Callan S. Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I was not even really aware of her before this thread. However, anyone who's been on this board for a while will know that I have always and in every case argued 1) that art and artist should be separated, and 2) that depiction does not necessarily mean endorsement. Where you get this notion that I am using this argument solely for her benefit, and counter to any previously stated position of mine is a mystery to me. Because in practical terms you are defending just for her benefit. Alot of people she picked on needed defending - but the only defending you've ended up doing is in regards to this matter is for her. Might not be your intention to do this, but that's the upshot. Doesn't that seem out of balance, to you? A strange triage? If you believe that we should judge her by the same standards she judged others, while simultaneously condemning her methods, well that's your business. But it's also the very definition of hypocrisy. You appear to not doubt your conclusion on this. Is that a real 'if' at the start, or just for show? Here's something I like to do as a checksum - I claim the sky is blue. Do you agree with me? You can make a basic claim as well for me to reciprocally agree with in turn. It's something I like to do to see if the other person could agree with anything their interlocutor claims. It's not a rhetorical question. The smallness of the claim is an indicator when the other person can't agree with such a small claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.