> You were perfectly clear. There are merely some obtuse posters who
> assume, for reasons of their own, the idiotic proposition that there the
> only alternative to moralism is some weird conception of "scientivic"
> neutrality. That's their problem and it ought not be allowed to
> interfere with adult conversation, which requires freedom from such
> stultifying either/ors.
>
> Carrol
=============
No, it's everyone's problem/issue and there needs to be more discussion regarding whether deploying concepts historically identified as *moral discourse* are effective tools of persuasion in helping people deal with creating viable alternatives to the ongoing *tragedy* of contemporary capitalism.
Ian