web stats

CSBG Archive

A Year of Cool Comic Book Moments – Day 347

Here is the latest cool comic book moment in our year-long look at one cool comic book moment a day (in no particular order whatsoever)! Here‘s the archive of the moments posted so far!

I was going to finish We3 moments today, but enough people wanted just one more, so I’ll give you two moments. One today and one tomorrow!

Okay, so in We3 #3 (by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely), the government has deployed We4, a gigantic cyber-assassin made out of a Mastiff, on We3, who they have cornered in an industrial park. We4 has already killed 3 (the rabbit of the group, which also consists of 1, the dog and 2, the cat).

The government also brought along the animals’ trainer, Doctor Roseanne (who they are forcing to work with them, as she is some heaping big trouble for letting the animals go), who lures in a distraught 1…

Oooh…ominous.

How brutal is “no de-commish We3?”!??!?!?!

Awesome stuff by both creators.

139 Comments

No disassemble, Stephanie.

The whole sequence (hell, the whole series) is awesome, but the “Pray god it’s the cat” line scared the bejeezus outta me, because it informs the reader just how bad ass the cat is, and just how f**-up it is what’s been done to these animals.

Jesus, that was both brutal and heartbreaking. “The name on your collar was Bandit.” is the moment for me.

Since I think I know what the last moment is going to be, I’d like to mention my favorite moment from the fight with We4. When he opens up his mouth to scream, and his speech bubble is just…completely black, it tells you everything you know about that monster. Such a simple idea, coloring in a speech bubble, but when compared to the cute, broken English of We3, it comes off as more than a little terrifying.

The panel just before she tells him his real name just breaks my heart every time. I’m gettin’ soft in my old age, I tell ya.

I have to say that the following fight scene is probably the best-choreographed fight in modern comics. I’ll always have a soft spot for Daredevil vs. Bullseye in Bendis’ run, but We3 is definitely superior.

I being meaning to buy this for years…here’s hoping I get some BN gift cards for Christmas.

Fanboy – This book really should be studied and held up as how beautiful, emotional, intense, and most of all, economic comic books can be. I love those various speech bubbles that have a question mark, or an exclamation point, or best of all completely black. It says everything that is needed for this particular panel and propels the storytelling along.

I’m sorry, did no one notice that she sacrificed her life for a dog? I normally love this list, and I have been a comic fan for, what, over 30 years. But Grant Morrison really does seem to think animals are better than people doesn’t he? Look, I know I’m gonna get hate-mail over this but:
Life of human=life of many many dogs. Maybe in context (I have not read the book) it would make a bit more sense thematically, but it is still, to me, silly. I don’t meant to drag anything down Brian, nor do I wish to put down anyone who likes We3, but frankly this is representative of why so few of us (in my age bracket) read comics anymore, and so many of those who do keep it rather quiet. The funny thing is that probably quite a few people who fawn over this series would laugh derisively at, say, the Legion of Super-Pets.

In this case, David, it’s no ordinary dog, that was no ordinary female, and context is indeed everything. Come back when you’ve read it.

“Maybe in context (I have not read the book) …
Well, I stopped reading right there. What Johnny Bacardi said, come back when you’ve read the book.

that moment and dr. rose getting her guts blasted shows how we3 was going to not be so happy in the end and bad signs to come for the we3 plus we1 almost asking no decommision us.

Makes me cry. EVERY. TIME.

I’m not going to hate on you either David, I understand where you’re coming from. With all things being equal, if a human or a dog had to die, I would say dog every time.

But that wasn’t the situation, and the Doctor’s relationship with the dog was anything but simple. Its made clear before this that, despite the fact she’s done some terrible things to these animals, she truly does care about them. Its just an animal, but its an innocent animal, and one that probably wouldn’t have wanted the life it found itself with had it any choice in the matter. She’s a reason for that. Without her, maybe We3 wouldn’t have been created, maybe the rabbit would still be alive, maybe Bandit would be lying on some front porch right now watching the sun go down. She’s part of the reason he’s not.

She’s not a bad person, but she’s done a bad thing, and that kind of guilt can be murder on someone’s conscious. She could have let Bandit die, but how could she live with herself? Whatever reasons she’d told herself before to get through the experiments she helped perform on the animals, she couldn’t rationalize killing them for no reason other than making room for the next round of killer animals.

That’s how I interpreted it at least.

I never understood why the military felt the need to kidnap household pets for this experiment. Dogs, cats, and rabbits aren’t exactly scarce.

I think they were lost pets. No paperwork that way.

@David, I actually enjoyed the Pet Avengers issues I’ve read. They’re nowhere near as good as We3, but then again, they’re two completely different books.

Dammit, now I’m going to have to read this. That will put me one up on David.

Awww, that was such a heart-breaking scene, where the doctor holds the dog’s head tenderly in her hands.

Then the raindrop on her pupil as she sacrifices herself for the dog.

You’re actually arguing the comparitive value of the human character’s life versus the animal character’s life?

You know they’re both fictional, right?

That’s kind of a copout there Apodaca. Sure their both fictional but the weight we put on their lives is a central theme of the story. What bothers me about the whole human vs. animal distinction that people bring up every time they want to dismiss this story is how unexamined a defense it is.

Why do humans lives hold more weight? The common answer from a philosophical point of view is that we are distinguished from even the highest order mammals in the capacities of our minds. We are self aware, we have language, we have intellect and reason. Yet the animals in the We3 program obviously display self awareness, language, and an intellect based on reason. What then can separate them from humans?

And when we talk about the values of human life we can’t ignore that the military created these animals for the sole purpose of killing humans that it deemed a threat to national interests. The military is very specific in what human lives it values. It needs soldiers and soldiers are by their nature a commodity for the Generals who expend them. And yet at the same time, the military (though it is loath to admit it) needs its “killing machines” to be more than mere machines; they need to be human in some capacity. So it turns dogs and cats and rabbits into humans to then treat as expendable without ever having the courage to face the full consequences of what that means.

The only person who has the courage to see this line of thought through to the end is Dr. Berry and in judging these animals on the terms they deserve as sentient creatures she finds Bandit, at least, not to deserve the fate her superiors have seen fit to try and predetermine but with the parameters set in the pinpoint accuracy of a sniper’s laser there has to be some blood sacrifice to even the scales and so she takes Bandit’s place. I don’t see how a story that can bring up that kind of an ethical quandary is something that is “frankly…representative of why so few of us (in my age bracket) read comics anymore, and so many of those who do keep it rather quiet” or in any way comparable (in a derisive manner no less) to the Legion of Super Pets outside of the superficial “look talking animals” summation.

Could any mere human say anything so eloquent as “We3 gud. Gud dog. Home now.” ?? (that’s today’s moment, to me)
I always imagine his voice as something like a much-more-serious Scooby. But what does the cat sound like?

I love the little touches like the small panel on today’s last page showing 1 looking up behind him for the big dog, kicking up dust as he skids to a halt. Such great story-telling throughout.

Honestly, if a way was found to make one dog and one cat articulate themselves like this, our media and most of our society would value them much more highly than the entire population of (name any third world country).
They’d be on Oprah tomorrow, and their reality show would start within three weeks.

@Bryan: Well said.

Too bad about the rabbit…

I can understand why Dr. Berry gave up her life for Bandit’s. We3 were her life’s work. It doesn’t matter whether they were human or animals: Berry knew that she had created unwilling killer machines and sought to make amends for it. The fact that they might have been somebody’s household pets only adds to the story’s emotional poignancy.

Goddam raindrop on her eyeball.

I loved this series. The story was interesting and intelligent, and it was one of the few times I really enjoyed Quitely’s art.

“You’re actually arguing the comparitive value of the human character’s life versus the animal character’s life?”

“You know they’re both fictional, right?” WHAT?!?!? This wasn’t a documentary?

Grow the heck up. My point, obviously, was that the scene had no dramatic impact because it comes across as extremely silly to me.TO ME! T-O M-E! Did everybody see that this time? Jesus, you can’t wait to try to dump on me for what you perceive as my lack of vision or God knows what, or spout crap like :”Dammit, now I’m going to have to read this. That will put me one up on David.” I quite clearly stated I had not read the bloody thing in my reply. I do not wish to read it for the same reason I will not go see a movie after seeing a commercial for it that does not interest me. On this site I have seen several pages of it and it looks completely ridiculous. IF YOU LIKE IT THEN FINE! No one thinks the less of you for it, just as it is ludicrous to think the less of someone for not liking it.

“Why do humans lives hold more weight?”-Seriously? This is really a question? I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I simply don’t see how this can even be a question. Human lives do hold more weight. Period. This is not a mystery. It is a fact. It’s one of those things that people like to toss around and discuss with more garvity than it deserves, but really, it’s not a question. “What then can separate them from humans”-Well, from what I can see in this case, humans gave this dog the ability to do all or most of that reasoning and such so the argument falls apart.

” I don’t see how a story that can bring up that kind of an ethical quandary ..” This is part and parcel of my point. It is not an ethical quandary, anymore than it is to wonder about eating meat being an ethical dilemna.

“or in any way comparable (in a derisive manner no less) to the Legion of Super Pets ..” Again, my point. Who said anything at all derisive about the Legion of Super Pets? I loved the Legion. I loved all of that stuff back when. Still do. There is nothing at all, not one word, that qualifies as “derisive” in what I wrote regarding the L.O.S.P. And I ‘m sorry if you don’t agree with this, but no matter how you dress it all up, no matter the armor you put them in or the broken english you have them speak, this is the super pets writ for the modern age of “more realism”.

“she couldn’t rationalize killing them for no reason other than making room for the next round of killer animals.”-I get your point Brian, but the rationalization she did was sacrificing herself for the life of the dog. Which is ill-thought out because
A)Now that she’s dead, all they have to do is reload.
B)She could have done MUCH more to help the situation alive than dead
C)Sacrificing yourself in such a way, instead of staying to do the work of fixing whatever you think the problem is, is in fact a very cowardly thing to do.

“”Maybe in context (I have not read the book) …
Well, I stopped reading right there. What Johnny Bacardi said, come back when you’ve read the book.”
Why the heck would I do that? The scenes shown here have shown me I wouldn’t like it. And I did NOT COMMENT ON THE ENTIRE BOOK!!! Did everyone see THAT one now? I commented on the scenes shown here. Just once, it would be wonderful and surprising to have responses to things like this that actually READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN instead of jumping to try and be the most smarmy. Brian’s was the only reply that actually addressed what I wrote. Thank you Brian, for that.

“In this case, David, it’s no ordinary dog, that was no ordinary female, and context is indeed everything. Come back when you’ve read it.” Johnny, I don’t want to read the book. Did you even read what I wrote? Or just jump down to try and be the first smart alec response? I was quite obviously referring to the parts of this book on here, not the whole thing. Have I driven that into the ground yet? Into everyone’s head? But by all means, go ahead and try to cleverly skewer me with barbs that mean nothing. Feel free to, as Brain put it, “hate on me” because *gasp* I don’t agree with you!

Oh, well then you ARE a stupid piece of shit. Not just an uninformed piece of shit.

Good to know, David.

“Oh, well then you ARE a stupid piece of shit. Not just an uninformed piece of shit.” What the HELL are you talking about?

If you want to make a ridiculous statement like that one, BACK IT UP! Back it up with reasoned, thought out responses, not profanity. Have the guts to give some reason for your bile.

Uh, OK. You got mad that a fictional story where innocent animals were tortured NOT FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY but to kill folks, and near the end a conflicted scientist sacrifices herself to help the newly-sapient beings escape. You got real mad about that, in an incredibly well-made piece of literature. You went off on your own weird issue-tangent because of a scene, out of context, in a work you haven’t read. And have since decided you won’t read!

So, yeah, David, you weird little douche, you’re a stupid piece of shit. There with logic and everything!

Dave, sounds like you’re looking for a fight, and lucky for you, I’m not the type to oblige. Didn’t mean to sound smart-alec, and don’t really think I did…but you sure are awfully pleased with yourself, calling out a work of fiction you have no intent to sample.

Perhaps you should tilt at another windmill.

A) I wasn’t mad. I just didn’t like it. There is an awful lot of difference between the two.
B) I went off on the people who, instead of responding to what was ACTUALLY written, just tried to be a smart-ass about one or two words therein.

“So, yeah, David, you weird little douche, you’re a stupid piece of shit. There with logic and everything!” Not one word of logic in that entire rant.

“because of a scene, out of context, in a work you haven’t read. And have since decided you won’t read!”-All of which I have already stated, so you saying that as if you have landed some enormous point is ridiculous. My comments were about the scenes here, not the whole book, as I stated more than once. I didn’t get real mad about anything except you’re incredibly insulting reply. And I refuse to be drawn down to your level and start flinging profanities back and forth. That proves nothing except the lack of intelligence on the part of those flinging them.

Hahahahahahaha! You’re the awesomest, David! Preach it!

“Dave, sounds like you’re looking for a fight,”-No, it doesn’t. I made one comment and left it at that. And all these attacks ignored what I wrote, as did you. And seeing as how joe referred to me as a “stupid piece of shit, how in the world do you interpret that as ME looking for a fight?

“calling out a work of fiction you have no intent to sample” there are samples on here. They are right up there on this very page. those samples are in fact what my comments referred to.

See? animals would likely demonstrate a higher degree of social graces.

higher than Joe, anyway. Though that isn’t saying much.

“No, it doesn’t. I made one comment and left it at that. ”

I count five. And, as it were, counting.

Good point, David! You got me on that one! You’re so awesome.

“”No, it doesn’t. I made one comment and left it at that. ”

I count five. And, as it were, counting.”

See? Here we go again. All of my other replies have been responding to the ones that were addressed to me. So no, you don’t count five comments.

Mark, you leave this awesome fellow alone! He knows a lot about things. Grant Morrison definitely likes animals more than people, and reading things before judging them is for fools. His anger is righteous! He saw the Emperor had no clothes, except for the really well-designed ones that he didn’t like because he only saw the cuff, and he SPOKE OUT BRAVELY!

And you, Joe, are still a child.

Aw, man, skewered again! This guy KNOWS NO BOUNDS! No sacred cows for David! He will totally dislike something whether it is good or not JUST BECAUSE HE WANTS TO. That is bad-ass, my friends, like Evel Knievel smoking a crack pipe filled with Fonzie’s ashes.

“Honestly, if a way was found to make one dog and one cat articulate themselves like this, our media and most of our society would value them much more highly than the entire population of (name any third world country).
They’d be on Oprah tomorrow, and their reality show would start within three weeks.”

God help America.

If it’s any consolation, I’ve read this series, and I don’t find it to be the greatest work of fiction since fire was discovered. It just left me with a feeling of…meh. Granted, I can see why so many people would love it…

Someone mentioned the voices, and how each character/animal would sound…guess we’ll know once the movie is done.

If you had any idea how rdidiculous you sound…
My “anger” is directed only at you, for your childish profanity. I judged nothing but what was presented on here, and in fact I only offered my opinion, I didn’t “judge” anything. And “really well-designed” is your opinion, not a fact.

Well, this conversation has gone downhill fast.

you know what? I agree with you, it has gone downhill. I apologize to Brian, both for spelling his name “Brain” above, and for apparently causing this crowding of his space. I will, from now on, keep my opinions to myself, or at least off of here, since any opinion that is not “My GOD, that’s brilliant!” is unwelcome by so many of the readers here. Twice now I have posted an opinion that happened to not like something presented on here, and twice I have been attacked by people who equate dislike with anger, disagreement with lack of intelligence, and difference of opinion with ignorance. It’s sad how threatened some people are by opinions that don’t enable their own. So bravo, Brian, for what is a wonderful column, and again my apologies.

When I disagreed about those Stan Lee/Steve Ditko Spidey scene being awesome, I didn’t come off like a huge fucking douche.

Funny how that works.

I don’t want this to sound like more ‘hate mail’, but I have to take issue with what David says.

He claims WE3 is indicative of why people who’ve been reading comics for 30 years, either don’t anymore or keep quiet about it. Well I’ve been reading them for 40 plus years and I’d have to say based on what I’ve seen here and elsewhere , WE3 is a good example of why I still read comics, will continue to do so, and will continue to encourage others to do so, and being a Librarian with over 25 years experience I’m fortunate in being able to do just that

He also seems to base his dislike of WE3 on the Doctors ‘sacrifice’ for the sake of the dog, and their relative merits. Well for a start, from the panels above, it appears to me that she didn’t sacrifice herself, but was shot through being in the direct line of fire, laser sights notwithstanding. I would also respond to an argument of Humansbeing worth more than Dogs (or any other animal for that matter) with aren’t the lives of both of value, and maybe I’m speaking for myself here, but generally whenever a news story comes out of cruelty or abuse to either human or animal don’t we tend to be justifiably outraged.

And for the record while I haven’t read WE3 yet either, i fully intend to, and what I’ve seen of it over that last few days had only cemented that.

@David: I’m a meat eater and the scientific field I work in is known for cutting up animal’s brains. I’m not making the point that all animals are on equal footing with humans. I’m making the point that the distinction has to do with consciousness, and that in the context of this story these animals cannot just be written off as “just a dog”. You say period, fact, people talk with more weight than it deserves but I’ve got to say that strikes me as a willfully ignorant response, there are a great number of arguments that can be made for the comparative value of human life but to just state it as if it were self evident is really weak.

As to the point that humans endowed these animals with their intelligence… does that give them the right to take their lives? I don’t know if I have an answer to that one, but it is interesting to me and why I would say this book raises ethical quandaries.

I’m actually pretty down with the Legion of Super Pets, but you’ll forgive me if after talking about how this is silly nonsense that makes people in your age bracket ashamed to like comics, you’ll forgive me if I thought that last bit was a dig at both comics. As to them being the self same, last time I checked, LOSP wasn’t making a commentary on the industrial military complex or consciousness. That both use the trope of talking animals doesn’t make them the same thing. Sorry that’s just false.

Finally, while a bunch of people are being unjustifiably rude here, you should be at least able to understand why they are getting upset when you speak authoritatively on the stupidity of a scene you have abstracted all context away from to make your argument in the first place. I’m not going to say that you have to read everything to comment on it, and you don’t have to like it, but you have been coming off as condescending and in light of the fact that you haven’t read the book that kind of snark is bound to rub people the wrong way.

Jeremy, isn’t it funny how some people can disagree that a moment is cool, and yet somehow not get totally made fun of for being a douche? It’s almost as if there was more than one way to disagree, or, in fact, decent human being ways and total ignorant shithead ways.

Aww sheeeit…

Forgot about the Mastiff…

Where are my copies?

Joe Rice you really are being a prick. I don’t actually agree with practically anything that David has said, but there’s no need to be so rude.

Your opinion is duly noted, DanCJ!

Hey David, I respect y our right to an opinion.

It is the fact that you are adamant about that opinion despite not actually being informed about the topic you are discussing that is problematic.

One of your comments above says that there is no ethical quandry. That makes me GLAD you haven’t read it, because if you had and still said that, well then you would be a monster.

(Oh, and the part where you say it is no more an ethical quandry than eating meat? That just shows your narrow world-view.)

My favourite moment here is the panel where the drop of rain strikes Roseanne’s eye as she’s falling to the ground. Simply beautiful and beautifully simple.

Gee David. I’m guessing you haven’t studied much philosophy, then?

You are a tremendous douche, incapable of backing up anything you say. Example?
‘”Why do humans lives hold more weight?”-Seriously? This is really a question? I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I simply don’t see how this can even be a question. Human lives do hold more weight. Period. This is not a mystery. It is a fact. It’s one of those things that people like to toss around and discuss with more garvity than it deserves, but really, it’s not a question.’

Very well backed-up. “It just is” has been used by so many great debaters and philosophers. I simply marvel at your technique.

Personally, I believe that a human life tends to be worth more than any other animal life, for reasons of greater self-awareness and greater potential.

However, there are exceptions. If a person has mental disabilities that mean their intellectual capacity is lower than that of, say, a chimpanzee, is their life still worth more. If so, why?

Also, if you had the choice of saving the life of a well-behaved, kind , loyal dog that has saved human lives in the past; or saving the life of someone like Hitler, who would you choose?

You see, David, it’s not always as easy and straightforward as “it just is”. In fact, it almost never is.

‘” I don’t see how a story that can bring up that kind of an ethical quandary ..” This is part and parcel of my point. It is not an ethical quandary, anymore than it is to wonder about eating meat being an ethical dilemna.’

Again, see above. And if there is no ethical dilemma in eating meat, do you think Einstein, Da Vinci, Gandhi and others are just idiots for living as vegetarians? I mean, clearly these guys don’t have the well-developed ethics and argumentative skills that you do. Such simpletons would probably cower before your intellectual might.

Wow so many of you come off as comic-snob assholes. So what if he didn’t read the book. His point was that he felt it was ridiculous that someone gave their life for a dog’s. It is not foolish for him to think that and he doesn’t have to read the whole book to justify it. His comment was about the scene above. The comments section always seems to take away from the moments presented. Not cool, not cool at all.

No, the comment WAS ridiculous because it is claiming a judgment for a scene out of the context that the story was told.

Actually, I take that back. The INITIAL comment wasn’t ridiculous because it was just him saying that he couldn’t get why it was good. Then people said that he had to read it in context of the story and he started arguing against that and saying he didn’t need to read it to understand the context.

THAT is when he got ridiculous.

Shane pointed out what seems to be overlooked here, and what I wanted to point out as well. The Doctor didn’t intend to sacrifice her life for the dog or anything like that. She wanted to get him to run away, and stupidly stood up right into the line of fire, either not realizing that she was getting into the line of fire, or trusting–incorrectly–that soldiers wouldn’t shoot if she was in the line of fire.

Extrapolating this to mean that Grant Morrison thinks that humans should die instead of animals, which is the conclusion David seems to have aggressively leaped to, is quite shortsighted. Even if you don’t know how the story ends.

I just know I shouldn’t do this, but….

“Extrapolating this to mean that Grant Morrison thinks that humans should die instead of animals, which is the conclusion David seems to have aggressively leaped to”-No, I arrived at that conclusion after reading rather a lot of Grant Morrison’s work wherein he makes his politics quite clear. I was not basing my opinion of Grant Morrison on just this comic, but rather his larger body of work, particularly his run on Animal Man.

“The Doctor didn’t intend to sacrifice her life for the dog or anything like that”-Maybe, maybe not. the result is the same either way, and I still think the scene lacks emotional impact or dramatic power.

“do you think Einstein, Da Vinci, Gandhi and others are just idiots for living as vegetarians” -No, but I would contend that they did it more for health reasons than ethical problems.

“No, the comment WAS ridiculous because it is claiming a judgment for a scene out of the context that the story was told”-no it wasn’t. it claimed nothing but an opinion on the scenes presented here, context being irrelevant in that case, which I have repeatedly pointed out, and which so many people seem compelled to ignore.

“started arguing against that and saying he didn’t need to read it to understand the context” -I never wrote a word about anything of the sort. I said I didn’t want to read it because the samples I have read on here seem ridiculous and not something in which I would be interested in reading. Please do not make claims of things I have not said.

“Gee David. I’m guessing you haven’t studied much philosophy, then?

You are a tremendous douche, incapable of backing up anything you say. Example?”-yeah actually I have. What in the world does that have to do with it? You call me such an insulting thing, and you’re arguing philosophical points?

“Very well backed-up. “It just is” has been used by so many great debaters and philosophers. I simply marvel at your technique” If someone is standing in fromt of me and pointing at my lawn saying “That grass is not green” I am not going to waste time explaining the presence and effect of chlorophyll, or the ways the eye processes wavelengths of light. I am going to say “It is green”.

“It is the fact that you are adamant about that opinion despite not actually being informed about the topic you are discussing that is problematic”-I read the panels of which I offered my opinion. Since those were all I was opining about, then I am as informed as that opinion required. The fact that you are determined to see malice or ignorance where there is none be seen is problematic.

“When I disagreed about those Stan Lee/Steve Ditko Spidey scene being awesome, I didn’t come off like a huge fucking douche.

Funny how that works.”-Oh please. First of all, you are making a value judgement on your own comments and then comparing it to your value judgement on mine. As for your snide remark at the end, look up “ironic”. Also, it’s no secret that Stan Lee’s seminal work has, of recent times, come to be regarded as less than spectacular, if not downright bad. As comics move more towards “realistic” drama, Stan’s output has been more and more derided. So you expressed an opinion that has been expressed elsewhere. As for whether you came off bad or not, out of curiousity I went back and looked at your comments, and found :”
hackneyed, overwritten dialog …” ” It doesn’t excuse it from being terrible now in 2009…” “being laughably awful today..” and so on. Your opinion, stated as rock-solid fact.

“they are getting upset when you speak authoritatively on the stupidity of a scene you have abstracted all context away from to make your argument in the first place” Okay, ONE more time. I spoke authoritatively on nothing but my opinion of the scene. I didn’t “abstract” anything. I looked at the scene above, and formed my opinion. Ergo, they are getting upset because, as I stated, my opinion does not mirror theirs.

I figured Animal Man had something to do with this.

” I was quite obviously referring to the parts of this book on here, not the whole thing” sounds like abstracting away context to make your point. Saying that context is irrelevant and saying so with authority over those who have read it and have (for the most part in the beginning anyways) politely informed you that the scene, being the climax of the third and final issue, is steeped in context comes off as arrogant, especially when you insult their reading comprehension.

Saying things like “no matter how you dress it all up, no matter the armor you put them in or the broken english you have them speak, this is the super pets writ for the modern age of “more realism” when you haven’t read it comes off as condescending (again I like the LOSP but you came off with a “oooh this will really insult his naive sensibilities vibe” with the way you worded it there) Jeremy was a jerk about Lee even if I somewhat agree with him. The difference here is that I’m willing to bet Jeremy has actually read all of Spider-Man #32-3.

Please notice that I haven’t called you a douche or an asshole, and that while I take some issue with the way you’ve presented your opinions, I believe you are entitled to them and am trying to be civil.

By the way David?

“The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.”
Leonardo da Vinci
“Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.”
Albert Einstein
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
“To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.”
Mahatma Gandhi

“Saying that context is irrelevant and saying so with authority ” -it IS irrelevant when I am only commenting on the damned samples.

“” I was quite obviously referring to the parts of this book on here, not the whole thing” sounds like abstracting away context to make your point”-There is nothing abstract here. I commented on the panels here, nothing else. That is a fact. Why is that so hard for anyone to understand? My ONLY point is that I didn’t like what I saw. Why are so many of you trying so hard to find ways to belittle me when you’re completely missing the actual point? As for the vegetarian stuff, frankly I couldn’t care less why they did or did not eat meat. I was only being polite when I responded to that. But, since you insist…da Vinci also thought up flying machines that can’t fly, tanks that don’t work, and painted the Mona Lisa which is, to me (get that part, TO ME!) dull and ugly.
Einstein wrote flawed proofs of his work and had questionable math skills, particularly when applied to his own theorems, and Gandhi was basically a meddlesome hypocrite that hated Black people. So what any of them thought about much of anything is of supreme indifference to me.

“especially when you insult their reading comprehension.”-What the Hell? When did I insult anyone’s comprehension? When, for that matter, did I insult anyone? about anything? I made my comments, to which I stick, and did not expect to change anyone’s mind about this book, or anything else. A lot of my friends and I used to read a LOT of comics. We went to some of the earliest Creation comic conventions in Chicago just for the chance to spend every dime we had on comics, meet creators, swap stories, and just geek the Hell out for a day. None of us collect anymore and most of us don’t read much of anything that comes out nowadays. We all occassionally pick one up, just to see if it’s gotten better, and by and large it hasn’t. We don’t read modern comics for the most part because they go completely overboard on the “what if this happened in real life” bit, and they just don’t interest us anymore. If you like them that’s fine. But enough of the “If you don’t like them you’re an idiot” crap. Two or more intelligent people can have totally different opinions on a subject with none of them being mentally deficient. If I say I don’t like X, then it doesn’t follow that I haven’t “thought it out” or am “uninformed”. Have your opinion but make it yours. Don’t rely on affirmation from anyone else to validate it. Don’t be so damned threatened by someone disliking something you like that you feel the need to lash out. If you are comfortable with your thoughts, and secure in your reasoning, then it should not matter one little bit what anyone else thinks about it. Other people thinking you are wrong doesn;t make it so. MILLIONS of people thinking you are wrong doesn’t make it so. Watch, someone is gonna latch onto my saying I didn’t like the Mona Lisa and say that that proves what a philistine I am, or perhaps just more of a douche because blah blah Leonardo blah blah great artist blah blah how many paintings do YOU have in the Louvre blah blah ha ha you’re a douchetard. I don’t like it, that’s my opinion, and that is not subject to my standing and staring at it for hours on end. I’ve seen it, I didn’t like it. Same as with the panels from We3. But I’m sure that won’t be enough for somebody.

I’m pretty sure I never called you an idiot. I just think your argument as to the weight of these animals lives was originally unexamined. You’re obviously intelligent, I wouldn’t be pushing the point if I thought otherwise, but I think the statement that “Human lives do hold more weight. Period. This is not a mystery. It is a fact” lacks a degree of rigor which you are obviously capable of.

As to your commenting on this scene alone, I can understand where your coming from, and I have certainly written books off based on a glimpse in the past. However, most people’s point, however rudely expressed (and the tone has definitely degraded, though I think you got a bit too defensive with Johnny Bacardi right off the bat and that’s where the reading comprehension comment comes in) is that you are commenting on the narrative of a scene that is steeped in context. You even admit in your first post that the scene could be different in context and our answer has been that it is.

Furthermore I’m not so sure it’s just these panels that attribute to your distaste. Forgive me if I’m wrong but it seems that your judgement is based less on these scenes in the context of their narrative and more on these scenes in the context of Animal Man. Nothing wrong with that. I avoid Frank Miller like the plague at this point because he has shown no signs of ever changing his tune from the repulsively misogynist juvenile wish fulfillment that I seems to be the hallmark of his every artistic (to use the term loosely) endeavorer. That said? Having read some of Animal Man, while Morrison is not hiding his politics in We3 it is a far more nuanced narrative.

As for the overabundence of a faux realism that pervades comics these days, I agree it is dragging most of the genre fiction down to the depths of banality. I don’t think that realist narratives are antithetical to comics, but I would much rather read about truly mature drama and irony in the works of a Chris Ware than see some Hollywood sheen of verismilitude used as a pretense to make twenty to thirty something men feel somehow less ashamed about reading spandex fantasies (ironically this is why I like Morrison and Quitely out of a select few talents in the mainstream as I feel that their work, both textually and formally, hearkens back to the surreal and psychedelic aspects of ’60s and ’70s Marvel and DC while maintaining enough individuality and modernity so as not to feel slavish). That said, I don’t think that your assessment of We3 as simply a grim n’ gritty take on the Legion of Super Pets is accurate. It’s a story that is most heavily concerned with issues of consciousness, the lack of foresight in military R&D, and formal experimentation. It uses talking animals as a trope to examine these issues, and considering their history not just in comics and cartooning but in morality fables I think it was a smart choice.

“(ironically this is why I like Morrison and Quitely out of a select few talents in the mainstream as I feel that their work, both textually and formally, hearkens back to the surreal and psychedelic aspects of ’60s and ’70s Marvel and DC while maintaining enough individuality and modernity so as not to feel slavish’ -For the most part I would agree with you on that, with the exception of saying that Morrison in particular brings a bit too much self-awareness to the table. The surreal aspects he apes (you’ll pardon the pun I’m sure) were made of the time in which they were created and were fresh and original for the best of reasons. Morrison’s take is usually a bit more being strange for it’s own sake, however reverential. And for the record, while I disagree strongly with Morrison’s politics, let me just say that I don’t think ANY politics belong in comics, or popular entertainment for that matter. I mean, if the politics of it are the point of the piece then, fine, go ahead, just make that clear going in. I don’t read comics for political commentary, I read for entertainment. If I want to catch up on politics I’ll read the newspaper if it still exists.

“You even admit in your first post that the scene could be different in context and our answer has been that it is.”-Hypothetical for you. If I had first written “I read this book, and I sure wish I had my 12 dollars back because I found it superficial and lacking in narrative drive, overwritten with an inflated sense of itself. Boo! Hiss!” would these comments have been much, if any different? I don’t think so, because the overwhelming sense I have gotten is that these people objected to the fact that I didn’t like a book (or in this case selected panels from a book) that they think is sheer brilliance.

I doubt it would make Joe Rice any less of an asshole, but James and Johnny Bacardi? I don’t think so. Rusty Priske might feel you lack a soul, and I’d probably still be asking you to explain yourself a bit more for the sake of argument (because those are usually actually pretty spot on criticisms for Morrison’s work) but overall I think this might not have degraded as much as it did.

I’d agree on Morrison. I think in many ways he said what he wanted to say in its most pure and honest form with Flex Mentallo and ever since then he’s had to return to the same well time and again and finding it drained of honest sentiment more and more with each visit has nothing left to add but wit. I do think, though, that he has shown growth as a writer with We3 and Seaguy. All Star Superman was probably too self aware for its own good and I think Noah Bertlasky has a good point that appropriating cultural mythology for a corporate mascot is ultimately vapid. Still, formally and textually it is one of the best offerings mainstream super hero comics have had in a long time and there’s still a lot to respect even if it isn’t the second coming of Christ some people make it out to be.

As for the “politics should stay out of entertainment”, even if that were at all possible I wouldn’t want it. Not that I don’t enjoy partaking in some mindless schlock from time to time, but I like to be engaged with my media and one facet of that equation is politics.

Oh, one more thing. I think people give a bit too much credit to the originality of the ’60s. Stan Lee made a name for Marvel by repurposing old Atlas characters much the same way Morrison does now. Meanwhile surrealism has been a part of comics almost since their inception with artists like McCay, Feininger, and Herriman really setting the stage. Steranko was heavily influenced by Dali, stories were often copied nearly verbatim from pulp novels, and copying competing companies was the name of the game from day one. Not that these comics were creatively void, far from it. However, I don’t know that its all that accurate to write about these stories as if they emerged out of the ether as fans are wont to do at times. Morrison is the latest in a long line of idea men riffing on the idea men who came before him. At least he’s intelligent about it, which is a lot more than I can say for most of his peers.

Just don’t impugn Kirby kreativity…

And not to be a douche asshole, but if we’re going to hold all life sacred, for once can’t we start with the plants???
I mean really, they were here first, everything everywhere belonged to them, and then “higher life forms” crawled ashore and now EVERYBODY eats them (even when carnivores eat herbivores they’re effectively eating a plant by-product, think about it)
We butcher their forests, eat their young, ruin their environment, mess with their genes…

And some people actually have the gall to proudly declare themselves “vegetarians.”

You wanna hold all life sacred? let’s start by eating the “vegetarians.”

You know, in places like China, Korea, and Vietnam, they’d look at the We3 animals and think “Mmmm, walking buffet”….

As Garth Ennis said, “food that begs you not to eat too much of it is nothing short of charming.”

Yuck, now I have to go wash my hands, Ennis often has that effect.

David, you might not think much of Da Vinci, Einstein, Gandhi or Morrison, and you’re entitled to your opinion. But to try criticising them and their work as a way to backtrack over your original statement that they were vegetarians for health reasons is pathetic. That was just another example of you arguing over something even though you know nothing about it, as is much of what you’ve posted.

‘”Very well backed-up. “It just is” has been used by so many great debaters and philosophers. I simply marvel at your technique” If someone is standing in fromt of me and pointing at my lawn saying “That grass is not green” I am not going to waste time explaining the presence and effect of chlorophyll, or the ways the eye processes wavelengths of light. I am going to say “It is green”.’

But if you were in a proper debate over whether or not the grass is green, you could not simply say “it just is”. You would need to present a scientific and/or philosophical case. I note that you don’t address my points above. Is the life of a person whose mental disability leaves them with an intellectual capacity below that of a chimp worth more than the life of the chimp? If so, why? Would you save Hitler before you saved a good, loyal dog? We’re not talking about whether the grass is green or not, we’re talking about the very value of sentient life. So please, bring a bit more to the table than “it just is”.

Again, on context: You didn’t just comment on the panel layout or dialogue in the scene. You commented on the ethical implications of a character’s actions, in which case context is everything. If you had read the book and not liked it, that would be fine. Others have commented that they weren’t impressed by it and, while I personally think they have bad taste, I can’t argue with their opinion. I tried the first trade of Brubaker’s Captain America and wasn’t impressed. Maybe I’m missing something, but it’s just not for me. I wouldn’t comment on a single page and say “Sharon Carter shouldn’t have done such and such because…” without knowing what groundwork the writer had laid. I could say I don’t like the art in the scene or the dialogue, though. Would it be so hard to concede that maybe, just maybe, your argument was wrong (or at least that you applied your real argument to the wrong case)? You don’t have to like We3. You don’t have to like Morrison, and you certainly don’t have to agree with his views. But you really should avoid talking out of your ass.

And fourthworlder, I know you’re just joking and being silly and I really don’t need to say this, but plants are not sentient. Animals are. The ethical implications of taking animals’ lives is complex, but I will simply say that we kill them purely for our (usually culinary) enjoyment, not because we need to for survival, and that is morally indefensible. Aside form the killing question, the main issue is suffering. I agree that a human life is (generally) worth more than the life of a non-human animal, but the suffering of a human and other mammals is equivalent. We torture these beings and put them through a life of suffering so that we can have cheeseburgers, while we lavish affection on our dogs and cats. In addition to the animal rights considerations, there are also health considerations, environmental considerations, and humanitarian considerations (we could feed a lot more people if we in the West weren’t so intent on consuming large quantities of meat).

I know I’m not going to convert any vegetarians on a comics message board, but what the hell.

And we were making such progress. Could you have maybe tried to critique his argument (which yeah, I agree was moving the goalposts) without being so derisive? The man isn’t an idiot, he seems to be receptive to civil debate, and we were heading towards some worthwhile discussion. Do we really need to keep beating the same horse into the ground so venomously?

The only thing I said that might be construed as “derisive” was that he was talking out of his ass. I could have put it more eloquently, but as illustrated by the example I selected, that is the case.

Joe Rice was derisive, and I agree he was quite rude. But his approach was understandable given what he was up against. Our argument’s are futile, as Dave is so closed-minded that I’m basically arguing to myself.

He’s only “receptive to civil debate” on points where you agree with him. But as soon as someone points out the flaws in his argument, he changes tack without acknowledging it. The reason for beating the same horse into the ground is his (repeated) inability to concede that he was wrong to argue that context doesn’t matter in this case. He also continues to maintain that an argument of “it just is” is valid when discussing complex ethical issues.

If you would rather avoid the original argument(s)for fear of conflict and instead talk about things that you can agree on, that’s your call.

One other great aspect of We3 that hasn’t been mentioned (unless I missed it somewhere, i did skim through some of the flame wars in this thread) is the character and appearance of Doc-tor Rose-anne. Granted, she is a sympathetic secondary character in a limited series, not a central character designed to draw sales, but I really wish there were more women in comics like this.
Look at her face when its first shown (the “but sir” panel), so expressive and intelligent, with unique non-comic-booky features. I love the little panel in the security camera sequence where she gives a side-eye either to the camera or to the sounds of the animals escaping. And her words there, “kill me. I deserve it,” indicate that this story is not just a matter of thinking that animal life is somehow more sacred or equal to a human’s. It’s about a woman who’s torn up over a great wrong that she has committed and seeks redemption, whatever the cost.
Finally, the one time her body shape is shown is as she gets shot, and we can see how full her shape is, the thickness of her thighs and hip, etc. Compare her to Quitely’s ridiculously slender fourteen-year-old Lois Lane in ASS.
There was some discussion in either this thread or one of the others as to just what she intended when she told 1/Bandit to run. I never had any doubt that she saw the laser lights on his forehead, knew the shots were coming from behind, and deliberately stood up while telling him to run.
A really memorable character, and one of the reasons why this book makes such a great gift for older kids.

And BDaly, yes I was kidding, of course. I have actually eaten very few vegetarians. They tend to be tasteless and stringy.

“But if you were in a proper debate over whether or not the grass is green, you could not simply say “it just is”-Yes, I could. As it is an established norm, I could state it as a fact and it would then be on the opponent to somehow argue that it was purple, or pink, white and puce with ice-blue polka dots or whatever. See, you kinda missed the point here. I do not see this as a complicated issue, ethical or morally. Heck, I barely see it as an issue. Hence the illustration about green grass. In order to argue that point with you I would have to first agree that there is some question. I don’t. I would then have to be willing to lend more gravity towards the idea that it might be questionable to debate the whys and wherefores. But…

You claim I have ignored your examples. I suppose I did, but only because you are positing A) A far too general example and B) a far too specific example. The life of a mentally challenged person might still be turned around by modern medicine or pyschological treatments. They might yet be turned into a productive and functional member of society, the chimp can’t be, the capacity just isn’t there. And even if it were, there is much more potential, for society as well as the individual in question, for gain with the human than with the chimp. It’s a non-point because the cirumstances you yourself provided answer your own concerns. With Hitler you are also knocking off your own point. You ask if I would save the life of Hitler before that of a loyal dog. In other words would I save someone I would willingly kill given the chance, or a dog? Your very specific example is that of a man who has personally eliminated the value of his own life. I would not save him under ANY circulstances, therefore your example can be easily rendered as “which is greater-something or nothing?” I never said animal lives had NO value, I said humans have MORE, an important distinction.

“You commented on the ethical implications of a character’s actions”- actually, in essence I simply said I thought it was stupid. You’re reading more than is there to be read I’m afraid.

“But to try criticising them and their work as a way to backtrack over your original statement that they were vegetarians for health reasons is pathetic”-With all due respect to you and Julian, I didn’t bring up Da Vinci, Einstein, or Gandhi. I responded to something posted at me. I’m not backtracking over anything, by the way. I never said they had NO ethical thoughs about it, I said I thought the Health reasons were more prevalant. And nothing I have read about them, here or otherwise, dissuades me from that belief.

“That was just another example of you arguing over something even though you know nothing about it, as is much of what you’ve posted” -I’m frankly not sure what your point even is here. Are you trying to say I know nothing about the men in question? Try building da Vinci’s tank sometime. Let me know how you solve the gearing problem. Tell me how Einstein, a man considered by many to be the smartest human ever, completely misunderstood quantum mechanics, and failed seven straight times to write a flawless proof of his own most famous theorem? I think perhaps God plays at dice with your keyboard. And just to give this dead horse one last swift kick, ask yourself why, when Gandhi lived in South Africa, if he was such a wonderful peaceful humanitarian, did he participate in what amounted to war against blacks, whom he despised? I do not consider this the proper time and place to argue such matters, so suffice it to say this: Rattling off ridiculous comments like yours above is inflammatory for no reason other than to be inflammatory. Someone not agreeing with you in no way equates to them knowing nothing about the subject.

“But his approach was understandable given what he was up against”-No it wasn’t. Not at all. He was not “up against” anything. I’m not trying to change YOUR mind. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I honestly don’t care if you agree with me. Your liking the book doesn’t threaten me or even concern me. Like it. Loathe it. Masturbate furiously while chanting Grant Morrison’s dialogue out loud. I don’t care. I made my comment, since when I have been defending myself against people like you who have a need to feel “right” all the time, as if my converting to your opinion of the panels above would infer on you a greater degree of correctness. But if that’s what it takes to satisfy your moral outrage or whatever then fine. You’ve convinced me. Grant Morrison is GOD! I no longer see anything but genius where he spells “good” g-u-d for no apparent reason. Maybe in the book somewhere is a VERY good reason for it. Maybe there isn’t, but it doesn’t matter. Grant knows much more than I ever could, so if he thinks it is good, then it is gud. And the part where he posits that a dog’s vocal chords can overcome their very real limitations of speech capability by virtue of a computer box jammed into their parietal lobe? Brilliance. Sheer, unadulterated brilliance.

“Our argument’s are futile, as Dave is so closed-minded that I’m basically arguing to myself”-My God. See, I thought that since I was engaging in spirited and open debate with multiple partners that that meant I was being open-minded. But you say I’m being closed-mided. And your talking sphincter is obviously more full of grey matter than brown, so I must be being closed-minded. Damn it’s frustrating trying to keep up with geniuses like you.

“He’s only “receptive to civil debate” on points where you agree with him”- Man I’m a douche. You’re so right again. When someone viciously attacks me on a point they disagree with me on, I should immediately apologize for even being on their planet and pledge to leave it as soon as possible. Obviously when someone uses excessive cursing in their reply it must mean they are right, and are simply expressing their frustration at having to talk down to my level.

“But as soon as someone points out the flaws in his argument, he changes tack without acknowledging it”- MAN, do you know me or what? See, I always thought (boy I should stop using that word in connection with myself) that to acknowledge the existence in something, such as a flaw in an argument, one had to believe it in fact exists. So when I don’t respond to someone’s assertion of what they think is a flaw, I assumed they would understand that I just don’t see the flaw. I know, from now on I’ll just proceed as though every argument I make is flawed and save everybody ( with the obvious exception of Julian, an inordinately cultured and civil individual) the time of having to think up new ways to call me an asshole. I could go stick my head in a bucket of water if you like. Would you like that? I’ll just assume you would. I have one right over here. BRB.

BOY that cleared the head. What was I saying? Oh yes, I remember. BDaly, don’t ever accuse me of “knowing nothing” about any subject I discuss. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t discuss it. And accusing me of “fear of conflict” is just asinine, and beneath reasonable people, though apparently not beneath you. Don’t take issue with my lack of concession on points of which you have consistently maintained the contrary position in a similar unyeilding manner. From the standpoint of refusal to concede points made or arguments deconstructed, I’ve done nothing that you yourself have not, I’ve just been much nicer about it, you rat bastard.

In a perfect world, the following sentence would not be necessary.

that was satire.

Too bad, cause “I think perhaps God plays with dice on your keyboard” was great. Yours? I’m going to use that one.

David, you are one angry dude. Seriously, it’s nothing personal, and I haven’t said you’re an idiot or anything (you clearly aren’t), but your approach is aggressive and you seem entirely unwilling to concede anything.

‘”You commented on the ethical implications of a character’s actions”- actually, in essence I simply said I thought it was stupid. You’re reading more than is there to be read I’m afraid.’
Potayto potahto really. Either way you would have to know something about the characters, the situation, and how the writer has set things up before you decide whether her actions, in the given situation, are stupid are not. You were not, as I have said, commenting on something that is relevant only to the panels in question, such as art or dialogue. Accept it.

‘The life of a mentally challenged person might still be turned around by modern medicine or pyschological treatments. They might yet be turned into a productive and functional member of society, the chimp can’t be, the capacity just isn’t there. And even if it were, there is much more potential, for society as well as the individual in question, for gain with the human than with the chimp. ‘
But the medicine and technology isn’t there to turn things around for the human. You could argue that there is potential for the developments of such technology, but then you could also argue that there is the potential for technology that increases the chimp’s intelligence to normal human levels. And what is the potential gain for society from a mentally disabled person, pray tell? The chimp, if left alone in the wild, has no effect on society either way. But the human would be a strain on its family and society, and would offer no “gain”. So, if you measure the value of a life according to potential gain, the mentally disabled person’s life would actually have a negative value.

It seems I need to reiterate that I don’t think you need to like Grant Morrison. Nor do I think you need to thing highly of Gandhi, Einstein, or Da Vinci. I do believe that all these men deserve your respect. But again, that’s yours to give, and you don’t have to. So stop trying to make out that I’m so shocked that you don’t like Morrison. That’s not the issue.

‘”But to try criticising them and their work as a way to backtrack over your original statement that they were vegetarians for health reasons is pathetic”-With all due respect to you and Julian, I didn’t bring up Da Vinci, Einstein, or Gandhi. I responded to something posted at me. I’m not backtracking over anything, by the way. I never said they had NO ethical thoughs about it, I said I thought the Health reasons were more prevalant. And nothing I have read about them, here or otherwise, dissuades me from that belief.’
Nothing you’ve read about them, here or otherwise, dissuades you from that belief? How about the fact that all three said on numerous occasions that they were vegetarians for ethical reasons? You’re clearly not someone who is easily dissuaded of anything. I wonder what actually persuades you of your belief that they did it for health reasons. Care to cite any sources, or does your imagination and conviction suffice?

It’s easy to find flaws in work that people have done over their lifetime. Anyone you can name has screwed up at some point, and nobody’s perfect. But it doesn’t discount their accomplishments. At the very least, Einstein’s ideas revolutionised science in a way that no one else’s, other than Newton’s, ever have. Sure, whether or not one agrees with Gandhi’s views is subjective. The same is true for whether or not you like Da Vinci’s art, though you can’t deny his influence. And it’s easy to criticise his flying machine that didn’t work, but this should not be attributed to a lack of intelligence. How long was it before someone else designed a flying machine that did work?

‘”Our argument’s are futile, as Dave is so closed-minded that I’m basically arguing to myself”-My God. See, I thought that since I was engaging in spirited and open debate with multiple partners that that meant I was being open-minded. But you say I’m being closed-mided. And your talking sphincter is obviously more full of grey matter than brown, so I must be being closed-minded. Damn it’s frustrating trying to keep up with geniuses like you.’
Simply arguing with people doesn’t make you open-minded. If it did, then Jeff Beck and Michael Moore would be two very open-minded people. They’re not. And, at least in this case, neither are you. (And please, don’t take this as an opportunity to go off about how I’m comparing you to them.)
And I never said I was a genius. So let’s try keep this mature, and stay away from my sphincter. (And in that spirit, I’m sorry for calling you a douche earlier.)

David with all due respect I think that at this point, if you want to keep debating the merits of We3, you should bite the bullet and read the freaking book. Nobody cares if you like the book, hopefully nobody’s trying to convert you to the Church of Grant. but if you keep exchanging heated debate on it without reading it you look silly.You’ve already spent far more time on this thread than you would have spent reading it, and if time is money you’ve paid for the book already.
Then you can turn around and say OK OK I’ve read the damned thing so now I KNOW I’m right.

But you will need to quiet your little inner skepticism there. OK, some of this science may be suspect. Increasing a bunny rabbit’s intelligence would not give its vocal cords the capacity for speech, I know, but this is comic books, dude. Riding a rocket through cosmic rays would not give a man the gift of an endlessly stretching penis, or give his wife the abilities to turn herself invisible and project invisible force fields to save herself from the endlessly stretching penis, except in comics.

And you got it right, Morrison is not God. Neither are Gandhi, Einstein, or Da Vinci (how they entered this debate I don’t quite get).

David, what you said in your original post is so belligerent, it seems like you have an ax to grind with Grant Morrison that has nothing to do with this scene from WE3. A human character stepped in front of a bullet to save an animal she had personally helped turn into a weapon. This character obviously felt that Bandit’s life was worth more than her own. The soldiers trying to kill WE3 obviously think differently, but you ignore that to assume that WE3 is some sort of far left hippie scribe calling for equal rights for animals.

You’ve made it clear from your subsequent posts that you are ignorant and proud of it. I’m just wondering, did you start posting just to get people riled up, or did you honestly think you had a leg to stand on?

WE3 isn’t the reason comic book fans have to “keep quiet”, which I assume means discussing comics within the comics community. One More Day and Identity Crisis are the books I can’t talk to non comic fans about. Even discussing who is under Batman’s cowl is best done on CSGB or similar sites. I can show WE3 to just about anyone who likes to read and have something to talk about other than who’s stronger.

“You’ve made it clear from your subsequent posts that you are ignorant and proud of it” -Ignorant of what pray tell? Are you implying ignorance just because I have not read the damned book?

“did you start posting just to get people riled up”-I posted for the same reason anyone does. To offer my opinion.

“I can show WE3 to just about anyone who likes to read and have something to talk about other than who’s stronger”- But that is what brought us to comics in the first place. We LIKE discussing that sort of thing, all in good fun. Comics, by and large, are not FUN anymore. That’s why we feel the way we do. So many comics creators have given in to the urge to be “taken seriously” as though that matters. When my friends and I talk about the relative merits of a comic, we want to refer to it’s comic side, not it’s book side. We like the age-old questions like who’s faster, who’s stronger, and so on. We want to talk about the latest Batman, for instance, interms of whether it’s a good detective story or the villian is an actual threat or just another wanna-be, not it’s socio-political implications.

“David, you are one angry dude”-How is it that I get attacked, incredibly rudely, and defend myself, only to find myself being accused of being the angry one? You give yourself too much credit.

“How about the fact that all three said on numerous occasions that they were vegetarians for ethical reasons”_ Firstly, are you referring to the above quotes? Because none of those explicitely state what you claim. And once again let me point out. I NEVER said their personal ethics had nothing to do with it.

“Too bad, cause “I think perhaps God plays with dice on your keyboard” was great. Yours? I’m going to use that one.”-Sort of mine, I twisted up Einstein’s quote about God and dice that showed his lack of understanding of quantum nechanics.

“You’re clearly not someone who is easily dissuaded of anything”-I’ll concede that one. though I prefer to think of it as being secure and confident in my beliefs, making sure before I say anything that I have thought it through.

“it seems like you have an ax to grind with Grant Morrison that has nothing to do with this scene from WE3″-Not exactly. This was just the latest I have seen of Morrison’s personal politics, which I find abhorrent, proudly displayed in his work.

“And I never said I was a genius”-See “satire”.

You haven’t read WE3, and despite having the context explained to you, you insist your take on the scene is valid. A character acted in a way consistent with her characterization; however without knowing the character, you state, securely and confidently that Grant Morrison thinks people should sacrifice their lives for animals.

Other signs I took as you being ignorant:
Finding Da Vinci’s work without value, because his sketched machines wouldn’t work in real life to the Mona Lisa because you find the work dull and ugly.

Stating that certain well known vegetarians were mostly doing it for health reasons, then dismissing evidence presented that they were doing it for ethical reasons.

At least twice now you’ve made broad generalizations about comic fans, one about those who like WE3 not liking LOSP and anyone calling themselves a comics fan doing so strictly because they like “spandex” books, not because they recognize the literature merits of the format. Seriously, I was that kind of fan 20 years ago, back when I read Dr. Seuss. I wouldn’t say I never get into those discussions anymore, but I like a little more heft in my reading now, and I know I can find it in books like WE3.

Calling Morrison’s politics abhorrent, which in this case is apparently having respect for a life, without ceding that we do owe our pets some basic level of respect and responsibility.

I know this is the internet and all, where you can believe you’re “secure and confident in your beliefs” instead of “pigheaded and stupid”. You can spout off about anything you want to without putting much thought into it, play the victim when called on it, then put yourself on a pedestal for never admitting you were wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s just nice to think that every once in a while someone might say, “you know, I have been trying to defend a weak position and I totally misinterpreted the scene.”

It’s nice to think, joshschr, but it’s not going to happen here.

“At least twice now you’ve made broad generalizations about comic fans, one about those who like WE3 not liking LOSP and anyone calling themselves a comics fan doing so strictly because they like “spandex” books, not because they recognize the literature merits of the format”-uuummmm…I never said that. I said, firstly :”probably quite a few people who fawn over this series would laugh derisively at, say, the Legion of Super-Pets.” which isn’t what you just claimed. Then I said :”When my friends and I talk about the relative merits of a comic, we want to refer to it’s comic side, not it’s book side”-specifically referring to my friends and myself, which is light years from your insipid assertion.

” but I like a little more heft in my reading now, and I know I can find it in books like WE3″-Fine. Like it. Want it. Buy it. I don’t read comics for that sort of thing, if you do more power to you and enjoy yourself. You’ll notice I don’t insult you for your preferences.

“which in this case is apparently having respect for a life” -You’re making inferences about my thinking and then slamming me on YOUR interpretation. the fact that you are completely wrong about it almost pales compared to the fact that you would find that approach sensible.

“You can spout off about anything you want to without putting much thought into it”-Without putting much thought? Are you nuts? Did you even read anything that preceded this? This is, as you say, the internet, so you can claim whatever crap you see fit, but anyone can read for themselves how ridiculous it is. No thought? That may be the single most insulting thing anyone has written to me on here, and that’s saying something.

“Finding Da Vinci’s work without value”-Again, I never wrote that. At all. Debate me all you like, about any subject. The only requirement I have is that you stick to facts.

“pigheaded and stupid”- Want to compare IQs? Jesus, doesn’t anyone on here besides Julian have any sense of propriety or decorum?

“play the victim when called on it”- well, when attacked that kinda goes without saying. Buy a dictionary.

“then put yourself on a pedestal for never admitting you were wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary”-then when you buy it, look up “overwhelming” and for that matter “evidence”. Virtually EVERYTHING that has been contended here is a matter of opinion, not FACT (aside from the debates over what I said or did not say) so evidence is not a factor. So until you deliver unto me, say, a videotape of Einstein saying “I eat only plant matter for purely ethical reasons and could not care less if it is a healthier option” then it will remain my opinion/your opinion. The only difference is that I am not calling you pigheaded or stupid for having your opinion.

“It’s just nice to think that every once in a while someone might say, “you know, I have been trying to defend a weak position and I totally misinterpreted the scene”-Joshschr, I could say exactly the same thing to you. Who put you on the high horse? You’ve misinterpreted several things I said, and blatantly misrepresented others. Let’s here you admit that. To quote Bdaly “It’s nice to think, joshschr, but it’s not going to happen here.” I have been defending nothing except my own opinions, which are exactly as valid as yours. The problem still remains that so many of you just can’t bear that someone, anyone apparently, doesn’t like what he has seen of a book that you obviously feel is unassailably brilliant. You find it a glorious epoch of comic achievement, you consider yourselves learned in these matters, therefore you find it unacceptable that someone might not share your views. At the very least you take dislike of this material as a sure sign of “ignorance”. I must be stupid, otherwise I would see how wonderful it all is. You continuously rail against me for not “conceding points” but none of you (again with the exception of Julian, and Brian) have done so either. you’re calling me on the carpet for not doing what you haven’t done. You say I put myself on a pedestal, but by calling me ignorant and stupid you’ve done that to yourself. You call me stupid, but would obviously blanch at being called that yourself, and undoubtedly don’t think you are stupid, so you have elevated yourself above me. By inference you have performed the very act you deride me for.

” dismissing evidence presented that they were doing it for ethical reasons”-So if you have two or more reasons for doing something, you don’t do it? NO ONE said anything like your claim. I said, in plain english, “I NEVER said their personal ethics had nothing to do with it” Did you read it THAT time?

“and despite having the context explained to you, you insist your take on the scene is valid”-Of course it’s valid. Because it is my OPINION. My opinion matters only to me, and in my view. It does not impact you or yours. So when you get that dictionary, have someone who can read recite the definition of “opinion” to you, then take a moment to reflect on just exactly how ridiculous you sound when you insist that my opinion is not valid.

“but you ignore that to assume that WE3 is some sort of far left hippie scribe calling for equal rights for animals.”- I almost hate to do this, since I generally prefer to use my own words, but I found this description of WE3 interesting, and you might find it equally so.
“a kind of Incredible Journey or Watership Down thing with three animals on the run…It really is pretty simple but it makes its points…It’s a faerie story for the 21st century’” Kinda says it all doesn’t it?

Fuck, man, have you even READ Watership Down? Please please don’t tell me that you are slagging another work without reading it. and don’t say that you’ve seen the movie. That’s like someone talking about Alan Moore and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen after only seeing the movie. Are you criticizing the novel Watership Down? It’s freaking clobbering time here. Anything seriously compared to that masterpiece is on my must read.

And the old Incredible Journey book was pretty great too when I was a kid. So, again, thumbs up for We3 it seems.

Hey, I said I didn’t write that description. What, you don’t think it’s applicable, or accurate? It’s NOT comparable to Watership Down?

Well, crap. Lemme try again then. “like your classic Disney film but with A Clockwork Orange-style ultraviolence” Is that better? Fit your sensibilities more? Have I at last come up with something you’ll agree with? Or is this more of my “little inner skepticism there”?

Have you read Watership Down was the first question. Let’s start there, kay?

Yes I have, so?

granted it was more than 25 years ago, but…what about it?

Well, I gotta get up for work in about 6 hours, so if everyone is satisfied for today with how much of a jerk they think they have proven I am, I’m off to bed. My apologies if this screws up anyone’s clever squashing of my pigheaded stupidity.

Well if you read my earlier comment you would have read me suggesting my aghastness at you potientally rejecting yet another work without taking the energy first to read it.
I in that earlier comment that maybe you didn’t read suggested a hope that this was not the case, and i am indeed pleased to see that this was in fact not the case.
So, did you like it? Because as I, again, suggested in that previous post was that hearing a new work being described as being comparable with Watership Down would likely be a potential selling point with me. And throwing in Grant Morrison, “classic Disney,” The Incredible Journey and Clockwork Orange? OK, I’d be intrigued. Which part don’t you like? (I think maybe it’s mostly Morrison, but that’s just my little inner skeptic.)

Speaking of which, when I suggested previously that you “should quiet your little inner skepticism,” it was in response to how you had questioned the scientific validity of We3 technology. I was referring to the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to appreciate the vast majority of super-hero-type comics.
Unless you only enjoy comics where the science appears entirely reasonable to you. Like, um… well… wait

‘”David, you are one angry dude”-How is it that I get attacked, incredibly rudely, and defend myself, only to find myself being accused of being the angry one? You give yourself too much credit.’
As has been noted numerous times already, many people give opinions here that go against the mainstream. That’s a good thing. The last thing I would suggest anyone do is conform for the sake of conforming. However, you have maintained an aggressive, stubborn, stance. And yes, you have been playing the victim. No one is “attacking” you. We are simply criticising the fact that you base your opinions on, well, nothing but ideas formed in your head from nowhere (or from sources that are completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

‘”How about the fact that all three said on numerous occasions that they were vegetarians for ethical reasons”_ Firstly, are you referring to the above quotes? Because none of those explicitely state what you claim. And once again let me point out. I NEVER said their personal ethics had nothing to do with it.’
You just don’t quit, do you? The quotes indicate that they believe it is wrong to eat other sentient beings, and that they choose not to eat meat because they believe it is wrong, i.e. for ethical reasons.
Again, I asked you what persuades you of your belief that they did it “primarily” for health reasons. Well? Please present sources of evidence that support your view. Or is this another case of “it just is” because David says so and doesn’t need to back anything up.

And after all of this, you still haven’t addressed the original point.
””You commented on the ethical implications of a character’s actions”- actually, in essence I simply said I thought it was stupid. You’re reading more than is there to be read I’m afraid.’
Potayto potahto really. Either way you would have to know something about the characters, the situation, and how the writer has set things up before you decide whether her actions, in the given situation, are stupid are not. You were not, as I have said, commenting on something that is relevant only to the panels in question, such as art or dialogue. Accept it.’
You’ve posted again and again that you were only commenting on the scene shown, and that it is only your opinion, but the reason that everyone has called you out is because in order to make the comment you made in an informed fashion you would have to have read the work. As I’ve now said umpteen times, you could comment on art or dialogue and say it’s only your opinion of the scene, but to judge the characters actions as stupid and infer form them some statement that the writer is trying to make in the scene, you would need a sense of context. Your original comment was uninformed, presumptuous, and ignorant, and that’s why everyone’s “attacking” you (shame).

‘The problem still remains that so many of you just can’t bear that someone, anyone apparently, doesn’t like what he has seen of a book that you obviously feel is unassailably brilliant. ‘
You have repeatedly complained that people are attributing things to you that you never said, and assuming to know your mind on matters with little or no basis for such assumptions. Yet this is what you are doing here, pot. I, and others, have said time and again that it doesn’t matter whether you like the work or not. If you think Morrison is the biggest hack ever to work in the medium, you’re entitled to your opinion. If you think Quitely’s art is awful, that’s fine. But the issue is not whether you like the work or not. The issue is your uninformed assertions and your aggressive defence of these assertions.

Going back a bit…
‘”But if you were in a proper debate over whether or not the grass is green, you could not simply say “it just is”-Yes, I could. As it is an established norm, I could state it as a fact and it would then be on the opponent to somehow argue that it was purple, or pink, white and puce with ice-blue polka dots or whatever. See, you kinda missed the point here. I do not see this as a complicated issue, ethical or morally. Heck, I barely see it as an issue. Hence the illustration about green grass. In order to argue that point with you I would have to first agree that there is some question. I don’t. I would then have to be willing to lend more gravity towards the idea that it might be questionable to debate the whys and wherefores.’
So, you don’t see it as a complicated issue, and that’s that? There was a time when people could have simply said “a woman’s place is in the kitchen and it’s God’s will that she is subservient to man” using your “it just is” defence. That was an established norm, and those in favour of the established norm believed they could state it as fact, without recourse to logic or evidence. It’s great that you can simply say “I do not see this as a complicated issue, ethical or morally.” But you could say that about anything. I could say “I do not see abortion as a complicated issue, ethical [sic] or morally.” But I think that would make me an idiot. It clearly is a complicated issue, otherwise philosophers wouldn’t have been debating it, particularly for the past 30 years. If you have a view on something that is different to mine, or different to Morrison’s, that’s fine. But I expect you, as an intelligent, rational human being, to be able to argue your point, and not to say “it just is” and expect that to be a sufficient defence. It’s not. Nothing “just is”, and if you can’t explain why something is a certain way, while I can give you plenty of reasons why it shouldn’t be that way, then I win the debate. No one has ever won a debate by saying “it just is”, so what is it that you think makes you special.

You argue about Morrison’s intentions and the actions of his characters, without supporting evidence. You argue about the motives of others for arguing with you, without supporting evidence. You argue that human life is more valuable than animal life (and I’m not saying I disagree with you), without supporting evidence. You argue that Einstein et al were vegetarians primarily for health reasons, without supporting evidence.

Seriously can you lot use the blockquote tags around the quotes.

I’m quite enjoying this discussion, but it’s really hard to pick out where the quote ends and where the replies begin.

I’m forgoing quotes altogether. I’ve said my piece. Others had assessed David’s character earlier and more accurately without going through the formality of addressing his points.

“Others had assessed David’s character earlier and more accurately without going through the formality of addressing his points.” -I just can’t put this any other way. You are an egotistical ass. My CHARACTER?! Are you insane? You know nothing about me. Nothing at all, aside from my opinion of Grant Morrison, these selected panels of WE3, and a few other odds and ends discussed on here. A person’s character is the sum total of their persona, something which can take years to learn of people you are very close to, and you think you or anyone else on here has sussed out my character from a few turns of phrase?

“No one is “attacking” you”- Well. If being called a douche, a stupid piece of shit, an ignorant shithead, etc., and having it said that you are uninformed, skimp on thought before writing, are closed-minded, etc do not fit your personal definition of attack then, pray tell, just what in the Hell does?

@BDaly-Did you actually just compare animal rights debates with gender equality? And then follow it up with a similar nod towards the abortion debate? Okay, if I’M “changing tack” then what the Heck do you call that? I’m not even getting into those because A) they are not even in the same hemisphere as our subjects and B) Seriously, you compared eating meat to killing an unborn child?

“while I can give you plenty of reasons why it shouldn’t be that way, then I win the debate”- No, you really don’t. I can give you 1,000 reasons for anything you care to name, on either side. The question is whether you can give accurate, compelling, and concise reasons. If I say grass is green, and could easily gather 1,000 people to look at the same lawn and say “Ayup, ‘s green.” You then could not just say it’s purple, because you couldn’t find 1,000 people to agree with you.

” The issue is your uninformed assertions and your aggressive defence of these assertions”- No it isn’t. For the what really should be the last time, my assertions were in regard to the SAMPLES ABOVE, which I can see by scrolling up. My assertions therefore are as informed as they need to be to comment on THE SAMPLES.

“You argue about Morrison’s intentions and the actions of his characters, without supporting evidence”- For Christ’s sake, Morrison himself admits his work is preachy and steeped in his political beliefs. He spent part of Animal Man #26 APOLOGIZING for it!

“You argue that human life is more valuable than animal life (and I’m not saying I disagree with you), without supporting evidence”-With all due respect, horseshit. I responded to all of those points about chimps and Hitler et al., so I’ll thank you to admit this line for the outrageous lie it is.

“You argue that Einstein et al were vegetarians primarily for health reasons, without supporting evidence.”- Oh for the everm…Okay, this will be the last time I dip from this particular well, so gather ’round while I preach some.
Leonardo da Housepainter, er, da Vinci did an awful lot of things. He also did a lot of awful things. He designed weapons of warfare. Things meant to kill people and break things. And acted as a pacifist. Yes, some of them were done as commission work, but at best that lands him deep in the richest possible definition of hypocrite. “I’ll design a gun, but I will not fire it” Potayto potahto indeed.
Mahatma Macoat, I mean Gandhi loved the caste system of placing one group of people above another, one above that one, another above…and so on. He also hated black people, an assertion backed up by his own writings. He recruited soldiers for Britain from the Indian people for WWI as part of an idiotic hope that Britain would then just voluntarily give India it’s independence. In other words he sent Indians off to die for a country he despised without even so much as securing a promise of recompense for India.
Alfred E. Einstein, besides being somewhat more inept at proofing his own material than he was at just dreaming it up, did one particularly bad thing. He was directly responsible for enabling the atomic bomb, going so far as drafting letters to FDR encouraging it’s development. Yes he later called it a mistake, but he was still able to put aside his morals and/or ethics in order to make that mistake.
All 3 of these men performed acts that were not just morally questionable, but actually reprehensible. Despite their assertions to the contrary, these were men driven by other considerations than morality, as their actions prove. I find it impossible to believe, then, that ethics in any pure form would or could have been their major overriding motivation for any decision, much less one regarding such a significant portion of their lifestyle. They showed clearly that they were perfectly willing to shove their notions of morality and ethics aside if their was some perceived gain. In light of the actions of these men I care very little for what their public claims may have been. Cliche or no, actions speak much louder than words.

“that earlier comment that maybe you didn’t read “- Oh please. I was merely prompting you to continue.

“Either way you would have to know something about the characters, the situation, and how the writer has set things up before you decide whether her actions, in the given situation, are stupid are not” – No. I. Would. Not. SAMPLES. Just those. Only. And since you apparently can’t be bothered to get your own dictionary, please allow me. :
“opinion-•a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty
•a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof”
Get it yet? You make yourself sound incredibly dim when you insist that my OPINION is not valid. I have been trying to give you very broad hints in the hope you would finally catch it, and save a little face. But you insisted on barreling forward, without regard for decorum or discretion.

As for the quotes about Watership down and Disney films…I find them, first of all, contradictory. No Disney film to my mind approaches the more complex story in Watership. Hazel and Kehaar have a Hell of a lot more problems and challenges than Simba or Aladdin ever thought about. I find it bizarre that in one quote it is “like Watership Down” then “it really is pretty simple” and “a faerie story”. Then this about Disney films. Does it strike anyone else that people, who have reason to love this book, just can’t quite decide what it is? These comments are all over the road (which is kinda my point in bringing them out here) showing (TO ME!) that this is one of those books that everyone thinks everybody else loves, so they think they should but aren’t sure why it’s so damned great. So they try to support it, but they aren’t sure how to clarify it and end up with all these different descriptions that don’t remotely jibe, showing (TO ME!) that it is an overrated work. (see: opinion)

You get upset about people making assumptions about zour character, yet you don`t concede that you made similar assumptions about others` motives for arguing with you. Why not hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others?

What I compared was your assertion of something as fact, allowing yourself to argue that there is not even a possibility that an alternative view may be correct, with the earlier assumptions of others that woman`s subservience to man was a natural state, a fact, and that there was no possibility that an alternative may be correct. In either case, it`s a ridiculous way to avoid logic and rational argument. That`s not changing tack at all. And no, I clearly did not compare eating meat to “killing an unborn child”, so stop attributing things to me that I never said, as you seem so quick to accuse others of doing.

Now, based on your use of terms, I gather that you`re “pro-life”. I could say “a woman`s right to choose is more important than the existence of a foetus. It just is. I don`t see anz ethical problem there, so I`m not even going to argue about it.” How is that different from what you did above?

`”while I can give you plenty of reasons why it shouldn’t be that way, then I win the debate”- No, you really don’t. I can give you 1,000 reasons for anything you care to name, on either side. The question is whether you can give accurate, compelling, and concise reasons. If I say grass is green, and could easily gather 1,000 people to look at the same lawn and say “Ayup, ‘s green.” You then could not just say it’s purple, because you couldn’t find 1,000 people to agree with you.`
So, if more people agree with you than with me, that makes you right? If that`s the case, then that means you`re wrong here.

I`ll say it for the millionth time, your comment on the post was not only relevant to the samples, unlike art or dialogue.

`”You argue about Morrison’s intentions and the actions of his characters, without supporting evidence”- For Christ’s sake, Morrison himself admits his work is preachy and steeped in his political beliefs. He spent part of Animal Man #26 APOLOGIZING for it!`
Animal Ma was written and published years before this, so I hardly think you can take it as evidence for Morrison`s motivations with the latter work or use it to judge the actions of characters in said work. In any case, he never said a non-human animal life is worht more than a human life, even in Animal Man. Do you have a quote from Morrison, or some other evidence, that displays that his motive in We3 was to demonstrate his belief that an animal life is worth more than a human life? No. You made an uninformed assumption without context.

`”You argue that human life is more valuable than animal life (and I’m not saying I disagree with you), without supporting evidence”-With all due respect, horseshit. I responded to all of those points about chimps and Hitler et al., so I’ll thank you to admit this line for the outrageous lie it is.`
On the Hitler side, you concede that it is a special case because Hitler forfeited the value of his life. Bz conceding that there are special cases, you therefore concede that “it just is” is an insufficient argument.
On the chimp side, you did not address my reply to your response above. In any case, the fact that there is even an argument to be had also demonstrates that “it just is” is an unsuficient argument.

I`m ot going to bother pasting your waffling tirade against Da Vinci, Einstein and Gandhi. Suffice to say, none of it supports your assertion that they were vegetarian primarily for health reasons. Siply because they have acted in ways you deem unethical, that does not imply that ethical considerations did not motivate them in other cases.
In addition, I`ve already pointed out that it`s easy to criticise anyone, and to pick out parts of their life or work where they acted poorly or failed at something. Everyone screws up sometimes. This does not invalidate their accoplishments, whether you are impressed by them or not.

You can put the ord opinion in caps as much as you want. But it`s not your opinion. Your making an assumption about what Morrison was trying to convey. That`s not an opinion. I coud say that Orwell was a closet homosexual and suffered from feelings of inferiority, based on a page of 1984 I read. Do you think I could pass that off as just my opinion?

I don’t ever lump Simba or Aladdin in with “classic Disney.”
Pocahontas either, if case she was third on your list.

And did I miss your response on the necessary suspension of disbelief regarding the “science” of super-hero comics? Or are you “prompting” me to continue again?

“Why not hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others?”-because I never said a damned word about your character. “Assumptions” and “character” are two completely different concepts, so there are no “similar assumptions”

“it`s a ridiculous way to avoid logic and rational argument”- I agree, so perhaps you’d better stop.

“How is that different from what you did above”-one involves the color of grass, the other is the extermination of a living human. I think different is the mildest way to describe that.

“if more people agree with you than with me, that makes you right”- They wouldn’t agree with you because you would be FACTUALLY INCORRECT. I could find all those people because tha facts are on my side in that debate. That is the difference between debating FACTS and debating OPINIONS.

“Bz conceding that there are special cases, you therefore concede that “it just is” is an insufficient argument”- No, the exception proves the existence of the rule, not the validity.

“Suffice to say, none of it supports your assertion that they were vegetarian primarily for health reasons”- Fine, I’ll reword to suit your tastes, okay? They did for ANY other reason than ethics or morals, because they were extremely immoral people. Happy?

“Do you think I could pass that off as just my opinion?”-Yes, that’s how opinions work.

“waffling tirade”-Here you go again, do you even know what “waffling” means? I have maintained exactly the same impression of these men throughout, thereby negating the concept of waffling.

“On the chimp side, you did not address my reply to your response above”-Jesus, look around you! there are 1000s of mentally challenged people who been enabled to live something closer to an ordinary life. In the McDonald’s in my town, for instance, there is a young man named Brandon, who is challenged, that has been slowly introduced to working there, a few hours a day, and is now a valued employee. He is being productive and given some sense of pride. You can train a chimp to do about 1/nothingth of his job.

“your comment on the post was not only relevant to the samples”- I am seriously tired of this, so I will only say this one more time. I made the comment, therefore it is mine to decide what it is relevant to, not yours. My comment was my opinion, which clearly, by the definition of the blasted word itself, means what it means to me, and doesn’t, nor does it need to, encompass you or your opinions.

“I could say “a woman`s right to choose is more important than the existence of a foetus”- Yes I suppose you could, but you would be wrong. The right to choose came and went when she decided to risk having sex knowing full well the possibilities. Same goes for the guy involved. So yes, she has the right to choose, which she exercised already. A fetus is life. this is not an opinion, it is a scientifically proven fact.

“But it`s not your opinion”- I gave you plenty of chances, more than you in any way deserved. I even gave you the defintion of the word, and you still choose to be obtuse. Fine. Go ahead and rant. Prove yourself as dim as you wish to be seen. Everything you need to know to keep yourself from being ridiculed is all right here, if you would bother to read them. You obviously prefer to charge forward in the face of facts, so feel free. I will no longer address these assertions, as they have been beaten beyond death, and you continue to use the word completely incorrectly.

“Do you have a quote from Morrison, or some other evidence, that displays that his motive in We3 was to demonstrate his belief that an animal life is worth more than a human life’ -Did I ever say it was his motive in writing it? No I did not, so this is as irrelevant as it is redundant.

“concede that it is a special case because Hitler forfeited the value of his life” – the only special case here was you failing to realize how fatally flawed your example was.

“tirade against Da Vinci, Einstein and Gandhi” I wasn’t even going to mention them again, but YOU insisted.

“I gather that you`re “pro-life”. ” – you may gather no such thing. I consider myself pro-choice, I just differ on where exactly the choice comes into it.

“And did I miss your response on the necessary suspension of disbelief regarding the “science” of super-hero comics’ -Well you obviously missed my reference to satire, so…..
My comment regarding the animal’s being able to talk, was in a section that I labeled, quite clearly, as a joke. I realize you think you have made a clever point here, but you missed. Sorry. As BDaly says “accept it”.

“I don’t ever lump Simba or Aladdin in with “classic Disney.”
Pocahontas either, if case she was third on your list.” – I could not care less if you trace Disney’s work clear back to the original “Alice” shorts. the names I plucked out of the ether could just as easily have been Snow White or Jiminy. The point is that Watership Down was, comparitively, insanely more complex than anything Disney cranked out. And therefore it pointed to WE3 being something it quite clearly isn’t, furthering my determination that WE3 is not nearly so deep as some would like to think,as EVIDENCED (see BDaly? nyah nyah) by the inablity of reviewers to agree on what the heck it is.

“This does not invalidate their accoplishments[sic] (see, I can do that too. it’s just as pointless, but ….), whether you are impressed by them or not.”- At what point exactly, did I say it invalidated their accomplishments? I think the Mona Lisa is vastly overrated and ugly, but that does not negate the fact that people the world over would pays millions for it, nor have I in any way implied in any way that it would.

“I still think we treat animals very badly and in some frankly sadistic, sinister and quite unjustifiable ways and I’m sure a lot of that comes across in WE3 but I hope the messages of the book are more nuanced than the simple ‘Two legs bad, four legs good’ of some Animal Man stories”- Had to post this. Note the absence of anything like “WE3 doesn’t contain those same messages” Just that he hopes they are harder to spot. there. Quote from the man himself. “Accept it”.

I did not say assumptions and character are similar concepts. I said that you criticise others for claiming to know your mind, yet you claim to know the minds of others. Again, attributing things to me I never said.

`”How is that different from what you did above”-one involves the color of grass, the other is the extermination of a living human. I think different is the mildest way to describe that.`
I`m not talking about grass, but that wouln`t matter. The topic is irrelevent, what matters is the ability to argue logically and rationally and not simply say “it just is”. One of the roles of philosophy is to question everything and never assume anything.

`”Bz conceding that there are special cases, you therefore concede that “it just is” is an insufficient argument”- No, the exception proves the existence of the rule, not the validity.`
The exception proves the rule means that exception puts the rule to the test, not that it proves it in the way we would typically mean it today. And anyway, what do you mean by that? It clearly is not a rule if it has exceptions. It varies from case to case.

See now? You`re arguing the case, in reference to the chimp example. Do you see the difference between attempting to really argue your case and simply saying “it just is”. You`re making progress. Of course, in the example I cited, the whole point was that the person`s mental capacity is below that of a chimp (go reread it if you need to). So, in that case, what makes the human`s life more valuable? (Bear in mind that I`ve addressed your argument about potential technology and medicine.)

`”Suffice to say, none of it supports your assertion that they were vegetarian primarily for health reasons”- Fine, I’ll reword to suit your tastes, okay? They did for ANY other reason than ethics or morals, because they were extremely immoral people. Happy?`
So if a person has acted immorally at some stage/s in their life, that means that they are incapable of doing anything solely for ethical reasons in some other area of their life(even if their ethics are different to yours)? Oh, and their immorality – THAT`S an opinion.

“Do you think I could pass that off as just my opinion?”-Yes, that’s how opinions work.`
So if it`s okay for me to make assumptions about Orwell`s life based on a page of 1984, and it`s okay for you to make assumptions about Morrison`s views on life based on a few pages of We3 (provided, of course, that we say it`s our opinion), then why is it not okay for people to have opinions about your character based on your numerous posts here?

`”I could say “a woman`s right to choose is more important than the existence of a foetus”- Yes I suppose you could, but you would be wrong. The right to choose came and went when she decided to risk having sex knowing full well the possibilities. Same goes for the guy involved. So yes, she has the right to choose, which she exercised already. A fetus is life. this is not an opinion, it is a scientifically proven fact.`
David, I already told you. I see no ethical or moral issue here. A woman`s freedom and right to choose is more important than the life of a foetus. It just is.

`”I don’t ever lump Simba or Aladdin in with “classic Disney.”
Pocahontas either, if case she was third on your list.” – I could not care less if you trace Disney’s work clear back to the original “Alice” shorts. the names I plucked out of the ether could just as easily have been Snow White or Jiminy. The point is that Watership Down was, comparitively, insanely more complex than anything Disney cranked out. And therefore it pointed to WE3 being something it quite clearly isn’t, furthering my determination that WE3 is not nearly so deep as some would like to think,as EVIDENCED (see BDaly? nyah nyah) by the inablity of reviewers to agree on what the heck it is.`
Well, reviewers still disagree on what Kubrick`s 2001 is. Does that mean it lacks depth?
And did you really nyah nyah me? Are you that far gone?

And to address your coup de graces:
`”I still think we treat animals very badly and in some frankly sadistic, sinister and quite unjustifiable ways and I’m sure a lot of that comes across in WE3 but I hope the messages of the book are more nuanced than the simple ‘Two legs bad, four legs good’ of some Animal Man stories”- Had to post this. Note the absence of anything like “WE3 doesn’t contain those same messages” Just that he hopes they are harder to spot. there. Quote from the man himself. “Accept it”.`

I don`t see how that confirms, or even implies, that Morrison thinks an animal life is worth more than a human life any more than the posted pages do, which is not at all.

“criticise others for claiming to know your mind, yet you claim to know the minds of others. Again, attributing things to me I never said.”-Baloney, you called them similar assumptions. To be similar assumptions, they must be similar concepts.

“I don`t see how that confirms, or even implies” -I beg your pardon? Grant Morrison admits he puts such messages in his work, including WE3, and you don’t see how that confirms that there are such messages in his work?

” One of the roles of philosophy is to question everything and never assume anything.”- But we’re not talking about philosophy, so who cares?

“So if a person has acted immorally at some stage/s in their life, that means that they are incapable of doing anything solely for ethical reasons in some other area of their life(even if their ethics are different to yours)? “- Well, if they are unable to see the ethical problems with, say, hating an entire race of people or helping bring about the sudden death of untold 1000s of people in a flash of light and heat and pressure then I don’t think
they would begin to know how to apply ethics to something smaller and more personal. As I said, actions speak louder than words and you are goddammed right, for a change, that IS an opinion. It’s my opinion and I’m welcome to it thank you very much.

“The exception proves the rule means that exception puts the rule to the test” No it bloody doesn’t. Look, you can have a rule without an exception, you can’t have an exception without a rule. Having an exception proves nothing but that there was a rule to be excepted in the first place.

“Of course, in the example I cited, the whole point was that the person`s mental capacity is below that of a chimp (go reread it if you need to). – The only time a quip like that is funny or effective is if the person being stung by it got the thing in question wrong. I didn’t. I never said any different. I said the person has more likliehood of being made better. Go re-read THAT before you make your next smart-ass remark.

“So if it`s okay for me to make assumptions about Orwell`s life based on a page of 1984, and it`s okay for you to make assumptions about Morrison`s views on life based on a few pages of We3 (provided, of course, that we say it`s our opinion), then why is it not okay for people to have opinions about your character based on your numerous posts here- Because A) I didn’t make any such assumptions, I based them on reading Morrison’s own words as well as his works so your idiotic statement, which has already been addressed more than once, is baseless. B) I made no assumptions, or statements, about Morrison’s character.

“Does that mean it lacks depth”-yes, also it was boring as Hell.

“And did you really nyah nyah me? Are you that far gone?” – Are you really so dense you don’t recognize sarcasm?

“A woman`s freedom and right to choose is more important than the life of a foetus. It just is.” -There are two possibilities here.
A) You are attempting to be ironic and witty.
B) You really are that stupid.
In either case, you are tearing down your own argument. Either you think that every argument can be settled that way, which I have never remotely implied, or you genuinely think that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, or you actually think that by making that statement you have just devastated my argument. In all three scenarios you are wrong.

Not a big fan of abortion, not one of those who thinks it’s just another discharge (Mr Rotten. line two, greatest Sex Pistols moment of all) But I work with enough damaged children Monday to Friday to know it’s a complicated fucking issue, and ultimately the metter resides between the girl and her creator, BUT THAT’S JUST ME.
For those who don’t understand my reference, go to Youtube, type in Bodies Sex Pistols CD version, and set your speakers really fucking loud.
Dinner calls, I’ll re-engage David regarding his latest rebut at a future point.
But for now, rememember, speakers loud.

“ultimately the metter resides between the girl and her creator”-uuummmm, unless you’re discussing the immaculate conception, apropriate enough for a fantasy website I’ll grant you, then I think you kind of left out the man involved. It took ‘em both to create the life, it takes ‘em both to decide the course of it.

That depends on the situation. I was being a bit glib, yes, and if my wife told me she was pregnant and wanted a divorce I certainly would expect my opinion to matter.
I guess really I was expressing my feeling that reading the two of you somehow draw the abortion debate into this extended discussion feels even sillier than invoking Einstein and DaVinci.

Wait, 2001 was as boring as hell? Wow, how did you ever wade through Watership Down? It’s a little on the slow side too, isn’t it?

And I wasn’t the one who invoked Disney, some reviewer apparently did if I understand you correctly.
But when you’re trying to describe an unusual book or movie, one that you can’t compare to anything else that is out there, sometimes all you can do is to say “it’s like a little bit of this mixed with a little of that, with some of this other story thrown in and an extra flavoring of whatever.” Hopefully the reader can put the different references together and get a sense of what the book/movie/cd/whatever will be like.

‘”criticise others for claiming to know your mind, yet you claim to know the minds of others. Again, attributing things to me I never said.”

-Baloney, you called them similar assumptions. To be similar assumptions, they must be similar concepts.’

No, they simply need to be similar in that they are unsupported assumptions.

‘”I don`t see how that confirms, or even implies” -I beg your pardon? Grant Morrison admits he puts such messages in his work, including WE3, and you don’t see how that confirms that there are such messages in his work?’
Would you point out exactly where Morrison said he puts messages that animal lives are worth more than human lives into his work? I must have missed that part.

‘”So if a person has acted immorally at some stage/s in their life, that means that they are incapable of doing anything solely for ethical reasons in some other area of their life(even if their ethics are different to yours)? “- Well, if they are unable to see the ethical problems with, say, hating an entire race of people or helping bring about the sudden death of untold 1000s of people in a flash of light and heat and pressure then I don’t think
they would begin to know how to apply ethics to something smaller and more personal. As I said, actions speak louder than words and you are goddammed right, for a change, that IS an opinion. It’s my opinion and I’m welcome to it thank you very much’
But the question is not whether their reasoning is sound or their ethics are justifiable (which would be down to individual opinion). The question is whether they were motivated by their own personal ethics to adopt a vegetarian diet. Nothing you have posted implies otherwise, though their own statements imply that this is the case. Please, explain to me how Da Vinci was a vegetarian for health reasons? Was there a fad diet back then that he got hooked on? And what was his motive for buying caged birds and setting them free. Also for his health?
And if contributing to the creation of the atomic bomb makes Einstein immoral, what does making the decision to drop the bomb make Truman? Presumably the man was pure evil.

‘” One of the roles of philosophy is to question everything and never assume anything.”- But we’re not talking about philosophy, so who cares?’
So animal rights and the value of life are not philosophical issues?

‘”The exception proves the rule means that exception puts the rule to the test” No it bloody doesn’t. Look, you can have a rule without an exception, you can’t have an exception without a rule. Having an exception proves nothing but that there was a rule to be excepted in the first place.’
I mean that’s literally what the phrase means. That’s how it originated. It means prove as in test, not prove as in confirm. And if you have exceptions, then it’s a rule of thumb, but not a hard and fast rule (for example, i before e except after c is a rule of thumb, but not a rule). This means that you can’t say “it just is”, because if there are exceptions, then there are cases where “it” isn’t.

‘”Of course, in the example I cited, the whole point was that the person`s mental capacity is below that of a chimp (go reread it if you need to). – The only time a quip like that is funny or effective is if the person being stung by it got the thing in question wrong. I didn’t. I never said any different. I said the person has more likliehood of being made better. Go re-read THAT before you make your next smart-ass remark.’
The person has more likelihood of being made better? How and why? What if, in this case, the person’s disability is so irreparable and confounds scientists and doctors so much that a “cure” is less likely than boosting the intelligence of a chimp to human levels? Explain to me, what makes the human life more valuable? Nonetheless, if you’re assessing the value of a life on intelligence, does that mean the lives of other humans are worth more than that of the disabled person, or that the lives of intelligent people are worth more than those of less intelligent people?

‘”So if it`s okay for me to make assumptions about Orwell`s life based on a page of 1984, and it`s okay for you to make assumptions about Morrison`s views on life based on a few pages of We3 (provided, of course, that we say it`s our opinion), then why is it not okay for people to have opinions about your character based on your numerous posts here- Because A) I didn’t make any such assumptions, I based them on reading Morrison’s own words as well as his works so your idiotic statement, which has already been addressed more than once, is baseless. B) I made no assumptions, or statements, about Morrison’s character.’
But people here have based their opinions of your character on your own (numerous) words. So why isn’t that okay?

‘”Does that mean it lacks depth”-yes, also it was boring as Hell.’
So anything that doesn’t lend itself to a straightforward interpretation lacks depth? Something has to be clear and unambiguous to be deep?

‘”And did you really nyah nyah me? Are you that far gone?” – Are you really so dense you don’t recognize sarcasm?’
I’d call it immaturity, but perhaps you enjoy less sophisticated forms of sarcasm. Nyah nyah?

‘”A woman`s freedom and right to choose is more important than the life of a foetus. It just is.” -There are two possibilities here.
A) You are attempting to be ironic and witty.
B) You really are that stupid.
In either case, you are tearing down your own argument. Either you think that every argument can be settled that way, which I have never remotely implied, or you genuinely think that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, or you actually think that by making that statement you have just devastated my argument. In all three scenarios you are wrong.’
Our views on abortion are irrelevant here. Our views on the value of animals’ lives relative to humans’ are also irrelevant. The point is that we have reasons for holding our views. We, as rational human beings, think about things and reach conclusions that we can somehow justify to ourselves, even if others may disagree. If we were to argue about abortion (and we’re not), we would each be able to present our case and explain why we believe our view to be the right one. I can’t defend my case by simply saying “it just is” any more than you can. It is a complex argument, and people hold different views. The same applies to the value of life. You are entitled to your own opinion on how human life stacks up relative to that of animals, as am I, as is Morrison. All three opinions vary somewhat from each other (based on what I’ve gleaned), but I suspect all three of us could attempt to justify our views with supporting arguments. I’m simply asking that you, as a human capable of using logic, use that logic, and not simply argue that your view is correct because “it just is”. You’re letting yourself down, and wasting the faculties with which you’ve been gifted.

I tossed in some blockquote tags (< blockquote > thing you want to quote < /blockquote > – just remove the spaces between the <>) to show you how less of an assault on the eyes the comments can be with the blockquotes in place.

Thanks Brian. I know it makes life easier, and I was going to ask how to do it ( figured that was how, so I should have tested it), but I really didn’t expect to waste so much time on this.

Thanks Brian. I know it makes life easier
and apparently now I know how to do it.
nyah nyah

“two of you somehow draw the abortion debate into this extended discussion feels even sillier than invoking Einstein and DaVinci” – I didn’t bring it up. I’ll thank you not to lump me and Bdaly together like that.

“And I wasn’t the one who invoked Disney” – I didn’t say you did.

“sometimes all you can do is to say “it’s like a little bit of this mixed with a little of that, with some of this other story thrown in and an extra flavoring of whatever’- But wouldn’t you expect the man who wrote to know his own work a little better than that?

“or that the lives of intelligent people are worth more than those of less intelligent people?”- da Vinci, Gandhi, Einstein, and a guy who argues over the definiton of opinion are trapped in a burning building with time to get only 3 of them out. Who do YOU leave behind?

“Would you point out exactly where Morrison said he puts messages that animal lives are worth more than human lives into his work? I must have missed that part” -”‘Two legs bad, four legs good’ – Did you see it THAT time?

“And what was his motive for buying caged birds and setting them free” – I dunno. Stupidity? Desire to piss away his money? Love of telling other people how to think?

“Was there a fad diet back then that he got hooked on”- Your smart-ass asides notwithstanding, if da Vinnie was so intelligent, then surely he would have been able to reason out that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a carnivorous one.

“what does making the decision to drop the bomb make Truman? Presumably the man was pure evil” – Wow, you would presume someone to be pure evil? You need help.
What does it make him? A short-sighted impatient man in an impossible situation. He wasn’t in the position of “green-lighting” the bomb’s creation, that was long-done. FDR left him with a no-win situation. Drop the bomb and commit irrevocable harm to the entire world,but stop the war? Or don’t drop it, risk losing face on the world stage and prolong the war indefinitely? He had no real choices, but he would not have been in that situation had the bomb not existed.

“So animal rights and the value of life are not philosophical issues” -No, I said we weren’t tlaking about philosophy. We are discussing morals and ethics, two specific disciplines. It’s sort of like arguing about two species that existed in the Jurassic period and then referring to it as the study of the Mesozoic.

“It clearly is not a rule if it has exceptions” -You wrote that. I didn’t. If you can’t be bothered to keep track of your own statements then what in the Hell are we arguing for? It clearly cannot have an exception if there is no rule. So your further “then it’s a rule of thumb, but not a hard and fast rule” is statistically unimprotant. If something is “X” 99% of the time and “Y” 1%, then “X” is the rule. “Y” may occassionally be considerd or excepted, but it does not invalidate the rule.

“What if, in this case, the person’s disability is so irreparable and confounds scientists and doctors so much that a “cure” is less likely than boosting the intelligence of a chimp to human levels” – While I will agree that many chimp-like people work at that McDonald’s, none of them are actual chimps. And, for that matter, a 2-in-a-billion chance is somewhat better than a 1-in-a-billion, but again it is statistically irrelevant.

So anything that doesn’t lend itself to a straightforward interpretation lacks depth? Something has to be clear and unambiguous to be deep

- – No, I’m saying that something that is ambiguous and not easily interpreted can just as easily be something that is just a jumbled mess created by someone who has no more idea what it is than the people experiencing it have. Being hard to interpret doesn’t imply depth any more than being easily understood implies lack thereof. Often people read things into, say, literary works, than there is to be read, or than was intended by the author. Just as often they miss things that are right there to be seen, because they are looking for “deeper meaning”, an ironic statement for this discussion.

But people here have based their opinions of your character on your own (numerous) words. So why isn’t that okay

- – Are you seriously this dense, or are you trying to be provocative? I answered that earlier, which YOU quoted 1 inch above this ridiculous question.

Our views on abortion are irrelevant here

– I couldn’t agree more, so why the HELL did you bring it up?

The same applies to the value of life

- I never said otherwise, but we are talking about the difference between animal life and human life, not life itself.

not simply argue that your view is correct because “it just is”.

- Is that seriously the way you’ve been taking this. I don’t argue it’s correct because it just is, I argue that it “just is” because it’s correct.

Hey, that blockquote thing is nice. Apologies if I’d been guilty of occular assault.

Hope these blockquotes work. Sorry if it all goes to pot.

“or that the lives of intelligent people are worth more than those of less intelligent people?”- da Vinci, Gandhi, Einstein, and a guy who argues over the definiton of opinion are trapped in a burning building with time to get only 3 of them out. Who do YOU leave behind?’

So you do believe the value of a life is determined by the intelligence of its holder? It’s a reason, at least. Of course, it makes you come across as something of an elitist (unless, of course, your life is one of those that’s less valuable, like “a guy who argues over the definition of an opinion”). But whatever.

“Would you point out exactly where Morrison said he puts messages that animal lives are worth more than human lives into his work? I must have missed that part” -”‘Two legs bad, four legs good’ – Did you see it THAT time?

‘Fraid not. That doesn’t indicate that he intended We3 to convey that human life was more valuable than animal life. And maybe consider the work to which he is alluding, and consider how he’s using the term. Given that you’re so quick to direct others towards their dictionary, I trust you have yours to hand. Why not look up a word you’ve already told someone else to look up: ironic. He’s taking the piss out of himself, indicating that, at the very least, he’s a bit more humble than you are.

“And what was his motive for buying caged birds and setting them free” – I dunno. Stupidity? Desire to piss away his money? Love of telling other people how to think?

No, you dunno. No more than you know his motivation in other cases.

“Was there a fad diet back then that he got hooked on”- Your smart-ass asides notwithstanding, if da Vinnie was so intelligent, then surely he would have been able to reason out that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a carnivorous one.

Well, he must have been quite a clever guy then (non-flying flying machines aside), given that dieticians and chemists have only come to that realisation relatively recently.

“what does making the decision to drop the bomb make Truman? Presumably the man was pure evil” – Wow, you would presume someone to be pure evil? You need help.
What does it make him? A short-sighted impatient man in an impossible situation. He wasn’t in the position of “green-lighting” the bomb’s creation, that was long-done. FDR left him with a no-win situation. Drop the bomb and commit irrevocable harm to the entire world,but stop the war? Or don’t drop it, risk losing face on the world stage and prolong the war indefinitely? He had no real choices, but he would not have been in that situation had the bomb not existed.

So his motives and morals were complex, and it’s not that easy to simply judge the man as immoral despite such a horrendous action? Pity that reasoning doesn’t extend to others in your view, and you can so easily paint their actions and ethics in black and white.

“So animal rights and the value of life are not philosophical issues” -No, I said we weren’t tlaking about philosophy. We are discussing morals and ethics, two specific disciplines. It’s sort of like arguing about two species that existed in the Jurassic period and then referring to it as the study of the Mesozoic.

No, it’s more like arguing about geometry or algebra and then referring to it as mathematics. Morals and ethics are distinct from philosophy? You’d better tell moral and ethical philosophers they’ve got their wires crossed.

“It clearly is not a rule if it has exceptions” -You wrote that. I didn’t. If you can’t be bothered to keep track of your own statements then what in the Hell are we arguing for? It clearly cannot have an exception if there is no rule. So your further “then it’s a rule of thumb, but not a hard and fast rule” is statistically unimprotant. If something is “X” 99% of the time and “Y” 1%, then “X” is the rule. “Y” may occassionally be considerd or excepted, but it does not invalidate the rule.

How was I not keeping track of my own statements? I’m well aware of what I’ve written, and I haven’t contradicted it, so what exactly do you mean? And you’ve now descended into nonsense. If for example, our given rule was “all birds can fly”, the sight of a penguin would contradict this. Now, a large proportion of birds can fly. I’m not sure whether it’s 99%, but it’s certainly the vast majority. Yet I could not state a “rule” that all birds can fly, because there clearly are exceptions.

This I can agree with:

I’m saying that something that is ambiguous and not easily interpreted can just as easily be something that is just a jumbled mess created by someone who has no more idea what it is than the people experiencing it have. Being hard to interpret doesn’t imply depth any more than being easily understood implies lack thereof. Often people read things into, say, literary works, than there is to be read, or than was intended by the author. Just as often they miss things that are right there to be seen, because they are looking for “deeper meaning”, an ironic statement for this discussion.

But you earlier statement:

…WE3 is not nearly so deep as some would like to think,as EVIDENCED (see BDaly? nyah nyah) by the inablity of reviewers to agree on what the heck it is.

says that the inability of reviewers to agree on what the work is provides evidence that it is not actually that deep. You still haven’t explained why it is evidence of that (despite some very clever nyah nyahing).

But people here have based their opinions of your character on your own (numerous) words. So why isn’t that okay

- – Are you seriously this dense, or are you trying to be provocative? I answered that earlier, which YOU quoted 1 inch above this ridiculous question.

Well, I actually realised that I’d missed a bit of your statement after I’d posted. (You see? It’s possible to acknowledge when you’ve made mistakes.)
So your contention is that, you can’t judge a person’s character in such cases, only their views on certain issues (as with Morrison and the value of life), their intentions behind the entire work (with both We3 and the 1984 example) or details of their personal lives (Orwell’s hypothetical insecurity, etc). So, we can’t assess your character, but we can decide that you hate animals? I mean, that’s not exactly what you say, but Morrison doesn’t exactly say that animal lives are worth more than humans. We could also decide that you’re a sexually frustrated man who secretly wants to dress up in woman’s clothing (after all, you said my Orwell opinion would be valid).

not simply argue that your view is correct because “it just is”.
- Is that seriously the way you’ve been taking this. I don’t argue it’s correct because it just is, I argue that it “just is” because it’s correct.

Perhaps it’s that dimness of mine that you’ve alluded to so many times, but I fail to see the difference. It seems a bit chicken and egg to me. Whichever way it goes, you have to give reasons or arguments why it’s “correct” or “it just is”. It makes no difference to the problem with your approach. Reason man. It’s called reason. Assertions, certainly on complex philosophical issues, need to be backed up.

So you do believe the value of a life is determined by the intelligence of its holder? It’s a reason, at least. Of course, it makes you come across as something of an elitist (unless, of course, your life is one of those that’s less valuable, like “a guy who argues over the definition of an opinion”). But whatever

You just don’t really get this whole “sarcasm” thing do you?

He’s taking the piss out of himself, indicating that, at the very least, he’s a bit more humble than you are.

- No, he was pointing out (and this is right in the quote) that he has written the message “two legs bad, four legs good” in all but the actual words. He admitted (there and in other places) that he writes such things. He said he just hopes it comes across more subtly than in his older work.

No, you dunno. No more than you know his motivation in other cases

But you have a direct line to him? This is ALL supposition.

given that dieticians and chemists have only come to that realisation relatively recently

- Huh? Just because they have been pushing the idea harder recently does not translate to just figured it out.

That doesn’t indicate that he intended We3 to convey that human life was more valuable than animal life

It indicates that he does lean that way, which was the point of that quote.

and it’s not that easy to simply judge the man as immoral despite such a horrendous action

– I didn’t call Truman immoral, you did my short-memoried friend. I said he was put in an impossible situation by, among others, Aloisius Einstein. It doesn’t have a damned thing to do with his morals or motivations as it was long out of his control before he was in any position to influence it. And I am getting damned tired of having to overexplain these things just because you type immediately after thinking you have spotted an exploitable flaw. You’re making inferences that aren’t there at all to be made, and ignoring the actual meanings of actual words trying to further your arguments.

Morals and ethics are distinct from philosophy?

Jesus. The Jurassic period was a subsection of the Mesozoic period, which is divided into the following :Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. So referring to Jurassic critters as Mesozoic critters is far too broad a definiton, as is your assertion that we have simply been discussing philosophy all this time.

Yet I could not state a “rule” that all birds can fly, because there clearly are exceptions.

Why do you think Penguins, to use your example, are called “flightless birds” and sparrows, for instance, are not called “flying birds”? Because birds flying is the rule, and there are certain exceptions. The exceptions do not invalidate the rule, nor do they prove it’s solid. they simply prove the rule exists.

You still haven’t explained why it is evidence of that (despite some very clever nyah nyahing).

- – Evidence is merely what backs up our own beliefs. When I encounter a work (book, movie, whatever) that I feel has hidden depth, I am often rewarded with reading reviews or critiques of that work that seem to see the same things, to whatever extent. However, when I encounter reviews of a work that ramble all over the place, as do these, almost (not quote, but close) invariably it turns out that the work seems pretentious, overwritten, and full of itself to me. I have found these statements to be true far more often than not, thus I refer to it as evidence. honestly, if I just need to use simpler terms and words, let me know.

their intentions behind the entire work

- I never said that it was his intention behind the entire work, or anything like that. And if I see one more sentence like this one, which infers (or as in this case, flat-out states), something I in no way said, then I have lost all interest in furthering any discussion.

We could also decide that you’re a sexually frustrated man who secretly wants to dress up in woman’s clothing (after all, you said my Orwell opinion would be valid).

- Was that an attempt at sarcasm? Well, maybe you have a little hope after all. See, an opinion can be valid and factually incorrect, that’s how they work. Just like I could decide you are a pedantic little squint who lives in his Mother’s basement, lives on Vimto and Turkish Delight and writes letters to the network complaining that David Tennant’s socks were different colors in the same episode and reads fan fic about K-9 with “all-new attachments” to please Rose and Sarah Jane at the same time….wait, that last part might be just me. But the rest, well, it MIGHT be wildly incorrect (or uncomfortably close), but it’s an opinion. opinion’s don’t demand solid fact, or any other kind for that matter.

Perhaps it’s that dimness of mine that you’ve alluded to so many times, but I fail to see the difference

- It is.

Whichever way it goes, you have to give reasons or arguments why it’s “correct” or “it just is”. It makes no difference to the problem with your approach. Reason man. It’s called reason. Assertions, certainly on complex philosophical issues, need to be backed up

- I have. Numerous times. You’ve ignored virtually all of it in favor of continued argument. I’m not explaining it all again, I’m just not. I’ve answered every question you’ve put to me, but those answers didn’t agree with you so you’ve insisted I haven’t answered them. I’ve been more than patient with your inability to follow along, and broken down explanations that you apparently couldn’t grasp so that we could continue discussion on them. But for you to continually insist that I need to perform actions I have in fact performed is grating beyond tolerance. I have no idea what you do for a living, but I would suggest you should become a lawyer. Your innate ability to hammer away at the truth and not let facts cloud your fervor is highly prized in that field.

…he was pointing out (and this is right in the quote) that he has written the message “two legs bad, four legs good” in all but the actual words. He admitted (there and in other places) that he writes such things. He said he just hopes it comes across more subtly than in his older work.

This is the quote you posted:

“I still think we treat animals very badly and in some frankly sadistic, sinister and quite unjustifiable ways and I’m sure a lot of that comes across in WE3 but I hope the messages of the book are more nuanced than the simple ‘Two legs bad, four legs good’ of some Animal Man stories”- Had to post this. Note the absence of anything like “WE3 doesn’t contain those same messages” Just that he hopes they are harder to spot. there. Quote from the man himself. “Accept it”.

Yes, he admitted that “he writes such things”, but he states that he hopes the messages of We3 are more nuanced than the “two legs bad four legs good” of Animal Man. He is thus explicitly stating that the messages, while dealing with similar themes, are different (i.e. he contrasts the messages OF WE3 with “the two legs bad four legs good OF ANIMAL MAN”). Regardless, none of that says, or even implies, that he values animal life more than human life.

No, you dunno. No more than you know his motivation in other cases

But you have a direct line to him? This is ALL supposition.

Well, there are his notebooks and his own words, as well as the words of his contemporaries, all of which support the supposition that he did it for ethical reasons. What exactly supports your supposition that he did it primarily for health reasons? The fact that he designed weapons? That’s a bit of a stretch. The fact is that you once again made an unsupported claim (they did it primarily for health reasons).

I didn’t call Truman immoral, you did my short-memoried friend. I said he was put in an impossible situation by, among others, Aloisius Einstein. It doesn’t have a damned thing to do with his morals or motivations as it was long out of his control before he was in any position to influence it. And I am getting damned tired of having to overexplain these things just because you type immediately after thinking you have spotted an exploitable flaw. You’re making inferences that aren’t there at all to be made, and ignoring the actual meanings of actual words trying to further your arguments.

And I didn’t say you called him immoral, so explain to me why you believe my memory is short. So, Einstein, immoral bastard that he is (of course, he couldn’t also have more complex motivations, such considerations apply only to Truman) forced Truman’s hand in using the bomb, simply because he had a role in creating it. So, the people who make the weapon are immoral, but the person who uses it simply did so because they were left with no choice?

Jesus. The Jurassic period was a subsection of the Mesozoic period, which is divided into the following :Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. So referring to Jurassic critters as Mesozoic critters is far too broad a definiton, as is your assertion that we have simply been discussing philosophy all this time.

The definition may be too broad for your liking, but it is still a valid definition. No, we have not simply been discussing philosophy all this time, but my point (I apparently haven’t made this clear enough), is that if you’re going to argue about ethical and moral issues, you should use reasoning, and be willing to question – and defend if you see fit – accepted standards.

Yet I could not state a “rule” that all birds can fly, because there clearly are exceptions.

Why do you think Penguins, to use your example, are called “flightless birds” and sparrows, for instance, are not called “flying birds”? Because birds flying is the rule, and there are certain exceptions. The exceptions do not invalidate the rule, nor do they prove it’s solid. they simply prove the rule exists.

Birds flying is the rule? Again, pick up that dictionary sitting next to you. Look up bird. Tell me what you see as the characteristics. Flying isn’t one of them.
If someone says: “Such and such is a rule. It just is.”. Then someone else says “But what about in this case?”
Speaker one then says “Oh, well it’s a valid rule every time except then.” Call me crazy, but it seems that speaker one is shifting goalposts. How many exceptions do there need to be before a rule ceases to be a rule?

…if I see one more sentence like this one, which infers (or as in this case, flat-out states), something I in no way said, then I have lost all interest in furthering any discussion.

As I’ve already pointed out, you’re very quick to get upset about people supposedly attributing things to you that you never said, yet you did the same to everyone here when you claimed that they’re only critical of you because they can’t stand the fact that you don’t like We3. An utter pile of nonsense. And yet, this would seem to be okay if we use your view on when an opinion is valid. So, maybe my opinion is that, while you may not have said that, you meant it. It’s just my opinion, after all.

Was that an attempt at sarcasm? Well, maybe you have a little hope after all. See, an opinion can be valid and factually incorrect, that’s how they work. Just like I could decide you are a pedantic little squint who lives in his Mother’s basement, lives on Vimto and Turkish Delight and writes letters to the network complaining that David Tennant’s socks were different colors in the same episode and reads fan fic about K-9 with “all-new attachments” to please Rose and Sarah Jane at the same time….wait, that last part might be just me. But the rest, well, it MIGHT be wildly incorrect (or uncomfortably close), but it’s an opinion. opinion’s don’t demand solid fact, or any other kind for that matter.

But if it was subsequently revealed to you that reality does not comply with your opinion, and that I in fact live in your mother’s room, sipping fine wine and reading the Wall Street Journal, you’d be a bit silly to cling to your opinion, because the fact that is is factually incorrect would make it invalid. It’s thus foolish to form a subjective opinion on objective facts, when you have no way of knowing one way or the other whether your opinion matches the facts.
In any case, I would argue that an informed opinion is more valid than an ignorant opinion.
No one can say an opinion is not valid if there is no objective factual status to be argued. For example, you could say (after reading it) that you didn’t like We3. That would be your opinion and that would be subjective. I could say I think horse manure tastes delicious, and that would be my opinion. In these cases, no one can say that the opinions are not valid, because they are subjective.
But you stated, without having read the work, that a scene indicates that Morrison values animal life over human life. When others, who actually have read it, point out that, when taken in context, the scene indicates no such thing, perhaps you should concede that their informed opinion is more valid than your uninformed opinion.

You state that you don’t want to read the book after seeing what’s posted here, as one can decide that one doesn’t want to see a movie after watching a trailer. That’s fine. Yet, if I watched the trailer for Avatar, I could say I don’t want to see the movie, but if I said “Did you see what happened in that trailer? James Cameron must think that the Iraq war was all about oil,” I would be jumping to conclusions. My opinion would be uninformed and ignorant. Certainly, if someone I know watched the movie and explained to me that, when taken in context, the scenes don’t actually convey the message I felt they did, I would be particularly stubborn and ignorant if I stuck to my guns and continued arguing that my opinion of the work and its creator based on the trailer is just as valid as the opinions of the work and creator held by those who have actually seen the film.

Whichever way it goes, you have to give reasons or arguments why it’s “correct” or “it just is”. It makes no difference to the problem with your approach. Reason man. It’s called reason. Assertions, certainly on complex philosophical issues, need to be backed up

- I have. Numerous times. You’ve ignored virtually all of it in favor of continued argument. I’m not explaining it all again, I’m just not. I’ve answered every question you’ve put to me, but those answers didn’t agree with you so you’ve insisted I haven’t answered them. I’ve been more than patient with your inability to follow along, and broken down explanations that you apparently couldn’t grasp so that we could continue discussion on them. But for you to continually insist that I need to perform actions I have in fact performed is grating beyond tolerance. I have no idea what you do for a living, but I would suggest you should become a lawyer. Your innate ability to hammer away at the truth and not let facts cloud your fervor is highly prized in that field.

You have? You explained your reasoning why human life is more valuable than animal life? I must have missed it. Oh well, it matters not, the important thing is that you have supporting arguments for your view and accept that your view requires supporting arguments, beyond “it just is”. I’m glad that’s settled.

You see, I don’t care whether you like Morrison or Kubrick. I don’t care what you think of Gandhi, Da Vinci or Einstein. I don’t care what your views are on animal rights or abortion.
What pisses me (and others) off is that you made a rash, uninformed judgement on the messages contained in a work and the intentions of its creator, and then doggedly defended those judgements against the arguments of numerous people who know the work better. We all have to eat humble pie sometimes, so stop trying to hide yours under the couch. Go back and read all the initial replies to your foolish statement, and try to understand why so many people called you on it. I’ll give you a tip: It’s not because you don’t like Morrison.
The other thing that pisses me off is that you tried to defend your opinion of an ethical issue (in this case the relative value of life) with the statement “it just is”. So in that case, it was you who was confusing opinion with fact. But as you claim to have subsequently used reason and backed up your assertions, I’m happy to back down and trust that you will argue better in the future.

Well David, my girlfriend (and no, it’s not your mom) thinks I must be insane to waste time on this, and I think she may be right.
You’re very aggressive and stubborn, and I think it’s a pity that you felt the need to repeatedly attempt to insult my intelligence (as well as my memory and my ability to keep track of what I’ve written), without any basis for such insults (except maybe in your own twisted head).
You’re clearly a fairly knowledgeable and well-educated person, yet you seem unable to apply your knowledge to logical argument. Such a pity, such a waste.
I would also add that you’re sad and pathetic, but of course that makes me just as sad and pathetic for having this argument with you.
It seems the other people who frequent this blog are more sensible than either of us, as they at least had the sense to walk away from your repetitive crowing about your uninformed opinion.

I wish you a merry Christmas. I hope you get a trade of We3 and a DVD of Kubrick’s 2001. Oh, and a new dictionary. I’m sure you’d like that.

Oops. Screwed up the quotes. Oh well, I think it’s still fairly clear, despite the excessive italicisation.

Well, if I understand this correctly, BDaly has decided to quit. I’m certainly not claiming “victory” or anything, and find it a bit dissappointing really. He was showing some promise towards the end there, though the “sad and pathetic” remark was a bit off-putting, as were the silly comments about my Mother. Still he tried, and you must give the lad credit.

Also I do need to acknowledge a bit of a slip in my writing. He’s right, there is no shame in admittinfg when one is wrong. When I wrote “living on Vimto and Turkish Delight” I should have said “subsisting” instead of “living”. I’ve only myself to blame for it, and I apologize.

I also find it interesting that though I was called on the carpet for never admitting my mistakes (whatever he thought they were), he admitted only the one that he quoted. When he said no one was attacking me, which was quickly proven completely wrong, he didn’t own up. Oh well, a minor point at best.

No, what is really strange to me is that it all seemed to take such a turn for the overly serious. For Crom’s sake,we are arguing on the internet! This isn’t real life. Lighten up a tad and have some fun! It’s no good engaging in a spirited debate where both or all parties essentially hold the same view. Honestly, none of this would have gone a tenth as far if those indefensible profanities had not been hurled at me.

Once again Brian, my apologies if this is not exactly the sort of thing you like to see on here. If it will avoid bad blood, so to speak, with my fellow readers, from now on I will read the bloddy things in their entirety, and THEN come and rip them limb from limb. Merry Christmas to all (as if there were still anyone reading this), and a Happy New Year as well!

THERE, he admitted he needs to read things before commenting on them.

Nyah

and

nyah.

Oh why can’t this just die already? I admitted no such bleeding thing. Unless by “need” you mean “in order to keep people who have no concept of the word opinion from hurling obscenities at me”. In that case, yes I “need” to.

You stay classy, David.

And you stay a minimum of fifty yards away from me at all times, joshschr.

Just hearing David say “from now on I will bleed the bloddy things in their entirety” before offering comments is the sweetest Christmas gift of all.

Say, Fourthworlder, what color is the sky on your planet? It’s blue here on Earth, where I explained the sarcasm underlying that statement when I said “READ the bloddy (hey, ya got me there. bloddy typos) things”.
Now you’re just being an Ass. Congratulations!

I think it’s really important to do as David says and read what he says. He clearly apologized in his first post for the bit of nonsense he was about to post. Consider that the second sweetest gift of all.

Boy, getting the last word in on this thread seems really important to David. What’s that about?

And here in vancouver the skies are most typically gray, but thanks for asking.

That’s not tr…Damn, blew it already.

So to recap, David should focus a little more on knowing what he talks about before he starts talking, and a little less on getting the last word in in every discussion.

May the blessings of Boxing Day be with you all.

Why, he is absolutely right and wrong, or rather, wrong and right respectively. And I will stop trying to get the last word in, so that HE can get the last word in, which is obviously every bit as important to him as he thinks it is to me. So go ahead, fourthworlder, it’s all yours!

Hey, please don’t copy me, I started the “he needs to get the last word” bit, so think up something original or just, please, let it go.
But I’m glad you read what i said before responding! Good effort! Thanks for that!

Now, I [i]could[/i] point out the fact that I actually did read every word here ( else I could hardly have responded) which makes “good effort” not only stupid but pointless and wrong. Or I could harp on the irony of him telling ME to be original. But I won’t. I said he could have the last word, and he can. Make any other stupid comments you want, accuse me of whatever indefensible garbage that strikes your fancy, I don’t care. Ignore every word I have written and pretend I haven’t explained myself. It doesn’t matter. Really. I mean, he keeps writing more to have the last word about me wanting the last word! The irony is just dri….no, no, I won’t do that. Go ahead, indulge your ids and egos, give full vent to your imaginations and then blame me for what you create in there. I don’t need the last word. I am secure in myself and my positions, so really, I mean it, go on and spit out the most ridiculous drivel you can manage, it won’t make a splat of difference.

Oh, I will. And though you may not respond, we all know how badly you will WANT to.
Perhaps it will nag at you all through 2010, but you can finally sneak a little response in in mid-July or so. Thank goodness you are so secure in yourself and your positions, whether you know what you speak of or not,apparently.

Sorry if my praise for your good effort hit a nerve.

There appears to be a debate which I’m popping after the end of. I haven’t read it – I’m sure it’ll only make me sad – but I wanted to say this is one of my favourite bits in all comics in the 00s. If I think about the RUN! RUN FAR! bit too much, I end up welling up.

Sniff.

KG

In fact, I just re-read the images now and I am. MAN!

KG

Neat to see Mr. Gillen post. If you ever come back here, hey sir.

Brian I just found this batch (year of Cool Moments). Curse you sir, I’m tearing up again. I bought this a month after adopting 2 labs. Duke would have been renamed Bandit, and then I’d cry whenever I tried to discipline him for being a wild dog, and oh hell maybe it all worked out.

Great article, great story, made my day even while breaking my heart again!

This “comments” section gave me a headache after the 1st 50 postings…….Sheesh…..

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives