Hell I'll use your Hitler analogy (even disregarding my statements of general morality). Hitler massacred the jews and killed many people in a World War II. You disagree with this point of view and in fact abhor it. You have *some* understanding as to why it occurred (childhood, inferiority complex, etc.), but can you tell me that you 100% know *why* Hitler did all this? That you know every motivation and so on that lead to all his decisions in the "creation" of this? Of course not! Without him explicitly telling you (and you could extrapolate that he doesn't even know himself 100%), you can't. Now put that point of view with art and you realize, that's the beauty of art. Again, this does not at all disallow the ability of free thought and the choice to disagree/dislike. I still don't get where you're getting that other than reading into my words too much.
I might add that's not usually wise to attack the character of the person you're trying to degate. Especially when said person has made extra efforts to try and remedy the situation in a peaceful and logical manner. Perhaps I'm misreading things, but this is the third or fourth post that comes across as fairly negative and agressive. As I said, if you're attacking me dodging things, I've already replied multiple times.
Again, perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but better safe then sorry. And I don't mean for those statements to come across in the same fashion as I am criticizing I am just a bit confused since I'm trying to go about this in a fairly civil fashion and the reason for my original redirection was an attempt to remedy the situation, not make it worse. If you ultimately don't agree with my point of view, then I have no qualms with agreeing to disagree, but I am still trying to make clear my point of view since it keeps being skewed (at least I think so).
Hopefully this thread will end in a "ok" or something
