>>283538390
>artstyles are hardcoded into genetics
False argument. Artstyles are not, behavior is.
>behavior is 100% predetermined
You mean determined, not "predetermined" dumbfuck. The only predetermined behavior that genes code are reflexes, but since you think genes aren't real, maybe you deny the existence of reflexes and think they must be influenced by the environment.
>not at all shaped by upbringing
upbringing is shaped by behavior, which is shaped by genes, so you cannot even argue cultural or environmental influences because even environment is influenced by genes. This point is something you have a problem accepting.
>confirmation bias
No its call pattern recognition, the same one that caused mass amount of Westerners to segregate Japanese animation and Japanese RPG from Western ones because of how different they became.
>You're also ignoring the countless number of not-JP artists with soft and cute artstyles.
Because we are talking about anime, and how its a term made possibly by the collective efforts of Japanese people, not from one individual
>"impressionist" has no meaning since anyone can paint in that style
What a retarded way to avoid the discussion that anime is "not a style" by mentioning a style of art.
>Btw you forgot to post the anime gene sequence
Typical gene denier argument. They ask you for the "sequence". If they knew how genes worked, they would realize how dumb they sound.