Originally Posted by regwec
Right, but that isn't really the argument in play here. In this instance, the argument is deployed against the assertion it is believable that Batman would intimidate criminals, but that the trunks would militate against that. You have to go back a few pages to see how the chain has developed, but the comparison of thing criticised and thing accepted was initially quite direct.
That's not what he said. He said that one would have no reason to not accept Batman wearing trunks if they can accept the existence of clay monsters, peak humans, etc.