So? That still doesn't change the fact that the cover sucks, and that anybody is justified in voicing an opinion about it.
Again, you're sidestepping away from the point: your right to voice your opinion is not at issue here. Whether the "comics fandom" can define porn in a different manner than the rest of the world and expect it to stick, is.
Let me put it another way: who are you trying to convince, when you write a post like this? Your comics fandom that already agrees with your definition of "porn"?
Or someone like me?
A Maxim cover generally features a female clad in a bikini or otherwise scanty clothing. The characters in my picture are in scanty clothing. Calling one porn should naturally imply that the other similar picture is also porn, no? And for the record: do you consider either to actually be porn? Why/why not?
"You sound just like Bill O'Reilly!" is not an argument.
No, it's a comparison. And O'Reilly, though I loathe his guts, is far from a lone crackpot, when you consider the other personalities on Fox News with similar viewpoints and tactics, as well as the "Fox News fandom" that keeps his show's ratings depressingly high.
I make the comparison repeatedly because it is apt, though some may be loath to admit it. The only things that separate the two groups are the differing political viewpoints which each party believes to be absolute truth. Tactics appear alarmingly similar.
It's not any different from the way that most people (excluding you, apparently) are using the word "porn" already, anyway.
You don't say "comics fandom" here, though you made a point of distinguishing between that and the general public (what *I* consider "most people") a few posts back.
no subject
Again, you're sidestepping away from the point: your right to voice your opinion is not at issue here. Whether the "comics fandom" can define porn in a different manner than the rest of the world and expect it to stick, is.
Let me put it another way: who are you trying to convince, when you write a post like this? Your comics fandom that already agrees with your definition of "porn"?
Or someone like me?
A Maxim cover generally features a female clad in a bikini or otherwise scanty clothing. The characters in my picture are in scanty clothing. Calling one porn should naturally imply that the other similar picture is also porn, no? And for the record: do you consider either to actually be porn? Why/why not?
"You sound just like Bill O'Reilly!" is not an argument.
No, it's a comparison. And O'Reilly, though I loathe his guts, is far from a lone crackpot, when you consider the other personalities on Fox News with similar viewpoints and tactics, as well as the "Fox News fandom" that keeps his show's ratings depressingly high.
I make the comparison repeatedly because it is apt, though some may be loath to admit it. The only things that separate the two groups are the differing political viewpoints which each party believes to be absolute truth. Tactics appear alarmingly similar.
It's not any different from the way that most people (excluding you, apparently) are using the word "porn" already, anyway.
You don't say "comics fandom" here, though you made a point of distinguishing between that and the general public (what *I* consider "most people") a few posts back.
Which did you mean?