"The fact that he took a suicide helmet beyond a literary invention and into the real world is unsettling. It's an inability to distinguish what is wholesome fr

"The fact that he took a suicide helmet beyond a literary invention and into the real world is unsettling. It's an inability to distinguish what is wholesome from what is depraved. At the root is the artist's failure of imagination; an inability to imagine how completely revolting such a thing of fiction would be if it were real. The man spend likely hundreds of hours of thinking on it, ruminating on it, like suckling on a candy, and then, rather than being turned away, giving it shape, willing it into the world with the same zeal. That is why people find this skeevy." I don't think you or anyone else gets to claim to know that. I find this comment, and people who can't examine and consider a thing in abstract, can't seperate their unthinking emotion from their reason, more alarming and skeevy than the original article. If you think I don't have the right to say you are only revolted because you lack the capacity to understand a form of rumination and are an unthinking emotional reactor, you would be correct, I don't have the right to claim to know that, and you would be a hypocrite.