[fluoridation]

>Would you stand in front an astrophysicist PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can’t see dark matter and supersymmetry? Would you stand in front of an archaeology PhD and tell them their degree is worthless because you can obviously see that aliens created the pyramids?

No. Obviously I don't have the same respect for all fields.

>-This- is what an argument against Warhol looks like. Demonstrated knowledge of art history, methodology, and reasoning.

See, you're misunderstanding. You expressed an idea in the form of an argument that might convince someone educated the same way you are, of its truth. I simply made an appreciation and then explained how I got to it. It was never meant to be convincing, it was just meant to be out there. And all I got were a bunch of people who said I shouldn't say that, or I shouldn't look at it that way, yet could offer no reason why I shouldn't say that, or why I shouldn't do that. You're doing it, too; you're just telling me to read a book. I'm not going to read a book on art history. I don't have the inclination or time, and my appreciation of art doesn't work like that the way it does for you. I have nothing to gain from reading a book on art, and much to lose. You're the one who thinks I shouldn't be saying the things I'm saying, convince me I shouldn't.

WHY am I wrong in approaching the subject in this manner? Because so far the only problem I see is that it ruffles the feathers of people with art degrees. If that really is the only reason then I simply do not care.

[leocgcd]

>I simply made an appreciation and then explained how I got to it. It was never meant to be convincing, it was just meant to be out there… WHY am I wrong in approaching the subject in this manner?

You’re asking me to justify to you why one shouldn’t flap their mouth about things they don’t know anything about and then stand by their willful ignorance when confronted by domain experts? You want me to convince you that it’s not ok to just spout bullshit and insist that it’s a valid position to hold irrespective of knowledge, methods, accuracy, reasoning, logic, research, justification, experience, etc etc? Lmfao. You’re delusional.

[fluoridation]

You have an indefensible position, got it.

[romwell]

The point here is that nobody owes you a course in art history which would answer all of your why questions when many such courses are available.

You're not entitled to free education from us, particularly - against your will ("convince me"), when there are many resources out there available to you.

We can point out why your opinions are bad (they are grounded in too little knowledge of what you're opining on), we can point out where to get more knowledge.

If you want to learn, you will.

The saddest thing here is not even arrogance, but lack of curiosity.

[fluoridation]

So you want something out of me, but are not willing to explain why I should do it. Okay, then I'm not compelled to do it. I can simply tell you to piss off. I'm not entitled to receive an education from you and you're not entitled to have me not write stupid things.

[romwell]

>I can simply tell you to piss off. I'm not entitled to receive an education from you and you're not entitled to have me not write stupid things.

The difference is that I'm not asking you to not write stupid things, but you ask me to explain things to you.

>So you want something out of me

That would be projection. You want something out of other people (an explanation), whereas we want you to get something for yourself.

We get absolutely nothing if you learn more about the subject you opine on. You will.

>I can simply tell you to piss off.

You certainly can. You're not in the right forum for that though.

I did write an explanation up the thread - long enough to not fit into the limits of a single comment on HN (a hilarious limitation for 2024, but I digress).

Please read it.