• supernight52@lemmy.world
    3·
    8 hours ago

    No idea. The guy who suggested you listen to it, seems to think it’s the best album ever, tho- considering he named himself after it.

      • supernight52@lemmy.world
        4·
        8 hours ago

        Lol I wouldn’t bother. Music lyrics rarely translate to real-world action or beliefs. So even if the music says something profound (it doesn’t) it’s just there to sound artistic, or go with the theme of the music. It’s extremely performative.

      • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
        2·
        8 hours ago

        Well, you were very interested in doing an ad homonim attack on my perception of art, and there are challenging sections in the album skullgrid. Have a listen and see what your perspective on art is like and let me know if you’re a deaf man that says “notes don’t matter”

        • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          7 hours ago

          If you need to refer to an album to make your argument, you don’t have an argument.

          And it’s not an ad hominem to notice you’re saying you can’t distinguish between art and slop, it’s a restatement of what you’ve said.

          • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
            2·
            7 hours ago

            If you need to refer to an album to make your argument, you don’t have an argument.

            If I need to defend myself with evidence against baseless ad homonim attacks, I don’t have an argument?

            to notice you’re saying you can’t distinguish between art and slop

            Again, without referring to real world things like intricate albums or shitty paintings made by humans that are overrated, we can’t discuss things like that, now can we?

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 hours ago

              To borrow from wikipedia:

              The most common form of this fallacy is “A” makes a claim of “fact”, to which “B” asserts that “A” has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence “B” concludes that “A” has their “fact” wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

              Questioning someone’s motivations for choosing an argument, their ability to form a sound argument based on their personal experience or the biases they display in an argument is not (generally) an ad hominem. Dismissing you because you have three hands, enjoy anime, support [political party], etc. would be an ad hominem (unless those were the topics being discussed, then maybe it’s not). Saying that your argument is based on a lack of familiarity with the topic being discussed is not. Were this a discussion about the comfort of various shoes, it would be very relevant to disclose that you yourself had lost your feet (heroically saving orphans from a crocodile-filled river).