But comics are made by people, and people are always going want to do
the different thing, the new thing, the more complex thing.

Compare the original KING KONG and the JACK BLACK (apologies, cannot remember the directors name) version that just came out, which is "better"? Did the new one "change" the main character? Did it damage it? Did it draw a new audience and still entertain the old admirers? And this was created by a self proclaimed "fan" of the old movie.

I don't think it alienated the older audience, or reduced the venues it was accessably viewed/marketed through, I do think it opened up the story to a new audience, which the "funny" books today are not doing.

"I think when he asked for 9/11 to be left out of the discussion, he did so
for the reason that that day still can't be discussed rationally -- that it's
all just too fresh in our minds, and any suggestion that those terrorists
had a reason to do what they did... well, you see the minefield that line of
thinking is bound to become. "

Thank you, Sean. That was my singular point in regards to (not) using 9/11.

"And again I'll state that the entire problem with your argument in this thread is that you are taking moral relativism as a fundamental truth. Citing examples that would bolster your argument given that moral relativism is a fundamental truth does nothing to advance your argument with people who do not accept the premise it is built upon."

Michael, the problem of my argument isn't that I'm talking moral relativism. The problem is, as you say, other don't accept the premise of moral relativism. But it's a valid and accepted philosophical position, whether its detractors agree with it or not.

I purposely did not mention moral relativism during my argument for fear that we would then get into a huge philosophical discussion. I would be quoting Sartre and someone else would be quoting Bertrand Russell or Karl Marx. Then someone else would bring up the case of moral objectivism vs moral relativism. And then this debate would go on and on, page after page.

Finally, someone would counter with one of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, whereby none of us can never win an argument.

But, once again, this would be something of a tangent.

"And when I introduced 9/11 I also offered Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and as many
history books as he cared to reference for other sources of real world
villainy. Same post. Yet he chose to narrow focus on 9/11, doing his best to
poison the well and avoid having to actually address the points I raised.

He's been remarkably successful, too, so far. "

Fine, JB. Challenge accepted. What points have you raised that I haven't addressed? I hope you don't really believe that I've been avoiding anything that you countered with. So far, your arguments have not been that adept.

And, btw, I still insist that I think Magneto is a villain but I also still insist that you can easily make the case that he is not. And I've not read anything in this thread to make me think otherwise.