First, I replied to Ben, not his readers. Second, and I reiterate, you entered at the end of a discussion that lasted several years and all arguments were already laid out in full. And third, you obviously got the overall gist of what I wanted to say. If it does not make sense to you in the context of the original article, I suggest you make yourself more acquainted with Ben's overall position of objective aesthetics in the light of his assumption that life is a cosmic error or an unnatural occurrence. Though to be honest, Ben twisted his words so many times in so many ways I'm not even sure if that's really his position – what I know for sure, however, is that he is a person pissed off at life as such, someone who tries their best to objectify this anger and contempt as a natural and universal modus vivendi. And that's something I take some issue with, particularly if it's presented in an authoritative way in a public space offering justifications for random passersby.