>>122406656>What would you do in X situation
Putting aside that this is an obvious emotional appeal meant to make me look bad for not saving a kid:
1) Intution does not always make the best moral decisions.
2) Even if I did make the most optimal decision, people would STILL disagree with me.
There are people that would save a famous picture from burning instead of a grandma, because that famous picture has artistic value to future generations and the grandma has already lived out the majority of her life. Are they wrong? That's the entire point of moral conundrums in the first place.
Regardless, my main point with that post was that I think artists aren't nearly as open-minded as they believe they are. I think it's to do with the insulated culture, honestly, the same way a person in the military starts thinking of machines designed to mow down enemy combatants as awesome instead of sobering.>>122406787>Cool. And I thought you conservatives were all about the "truth".
I told you that I wasn't going to accept an ad hominem as proper argument, and your response is acting butthurt. Great sleight of hand. Ted Kazynksi is not proof that math drives people insane.>Statistically, anti-abortion laws don't have a big influence on the number of terminated pregnancies.
See? That's a fucking argument, with actual points to address, instead of an emotional appeal made to make me feel bad about myself. Newsflash, you're not hurting my feelings by telling me I'm a bad person. If that is true, then I agree that it may not be meaningful to have anti-abortion laws. But I also reserve the right to say that criminals will not respect restriction on firearms, either. That's the point of a discussion. To discuss facts.
When artists stop discussing art and just assume that everyone has the same opinions as them, that they have to meet specific quotas or they have to push specific messages in their writing, it leads to stupid, hollow cliches and bad writing where everything blurs.