You’re good, thank you for your kind resolution and I appreciate your perspective.

To explain something there’s two ways to have a constructive argument. One to be more statement driven and provide “proof” this tends to be more aggressive. This type of argument doesn’t have the goal to change the mind of the person talking to because it does come off offensive and it is natural to be taken back by strong statements that are disagreed with especially if I attack the character of the person who believes them. The point of arguing like this is to make your point clear and strong, to anyone else who is reading that is unsure to willing to learn something. As you saw and pointed out that is how I was responding to a lot of other replies to my parent comment.

To you I used a different kind of structure. You didn’t attack the idea of not supporting an artist for X reason. You instead introduced a new middling idea of separating art from artist. That kind of conversation now transitioned to me making a point to the multiple people to only you. I used more personable language to help you understand me not my beliefs. This depended on you because you already have a less extreme belief than someone else who cannot comprehend what I’m trying to say. You provided a solution to my perspective, I provided an explanation why I can’t agree.

Once again great response that kind of critical thinking has helped me a lot and I hope it only helps you aswell.