I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
Maybe this is age, but I really couldn’t care about most people’s opinions on subjective topics. Theyre subjective.
Oh, you hate the Top 1000 musicians? Yeah, understandable have a nice day.
Oh, you think AI music is incredible? Yeah, understandable have a nice day.
The only time I waste my energy on arguments is when it involves requiring me to actually do something with the music.
Its not about other peoples opinions. Its about me looking at the way that I come to form my own opinions and wondering am i actually forming my opinion based on real logic.
Based on the explanations in this thread Im going to say that no I wasnt. Even though it seems to be fine to draw a line I had no reasoning for why I was actually drawing the line.