4 ms·
You said there's never any reason for art. That's not just abusive, it's wrong. Without a reason, it's not art. And the reason here is weak. It's "because we co
by Grakel 5y ago
You said there's never any reason for art. That's not just abusive, it's wrong. Without a reason, it's not art. And the reason here is weak. It's "because we could." That's what makes this objectively bad.
- chrisseaton 5y agoYou’re confusing reason as in technical requirement with reason as in why they chose to do something. They can choose to do something without it being a requirement. And you’re changing your comments after they’ve been replied to - please don’t do that.
- Grakel 5y agoI'm not confused at all. You're constructing a very unusual meaning of "reason" in your first reply in order to...? I was editing while you replied, I had not read your reply when I hit submit.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]