"That philosophical discussion is the basis of your entire argument, so not wanting anyone to discuss that is pretty much just demanding that everyone acknowledge that you are right and move on."

Fine. Let's go. It's 7:40PM where I'm at and other than a Boston Legal on Tivo, I've got nothing else planned.

What parts of moral relativism would you like to discuss? Or would you prefer a larger topic such as moral relativism in the 20th Century? If you would like to discuss a book on the topic, that's fine, too. Let's just pick one that most of us have read and then have at it.

I think a lot of people have read Nauseau. While traditionally a book about existentialism, Roquentint comes to many of the same conclusions as do moral objectionists; subject morality is an expression of true authenticity.

If you'd like to discuss moral relativism in the Marvel Universe, I'm good with that, too. Let's just pick a single topic so we're not all over the place.

Michael?

If you'd like to discuss moral relativism in the Marvel Universe, I'm good with that, too. Let's just pick a single topic so we're not all over the place.

Michael?

QUOTE: They're still right there? Yes. The old comics are, indeed, still right there. What's not there? A steady influx of new blood, new readers, young readers. The ones who used to keep this business healthy and thriving, not coughing along on life-support.

As I understand it, sales have been increasing steadily for the last half-decade or so, and that doesn't include sales of trades.  Trades are a very significant part of overall sales.  DC and Marvel are producing children's lines,  and sales of manga are very healthy.  Borders wouldn't bother with giving shelf space to manga and graphic novels and comics racks if no one was buying them.

I purposely did not mention moral relativism during my argument for fear that we would then get into a huge philosophical discussion.

---

That philosophical discussion is the basis of your entire argument, so not wanting anyone to discuss that is pretty much just demanding that everyone acknowledge that you are right and move on.

"Or rather than get sidetracked with philosophy penis waving, you could just put forth an argument that doesn't beg the question."

Well, which is it? I said I didn't want to get into philosophy but you said you did. And now you don't? I'm not having a big dick contest, I'm simply acceding to your request to discuss philosophy. Once again, I purposely left out any mention of moral relativism in the first nine pages of this thread. You brought it up, not me.

"Lafayette, we are here!" or something of a similar sentiment.

"I'm looking through my past posts and I don't see where I requested to discuss philosophy with you. What I did say was that you were putting forth a conclusion based on a philosophical premise and that you did not want to debate that premise, yet have people accept the conclusion. It's intellectually dishonest."

No, I said that I didn't want to get into a discussion of philosophy on a comic book board. Subtle difference. I said I purposefully avoided using the term "moral relativism" in an effort to achieve that goal because, like the 9/11 argument, it would be a further tangent from the intial thread and the tangent of Magneto's villainy.

If you couldn't see my perspective, then I would accede to your point of discussing philosophy and moral relativism. Which I have indicated that I'm quite willing to do, if that is what you desire.

You can't have it both ways, Michael. When I don't want to use formal philiosophy to make my arguments, you criticise me. When I agree to use philosophy and invite you to open up a dialogue, you call me dishonest. Perhaps you could suggest a path that I can take, that does not involve a euphemism of some sort, that would be more to your liking because I appear to be damned if I do and damned if I don't. 

I wanna hurl:

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=139483