thekendon

May 14, 2013 12:29 pm So the title is "Top 5: People Who've Worn the Iron Man Armor (Besides Pepper Potts and Jim Rhodes." What about Tony Stark?

May 31, 2012 4:18 am @Andrew Gaboury - Thank you for your response. I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I will go trough your response, and try to clear things up. First, unless the "you" that you are referring to is directed at people in general (as it sometimes is) and not me specifically, then I would like to remind you that I do not pirate comic books. The reason that I point this out is that the act of pirating comic books is the only selfish act that I describe in my post, so if you meant some other of my "selfish decisions" I would be confused. Of course, as I have stated earlier, I do not pirate comic books, which makes your point even more confusing. Second, it seems safe to say that you believe that "taking something that you did not pay for is both stealing and wrong." If you do not, please ignore this point. To your point, I would offer a counter example to show that your belief is not universally true. While walking to class recently, I came across a table with a stack of books and the label "Take One" (it was, I believe, a copy of the Gospel of John). I had little interest in taking one, but I think that few would claim that taking one in such a case should be considered stealing or wrong. Of course, you might be referring to the act of taking without permission. In that case, I would say that in most cases it would, in fact, be both stealing and wrong. However, this is not to say that the act of stealing is always wrong. In fact, the issue of piracy is one of great discussion among ethicists today because the act of stealing becomes incredibly different when the thing being stolen is only a copy of a thing. I should also clarify that I do not support any form of piracy; I just want to suggest that the issue is more complicated than it seems. Third, I know that the issue did not involve land rights; I merely used it as an analogy because it is a relatively easy concept to grasp. Analogies are beneficial because they explain things in other terms. There would have been little point in making an analogy using the exact same subject matter; at that point, it would not even be an analogy. Forth, concerning the need for "elaborate analogies to break down the mystery," I would say that the analogy was necessary. Many people were equating the lack of a right with a wrong action. The analogy showed that such reasoning is flawed. Now, at the risk of losing the only person who has agreed with me so far, I would like to add that I disagree with much of what Volcaos has written. He or she has done little to actually show why purchasing the trade after pirating the issues can be justified. So, I would like to clarify that my purpose has not been to support the "piracy side" but rather to get people to think before calling something wrong. Again, I would be happy to hear any thoughts.

May 30, 2012 7:58 pm I agree that I have no right to pirate comic books. Consequently, I don't pirate comic books. However, some people have gone as far as to say that it is wrong. I'm not sure that anybody has actually shown that is wrong, though. Simply lacking a right to do something is not the same as that thing being wrong. For example, suppose Bob has a right against me that I stay off his land; other things being equal it is also wrong for me to go onto his land. But, let's suppose that my child is dangerously sick and the only way that I can him to the hospital in a reasonable amount of time is to cut through Bob's land. In this case, I still lack the right to go onto Bob's land, but it would be ridiculous to say that my action was wrong. Some have made the argument: (1)-Stealing entertainment is wrong. (2)-Comic books are entertainment. (3) Pirating is stealing. (4)- Therefore, pirating comic books is wrong. This is a valid argument, but its soundness can be brought into question. Premise (2) seems reasonable; premise (3) is a bit more of a stretch but also fairly reasonable. Premise (1), however, lacks any real justification; it is presented as axiomatic, but it really isn't. If somebody can definitively prove premise (1), then they would be on a good track to also proving conclusion (4). Your thoughts?

March 9, 2012 3:31 pm I was thinking that might be it too.

March 9, 2012 3:18 pm I've started writing in the comments box about ten times now. I guess I just have no idea what to think about this. My inclination is that I should be worried, but I hope I'm wrong.

September 28, 2011 8:29 pm Wow, they're just beating on his run on Ultimate X-Men. As somebody who actually stayed on through Kirkman's awful run and to the end, I have to say that Vaughan's run on the book was the best of the series. Maybe his other work is better (I've only read a bit of it), but Vaughan's Ultimate X-Men is fantastic.

July 21, 2011 3:25 pm Was I the only one thinking that this was about "Ultimate Marvel?"

May 3, 2011 7:25 pm @spikevalentine  I've seen it too, but I don't know what you mean by watered down Ultimates type.  The movie spent far too much time in Asgard for it to really feel like Ultimate Thor.  If anything, it reminds me of the X-Men film; a reimagining with a bunch of little nods to the source material (references to Donald Blake are like refernces to blue spandex in X-Men).