So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
The problem with this is always, "What is the data going to be used for?" In the Xmen the point of the Mutant registration stuff was always so that the people with the Sentinels (or something similar) could have a database ready so the sentinels could find them more easily.
See, this is part of why the SHRA wasn't as good an idea as Reed thought it was. Reed had every intention of using the data to help other heroes. But if the data is public? that creates too many problems. Now every supervillain in the world has an index of the home addresses of every superhero in the world. THIS is why Steve Rogers refused to go along with it.
Also what beneficial aspect is there to making it mandatory? If it's actually beneficial, then people will sign up because they WANT to. Well.... the dark side to the SHRA was that it actually was designed as a way to "self police" superheroes. But why bother? SHIELD kinda does that already. There's numerous characters with superpowers who work for SHIELD. SHIELD also knows better than to make public what they know about the various superheroes and villains.
Also, as Steve Rogers pointed out, the SHRA applied to all people with powers, whether they chose to be heroes/villains or not. It's the case with Cloud 9. She was just this kid who had an ability that let her make clouds that she could use to fly. She had no interest in being a hero or villain, she just wanted to do her own thing... which happened to include flying.
Perhaps a better title is "which fictional billionaire do you think would make the best president?"
When I look at the list... I see mostly people who don't actually manage their estate. In some cases it's an estate they inherited. Several just aren't leaders. Which kinda leaves just Scrooge McDuck and Iron Man. Of those two I think Iron Man.
Although, Reed Richards might be the best option(yes, he's actually a billionaire)
Scrooge McDuck has the least chance to accidentally kill someone, either by word or deed, since he is a Disney character. His worst fault besides obvious avarice, is to continually endanger children. Since he is a Disney character it is unlikely any children will suffer permanent harm, but his irresponsibility and addiction to wealth make him only the least poor choice of a pretty poor list.
Cat grant is probably second, since the power to smear people undeservedly may or may not result in actual tangible harm. In the comics she engaged in just such a campaign against Supergirl who as at the time also a minor. There was a bit of a wider crises going on also There were Kandorian survivors, and a degree of alarmism, active racism against Kryptonians, and even violent action using military resources which lead to genocidal results. Cat's campaign can't possibly have helped ease tensions. More likely she got someone killed.
Don't get me started on the others.
I'll sum up by saying that they routinely engage in vigilante activity, using dangerous experimental technology, advanced military hardware, and armed vehicles, in urban population centers, ignoring almost all inconvenient laws that might have mitigated their recklessness. All of them have been violent, caused panic, inflicted physical injury, and collateral damage in pursuit of unsanctioned and personal objectives.
They all endangered minors. Palmer endangered Snapper Carr, Stark endangered Rick Jones, Queen endangered Roy Harper who ended up turning to drugs from the stress. Then there is Bruce Wayne, a serial corrupter of minors including a police commissioner's daughter. "Whatever did happen to Jason Todd Mr Wayne? I understand explosives were involved. Don't you routinely carry explosives in your vigilante activities? Why do these young people wind up in ropes and handcuffs so often?" ... I can't wait for CNN to do that story.
Qapla!
PS. Reed Richards was supporting a forced registration program on people, many of whom were included for accidents of birth. In other words, they were targeted for their genetic diversity. When they were targeted for other reasons it generally involved infringing on their rights under the Second, and Fifth Amendments at least. All this got Captain America killed! forget Reed Richards ... but never forget Steve Rogers who fought for freedom against Richards and Stark, and who ended up assassinated before he could get his day in court!
The 'accident at birth' critique is irrelevant, due to the measurable danger which Supers represent. Like Senator Kelly said in the first X-Men movie... (I forget precisely what he said, and can't be fussed to google it) but the point is these individuals constitute a threat, which needs to be monitored. That Magneto was able to spin the holocaust to his advantage, and writer's fiat, forces a biased narrative, which the audience 'is meant to agree with'... No... We license people to own hand-guns... We license people to drive... While we may not (to address the concerns of Dr Grey) license people to live, we certainly can (and do) put restrictions on people's anti-social behaviours, which many Supers' powers, could legitimately be seen as if not directly presenting, certainly capable of causing...
So Tony Stark is able to buy the building before crashing into it... Great, plot says he's destroyed his own personal property, but what about the people who were inside it? He didn't buy them... There wouldn't've been an evacuation warning, so the people inside would still be at as much risk from the event...
Otto Van der Poel: Ah was sitting at mah desk tahping up some application forms, when Meesta Stork came crashing through, and caused a port of the wall to fall on me! Ah broke mah leg, and hurt mah neck, and haven't had a good naht's slip since! Mah wahf is bisahd herself trahng to make inds mit! Ah need compinsation for mah eenjuries and a new job!
So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
So you give the 'registration' faction a pass on their obvious, and militant racism?
All in fun. Actually, maybe not the best kind of fun. Might be taken seriously by someone ...
So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
The problem with this is always, "What is the data going to be used for?" In the Xmen the point of the Mutant registration stuff was always so that the people with the Sentinels (or something similar) could have a database ready so the sentinels could find them more easily.
See, this is part of why the SHRA wasn't as good an idea as Reed thought it was. Reed had every intention of using the data to help other heroes. But if the data is public? that creates too many problems. Now every supervillain in the world has an index of the home addresses of every superhero in the world. THIS is why Steve Rogers refused to go along with it.
Also what beneficial aspect is there to making it mandatory? If it's actually beneficial, then people will sign up because they WANT to. Well.... the dark side to the SHRA was that it actually was designed as a way to "self police" superheroes. But why bother? SHIELD kinda does that already. There's numerous characters with superpowers who work for SHIELD. SHIELD also knows better than to make public what they know about the various superheroes and villains.
Also, as Steve Rogers pointed out, the SHRA applied to all people with powers, whether they chose to be heroes/villains or not. It's the case with Cloud 9. She was just this kid who had an ability that let her make clouds that she could use to fly. She had no interest in being a hero or villain, she just wanted to do her own thing... which happened to include flying.
No it isn't, or rather, it doesn't have to be... That's just the way things have been handled by Marvel, and their insistence of holocaust comparisons to make the SHRA an unappealing choice for the audience. It's writer's fiat, not an obligatory plotpoint... In The Incredibles, the SHRA wasn't used negatively, in fact, the government went out of its way to protect Supers in maintaining an Everyday Life... The threat came from a spurned potential sidekick, who wanted to use technology to make Supers obsolete...
Consider the DVLA and/or whatever orgsnisation maintains firearm licencing records in Murica... Not information made freely available to the public, but used by the authorities to make sure people are playing by the rules... Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
The problem with this is always, "What is the data going to be used for?" In the Xmen the point of the Mutant registration stuff was always so that the people with the Sentinels (or something similar) could have a database ready so the sentinels could find them more easily.
See, this is part of why the SHRA wasn't as good an idea as Reed thought it was. Reed had every intention of using the data to help other heroes. But if the data is public? that creates too many problems. Now every supervillain in the world has an index of the home addresses of every superhero in the world. THIS is why Steve Rogers refused to go along with it.
Also what beneficial aspect is there to making it mandatory? If it's actually beneficial, then people will sign up because they WANT to. Well.... the dark side to the SHRA was that it actually was designed as a way to "self police" superheroes. But why bother? SHIELD kinda does that already. There's numerous characters with superpowers who work for SHIELD. SHIELD also knows better than to make public what they know about the various superheroes and villains.
Also, as Steve Rogers pointed out, the SHRA applied to all people with powers, whether they chose to be heroes/villains or not. It's the case with Cloud 9. She was just this kid who had an ability that let her make clouds that she could use to fly. She had no interest in being a hero or villain, she just wanted to do her own thing... which happened to include flying.
No it isn't, or rather, it doesn't have to be... That's just the way things have been handled by Marvel, and their insistence of holocaust comparisons to make the SHRA an unappealing choice for the audience. It's writer's fiat, not an obligatory plotpoint... In The Incredibles, the SHRA wasn't used negatively, in fact, the government went out of its way to protect Supers in maintaining an Everyday Life... The threat came from a spurned potential sidekick, who wanted to use technology to make Supers obsolete...
Consider the DVLA and/or whatever orgsnisation maintains firearm licencing records in Murica... Not information made freely available to the public, but used by the authorities to make sure people are playing by the rules... Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
OK, I'm bending a personal rule here by sticking a foot squarely into the real world for this one response.
Leaving out unnecessary details, I work for police in a jurisdiction that is also overseen by DHS. I act to protect people.
Every day I see what is, and imagine what could be, about the system I am a part of.
On Monday I did not know who was going to win the election for President. It's Friday now. Maybe better? Maybe not.
Every election is a gamble. We never know what is in someone else's head, only our own.
We give our power to those we elect so they can use it on our behalf, and we hope they do not abuse or usurp it.
There is always a chance that someone can seize control, using the power of our system if we put to much trust in it.
Today, nothing has changed. Tomorrow may be different. Very different. There is only so much power I am willing to transfer to anyone else before I say 'no'.
I believe in individuals. I accept systems as long as they don't forget who they are supposed to serve. Agendas change.
Steve Rogers expressed my opinion in these quotes;
Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch, you don't give up. Tony Stark: Who said we're giving up? Steve Rogers: We are if we're not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame. Lt. Col. James Rhodes: Sorry, Steve, that... that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we're talking about. It's not the World Security Council, it's not S.H.I.E.L.D., it's not Hydra. Steve Rogers: No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change. Tony Stark: That's good! That's why I'm here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stopped manufacturing. Steve Rogers: Tony, you *chose* to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
Steve Rogers: [excerpt from the letter to Stark] ... My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. ...
End
Now, this entire thread has gotten altogether too serious for me, and may well be on it's way to becoming a 'burning house'. Count me out for anything else here that isn't a silly attempt at a joke.
Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
Here's the thing.... what you're talking about is a punishment for criminal behavior. The SHRA was a blanket that covered those who WEREN'T just as much. So it effectively meant treating people like criminals because they had powers.
Perhaps a better title is "which fictional billionaire do you think would make the best president?"
When I look at the list... I see mostly people who don't actually manage their estate. In some cases it's an estate they inherited. Several just aren't leaders. Which kinda leaves just Scrooge McDuck and Iron Man. Of those two I think Iron Man.
Although, Reed Richards might be the best option(yes, he's actually a billionaire)
Scrooge McDuck has the least chance to accidentally kill someone, either by word or deed, since he is a Disney character. His worst fault besides obvious avarice, is to continually endanger children. Since he is a Disney character it is unlikely any children will suffer permanent harm, but his irresponsibility and addiction to wealth make him only the least poor choice of a pretty poor list.
Cat grant is probably second, since the power to smear people undeservedly may or may not result in actual tangible harm. In the comics she engaged in just such a campaign against Supergirl who as at the time also a minor. There was a bit of a wider crises going on also There were Kandorian survivors, and a degree of alarmism, active racism against Kryptonians, and even violent action using military resources which lead to genocidal results. Cat's campaign can't possibly have helped ease tensions. More likely she got someone killed.
Don't get me started on the others.
I'll sum up by saying that they routinely engage in vigilante activity, using dangerous experimental technology, advanced military hardware, and armed vehicles, in urban population centers, ignoring almost all inconvenient laws that might have mitigated their recklessness. All of them have been violent, caused panic, inflicted physical injury, and collateral damage in pursuit of unsanctioned and personal objectives.
They all endangered minors. Palmer endangered Snapper Carr, Stark endangered Rick Jones, Queen endangered Roy Harper who ended up turning to drugs from the stress. Then there is Bruce Wayne, a serial corrupter of minors including a police commissioner's daughter. "Whatever did happen to Jason Todd Mr Wayne? I understand explosives were involved. Don't you routinely carry explosives in your vigilante activities? Why do these young people wind up in ropes and handcuffs so often?" ... I can't wait for CNN to do that story.
Qapla!
PS. Reed Richards was supporting a forced registration program on people, many of whom were included for accidents of birth. In other words, they were targeted for their genetic diversity. When they were targeted for other reasons it generally involved infringing on their rights under the Second, and Fifth Amendments at least. All this got Captain America killed! forget Reed Richards ... but never forget Steve Rogers who fought for freedom against Richards and Stark, and who ended up assassinated before he could get his day in court!
The 'accident at birth' critique is irrelevant, due to the measurable danger which Supers represent. Like Senator Kelly said in the first X-Men movie... (I forget precisely what he said, and can't be fussed to google it) but the point is these individuals constitute a threat, which needs to be monitored. That Magneto was able to spin the holocaust to his advantage, and writer's fiat, forces a biased narrative, which the audience 'is meant to agree with'... No... We license people to own hand-guns... We license people to drive... While we may not (to address the concerns of Dr Grey) license people to live, we certainly can (and do) put restrictions on people's anti-social behaviours, which many Supers' powers, could legitimately be seen as if not directly presenting, certainly capable of causing...
So Tony Stark is able to buy the building before crashing into it... Great, plot says he's destroyed his own personal property, but what about the people who were inside it? He didn't buy them... There wouldn't've been an evacuation warning, so the people inside would still be at as much risk from the event...
Otto Van der Poel: Ah was sitting at mah desk tahping up some application forms, when Meesta Stork came crashing through, and caused a port of the wall to fall on me! Ah broke mah leg, and hurt mah neck, and haven't had a good naht's slip since! Mah wahf is bisahd herself trahng to make inds mit! Ah need compinsation for mah eenjuries and a new job!
So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
So you give the 'registration' faction a pass on their obvious, and militant racism?
All in fun. Actually, maybe not the best kind of fun. Might be taken seriously by someone ...
Qapla!
I ignore writer's fiat where a plot is whatever the writer chooses it to be, just because 'that's the story they want to tell'. Another writer could use the same elements and tell a different story, because that would be the story that they want to tell.
Licencing and Registration does not have to equal concentration camps and gas chambers... That might be Erik Lehnsherr's fear, but it is not Bob Parr's fear, and nor does it need to be, just because it's Erik Lehnsherr's fear... Captain America and Magneto on the same side... Heil Hydra indeed!
OK, I'm bending a personal rule here by sticking a foot squarely into the real world for this one response.
Leaving out unnecessary details, I work for police in a jurisdiction that is also overseen by DHS. I act to protect people.
Every day I see what is, and imagine what could be, about the system I am a part of.
On Monday I did not know who was going to win the election for President. It's Friday now. Maybe better? Maybe not.
Every election is a gamble. We never know what is in someone else's head, only our own.
We give our power to those we elect so they can use it on our behalf, and we hope they do not abuse or usurp it.
There is always a chance that someone can seize control, using the power of our system if we put to much trust in it.
Today, nothing has changed. Tomorrow may be different. Very different. There is only so much power I am willing to transfer to anyone else before I say 'no'.
I believe in individuals. I accept systems as long as they don't forget who they are supposed to serve. Agendas change.
Steve Rogers expressed my opinion in these quotes;
Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch, you don't give up. Tony Stark: Who said we're giving up? Steve Rogers: We are if we're not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame. Lt. Col. James Rhodes: Sorry, Steve, that... that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we're talking about. It's not the World Security Council, it's not S.H.I.E.L.D., it's not Hydra. Steve Rogers: No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change. Tony Stark: That's good! That's why I'm here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stopped manufacturing. Steve Rogers: Tony, you *chose* to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
Steve Rogers: [excerpt from the letter to Stark] ... My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. ...
End
Now, this entire thread has gotten altogether too serious for me, and may well be on it's way to becoming a 'burning house'. Count me out for anything else here that isn't a silly attempt at a joke.
See you all on other threads
Qapla!
It only got serious because you made it thus... And quoting Steve Rogers, a man who, in the words of James T.Kirk, can't see further than his own uniform, and who demands that the world live by his morality? As I said, the SHRA in The Incredibles, works very differently to how the SHRA is presented/represented in the MCU... As I said, that is down to how the writer chooses to present the issues in their story... That doesn't mean that they are unquestionably set in stone.
You mention working in law enforcement; what's the first thing a cop asks someone for when they pull over their car: License and registration... Proof that they are trained and allowed to use a dangerous piece of equipment, proof that they are, who they say they are... Nothing sinister there... Police have the power to break up groups who are 'loitering'... Police have the power to question people who they believe are behaving suspiciously... Nothing sinister there either... Being 'on the system', ie having the correct credentials, is nothing to be afraid of...
Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
Here's the thing.... what you're talking about is a punishment for criminal behavior. The SHRA was a blanket that covered those who WEREN'T just as much. So it effectively meant treating people like criminals because they had powers.
Only in the MarvelVerse...
It's not 'treating someone like a criminal' to require someone to behave in a socially acceptable and responsible way...
Is it 'treating someone like a criminal' by requiring a person to be modestly dressed in public? Try walking into Wal-Mart naked and see what happens... You might have the 'ability to do so', but consideration for other people, means not doing it, and hence my example.
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
The point, is that Supers have a different (and potentially dangerous, even deadly) set of abilities than Homo Sapiens, which, as with gun licences or driving licences, is not unreasonable that they be able to use those abilities responsibily and safely, and as with ASBOs, not unreasonable to require them to not randomly use their powers in a manner which could upset or startle those around them... If an emergency occurs, then fine, do whatever's needed to help, but day to day, embrace the anonymity which Professor X espouses... Wear clothes in Wal-Mart...
To paraphrase Uncle Ben: With greater power, comes greater responsibility -- which I interpret to mean 'a greater need for the issue to be handled responsibly by all parties'...
what is the basic assumption? forget whether or not you agree with Marvel's editorial board,
Impossible: The editorial board and the writers, is who determines what story will be told, and how it is told. I already gave an example (the Incredibles) where the SHRA was not harmful, did not impose on a Super's liberties, and actively protected them, from an occasionally hostile and ungrateful public, meaning that Marvel's spin on the story, is not the only spin... There's more than one option, so more than one option to agree or disagree with...
1. would you support a law that requires state-issued photo I.D. before you can vote?
2. would you support a law that requires FEDERAL issued photo-I.D. before you can vote?
3. Would you support a law that requires a license before you can own property?
4. would you support a law that requires you to register before you can change apartments? Phone companies? requires you to re-register on a change of address or report to a department before you can leave town on vacation?
Absolutely so...
Social Security numbers, credit reference scores, DVLA, Passport handling authority, local council records; You have existed on at least one of these databases since the day you were born...
When we vote here in the UK, we are mailed a polling card, which we have to take with us when we go to the polling station, I guess the assumption being, that the card is only received and retained by the named recipient. I've never had to produce my passport to prove my identity at a polling station, but I would have no objection to doing so, in fact, I'd prefer it if I did, because that would cut a lot of the electoral frauds which can occur. I have no issue with maybe needing to prove my identity, nor carrying the means to do so. I wear dogtags -- not just 'daily', but on a Constant Basis -- which states my blood-type, name, National Insurance (Social Security) number and religion. Not because I haveto, but because I want to. I don't want to get hit by a bus, and my remains be incorrectly handled, or if injured, possibly given the wrong blood-type, or if amnesiac, unable to be identified and put back in contact with my family...
I would have no issue with carrying a Government-Issued ID card, and there have been times, such as when I've had to go to a bank, but not had my cashcard on me, that having an unquestionable form of 'override ID' would be useful. A way of saying; "This is my account, I am who I say I am, and this ID proves it so allow me to withdraw my own money..."
In that regard, you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person, if you're expecting a "No, I don't agree with those things..."
5. would you support a law requiring you to report to law enforcement when you enter a new city/county/state?
Who gets treated like that?
criminals on parole, military draftees, and mental patients on monitored out-patient care.
As I don't own a firearms license, I'm not sure of the formalities for if someone moves, but I would not be surprized, if one of the requirements of holding the licence is to inform the authorities of any change in your circumstances such as a new address (or moving from one county to another)
With regards mental patients, how many Supers have some kind of personality disorder or impulse-control problem? Conventional Marvel Plot says it's 'cool' and 'quirky'... Reality says 'that person is f*cking dangerous...'
Registration laws presume you're going to do something bad-iow they presume that you, as a citizen, are basically inclined to either negligent or criminal actions.
essentially making you a second or even third-class citizen, regardless of your actual character.
As above, people have to be licensed to drive a car or own a handgun... Being a Super means having that level of power as default. Some people choose not to drive, or not to have a gun, a Super (until X-3) couldn't choose to 'not be' a Super anymore... As much as an SHRA protects mundanes from Supers, it also protects Supers from mundanes and rogue Supers... It's not (in terms of the Incredibles) about 'licensing their right to exist/live', just one of ensuring that their abilities are being responsibly used... The only presumption being made, is that the person behave responsibly, and in an accountable manner. As I said, try walking into Wal-Mart naked, because 'clothes're oppression, Man...' and see how quickly sh*t happens... You're not harming anyone, you're not being unreasonable, you're just there to do some shopping. Naked. When everyone else, is modestly dressed. What gives you the right to be walking round naked when everyone else has to wear clothes? The last emperor who tried that got himself laughed at..
this is the base assumption. Kelly's speech in the Cinematic U, Cap's position, both in the comics and on screen.
the SHRA presumes that because you have powers, you are not due the same trust and respect given to other citizens, because you are, or will be, either a criminal, or an unpaid asset of the State, aka property.
and that's taking the most POSITIVE view of the law in question.
In your opinion... I disagree... As I said, we're all on a database somewhere, we all need, from time to time, to prove that we are who we say we are, and that we have earned the privilege to do certain things (ie drive a car or own a handgun)
As above, you're asking the wrong person, as when I see scenarios like Equilibrium, THX-1138, the Island, etc, I think "I wouldn't mind some of that..."
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
So you'd tell her she's not allowed to use her powers... ever, and completely disregard whether she used them for good, bad, or taking out the trash..... Yeah.... What was that about "not oppression"? Forcing people to "fit in" IS oppression of the worst kind. Those laws you quoted earlier are based on a person being a public nuisance. They had nothing to do with "fitting in".
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
So you'd tell her she's not allowed to use her powers... ever, and completely disregard whether she used them for good, bad, or taking out the trash..... Yeah.... What was that about "not oppression"? Forcing people to "fit in" IS oppression of the worst kind. Those laws you quoted earlier are based on a person being a public nuisance. They had nothing to do with "fitting in".
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
That's not what I said or was meaning, so don't use symantic tricks to twist my words to mean something you think you can object to by throwing a buzzword at it and calling it 'oppression'...
I wasn't meaning that Kitty should never phase through Anything Anywhere Whatsoever, just not public places (where people would freak out seeing it) or in someone else's private property (where someone would freak out by an uninvited intruder in their home) but be mindful of where it's appropriate, and where it's prudent to use a little common sense and judgement for the benefit of those around...
It's called not being an entitled a55hole just because one can be, and fitting in with everyone else and going with the flow, because it makes everyone else less likely to feel threatened and freak out, rather than just 'doing whatever' because one feels the need to do something 'just because one can...
You mentioned Cloud 9. Have you any idea how busy commercial airspace actually is? Having someone randomly flying around wherever they feel like it, could quite concievably result in a mid-air collision, or a pilot having to suddenly react to something in their flightpath, which neither has communication with them, or airtraffic control... You think that her right to fly (presumeably wherever she wants) overrides international aviation law, and pilots/passenger's right to a safe flight clear of UFOs? Tell you what, you go naked shopping in Wal-Mart, or go sit and talk to a group of five year olds in a play park where no one knows you, and tell me what happens...
Stop looking at the situation with the narrow focus of 'oppression', and consider all the examples I've given, where people need to be licenced, registered, appear on Official Lists etc, and realize that that is the way in which Western society actually works...
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
So you'd tell her she's not allowed to use her powers... ever, and completely disregard whether she used them for good, bad, or taking out the trash..... Yeah.... What was that about "not oppression"? Forcing people to "fit in" IS oppression of the worst kind. Those laws you quoted earlier are based on a person being a public nuisance. They had nothing to do with "fitting in".
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
The truly amusing thing is why Frank Castle wound up as an ally of Cap...
Frank Castle actually believes in concepts like Habeas Corpus-where a crime must first be committed before it can be tried or punished. (Punisher readers from the 1980s know what I'm talking about-Frank didn't just shoot people because he suspected they were guilty-he went to some pretty absurd lengths to make SURE they were guilty first.)
SHRA basically turns Habeas Corpus and Presumption of Innocence on it's head by criminalizing the mere Having of powers-even if you didn't have a choice, and regardless of whether you use them.
what is the basic assumption? forget whether or not you agree with Marvel's editorial board,
Impossible: The editorial board and the writers, is who determines what story will be told, and how it is told. I already gave an example (the Incredibles) where the SHRA was not harmful, did not impose on a Super's liberties, and actively protected them, from an occasionally hostile and ungrateful public, meaning that Marvel's spin on the story, is not the only spin... There's more than one option, so more than one option to agree or disagree with...
1. would you support a law that requires state-issued photo I.D. before you can vote?
2. would you support a law that requires FEDERAL issued photo-I.D. before you can vote?
3. Would you support a law that requires a license before you can own property?
4. would you support a law that requires you to register before you can change apartments? Phone companies? requires you to re-register on a change of address or report to a department before you can leave town on vacation?
Absolutely so...
Social Security numbers, credit reference scores, DVLA, Passport handling authority, local council records; You have existed on at least one of these databases since the day you were born...
When we vote here in the UK, we are mailed a polling card, which we have to take with us when we go to the polling station, I guess the assumption being, that the card is only received and retained by the named recipient. I've never had to produce my passport to prove my identity at a polling station, but I would have no objection to doing so, in fact, I'd prefer it if I did, because that would cut a lot of the electoral frauds which can occur. I have no issue with maybe needing to prove my identity, nor carrying the means to do so. I wear dogtags -- not just 'daily', but on a Constant Basis -- which states my blood-type, name, National Insurance (Social Security) number and religion. Not because I haveto, but because I want to. I don't want to get hit by a bus, and my remains be incorrectly handled, or if injured, possibly given the wrong blood-type, or if amnesiac, unable to be identified and put back in contact with my family...
I would have no issue with carrying a Government-Issued ID card, and there have been times, such as when I've had to go to a bank, but not had my cashcard on me, that having an unquestionable form of 'override ID' would be useful. A way of saying; "This is my account, I am who I say I am, and this ID proves it so allow me to withdraw my own money..."
In that regard, you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person, if you're expecting a "No, I don't agree with those things..."
5. would you support a law requiring you to report to law enforcement when you enter a new city/county/state?
Who gets treated like that?
criminals on parole, military draftees, and mental patients on monitored out-patient care.
As I don't own a firearms license, I'm not sure of the formalities for if someone moves, but I would not be surprized, if one of the requirements of holding the licence is to inform the authorities of any change in your circumstances such as a new address (or moving from one county to another)
With regards mental patients, how many Supers have some kind of personality disorder or impulse-control problem? Conventional Marvel Plot says it's 'cool' and 'quirky'... Reality says 'that person is f*cking dangerous...'
Registration laws presume you're going to do something bad-iow they presume that you, as a citizen, are basically inclined to either negligent or criminal actions.
essentially making you a second or even third-class citizen, regardless of your actual character.
As above, people have to be licensed to drive a car or own a handgun... Being a Super means having that level of power as default. Some people choose not to drive, or not to have a gun, a Super (until X-3) couldn't choose to 'not be' a Super anymore... As much as an SHRA protects mundanes from Supers, it also protects Supers from mundanes and rogue Supers... It's not (in terms of the Incredibles) about 'licensing their right to exist/live', just one of ensuring that their abilities are being responsibly used... The only presumption being made, is that the person behave responsibly, and in an accountable manner. As I said, try walking into Wal-Mart naked, because 'clothes're oppression, Man...' and see how quickly sh*t happens... You're not harming anyone, you're not being unreasonable, you're just there to do some shopping. Naked. When everyone else, is modestly dressed. What gives you the right to be walking round naked when everyone else has to wear clothes? The last emperor who tried that got himself laughed at..
this is the base assumption. Kelly's speech in the Cinematic U, Cap's position, both in the comics and on screen.
the SHRA presumes that because you have powers, you are not due the same trust and respect given to other citizens, because you are, or will be, either a criminal, or an unpaid asset of the State, aka property.
and that's taking the most POSITIVE view of the law in question.
In your opinion... I disagree... As I said, we're all on a database somewhere, we all need, from time to time, to prove that we are who we say we are, and that we have earned the privilege to do certain things (ie drive a car or own a handgun)
As above, you're asking the wrong person, as when I see scenarios like Equilibrium, THX-1138, the Island, etc, I think "I wouldn't mind some of that..."
Marcus, you're wrong. I think this is one of those irreconcilable cultural differences between the people who threw the crown off over here, and the ones that still revere the Royal Family and support them with taxes over there.
iirc, your parlaiment was debating banning knives-with-points not too terribly long ago, and it's known that self-defense is not a viable defense in Great Britain. Therefore, It's pretty much to be expected that you would not understand how or why 'Civil War' resonates with American audiences, or why those issues would even be issues-your country doesn't have presumption of innocence or habeas corpus incorporated into it's central governing law. and your populace is quite good with the idea of having every inch of public space monitored.
We're STILL arguing about those things over here-we're not completely collectivised on this side of the water, and that's in spite of politicians trying very, very hard to follow Europe's lead in placing the rights of the collective over the rights of individuals. I doubt they even have the same definition of 'citizenship' on your side of the pond, and that's with a mostly-shared language, never mind ideas such as constitutional rights-that is, rights that are held by all citizens regardless of race, class, sexuality, gender, or economic background (we're not perfect at it, but we still have those ideas).
upshot being, that despite a similarity of language, I am not sure I can explain exactly why you're wrong in a way you'll be able to process-there's too many cultural differences going right down to the root for that to work.
just..trust me, you're wrong.
I get what you're saying, but trust me, the royal family is by no means worshipped here, people're pretty pissed about the government, and yes, the knife laws are more than a tad silly... A Swiss Army knife, with a non-locking blade under 2.5 inches, is legal. If the police happen to do a stop and search and you're carrying one, without a very good valid reason for carrying it, technically, you can be charged with 'going equipped', and or carrying 'an offensive weapon' (with intent) If you're carrying anything longer, or with a fixed or locking blade and you get searched, you are in Serious Trouble (potentially even facing jail-time)
I can understand that civil war resonates more to Americans that Brits, but that doesn't make your point any more valid, for the reasons that you will still exist on someone's Official List somewhere, and because The Incredibles, was an American production, which showed a different kind of SHRA, so it can't be argued as a difference between American/English understanding of the fundamental issue.
I like tony stark he is sophisticated knows how to deal with people aka a people person, he is a philantropist he knows how to work with others and can get along well with others.
I wasn't meaning that Kitty should never phase through Anything Anywhere Whatsoever, just not public places (where people would freak out seeing it) or in someone else's private property (where someone would freak out by an uninvited intruder in their home) but be mindful of where it's appropriate, and where it's prudent to use a little common sense and judgment for the benefit of those around...
Ok.. if it's THAT simple... why bother with the SHRA at all? You talk about regulations for the common good, but if it's really just politeness, and general civil behavior that you want, why treat people with powers differently? Superheroes are bound by the same laws as everyone else, why does there NEED to be more?
You mentioned Cloud 9. Have you any idea how busy commercial airspace actually is? Having someone randomly flying around wherever they feel like it, could quite conceivably result in a mid-air collision,
Which would kill her and she knows it..... Cloud 9 isn't Superman. Making and manipulating clouds is her only power. Thus she has good reason to avoid putting herself in danger. Also it's already illegal for her to block commercial airspace, how is the special treatment warranted? You seem to have missed the point of "with great power comes great responsibility". There's many things that ordinary people CAN do that they should NEVER do. Having powers adds to that. But it doesn't fundamentally change how you decide whether something is a good or bad idea. Going back to your ridiculous airport example, an ordinary person can wander around on an airport runway. Most people won't simply because they know it's dumb.
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
So you'd tell her she's not allowed to use her powers... ever, and completely disregard whether she used them for good, bad, or taking out the trash..... Yeah.... What was that about "not oppression"? Forcing people to "fit in" IS oppression of the worst kind. Those laws you quoted earlier are based on a person being a public nuisance. They had nothing to do with "fitting in".
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
The truly amusing thing is why Frank Castle wound up as an ally of Cap...
Frank Castle actually believes in concepts like Habeas Corpus-where a crime must first be committed before it can be tried or punished. (Punisher readers from the 1980s know what I'm talking about-Frank didn't just shoot people because he suspected they were guilty-he went to some pretty absurd lengths to make SURE they were guilty first.)
SHRA basically turns Habeas Corpus and Presumption of Innocence on it's head by criminalizing the mere Having of powers-even if you didn't have a choice, and regardless of whether you use them.
what is the basic assumption? forget whether or not you agree with Marvel's editorial board,
Impossible: The editorial board and the writers, is who determines what story will be told, and how it is told. I already gave an example (the Incredibles) where the SHRA was not harmful, did not impose on a Super's liberties, and actively protected them, from an occasionally hostile and ungrateful public, meaning that Marvel's spin on the story, is not the only spin... There's more than one option, so more than one option to agree or disagree with...
1. would you support a law that requires state-issued photo I.D. before you can vote?
2. would you support a law that requires FEDERAL issued photo-I.D. before you can vote?
3. Would you support a law that requires a license before you can own property?
4. would you support a law that requires you to register before you can change apartments? Phone companies? requires you to re-register on a change of address or report to a department before you can leave town on vacation?
Absolutely so...
Social Security numbers, credit reference scores, DVLA, Passport handling authority, local council records; You have existed on at least one of these databases since the day you were born...
When we vote here in the UK, we are mailed a polling card, which we have to take with us when we go to the polling station, I guess the assumption being, that the card is only received and retained by the named recipient. I've never had to produce my passport to prove my identity at a polling station, but I would have no objection to doing so, in fact, I'd prefer it if I did, because that would cut a lot of the electoral frauds which can occur. I have no issue with maybe needing to prove my identity, nor carrying the means to do so. I wear dogtags -- not just 'daily', but on a Constant Basis -- which states my blood-type, name, National Insurance (Social Security) number and religion. Not because I haveto, but because I want to. I don't want to get hit by a bus, and my remains be incorrectly handled, or if injured, possibly given the wrong blood-type, or if amnesiac, unable to be identified and put back in contact with my family...
I would have no issue with carrying a Government-Issued ID card, and there have been times, such as when I've had to go to a bank, but not had my cashcard on me, that having an unquestionable form of 'override ID' would be useful. A way of saying; "This is my account, I am who I say I am, and this ID proves it so allow me to withdraw my own money..."
In that regard, you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person, if you're expecting a "No, I don't agree with those things..."
5. would you support a law requiring you to report to law enforcement when you enter a new city/county/state?
Who gets treated like that?
criminals on parole, military draftees, and mental patients on monitored out-patient care.
As I don't own a firearms license, I'm not sure of the formalities for if someone moves, but I would not be surprized, if one of the requirements of holding the licence is to inform the authorities of any change in your circumstances such as a new address (or moving from one county to another)
With regards mental patients, how many Supers have some kind of personality disorder or impulse-control problem? Conventional Marvel Plot says it's 'cool' and 'quirky'... Reality says 'that person is f*cking dangerous...'
Registration laws presume you're going to do something bad-iow they presume that you, as a citizen, are basically inclined to either negligent or criminal actions.
essentially making you a second or even third-class citizen, regardless of your actual character.
As above, people have to be licensed to drive a car or own a handgun... Being a Super means having that level of power as default. Some people choose not to drive, or not to have a gun, a Super (until X-3) couldn't choose to 'not be' a Super anymore... As much as an SHRA protects mundanes from Supers, it also protects Supers from mundanes and rogue Supers... It's not (in terms of the Incredibles) about 'licensing their right to exist/live', just one of ensuring that their abilities are being responsibly used... The only presumption being made, is that the person behave responsibly, and in an accountable manner. As I said, try walking into Wal-Mart naked, because 'clothes're oppression, Man...' and see how quickly sh*t happens... You're not harming anyone, you're not being unreasonable, you're just there to do some shopping. Naked. When everyone else, is modestly dressed. What gives you the right to be walking round naked when everyone else has to wear clothes? The last emperor who tried that got himself laughed at..
this is the base assumption. Kelly's speech in the Cinematic U, Cap's position, both in the comics and on screen.
the SHRA presumes that because you have powers, you are not due the same trust and respect given to other citizens, because you are, or will be, either a criminal, or an unpaid asset of the State, aka property.
and that's taking the most POSITIVE view of the law in question.
In your opinion... I disagree... As I said, we're all on a database somewhere, we all need, from time to time, to prove that we are who we say we are, and that we have earned the privilege to do certain things (ie drive a car or own a handgun)
As above, you're asking the wrong person, as when I see scenarios like Equilibrium, THX-1138, the Island, etc, I think "I wouldn't mind some of that..."
Marcus, you're wrong. I think this is one of those irreconcilable cultural differences between the people who threw the crown off over here, and the ones that still revere the Royal Family and support them with taxes over there.
iirc, your parlaiment was debating banning knives-with-points not too terribly long ago, and it's known that self-defense is not a viable defense in Great Britain. Therefore, It's pretty much to be expected that you would not understand how or why 'Civil War' resonates with American audiences, or why those issues would even be issues-your country doesn't have presumption of innocence or habeas corpus incorporated into it's central governing law. and your populace is quite good with the idea of having every inch of public space monitored.
We're STILL arguing about those things over here-we're not completely collectivised on this side of the water, and that's in spite of politicians trying very, very hard to follow Europe's lead in placing the rights of the collective over the rights of individuals. I doubt they even have the same definition of 'citizenship' on your side of the pond, and that's with a mostly-shared language, never mind ideas such as constitutional rights-that is, rights that are held by all citizens regardless of race, class, sexuality, gender, or economic background (we're not perfect at it, but we still have those ideas).
upshot being, that despite a similarity of language, I am not sure I can explain exactly why you're wrong in a way you'll be able to process-there's too many cultural differences going right down to the root for that to work.
just..trust me, you're wrong.
I get what you're saying, but trust me, the royal family is by no means worshipped here, people're pretty pissed about the government, and yes, the knife laws are more than a tad silly... A Swiss Army knife, with a non-locking blade under 2.5 inches, is legal. If the police happen to do a stop and search and you're carrying one, without a very good valid reason for carrying it, technically, you can be charged with 'going equipped', and or carrying 'an offensive weapon' (with intent) If you're carrying anything longer, or with a fixed or locking blade and you get searched, you are in Serious Trouble (potentially even facing jail-time)
I can understand that civil war resonates more to Americans that Brits, but that doesn't make your point any more valid, for the reasons that you will still exist on someone's Official List somewhere, and because The Incredibles, was an American production, which showed a different kind of SHRA, so it can't be argued as a difference between American/English understanding of the fundamental issue.
I'm happy to agree to disagree...
Keep in mind, Marcus, there are a large number (mostly on the coastal areas) of Americans who would be absolutely overjoyed to live under a system of forced registration where you can be charged a felony for having a short pocket-knife in your pocket.
but they're (thankfully) not indicative of the mass of American culture. (you can find most of them working in various media houses on the West Coast, among the leadership in Chicago, and of course, in that hive of overcrowded inhumanity known as New York).
as for being on official lists.. yes, no matter what, you're on a list. doesn't make it acceptable, merely makes it a fact. It's the Acceptance that is the real difference between here, and where you are.
Which is where the majority of mainstream American media output comes from
But there's nothing unacceptable about being on an official registry, such as gun or car licensing...
I wasn't meaning that Kitty should never phase through Anything Anywhere Whatsoever, just not public places (where people would freak out seeing it) or in someone else's private property (where someone would freak out by an uninvited intruder in their home) but be mindful of where it's appropriate, and where it's prudent to use a little common sense and judgment for the benefit of those around...
Ok.. if it's THAT simple... why bother with the SHRA at all? You talk about regulations for the common good, but if it's really just politeness, and general civil behavior that you want, why treat people with powers differently? Superheroes are bound by the same laws as everyone else, why does there NEED to be more?
Because they are more... Because their inherant (and often uncontrolled) powers make them different and potentially dangerous... For the exact same reason as you had to take driving lessons and a driving test before being allowed behind the wheel of a car... Don't you see that?
Which would kill her and she knows it..... Cloud 9 isn't Superman. Making and manipulating clouds is her only power. Thus she has good reason to avoid putting herself in danger. Also it's already illegal for her to block commercial airspace, how is the special treatment warranted? You seem to have missed the point of "with great power comes great responsibility". There's many things that ordinary people CAN do that they should NEVER do. Having powers adds to that. But it doesn't fundamentally change how you decide whether something is a good or bad idea. Going back to your ridiculous airport example, an ordinary person can wander around on an airport runway. Most people won't simply because they know it's dumb.
I don't know her powers or durability, or lack thereof, I'm pointing out, regardless of who the Super is, Cloud 9, Superman, Firestar, Jean Grey, I don't really give a damn who, the point remains, that the skies are a busy place, filled with planes which are in constant contact with the ground, and other aircraft, and having someone flying round at random, who is not part of that communications network, is a potential danger...
Ignore the airport analogy, you're straying into hyperbole, let me illustrate my point another way: You might have every capability of walking across a road. If you do it at the wrong place, or in an unsafe manner (ie a danger to yourself or traffic) if a cop sees you, you will be taken to one side and given a citation for jay-walking... What you describe with Cloud 9 (although it sounds like a story written just to be used as an example of how harsh the SHRA is) is the same difference. Just because she can, doesn't mean that she should. Her relaxation does not override other people's peace of mind, and if someone has a scrap of civic goodwill, they will not indulge in 'eccentric behaviour' for their own gratification, if it could affect or upset those around them.
I live 90 seconds walk from a bar. I spend my time at home wearing a yukata. If I was to walk into the bar dressed thus, I would likely get kicked out. At the very least, other patrons would think I was a whackjob and being deliberately eccentric, so it wouldn't do my reputation any good... It's easier for me to put on Western Clothes to go out in, than deal with the hassles that dressing otherwise, would cause. Different circumstances, but the exact same point: Consideration for others...
Literally every person, animal or thing on earth that's not a KKK endorsed racist misogynist would be up for the job. Two thrids of Americans see that differently, though (Rep voters and non-voters) so, yeah. But I go with Tony Stark, he'd at least fly everywhere with his own suit and would save the environment some flak from Air Force One
EDIT: Although I really would love to see the Witch Billonaire now
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
So you'd tell her she's not allowed to use her powers... ever, and completely disregard whether she used them for good, bad, or taking out the trash..... Yeah.... What was that about "not oppression"? Forcing people to "fit in" IS oppression of the worst kind. Those laws you quoted earlier are based on a person being a public nuisance. They had nothing to do with "fitting in".
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
The truly amusing thing is why Frank Castle wound up as an ally of Cap...
Frank Castle actually believes in concepts like Habeas Corpus-where a crime must first be committed before it can be tried or punished. (Punisher readers from the 1980s know what I'm talking about-Frank didn't just shoot people because he suspected they were guilty-he went to some pretty absurd lengths to make SURE they were guilty first.)
SHRA basically turns Habeas Corpus and Presumption of Innocence on it's head by criminalizing the mere Having of powers-even if you didn't have a choice, and regardless of whether you use them.
what is the basic assumption? forget whether or not you agree with Marvel's editorial board,
Impossible: The editorial board and the writers, is who determines what story will be told, and how it is told. I already gave an example (the Incredibles) where the SHRA was not harmful, did not impose on a Super's liberties, and actively protected them, from an occasionally hostile and ungrateful public, meaning that Marvel's spin on the story, is not the only spin... There's more than one option, so more than one option to agree or disagree with...
1. would you support a law that requires state-issued photo I.D. before you can vote?
2. would you support a law that requires FEDERAL issued photo-I.D. before you can vote?
3. Would you support a law that requires a license before you can own property?
4. would you support a law that requires you to register before you can change apartments? Phone companies? requires you to re-register on a change of address or report to a department before you can leave town on vacation?
Absolutely so...
Social Security numbers, credit reference scores, DVLA, Passport handling authority, local council records; You have existed on at least one of these databases since the day you were born...
When we vote here in the UK, we are mailed a polling card, which we have to take with us when we go to the polling station, I guess the assumption being, that the card is only received and retained by the named recipient. I've never had to produce my passport to prove my identity at a polling station, but I would have no objection to doing so, in fact, I'd prefer it if I did, because that would cut a lot of the electoral frauds which can occur. I have no issue with maybe needing to prove my identity, nor carrying the means to do so. I wear dogtags -- not just 'daily', but on a Constant Basis -- which states my blood-type, name, National Insurance (Social Security) number and religion. Not because I haveto, but because I want to. I don't want to get hit by a bus, and my remains be incorrectly handled, or if injured, possibly given the wrong blood-type, or if amnesiac, unable to be identified and put back in contact with my family...
I would have no issue with carrying a Government-Issued ID card, and there have been times, such as when I've had to go to a bank, but not had my cashcard on me, that having an unquestionable form of 'override ID' would be useful. A way of saying; "This is my account, I am who I say I am, and this ID proves it so allow me to withdraw my own money..."
In that regard, you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person, if you're expecting a "No, I don't agree with those things..."
5. would you support a law requiring you to report to law enforcement when you enter a new city/county/state?
Who gets treated like that?
criminals on parole, military draftees, and mental patients on monitored out-patient care.
As I don't own a firearms license, I'm not sure of the formalities for if someone moves, but I would not be surprized, if one of the requirements of holding the licence is to inform the authorities of any change in your circumstances such as a new address (or moving from one county to another)
With regards mental patients, how many Supers have some kind of personality disorder or impulse-control problem? Conventional Marvel Plot says it's 'cool' and 'quirky'... Reality says 'that person is f*cking dangerous...'
Registration laws presume you're going to do something bad-iow they presume that you, as a citizen, are basically inclined to either negligent or criminal actions.
essentially making you a second or even third-class citizen, regardless of your actual character.
As above, people have to be licensed to drive a car or own a handgun... Being a Super means having that level of power as default. Some people choose not to drive, or not to have a gun, a Super (until X-3) couldn't choose to 'not be' a Super anymore... As much as an SHRA protects mundanes from Supers, it also protects Supers from mundanes and rogue Supers... It's not (in terms of the Incredibles) about 'licensing their right to exist/live', just one of ensuring that their abilities are being responsibly used... The only presumption being made, is that the person behave responsibly, and in an accountable manner. As I said, try walking into Wal-Mart naked, because 'clothes're oppression, Man...' and see how quickly sh*t happens... You're not harming anyone, you're not being unreasonable, you're just there to do some shopping. Naked. When everyone else, is modestly dressed. What gives you the right to be walking round naked when everyone else has to wear clothes? The last emperor who tried that got himself laughed at..
this is the base assumption. Kelly's speech in the Cinematic U, Cap's position, both in the comics and on screen.
the SHRA presumes that because you have powers, you are not due the same trust and respect given to other citizens, because you are, or will be, either a criminal, or an unpaid asset of the State, aka property.
and that's taking the most POSITIVE view of the law in question.
In your opinion... I disagree... As I said, we're all on a database somewhere, we all need, from time to time, to prove that we are who we say we are, and that we have earned the privilege to do certain things (ie drive a car or own a handgun)
As above, you're asking the wrong person, as when I see scenarios like Equilibrium, THX-1138, the Island, etc, I think "I wouldn't mind some of that..."
Marcus, you're wrong. I think this is one of those irreconcilable cultural differences between the people who threw the crown off over here, and the ones that still revere the Royal Family and support them with taxes over there.
iirc, your parlaiment was debating banning knives-with-points not too terribly long ago, and it's known that self-defense is not a viable defense in Great Britain. Therefore, It's pretty much to be expected that you would not understand how or why 'Civil War' resonates with American audiences, or why those issues would even be issues-your country doesn't have presumption of innocence or habeas corpus incorporated into it's central governing law. and your populace is quite good with the idea of having every inch of public space monitored.
We're STILL arguing about those things over here-we're not completely collectivised on this side of the water, and that's in spite of politicians trying very, very hard to follow Europe's lead in placing the rights of the collective over the rights of individuals. I doubt they even have the same definition of 'citizenship' on your side of the pond, and that's with a mostly-shared language, never mind ideas such as constitutional rights-that is, rights that are held by all citizens regardless of race, class, sexuality, gender, or economic background (we're not perfect at it, but we still have those ideas).
upshot being, that despite a similarity of language, I am not sure I can explain exactly why you're wrong in a way you'll be able to process-there's too many cultural differences going right down to the root for that to work.
just..trust me, you're wrong.
I get what you're saying, but trust me, the royal family is by no means worshipped here, people're pretty pissed about the government, and yes, the knife laws are more than a tad silly... A Swiss Army knife, with a non-locking blade under 2.5 inches, is legal. If the police happen to do a stop and search and you're carrying one, without a very good valid reason for carrying it, technically, you can be charged with 'going equipped', and or carrying 'an offensive weapon' (with intent) If you're carrying anything longer, or with a fixed or locking blade and you get searched, you are in Serious Trouble (potentially even facing jail-time)
I can understand that civil war resonates more to Americans that Brits, but that doesn't make your point any more valid, for the reasons that you will still exist on someone's Official List somewhere, and because The Incredibles, was an American production, which showed a different kind of SHRA, so it can't be argued as a difference between American/English understanding of the fundamental issue.
I'm happy to agree to disagree...
Keep in mind, Marcus, there are a large number (mostly on the coastal areas) of Americans who would be absolutely overjoyed to live under a system of forced registration where you can be charged a felony for having a short pocket-knife in your pocket.
but they're (thankfully) not indicative of the mass of American culture. (you can find most of them working in various media houses on the West Coast, among the leadership in Chicago, and of course, in that hive of overcrowded inhumanity known as New York).
as for being on official lists.. yes, no matter what, you're on a list. doesn't make it acceptable, merely makes it a fact. It's the Acceptance that is the real difference between here, and where you are.
Which is where the majority of mainstream American media output comes from
But there's nothing unacceptable about being on an official registry, such as gun or car licensing...
in the U.S. those are voluntary-you don't have a 'right' to drive on public roads, after all-that one is actually a privilege, and registration schemes in the U.S. are local/state level (so far), so if you don't like the gun laws where you live, you move. (there is some debate about their actual constitutionality, but not so much that the courts are compelled to intervene one way or the other yet.) There are, of course, pockets of statist fascism (Chicago, much of California) where it's a matter of whether you're well-connected or not, but so far, that's been kept pretty much in check.
No, obviously no one has a 'right' to drive, it is a privilege earned, so in one regard, it's not an entirely accurate analogy, but what is accurate, is the potential level of risk involved, especially from the untrained or the reckless... We don't actually have Supers, so we can't use 100% accurate real-world legislations... The closest substitutes which are comparable, as I mentioned, are ones like driving or gun ownership, or again, public anti-nudity laws... Nudity is the inherent Human condition, but Society (pretty much the world over) stipulates clothing. To go shopping naked, would be to invite arrest... That is unquestionable... It is also unquestionable, that any reasonably-minded person, is not going to insist on walking around in public naked 'just because they can', but understands the need to comply with the concensus to be clothed... (one time, at the academy, pre-tailor glitch fix, distance and glitch combined to look like a streaking cadet )
Expression of Superpowers comes under the same mindset: The power is inherent to the Super, mostly un-removable, but mostly controllable/trainable... Consideration for others, says not behaving in a deliberately-eccentric manner, or manner which is likely to startle, shock, or cause upset... To do otherwise, frankly, is anti-social behaviour, which should never be tolerated, whatever form it takes, be it a person walking around naked, someone quoting religious doctrine as they walk up and down the street, or a girl walking through walls rather than using the door like everyone else...
I hate having to use Kitty as an example, because she has always been one of my favorite X-Men, and her powers are truly harmless, but she's the best example of how their use comes under the realm of 'controversial behaviour' which could genuinely startle those around her, and for no other reason, than the entitled attitude; "I can, so I will..." so a behaviour which could be personally supressed so as to not startle and shock others...
Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
Here's the thing.... what you're talking about is a punishment for criminal behavior. The SHRA was a blanket that covered those who WEREN'T just as much. So it effectively meant treating people like criminals because they had powers.
It's sort of like taxing someone for not being dead yet.
"By a 5-4 vote, the court held the law's mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty valid under Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. The financial penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote." The Wall St. Journal.
Perhaps a better title is "which fictional billionaire do you think would make the best president?"
When I look at the list... I see mostly people who don't actually manage their estate. In some cases it's an estate they inherited. Several just aren't leaders. Which kinda leaves just Scrooge McDuck and Iron Man. Of those two I think Iron Man.
Although, Reed Richards might be the best option(yes, he's actually a billionaire)
Scrooge McDuck has the least chance to accidentally kill someone, either by word or deed, since he is a Disney character. His worst fault besides obvious avarice, is to continually endanger children. Since he is a Disney character it is unlikely any children will suffer permanent harm, but his irresponsibility and addiction to wealth make him only the least poor choice of a pretty poor list.
Cat grant is probably second, since the power to smear people undeservedly may or may not result in actual tangible harm. In the comics she engaged in just such a campaign against Supergirl who as at the time also a minor. There was a bit of a wider crises going on also There were Kandorian survivors, and a degree of alarmism, active racism against Kryptonians, and even violent action using military resources which lead to genocidal results. Cat's campaign can't possibly have helped ease tensions. More likely she got someone killed.
Don't get me started on the others.
I'll sum up by saying that they routinely engage in vigilante activity, using dangerous experimental technology, advanced military hardware, and armed vehicles, in urban population centers, ignoring almost all inconvenient laws that might have mitigated their recklessness. All of them have been violent, caused panic, inflicted physical injury, and collateral damage in pursuit of unsanctioned and personal objectives.
They all endangered minors. Palmer endangered Snapper Carr, Stark endangered Rick Jones, Queen endangered Roy Harper who ended up turning to drugs from the stress. Then there is Bruce Wayne, a serial corrupter of minors including a police commissioner's daughter. "Whatever did happen to Jason Todd Mr Wayne? I understand explosives were involved. Don't you routinely carry explosives in your vigilante activities? Why do these young people wind up in ropes and handcuffs so often?" ... I can't wait for CNN to do that story.
Qapla!
PS. Reed Richards was supporting a forced registration program on people, many of whom were included for accidents of birth. In other words, they were targeted for their genetic diversity. When they were targeted for other reasons it generally involved infringing on their rights under the Second, and Fifth Amendments at least. All this got Captain America killed! forget Reed Richards ... but never forget Steve Rogers who fought for freedom against Richards and Stark, and who ended up assassinated before he could get his day in court!
The 'accident at birth' critique is irrelevant, due to the measurable danger which Supers represent. Like Senator Kelly said in the first X-Men movie... (I forget precisely what he said, and can't be fussed to google it) but the point is these individuals constitute a threat, which needs to be monitored. That Magneto was able to spin the holocaust to his advantage, and writer's fiat, forces a biased narrative, which the audience 'is meant to agree with'... No... We license people to own hand-guns... We license people to drive... While we may not (to address the concerns of Dr Grey) license people to live, we certainly can (and do) put restrictions on people's anti-social behaviours, which many Supers' powers, could legitimately be seen as if not directly presenting, certainly capable of causing...
So Tony Stark is able to buy the building before crashing into it... Great, plot says he's destroyed his own personal property, but what about the people who were inside it? He didn't buy them... There wouldn't've been an evacuation warning, so the people inside would still be at as much risk from the event...
Otto Van der Poel: Ah was sitting at mah desk tahping up some application forms, when Meesta Stork came crashing through, and caused a port of the wall to fall on me! Ah broke mah leg, and hurt mah neck, and haven't had a good naht's slip since! Mah wahf is bisahd herself trahng to make inds mit! Ah need compinsation for mah eenjuries and a new job!
So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
So you give the 'registration' faction a pass on their obvious, and militant racism?
All in fun. Actually, maybe not the best kind of fun. Might be taken seriously by someone ...
Qapla!
I ignore writer's fiat where a plot is whatever the writer chooses it to be, just because 'that's the story they want to tell'. Another writer could use the same elements and tell a different story, because that would be the story that they want to tell.
Licencing and Registration does not have to equal concentration camps and gas chambers... That might be Erik Lehnsherr's fear, but it is not Bob Parr's fear, and nor does it need to be, just because it's Erik Lehnsherr's fear... Captain America and Magneto on the same side... Heil Hydra indeed!
OK, I'm bending a personal rule here by sticking a foot squarely into the real world for this one response.
Leaving out unnecessary details, I work for police in a jurisdiction that is also overseen by DHS. I act to protect people.
Every day I see what is, and imagine what could be, about the system I am a part of.
On Monday I did not know who was going to win the election for President. It's Friday now. Maybe better? Maybe not.
Every election is a gamble. We never know what is in someone else's head, only our own.
We give our power to those we elect so they can use it on our behalf, and we hope they do not abuse or usurp it.
There is always a chance that someone can seize control, using the power of our system if we put to much trust in it.
Today, nothing has changed. Tomorrow may be different. Very different. There is only so much power I am willing to transfer to anyone else before I say 'no'.
I believe in individuals. I accept systems as long as they don't forget who they are supposed to serve. Agendas change.
Steve Rogers expressed my opinion in these quotes;
Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch, you don't give up. Tony Stark: Who said we're giving up? Steve Rogers: We are if we're not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame. Lt. Col. James Rhodes: Sorry, Steve, that... that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we're talking about. It's not the World Security Council, it's not S.H.I.E.L.D., it's not Hydra. Steve Rogers: No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change. Tony Stark: That's good! That's why I'm here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stopped manufacturing. Steve Rogers: Tony, you *chose* to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
Steve Rogers: [excerpt from the letter to Stark] ... My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. ...
End
Now, this entire thread has gotten altogether too serious for me, and may well be on it's way to becoming a 'burning house'. Count me out for anything else here that isn't a silly attempt at a joke.
See you all on other threads
Qapla!
It only got serious because you made it thus... And quoting Steve Rogers, a man who, in the words of James T.Kirk, can't see further than his own uniform, and who demands that the world live by his morality? As I said, the SHRA in The Incredibles, works very differently to how the SHRA is presented/represented in the MCU... As I said, that is down to how the writer chooses to present the issues in their story... That doesn't mean that they are unquestionably set in stone.
You mention working in law enforcement; what's the first thing a cop asks someone for when they pull over their car: License and registration... Proof that they are trained and allowed to use a dangerous piece of equipment, proof that they are, who they say they are... Nothing sinister there... Police have the power to break up groups who are 'loitering'... Police have the power to question people who they believe are behaving suspiciously... Nothing sinister there either... Being 'on the system', ie having the correct credentials, is nothing to be afraid of...
I just came off a 20 hour shift so I hope I can still manage to make sense. Here goes.
Any power, whether personal, or part of a system of authority, is double edged. There is nothing sinister about an unregistered mutant, or a powerful security system that knows everything about you, until someone abuses the power. Individuals only have their own power. Governments can collect power from all of us when we let them, and that makes them potentially the most dangerous things we create.
My earlier posts were largely attempts at humor, and making fun of the idea that no character, or person, can survive a journalistic hit piece, and nobody is immune to being made the bad guy, (Not even Steve Rogers, as you feel justified in pointing out ...). However I don't think this Poll was created innocent of any serious intent. It was just watered down a bit.
Think about all the layers to the poll question that was asked, and if you like, try and guess at a motive for asking it in the first place. I don't think this was supposed to be a 'neutral' topic. I thought the underlying intent was serious from the second I saw the poll question, and I took it to be intentionally political. That is why I attempted humor. For my part. only my previous post, and this one are meant to be taken seriously at all. They are not meant to cause offense however.
I want to clarify, I am not trying to say a tool, or a system, is sinister by itself. However I am inside the system, I participate in it, and I am telling you honestly, if we as individuals are not vigilant over the system, and if we do not hold some of the power in our own hands, then we are pretty much leaving it to chance that the system will never be turned against us and that strikes me as irresponsible.
The people I work with consider what we do to be a sacred trust. We use the tools with care. Someday, the tools may fall into the hands of those with a different 'agenda'. The tool can be put to sinister uses by those people. Western civilization is not immune to cults of personality. If the 20th century taught us nothing else, we should have learned that powerless people are easily turned into victims by those who do have power. We should have learned that it reckless to give too much power to any government. We should not rule out that what happened in other countries can't happen here (wherever your 'here' is)
I mean no disrespect in asking, but doesn't that possibility at least give you some reservations about abdicating all your authority to someone else?
I am not looking for an argument with you. I came back because I was curious, then I saw your post, and I wanted to give you a fair response out of respect. I generally like seeing your participation in the various threads. We have different views, and I can accept that. I hope you can accept that I see the system as a powerful tool that is currently in good hands, but that I do not trust that it always will be.
We who watch must police each other. You who are the watched must police us, or whoever takes the job after us. I ask you to think of government as being like a fire that keeps you warm. Don't give it to much fuel, keep a bucket of sand, or water handy, and everything should work out. That is what I am saying.
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
So you'd tell her she's not allowed to use her powers... ever, and completely disregard whether she used them for good, bad, or taking out the trash..... Yeah.... What was that about "not oppression"? Forcing people to "fit in" IS oppression of the worst kind. Those laws you quoted earlier are based on a person being a public nuisance. They had nothing to do with "fitting in".
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
The truly amusing thing is why Frank Castle wound up as an ally of Cap...
Frank Castle actually believes in concepts like Habeas Corpus-where a crime must first be committed before it can be tried or punished. (Punisher readers from the 1980s know what I'm talking about-Frank didn't just shoot people because he suspected they were guilty-he went to some pretty absurd lengths to make SURE they were guilty first.)
SHRA basically turns Habeas Corpus and Presumption of Innocence on it's head by criminalizing the mere Having of powers-even if you didn't have a choice, and regardless of whether you use them.
what is the basic assumption? forget whether or not you agree with Marvel's editorial board,
Impossible: The editorial board and the writers, is who determines what story will be told, and how it is told. I already gave an example (the Incredibles) where the SHRA was not harmful, did not impose on a Super's liberties, and actively protected them, from an occasionally hostile and ungrateful public, meaning that Marvel's spin on the story, is not the only spin... There's more than one option, so more than one option to agree or disagree with...
1. would you support a law that requires state-issued photo I.D. before you can vote?
2. would you support a law that requires FEDERAL issued photo-I.D. before you can vote?
3. Would you support a law that requires a license before you can own property?
4. would you support a law that requires you to register before you can change apartments? Phone companies? requires you to re-register on a change of address or report to a department before you can leave town on vacation?
Absolutely so...
Social Security numbers, credit reference scores, DVLA, Passport handling authority, local council records; You have existed on at least one of these databases since the day you were born...
When we vote here in the UK, we are mailed a polling card, which we have to take with us when we go to the polling station, I guess the assumption being, that the card is only received and retained by the named recipient. I've never had to produce my passport to prove my identity at a polling station, but I would have no objection to doing so, in fact, I'd prefer it if I did, because that would cut a lot of the electoral frauds which can occur. I have no issue with maybe needing to prove my identity, nor carrying the means to do so. I wear dogtags -- not just 'daily', but on a Constant Basis -- which states my blood-type, name, National Insurance (Social Security) number and religion. Not because I haveto, but because I want to. I don't want to get hit by a bus, and my remains be incorrectly handled, or if injured, possibly given the wrong blood-type, or if amnesiac, unable to be identified and put back in contact with my family...
I would have no issue with carrying a Government-Issued ID card, and there have been times, such as when I've had to go to a bank, but not had my cashcard on me, that having an unquestionable form of 'override ID' would be useful. A way of saying; "This is my account, I am who I say I am, and this ID proves it so allow me to withdraw my own money..."
In that regard, you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person, if you're expecting a "No, I don't agree with those things..."
5. would you support a law requiring you to report to law enforcement when you enter a new city/county/state?
Who gets treated like that?
criminals on parole, military draftees, and mental patients on monitored out-patient care.
As I don't own a firearms license, I'm not sure of the formalities for if someone moves, but I would not be surprized, if one of the requirements of holding the licence is to inform the authorities of any change in your circumstances such as a new address (or moving from one county to another)
With regards mental patients, how many Supers have some kind of personality disorder or impulse-control problem? Conventional Marvel Plot says it's 'cool' and 'quirky'... Reality says 'that person is f*cking dangerous...'
Registration laws presume you're going to do something bad-iow they presume that you, as a citizen, are basically inclined to either negligent or criminal actions.
essentially making you a second or even third-class citizen, regardless of your actual character.
As above, people have to be licensed to drive a car or own a handgun... Being a Super means having that level of power as default. Some people choose not to drive, or not to have a gun, a Super (until X-3) couldn't choose to 'not be' a Super anymore... As much as an SHRA protects mundanes from Supers, it also protects Supers from mundanes and rogue Supers... It's not (in terms of the Incredibles) about 'licensing their right to exist/live', just one of ensuring that their abilities are being responsibly used... The only presumption being made, is that the person behave responsibly, and in an accountable manner. As I said, try walking into Wal-Mart naked, because 'clothes're oppression, Man...' and see how quickly sh*t happens... You're not harming anyone, you're not being unreasonable, you're just there to do some shopping. Naked. When everyone else, is modestly dressed. What gives you the right to be walking round naked when everyone else has to wear clothes? The last emperor who tried that got himself laughed at..
this is the base assumption. Kelly's speech in the Cinematic U, Cap's position, both in the comics and on screen.
the SHRA presumes that because you have powers, you are not due the same trust and respect given to other citizens, because you are, or will be, either a criminal, or an unpaid asset of the State, aka property.
and that's taking the most POSITIVE view of the law in question.
In your opinion... I disagree... As I said, we're all on a database somewhere, we all need, from time to time, to prove that we are who we say we are, and that we have earned the privilege to do certain things (ie drive a car or own a handgun)
As above, you're asking the wrong person, as when I see scenarios like Equilibrium, THX-1138, the Island, etc, I think "I wouldn't mind some of that..."
Marcus, you're wrong. I think this is one of those irreconcilable cultural differences between the people who threw the crown off over here, and the ones that still revere the Royal Family and support them with taxes over there.
iirc, your parlaiment was debating banning knives-with-points not too terribly long ago, and it's known that self-defense is not a viable defense in Great Britain. Therefore, It's pretty much to be expected that you would not understand how or why 'Civil War' resonates with American audiences, or why those issues would even be issues-your country doesn't have presumption of innocence or habeas corpus incorporated into it's central governing law. and your populace is quite good with the idea of having every inch of public space monitored.
We're STILL arguing about those things over here-we're not completely collectivised on this side of the water, and that's in spite of politicians trying very, very hard to follow Europe's lead in placing the rights of the collective over the rights of individuals. I doubt they even have the same definition of 'citizenship' on your side of the pond, and that's with a mostly-shared language, never mind ideas such as constitutional rights-that is, rights that are held by all citizens regardless of race, class, sexuality, gender, or economic background (we're not perfect at it, but we still have those ideas).
upshot being, that despite a similarity of language, I am not sure I can explain exactly why you're wrong in a way you'll be able to process-there's too many cultural differences going right down to the root for that to work.
just..trust me, you're wrong.
I get what you're saying, but trust me, the royal family is by no means worshipped here, people're pretty pissed about the government, and yes, the knife laws are more than a tad silly... A Swiss Army knife, with a non-locking blade under 2.5 inches, is legal. If the police happen to do a stop and search and you're carrying one, without a very good valid reason for carrying it, technically, you can be charged with 'going equipped', and or carrying 'an offensive weapon' (with intent) If you're carrying anything longer, or with a fixed or locking blade and you get searched, you are in Serious Trouble (potentially even facing jail-time)
I can understand that civil war resonates more to Americans that Brits, but that doesn't make your point any more valid, for the reasons that you will still exist on someone's Official List somewhere, and because The Incredibles, was an American production, which showed a different kind of SHRA, so it can't be argued as a difference between American/English understanding of the fundamental issue.
I'm happy to agree to disagree...
Keep in mind, Marcus, there are a large number (mostly on the coastal areas) of Americans who would be absolutely overjoyed to live under a system of forced registration where you can be charged a felony for having a short pocket-knife in your pocket.
but they're (thankfully) not indicative of the mass of American culture. (you can find most of them working in various media houses on the West Coast, among the leadership in Chicago, and of course, in that hive of overcrowded inhumanity known as New York).
as for being on official lists.. yes, no matter what, you're on a list. doesn't make it acceptable, merely makes it a fact. It's the Acceptance that is the real difference between here, and where you are.
I should avoid details, but I regularly see private individuals carrying one or more firearms through my work space. I am not expected to ask them anything. It's all about the Second Amendment, which is part of the core law of the land here in the USA. Not all the USA respects it the same way, but it is respected in my jurisdiction.
We are all on the same planet, but live in different worlds. The I.D.I.C should probably be invoked here.
I wasn't meaning that Kitty should never phase through Anything Anywhere Whatsoever, just not public places (where people would freak out seeing it) or in someone else's private property (where someone would freak out by an uninvited intruder in their home) but be mindful of where it's appropriate, and where it's prudent to use a little common sense and judgment for the benefit of those around...
Ok.. if it's THAT simple... why bother with the SHRA at all? You talk about regulations for the common good, but if it's really just politeness, and general civil behavior that you want, why treat people with powers differently? Superheroes are bound by the same laws as everyone else, why does there NEED to be more?
Because they are more... Because their inherant (and often uncontrolled) powers make them different and potentially dangerous... For the exact same reason as you had to take driving lessons and a driving test before being allowed behind the wheel of a car... Don't you see that?
Which would kill her and she knows it..... Cloud 9 isn't Superman. Making and manipulating clouds is her only power. Thus she has good reason to avoid putting herself in danger. Also it's already illegal for her to block commercial airspace, how is the special treatment warranted? You seem to have missed the point of "with great power comes great responsibility". There's many things that ordinary people CAN do that they should NEVER do. Having powers adds to that. But it doesn't fundamentally change how you decide whether something is a good or bad idea. Going back to your ridiculous airport example, an ordinary person can wander around on an airport runway. Most people won't simply because they know it's dumb.
I don't know her powers or durability, or lack thereof, I'm pointing out, regardless of who the Super is, Cloud 9, Superman, Firestar, Jean Grey, I don't really give a damn who, the point remains, that the skies are a busy place, filled with planes which are in constant contact with the ground, and other aircraft, and having someone flying round at random, who is not part of that communications network, is a potential danger...
Ignore the airport analogy, you're straying into hyperbole, let me illustrate my point another way: You might have every capability of walking across a road. If you do it at the wrong place, or in an unsafe manner (ie a danger to yourself or traffic) if a cop sees you, you will be taken to one side and given a citation for jay-walking... What you describe with Cloud 9 (although it sounds like a story written just to be used as an example of how harsh the SHRA is) is the same difference. Just because she can, doesn't mean that she should. Her relaxation does not override other people's peace of mind, and if someone has a scrap of civic goodwill, they will not indulge in 'eccentric behaviour' for their own gratification, if it could affect or upset those around them.
I live 90 seconds walk from a bar. I spend my time at home wearing a yukata. If I was to walk into the bar dressed thus, I would likely get kicked out. At the very least, other patrons would think I was a whackjob and being deliberately eccentric, so it wouldn't do my reputation any good... It's easier for me to put on Western Clothes to go out in, than deal with the hassles that dressing otherwise, would cause. Different circumstances, but the exact same point: Consideration for others...
Disorderly conduct covers a lot of territory legally. Reckless endangerment covers the rest, I think. No special law is required.
Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
Here's the thing.... what you're talking about is a punishment for criminal behavior. The SHRA was a blanket that covered those who WEREN'T just as much. So it effectively meant treating people like criminals because they had powers.
It's sort of like taxing someone for not being dead yet.
"By a 5-4 vote, the court held the law's mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty valid under Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. The financial penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote." The Wall St. Journal.
Perhaps a better title is "which fictional billionaire do you think would make the best president?"
When I look at the list... I see mostly people who don't actually manage their estate. In some cases it's an estate they inherited. Several just aren't leaders. Which kinda leaves just Scrooge McDuck and Iron Man. Of those two I think Iron Man.
Although, Reed Richards might be the best option(yes, he's actually a billionaire)
Scrooge McDuck has the least chance to accidentally kill someone, either by word or deed, since he is a Disney character. His worst fault besides obvious avarice, is to continually endanger children. Since he is a Disney character it is unlikely any children will suffer permanent harm, but his irresponsibility and addiction to wealth make him only the least poor choice of a pretty poor list.
Cat grant is probably second, since the power to smear people undeservedly may or may not result in actual tangible harm. In the comics she engaged in just such a campaign against Supergirl who as at the time also a minor. There was a bit of a wider crises going on also There were Kandorian survivors, and a degree of alarmism, active racism against Kryptonians, and even violent action using military resources which lead to genocidal results. Cat's campaign can't possibly have helped ease tensions. More likely she got someone killed.
Don't get me started on the others.
I'll sum up by saying that they routinely engage in vigilante activity, using dangerous experimental technology, advanced military hardware, and armed vehicles, in urban population centers, ignoring almost all inconvenient laws that might have mitigated their recklessness. All of them have been violent, caused panic, inflicted physical injury, and collateral damage in pursuit of unsanctioned and personal objectives.
They all endangered minors. Palmer endangered Snapper Carr, Stark endangered Rick Jones, Queen endangered Roy Harper who ended up turning to drugs from the stress. Then there is Bruce Wayne, a serial corrupter of minors including a police commissioner's daughter. "Whatever did happen to Jason Todd Mr Wayne? I understand explosives were involved. Don't you routinely carry explosives in your vigilante activities? Why do these young people wind up in ropes and handcuffs so often?" ... I can't wait for CNN to do that story.
Qapla!
PS. Reed Richards was supporting a forced registration program on people, many of whom were included for accidents of birth. In other words, they were targeted for their genetic diversity. When they were targeted for other reasons it generally involved infringing on their rights under the Second, and Fifth Amendments at least. All this got Captain America killed! forget Reed Richards ... but never forget Steve Rogers who fought for freedom against Richards and Stark, and who ended up assassinated before he could get his day in court!
The 'accident at birth' critique is irrelevant, due to the measurable danger which Supers represent. Like Senator Kelly said in the first X-Men movie... (I forget precisely what he said, and can't be fussed to google it) but the point is these individuals constitute a threat, which needs to be monitored. That Magneto was able to spin the holocaust to his advantage, and writer's fiat, forces a biased narrative, which the audience 'is meant to agree with'... No... We license people to own hand-guns... We license people to drive... While we may not (to address the concerns of Dr Grey) license people to live, we certainly can (and do) put restrictions on people's anti-social behaviours, which many Supers' powers, could legitimately be seen as if not directly presenting, certainly capable of causing...
So Tony Stark is able to buy the building before crashing into it... Great, plot says he's destroyed his own personal property, but what about the people who were inside it? He didn't buy them... There wouldn't've been an evacuation warning, so the people inside would still be at as much risk from the event...
Otto Van der Poel: Ah was sitting at mah desk tahping up some application forms, when Meesta Stork came crashing through, and caused a port of the wall to fall on me! Ah broke mah leg, and hurt mah neck, and haven't had a good naht's slip since! Mah wahf is bisahd herself trahng to make inds mit! Ah need compinsation for mah eenjuries and a new job!
So yeah, Superhero Registration Act for the win...
So you give the 'registration' faction a pass on their obvious, and militant racism?
All in fun. Actually, maybe not the best kind of fun. Might be taken seriously by someone ...
Qapla!
I ignore writer's fiat where a plot is whatever the writer chooses it to be, just because 'that's the story they want to tell'. Another writer could use the same elements and tell a different story, because that would be the story that they want to tell.
Licencing and Registration does not have to equal concentration camps and gas chambers... That might be Erik Lehnsherr's fear, but it is not Bob Parr's fear, and nor does it need to be, just because it's Erik Lehnsherr's fear... Captain America and Magneto on the same side... Heil Hydra indeed!
OK, I'm bending a personal rule here by sticking a foot squarely into the real world for this one response.
Leaving out unnecessary details, I work for police in a jurisdiction that is also overseen by DHS. I act to protect people.
Every day I see what is, and imagine what could be, about the system I am a part of.
On Monday I did not know who was going to win the election for President. It's Friday now. Maybe better? Maybe not.
Every election is a gamble. We never know what is in someone else's head, only our own.
We give our power to those we elect so they can use it on our behalf, and we hope they do not abuse or usurp it.
There is always a chance that someone can seize control, using the power of our system if we put to much trust in it.
Today, nothing has changed. Tomorrow may be different. Very different. There is only so much power I am willing to transfer to anyone else before I say 'no'.
I believe in individuals. I accept systems as long as they don't forget who they are supposed to serve. Agendas change.
Steve Rogers expressed my opinion in these quotes;
Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch, you don't give up. Tony Stark: Who said we're giving up? Steve Rogers: We are if we're not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame. Lt. Col. James Rhodes: Sorry, Steve, that... that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we're talking about. It's not the World Security Council, it's not S.H.I.E.L.D., it's not Hydra. Steve Rogers: No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change. Tony Stark: That's good! That's why I'm here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stopped manufacturing. Steve Rogers: Tony, you *chose* to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
Steve Rogers: [excerpt from the letter to Stark] ... My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. ...
End
Now, this entire thread has gotten altogether too serious for me, and may well be on it's way to becoming a 'burning house'. Count me out for anything else here that isn't a silly attempt at a joke.
See you all on other threads
Qapla!
It only got serious because you made it thus... And quoting Steve Rogers, a man who, in the words of James T.Kirk, can't see further than his own uniform, and who demands that the world live by his morality? As I said, the SHRA in The Incredibles, works very differently to how the SHRA is presented/represented in the MCU... As I said, that is down to how the writer chooses to present the issues in their story... That doesn't mean that they are unquestionably set in stone.
You mention working in law enforcement; what's the first thing a cop asks someone for when they pull over their car: License and registration... Proof that they are trained and allowed to use a dangerous piece of equipment, proof that they are, who they say they are... Nothing sinister there... Police have the power to break up groups who are 'loitering'... Police have the power to question people who they believe are behaving suspiciously... Nothing sinister there either... Being 'on the system', ie having the correct credentials, is nothing to be afraid of...
I just came off a 20 hour shift so I hope I can still manage to make sense. Here goes.
Any power, whether personal, or part of a system of authority, is double edged. There is nothing sinister about an unregistered mutant, or a powerful security system that knows everything about you, until someone abuses the power. Individuals only have their own power. Governments can collect power from all of us when we let them, and that makes them potentially the most dangerous things we create.
My earlier posts were largely attempts at humor, and making fun of the idea that no character, or person, can survive a journalistic hit piece, and nobody is immune to being made the bad guy, (Not even Steve Rogers, as you feel justified in pointing out ...). However I don't think this Poll was created innocent of any serious intent. It was just watered down a bit.
Think about all the layers to the poll question that was asked, and if you like, try and guess at a motive for asking it in the first place. I don't think this was supposed to be a 'neutral' topic. I thought the underlying intent was serious from the second I saw the poll question, and I took it to be intentionally political. That is why I attempted humor. For my part. only my previous post, and this one are meant to be taken seriously at all. They are not meant to cause offense however.
I want to clarify, I am not trying to say a tool, or a system, is sinister by itself. However I am inside the system, I participate in it, and I am telling you honestly, if we as individuals are not vigilant over the system, and if we do not hold some of the power in our own hands, then we are pretty much leaving it to chance that the system will never be turned against us and that strikes me as irresponsible.
The people I work with consider what we do to be a sacred trust. We use the tools with care. Someday, the tools may fall into the hands of those with a different 'agenda'. The tool can be put to sinister uses by those people. Western civilization is not immune to cults of personality. If the 20th century taught us nothing else, we should have learned that powerless people are easily turned into victims by those who do have power. We should have learned that it reckless to give too much power to any government. We should not rule out that what happened in other countries can't happen here (wherever your 'here' is)
I mean no disrespect in asking, but doesn't that possibility at least give you some reservations about abdicating all your authority to someone else?
I am not looking for an argument with you. I came back because I was curious, then I saw your post, and I wanted to give you a fair response out of respect. I generally like seeing your participation in the various threads. We have different views, and I can accept that. I hope you can accept that I see the system as a powerful tool that is currently in good hands, but that I do not trust that it always will be.
We who watch must police each other. You who are the watched must police us, or whoever takes the job after us. I ask you to think of government as being like a fire that keeps you warm. Don't give it to much fuel, keep a bucket of sand, or water handy, and everything should work out. That is what I am saying.
I wasn't meaning that Kitty should never phase through Anything Anywhere Whatsoever, just not public places (where people would freak out seeing it) or in someone else's private property (where someone would freak out by an uninvited intruder in their home) but be mindful of where it's appropriate, and where it's prudent to use a little common sense and judgment for the benefit of those around...
Ok.. if it's THAT simple... why bother with the SHRA at all? You talk about regulations for the common good, but if it's really just politeness, and general civil behavior that you want, why treat people with powers differently? Superheroes are bound by the same laws as everyone else, why does there NEED to be more?
Because they are more... Because their inherant (and often uncontrolled) powers make them different and potentially dangerous... For the exact same reason as you had to take driving lessons and a driving test before being allowed behind the wheel of a car... Don't you see that?
Which would kill her and she knows it..... Cloud 9 isn't Superman. Making and manipulating clouds is her only power. Thus she has good reason to avoid putting herself in danger. Also it's already illegal for her to block commercial airspace, how is the special treatment warranted? You seem to have missed the point of "with great power comes great responsibility". There's many things that ordinary people CAN do that they should NEVER do. Having powers adds to that. But it doesn't fundamentally change how you decide whether something is a good or bad idea. Going back to your ridiculous airport example, an ordinary person can wander around on an airport runway. Most people won't simply because they know it's dumb.
I don't know her powers or durability, or lack thereof, I'm pointing out, regardless of who the Super is, Cloud 9, Superman, Firestar, Jean Grey, I don't really give a damn who, the point remains, that the skies are a busy place, filled with planes which are in constant contact with the ground, and other aircraft, and having someone flying round at random, who is not part of that communications network, is a potential danger...
Ignore the airport analogy, you're straying into hyperbole, let me illustrate my point another way: You might have every capability of walking across a road. If you do it at the wrong place, or in an unsafe manner (ie a danger to yourself or traffic) if a cop sees you, you will be taken to one side and given a citation for jay-walking... What you describe with Cloud 9 (although it sounds like a story written just to be used as an example of how harsh the SHRA is) is the same difference. Just because she can, doesn't mean that she should. Her relaxation does not override other people's peace of mind, and if someone has a scrap of civic goodwill, they will not indulge in 'eccentric behaviour' for their own gratification, if it could affect or upset those around them.
I live 90 seconds walk from a bar. I spend my time at home wearing a yukata. If I was to walk into the bar dressed thus, I would likely get kicked out. At the very least, other patrons would think I was a whackjob and being deliberately eccentric, so it wouldn't do my reputation any good... It's easier for me to put on Western Clothes to go out in, than deal with the hassles that dressing otherwise, would cause. Different circumstances, but the exact same point: Consideration for others...
Disorderly conduct covers a lot of territory legally. Reckless endangerment covers the rest, I think. No special law is required.
Qapla!
I don't think there's anything I can really say, which won't just be a repetition of what I've already said... As I said, I don't react with fear and apprehension to situations like THX-1138 or Equilibrium, in fact, I would honestly rather live that way... Hence my lack of issue with an SHRA on a personal level... On the abstract level of entertainment, I can't find the idea 'automatically/inherently problematic', because, as mentioned, The Incredibles showed such an act without any of the issues which the MCU dictates as part of their storyline. Now it is their storyline, so they can tell it as they want, but what they are presenting, the control of the dialogue* is writer's fiat, rather than an automatic consequence/sequence of events, and so as such, no one is under obligation to tolerate that as the only potential outcome for an idea...
I don't agree with the MCU-presented SHRA, but I do see the benefit/need/usefulness of a SHRA. markhawkman said that such a thing presumes that a Super will behave criminally just because they have powers... I say that the law needs to accomodate all scenarios, and while it would be nice to rely on a Super's personal morality to behave by society's rules, well, the whole history of comic books shows rather definitively that that not only can't be relied on/isn't good enough, because there are countless Super Villains, by extension of that fact, there must be legislation to address the subject.
Just as there are gun registrations, and gun laws... Society partly gives gun owners the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to shoot up a cinema or a highschool, but it also acknowledges that there are and will be those who 'slip through the gaps' morally-speaking, so there has to be the registration and legislation to then deal with issues when they occur.
As I pointed out to patrickngo above, how many Supers have been shown to have personality disorders or impulse-control problems? I remember an episode of the Amazing Spiderman, where Angelica melted another girl's doll... Accidents can happen, equally, a bullied individual, who develops the ability to fight back, will do so. In the case of Supers, it is no exaggeration to say that that retaliation could have lethal (intentionally or otherwise) results. Example: Someone without a driving license, or who has never had lessons, gets in a car and starts driving. They get into an accident. They may not have intended to cause an accident, but they still need to be held to account for their actions, and there are laws in place to facilitate that accountability. At present, what laws and facilities are there to actually apply a similar rule of law on Supers? Sure, X-3 showed us the Plastic Prison, and the Mobile Prison, so by what laws are the incarcerated charged or held accountable to? Registration, regardless of what the MCU espouses, is not the road to concentration camps and gas chambers which they claim or present. A person can only write what they know... There's a lot of g.ay writers out there, a lot of bullied writers out there, and a lot of Jewish writers out there. Is it any wonder that the issues which they face, or have dealt with, get brought up in their writing? Absolutely not. However, just because it is their experience, does not mean it is the only experience, or that their perspective and opinion is the only one worthy of consideration (again, The Incredibles... Blows the MU assertion clean out of the water) That there are alternative viewpoints, need to be equally respected and explored, not just echo-chamber dictation of the discussion...
*The overall subject, not the specific words spoken
Comments
See, this is part of why the SHRA wasn't as good an idea as Reed thought it was. Reed had every intention of using the data to help other heroes. But if the data is public? that creates too many problems. Now every supervillain in the world has an index of the home addresses of every superhero in the world. THIS is why Steve Rogers refused to go along with it.
Also what beneficial aspect is there to making it mandatory? If it's actually beneficial, then people will sign up because they WANT to. Well.... the dark side to the SHRA was that it actually was designed as a way to "self police" superheroes. But why bother? SHIELD kinda does that already. There's numerous characters with superpowers who work for SHIELD. SHIELD also knows better than to make public what they know about the various superheroes and villains.
Also, as Steve Rogers pointed out, the SHRA applied to all people with powers, whether they chose to be heroes/villains or not. It's the case with Cloud 9. She was just this kid who had an ability that let her make clouds that she could use to fly. She had no interest in being a hero or villain, she just wanted to do her own thing... which happened to include flying.
My character Tsin'xing
So you give the 'registration' faction a pass on their obvious, and militant racism?
All in fun. Actually, maybe not the best kind of fun. Might be taken seriously by someone ...
Qapla!
Consider the DVLA and/or whatever orgsnisation maintains firearm licencing records in Murica... Not information made freely available to the public, but used by the authorities to make sure people are playing by the rules... Here in the UK, persistent minor offenders, such as someone who persistently plays loud music in a residential area late at night and gets complaints from the neighbours, can be made subject to an anti-social behaviour order, which stipulates behaviour, such as in this case, the person would have to reduce music to a set volume after 8PM... Persistent shop offenders and beggars can be given ASBOs banning them from entering a town center... A Super like Kitty Pryde, for example, could be ordered not to walk through the walls of public or privately-owned spaces... Handled properly, an SHRA doesn't have to be the thin-end of the wedge toward what Magneto fears (and only fears due to his own unfortunate experiences)
OK, I'm bending a personal rule here by sticking a foot squarely into the real world for this one response.
Leaving out unnecessary details, I work for police in a jurisdiction that is also overseen by DHS. I act to protect people.
Every day I see what is, and imagine what could be, about the system I am a part of.
On Monday I did not know who was going to win the election for President. It's Friday now. Maybe better? Maybe not.
Every election is a gamble. We never know what is in someone else's head, only our own.
We give our power to those we elect so they can use it on our behalf, and we hope they do not abuse or usurp it.
There is always a chance that someone can seize control, using the power of our system if we put to much trust in it.
Today, nothing has changed. Tomorrow may be different. Very different. There is only so much power I am willing to transfer to anyone else before I say 'no'.
I believe in individuals. I accept systems as long as they don't forget who they are supposed to serve. Agendas change.
Steve Rogers expressed my opinion in these quotes;
Steve Rogers: Tony, if someone dies on your watch, you don't give up.
Tony Stark: Who said we're giving up?
Steve Rogers: We are if we're not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame.
Lt. Col. James Rhodes: Sorry, Steve, that... that is dangerously arrogant. This is the United Nations we're talking about. It's not the World Security Council, it's not S.H.I.E.L.D., it's not Hydra.
Steve Rogers: No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change.
Tony Stark: That's good! That's why I'm here. When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stopped manufacturing.
Steve Rogers: Tony, you *chose* to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own.
Steve Rogers: [excerpt from the letter to Stark] ... My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. ...
End
Now, this entire thread has gotten altogether too serious for me, and may well be on it's way to becoming a 'burning house'. Count me out for anything else here that isn't a silly attempt at a joke.
See you all on other threads
Qapla!
Ok. Qapla!
My character Tsin'xing
Licencing and Registration does not have to equal concentration camps and gas chambers... That might be Erik Lehnsherr's fear, but it is not Bob Parr's fear, and nor does it need to be, just because it's Erik Lehnsherr's fear... Captain America and Magneto on the same side... Heil Hydra indeed!
It only got serious because you made it thus... And quoting Steve Rogers, a man who, in the words of James T.Kirk, can't see further than his own uniform, and who demands that the world live by his morality? As I said, the SHRA in The Incredibles, works very differently to how the SHRA is presented/represented in the MCU... As I said, that is down to how the writer chooses to present the issues in their story... That doesn't mean that they are unquestionably set in stone.
You mention working in law enforcement; what's the first thing a cop asks someone for when they pull over their car: License and registration... Proof that they are trained and allowed to use a dangerous piece of equipment, proof that they are, who they say they are... Nothing sinister there... Police have the power to break up groups who are 'loitering'... Police have the power to question people who they believe are behaving suspiciously... Nothing sinister there either... Being 'on the system', ie having the correct credentials, is nothing to be afraid of...
It's not 'treating someone like a criminal' to require someone to behave in a socially acceptable and responsible way...
Is it 'treating someone like a criminal' by requiring a person to be modestly dressed in public? Try walking into Wal-Mart naked and see what happens... You might have the 'ability to do so', but consideration for other people, means not doing it, and hence my example.
Expecting Kitty to use doors like everyone else around her, for example, is hardly 'infringing her rights' or 'treating her like a criminal', simply requiring that she fit in with everyone else around her, and not do things which she is capable of doing, which might disturb the people around her... Consideration on her part, not Oppression from The Man...
The point, is that Supers have a different (and potentially dangerous, even deadly) set of abilities than Homo Sapiens, which, as with gun licences or driving licences, is not unreasonable that they be able to use those abilities responsibily and safely, and as with ASBOs, not unreasonable to require them to not randomly use their powers in a manner which could upset or startle those around them... If an emergency occurs, then fine, do whatever's needed to help, but day to day, embrace the anonymity which Professor X espouses... Wear clothes in Wal-Mart...
To paraphrase Uncle Ben: With greater power, comes greater responsibility -- which I interpret to mean 'a greater need for the issue to be handled responsibly by all parties'...
Absolutely so...
Social Security numbers, credit reference scores, DVLA, Passport handling authority, local council records; You have existed on at least one of these databases since the day you were born...
When we vote here in the UK, we are mailed a polling card, which we have to take with us when we go to the polling station, I guess the assumption being, that the card is only received and retained by the named recipient. I've never had to produce my passport to prove my identity at a polling station, but I would have no objection to doing so, in fact, I'd prefer it if I did, because that would cut a lot of the electoral frauds which can occur. I have no issue with maybe needing to prove my identity, nor carrying the means to do so. I wear dogtags -- not just 'daily', but on a Constant Basis -- which states my blood-type, name, National Insurance (Social Security) number and religion. Not because I haveto, but because I want to. I don't want to get hit by a bus, and my remains be incorrectly handled, or if injured, possibly given the wrong blood-type, or if amnesiac, unable to be identified and put back in contact with my family...
I would have no issue with carrying a Government-Issued ID card, and there have been times, such as when I've had to go to a bank, but not had my cashcard on me, that having an unquestionable form of 'override ID' would be useful. A way of saying; "This is my account, I am who I say I am, and this ID proves it so allow me to withdraw my own money..."
In that regard, you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person, if you're expecting a "No, I don't agree with those things..."
As I don't own a firearms license, I'm not sure of the formalities for if someone moves, but I would not be surprized, if one of the requirements of holding the licence is to inform the authorities of any change in your circumstances such as a new address (or moving from one county to another)
With regards mental patients, how many Supers have some kind of personality disorder or impulse-control problem? Conventional Marvel Plot says it's 'cool' and 'quirky'... Reality says 'that person is f*cking dangerous...'
As above, people have to be licensed to drive a car or own a handgun... Being a Super means having that level of power as default. Some people choose not to drive, or not to have a gun, a Super (until X-3) couldn't choose to 'not be' a Super anymore... As much as an SHRA protects mundanes from Supers, it also protects Supers from mundanes and rogue Supers... It's not (in terms of the Incredibles) about 'licensing their right to exist/live', just one of ensuring that their abilities are being responsibly used... The only presumption being made, is that the person behave responsibly, and in an accountable manner. As I said, try walking into Wal-Mart naked, because 'clothes're oppression, Man...' and see how quickly sh*t happens... You're not harming anyone, you're not being unreasonable, you're just there to do some shopping. Naked. When everyone else, is modestly dressed. What gives you the right to be walking round naked when everyone else has to wear clothes? The last emperor who tried that got himself laughed at..
In your opinion... I disagree... As I said, we're all on a database somewhere, we all need, from time to time, to prove that we are who we say we are, and that we have earned the privilege to do certain things (ie drive a car or own a handgun)
As above, you're asking the wrong person, as when I see scenarios like Equilibrium, THX-1138, the Island, etc, I think "I wouldn't mind some of that..."
^ Click image to listen to my favorite Trek theme song! ^
Prosecuting people for using powers for criminal behavior is one thing, prosecuting them for using powers to relax in the park is quite another. Which is more or less what happened to Cloud 9, she liked using her powers to float in mid air while relaxing. She got arrested for nothing more than floating in mid-air, and forced to be a superhero by the SHRA. YEs, I know, you like to say "Writers fiat", but that's the same case with your counter example, it was nothing but Writer's fiat that it worked.
Also treating all superheroes like Frank Castle is a recipe for disaster.... in part because it ticks off Frank Castle..... who doesn't even have powers. That part of Civil war was a tiny, but hilarious footnote, Cap thinks Punisher is a homicidal maniac, but ended up with him as an ally.
My character Tsin'xing
I wasn't meaning that Kitty should never phase through Anything Anywhere Whatsoever, just not public places (where people would freak out seeing it) or in someone else's private property (where someone would freak out by an uninvited intruder in their home) but be mindful of where it's appropriate, and where it's prudent to use a little common sense and judgement for the benefit of those around...
It's called not being an entitled a55hole just because one can be, and fitting in with everyone else and going with the flow, because it makes everyone else less likely to feel threatened and freak out, rather than just 'doing whatever' because one feels the need to do something 'just because one can...
You mentioned Cloud 9. Have you any idea how busy commercial airspace actually is? Having someone randomly flying around wherever they feel like it, could quite concievably result in a mid-air collision, or a pilot having to suddenly react to something in their flightpath, which neither has communication with them, or airtraffic control... You think that her right to fly (presumeably wherever she wants) overrides international aviation law, and pilots/passenger's right to a safe flight clear of UFOs? Tell you what, you go naked shopping in Wal-Mart, or go sit and talk to a group of five year olds in a play park where no one knows you, and tell me what happens...
Stop looking at the situation with the narrow focus of 'oppression', and consider all the examples I've given, where people need to be licenced, registered, appear on Official Lists etc, and realize that that is the way in which Western society actually works...
I dunno, a Witch Billionaire dealing with dark powers might at least suggest she had a soul to sell in the first place.
I can understand that civil war resonates more to Americans that Brits, but that doesn't make your point any more valid, for the reasons that you will still exist on someone's Official List somewhere, and because The Incredibles, was an American production, which showed a different kind of SHRA, so it can't be argued as a difference between American/English understanding of the fundamental issue.
I'm happy to agree to disagree...
My character Tsin'xing
But there's nothing unacceptable about being on an official registry, such as gun or car licensing...
I don't know her powers or durability, or lack thereof, I'm pointing out, regardless of who the Super is, Cloud 9, Superman, Firestar, Jean Grey, I don't really give a damn who, the point remains, that the skies are a busy place, filled with planes which are in constant contact with the ground, and other aircraft, and having someone flying round at random, who is not part of that communications network, is a potential danger...
Ignore the airport analogy, you're straying into hyperbole, let me illustrate my point another way: You might have every capability of walking across a road. If you do it at the wrong place, or in an unsafe manner (ie a danger to yourself or traffic) if a cop sees you, you will be taken to one side and given a citation for jay-walking... What you describe with Cloud 9 (although it sounds like a story written just to be used as an example of how harsh the SHRA is) is the same difference. Just because she can, doesn't mean that she should. Her relaxation does not override other people's peace of mind, and if someone has a scrap of civic goodwill, they will not indulge in 'eccentric behaviour' for their own gratification, if it could affect or upset those around them.
I live 90 seconds walk from a bar. I spend my time at home wearing a yukata. If I was to walk into the bar dressed thus, I would likely get kicked out. At the very least, other patrons would think I was a whackjob and being deliberately eccentric, so it wouldn't do my reputation any good... It's easier for me to put on Western Clothes to go out in, than deal with the hassles that dressing otherwise, would cause. Different circumstances, but the exact same point: Consideration for others...
EDIT: Although I really would love to see the Witch Billonaire now
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Expression of Superpowers comes under the same mindset: The power is inherent to the Super, mostly un-removable, but mostly controllable/trainable... Consideration for others, says not behaving in a deliberately-eccentric manner, or manner which is likely to startle, shock, or cause upset... To do otherwise, frankly, is anti-social behaviour, which should never be tolerated, whatever form it takes, be it a person walking around naked, someone quoting religious doctrine as they walk up and down the street, or a girl walking through walls rather than using the door like everyone else...
I hate having to use Kitty as an example, because she has always been one of my favorite X-Men, and her powers are truly harmless, but she's the best example of how their use comes under the realm of 'controversial behaviour' which could genuinely startle those around her, and for no other reason, than the entitled attitude; "I can, so I will..." so a behaviour which could be personally supressed so as to not startle and shock others...
#IStillLoveYouKitty
It's sort of like taxing someone for not being dead yet.
"By a 5-4 vote, the court held the law's mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty valid under Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. The financial penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote." The Wall St. Journal.
I just came off a 20 hour shift so I hope I can still manage to make sense. Here goes.
Any power, whether personal, or part of a system of authority, is double edged. There is nothing sinister about an unregistered mutant, or a powerful security system that knows everything about you, until someone abuses the power. Individuals only have their own power. Governments can collect power from all of us when we let them, and that makes them potentially the most dangerous things we create.
My earlier posts were largely attempts at humor, and making fun of the idea that no character, or person, can survive a journalistic hit piece, and nobody is immune to being made the bad guy, (Not even Steve Rogers, as you feel justified in pointing out ...). However I don't think this Poll was created innocent of any serious intent. It was just watered down a bit.
Think about all the layers to the poll question that was asked, and if you like, try and guess at a motive for asking it in the first place. I don't think this was supposed to be a 'neutral' topic. I thought the underlying intent was serious from the second I saw the poll question, and I took it to be intentionally political. That is why I attempted humor. For my part. only my previous post, and this one are meant to be taken seriously at all. They are not meant to cause offense however.
I want to clarify, I am not trying to say a tool, or a system, is sinister by itself. However I am inside the system, I participate in it, and I am telling you honestly, if we as individuals are not vigilant over the system, and if we do not hold some of the power in our own hands, then we are pretty much leaving it to chance that the system will never be turned against us and that strikes me as irresponsible.
The people I work with consider what we do to be a sacred trust. We use the tools with care. Someday, the tools may fall into the hands of those with a different 'agenda'. The tool can be put to sinister uses by those people. Western civilization is not immune to cults of personality. If the 20th century taught us nothing else, we should have learned that powerless people are easily turned into victims by those who do have power. We should have learned that it reckless to give too much power to any government. We should not rule out that what happened in other countries can't happen here (wherever your 'here' is)
I mean no disrespect in asking, but doesn't that possibility at least give you some reservations about abdicating all your authority to someone else?
I am not looking for an argument with you. I came back because I was curious, then I saw your post, and I wanted to give you a fair response out of respect. I generally like seeing your participation in the various threads. We have different views, and I can accept that. I hope you can accept that I see the system as a powerful tool that is currently in good hands, but that I do not trust that it always will be.
We who watch must police each other. You who are the watched must police us, or whoever takes the job after us. I ask you to think of government as being like a fire that keeps you warm. Don't give it to much fuel, keep a bucket of sand, or water handy, and everything should work out. That is what I am saying.
Peace?
Qapla!
I should avoid details, but I regularly see private individuals carrying one or more firearms through my work space. I am not expected to ask them anything. It's all about the Second Amendment, which is part of the core law of the land here in the USA. Not all the USA respects it the same way, but it is respected in my jurisdiction.
We are all on the same planet, but live in different worlds. The I.D.I.C should probably be invoked here.
Qapla!
Disorderly conduct covers a lot of territory legally. Reckless endangerment covers the rest, I think. No special law is required.
Qapla!
Yeah, McDuck is still by far the safest choice. Plus Donald and the nephews could get in on the photo ops, and generate positive publicity.
Qapla!
I don't agree with the MCU-presented SHRA, but I do see the benefit/need/usefulness of a SHRA. markhawkman said that such a thing presumes that a Super will behave criminally just because they have powers... I say that the law needs to accomodate all scenarios, and while it would be nice to rely on a Super's personal morality to behave by society's rules, well, the whole history of comic books shows rather definitively that that not only can't be relied on/isn't good enough, because there are countless Super Villains, by extension of that fact, there must be legislation to address the subject.
Just as there are gun registrations, and gun laws... Society partly gives gun owners the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to shoot up a cinema or a highschool, but it also acknowledges that there are and will be those who 'slip through the gaps' morally-speaking, so there has to be the registration and legislation to then deal with issues when they occur.
As I pointed out to patrickngo above, how many Supers have been shown to have personality disorders or impulse-control problems? I remember an episode of the Amazing Spiderman, where Angelica melted another girl's doll... Accidents can happen, equally, a bullied individual, who develops the ability to fight back, will do so. In the case of Supers, it is no exaggeration to say that that retaliation could have lethal (intentionally or otherwise) results. Example: Someone without a driving license, or who has never had lessons, gets in a car and starts driving. They get into an accident. They may not have intended to cause an accident, but they still need to be held to account for their actions, and there are laws in place to facilitate that accountability. At present, what laws and facilities are there to actually apply a similar rule of law on Supers? Sure, X-3 showed us the Plastic Prison, and the Mobile Prison, so by what laws are the incarcerated charged or held accountable to? Registration, regardless of what the MCU espouses, is not the road to concentration camps and gas chambers which they claim or present. A person can only write what they know... There's a lot of g.ay writers out there, a lot of bullied writers out there, and a lot of Jewish writers out there. Is it any wonder that the issues which they face, or have dealt with, get brought up in their writing? Absolutely not. However, just because it is their experience, does not mean it is the only experience, or that their perspective and opinion is the only one worthy of consideration (again, The Incredibles... Blows the MU assertion clean out of the water) That there are alternative viewpoints, need to be equally respected and explored, not just echo-chamber dictation of the discussion...
*The overall subject, not the specific words spoken