OK. Watch this:Yes, you should take a lesson from me on civility.
"Haha." (see below )
You keep racking up logical fallacies. This one's called Burden of Proof.That's not begging the question really, and that's not what happened.
Now, be civil.Haha.
I made my point as civilly as I could. Laughing as a response? Not so civil.
Do you actually know what a straw man is? I'd say you had a better shot at making your case using Composition (Playboy and The Library), or Red Herring (the Drano thingie)... But you appear to just clutch at the first straw, instead.The reality of the situation was more like you using a straw man.
I'd say the analogy stands, since your claim that one must read a story in order to be qualified to say anything about it is wrapped up in your claiming that I have to have firsthand experience of something in order to make up my mind to avoid it. Simply reading the Drano label should tell an average person not to eat the stuff. Likewise, simply glancing at the classifying tags or keywords for a story should be enough to let me make up my mind that it falls in a category of writing which has no appeal (artistic or otherwise) for me.You can see this with the last analogy of the video games, where you then simplified it and made it drano.
Pedantic belaboring of the "you must first experience art for yourself in order to earn the right to critique it" is an attempt to establish your writing de facto as "art."
By the way, here's another logical fallacy for you: False Dilemma, i.e., If you don't experience my writing, which I claim is "art," you're not qualified to say anything about it... Therefore my writing must be "art."