Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

This is an analytical response I can agree with, and I could express myself, but the article is self-evidently non-analytical nor it pretends to be, or so I gather so far. It's like arguing technical proportions on an abstract canvas / nonrepresentational art. It is someone's opinion.

We agree an in-depth discussion on an abstract (loaded) quality may adequately begin by defining it: originality, creativity, beauty, goodness... It is not the case.

I will use though a utilitarian perspective, to which Stuart Mill would agree (mentioned in Rakuen Growlithe's signature): what furry fandom accomplishes exceedingly, is at making people happy.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.