Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Yeah, no you can't, and no it doesn't. There's ZERO way to prove it, too many opinions skewer THAT logic, period. You haven't made a single point yet
People having opinions doesn't invalidate objectivity. Besides, there's a huge difference between opinions that are informed, and ones that aren't.
Just because you refuse to listen, doesn't mean I wasn't saying anything.
Originally posted by -Pr-
People having opinions doesn't invalidate objectivity. Besides, there's a huge difference between opinions that are informed, and ones that aren't.Just because you refuse to listen, doesn't mean I wasn't saying anything.
You wasn't saying anything, There's dudes who think Howard the Duck is a classic. And they're right. Cuz it is to THEM. Movies are subjective, Art is subjective. Period. And Every Netflix show followed the rules of fiction, So OBJECTIVELY it is as good as any fiction that follows the rules of world building and sustained suspension of disbelief. Outside of that whether it's better than another fiction is SUBJECTIVE. I write. Have been published. Took writing in college as an elective while working on my counseling degree. Aced it. You can't run this track with me.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
So you dont have any unambiguous proof to rebut my point or support your claims?Good to know
Your scans didn't show anything, it became unstable because superman destroyed the anvil and stopped the process. Nothing more nothing less
Whether fictional writing is good or bad OBJECTIVELY is determined by story structure, world building, uninterrupted suspension of disbelief, etc. Whether a specific person or persons actually enjoyed the story is NOT an objective measurement of fiction. You ain't in my weight class intellectually, period. The fact I have to EXPLAIN this to you is ****ing retarded. Fiction falls into the realm of ART. Art by definition is subjective. Period. Per word definition, precedence, history and common ****ing sense.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Wait so if people can be right even though they have differing opinions....How can you say people are wrong for thinking Iron Fist is worse than Doom Patrol?
I said he was wrong about DP being objectively better. He said DPatrol was objectively better. I said that's wrong cuz liking or not liking a show isn't objective, period.
Originally posted by cdtm
Whether you like a comic is subjective.Whether something has a good layout, or good art, or tight plot, is more objective.
No one in their right minds would call The Ultimate Warrior's comic book series "Good". It ain't happening.
If anything, I COULD CLAIM MARVEL SHOWS ARE OBJECTIVELY BETTER. But I can't. Cuz even if a million people can name a better Marvel show than DPatrol and you're the only dessenting voice, it's still a million and one opinions, period.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
If anything, I COULD CLAIM MARVEL SHOWS ARE OBJECTIVELY BETTER. But I can't. Cuz even if a million people can name a better Marvel show than DPatrol and you're the only dessenting voice, it's still a million and one opinions, period.
Lmao.
Edit hang on:
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
The fact you dudes don't understand that opinions on a show are subjective and that options not being facts is an objective truth is ****ing ridiculous
Good art is NOT objective. There are people who LOVED Rob Liefelds art despite it being obviously anatomically ridiculous. It's not like it's not obvious. But it's are, art is subjective PERIOD and therefore some loved it enough that he's a millionaire.
I think Picasso paintings are overrated. Warhol smokes him. And I'm right. To me. Just like if you think Picasso is better you're right... For you. That's how opinion and subjectivity work. And that's the only measure of ANY art.