/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6850467
>tries to argue by ad hominem
So, do you admit that your obvious emotional reaction to an opinion/statement some random anon on the internet, hit so close to home that you feel the need to try and discredit the statement by attacking the one who speaks rather than elaborate with sound logic and profound observations?

Too many big words and to archaic concepts (who are totally not) for such a big boy like you?
>Just because you delude yourself into thinking politics, philosophy and other forms of ego masturbation
It's all you claiming that, hence why i can say that this post really made you butthurt.
>more purposeful than sex
Porn is child's game, even more when you're showing everything and being very direct in shoving titties unto the viewers face and doing everything to trigger a sexual stimuli.
You're forcing the average consume to like your product, because the average normie will not question or be aware of his stimuli, he will always and impulsively act on them like the animal he is.
It's kitsch, it's slop and nothing more than fast food but the general consumer wouldn't want to have it any other way because
>whatever makes me feel good NOW is GOOD
With your post, you rather admit, or show to anyone that has at least half a brain cell, that you do not understand art and visual imagery beyond the scope of being consumed for quick dopamine or masturbatory habits.

You're free to pyw, but it won't prove anything.