>>101398448I didn't write that post. But let's say that I did, because I want to highlight what you're doing here.
Let's say this was an argument about justice. Justice, when you get down to it, is a similarly nebulous concept, so many of the same arguments could be made. Let's say this argument was about the murder of Eric Garner. Remember him, from a while back? Let's say that one of us was trying to argue his death was "just," and the other was trying to argue his death was "unjust."
If one of us was arguing it was unjustified, we could mention facts such as "the chokehold is illegal in NYC," or "he did nothing to merit such an aggressive response" and whatnot. If one of us was arguing it was justified, we could argue "he was still resisting arrest, tho" or "cops put their lives on the line and can never know what a person is going to do next."
Some of these arguments might be good, and some might be bad. The bad ones could always be countered with better arguments. But you know what bad argument COULDN'T be countered? Saying that "what happened wasn't just/unjust because justice doesn't even exist." This would effectively be unbeatable, because it really IS impossible to define justice, but it would also be dishonest and cowardly.
That's what you're doing. That's what you all do. You claim your own literal shitstains on canvases are art, and that your own art rivals the genius of the Mona Lisa, and then turn any discussion on whether what you claimed was true or not into an unverifiable discussion on the nature of reality. A literal bottomless pit. So fuck you. I'm done.