For someone not talking about it and not listening, Marcus, you certainly seem determined to demonstrate that you're reading what we're typing - even if you don't understand your own contradictions (we certainly were discussing the SHRA, which is not the supers version of the Witness Protection Program seen in The Incredibles - my comments on that were in a completely separate post).
Priding yourself on being contrarian is fine, but please try to recall which arguments you're being contrarian about...
For someone not talking about it and not listening, Marcus, you certainly seem determined to demonstrate that you're reading what we're typing - even if you don't understand your own contradictions (we certainly were discussing the SHRA, which is not the supers version of the Witness Protection Program seen in The Incredibles - my comments on that were in a completely separate post).
Priding yourself on being contrarian is fine, but please try to recall which arguments you're being contrarian about...
Yeah he gave a few incredibly vague examples and otherwise didn't bother explaining. Most crucially, his explanation of why he felt the version from the Incredibles was a success seemed a bit.... rose colored. Describing it as a "witness protection program" sort of thing is partially true, but it's just as much like house arrest. The supers in question were forbidden from using their powers, and had to pretend to be normal people. That's only marginally better than being in prison, especially in a situation where you look around you and see countless reasons to use your powers.
For someone not talking about it and not listening, Marcus, you certainly seem determined to demonstrate that you're reading what we're typing - even if you don't understand your own contradictions (we certainly were discussing the SHRA, which is not the supers version of the Witness Protection Program seen in The Incredibles - my comments on that were in a completely separate post).
Priding yourself on being contrarian is fine, but please try to recall which arguments you're being contrarian about...
Sorry, what? I've not been on forum for a few hours... I made no contradictions, and just because you either don't, won't or can't understand the points I make, does not make them contradictions... I'll make one more attempt to explain my opinion (assuming that anyone is actually interested to try and understand it) and if you don't like it, or don't agree, fine, but don't have the entitlement to think that you get to keep dismissing my opinion, because without any countering facts, it is just entitled arrogance, which I will not indulge by engaging, because I really am sick of this 'discussion', and am not going to keep wasting my time posting comments which are only being ignored and 'countered' with an irrelevant response...
-The Incredibles showed legislation dealing with Supers...
-The MU showed N4zi-esque legislation dealing with Supers... (Writer's biasses)
-What the MU showed, is not the only way such an act could be enacted...
-While people are protesting that it is oppressive and discriminatory, I have given several examples of Real Life legislations which show society's need for consideration of others, rather than entitled disinhibited eccentricity...
-American (nor English) law does not tolerate entitled disinhibited excentricity, but that is Not oppression...
-There are situations (Pedestrians and drivers) where there NEED to be different laws, to accomodate the different capacities involved, and that is a reasonable comparison to Supers and Homo Sapiens
You, clearly do not 'get' the subtleties of Real Life. You tried to state that car ownership carries no legal obligations or implications of if a car is used criminally, which is not only blatantly incorrect, but any reasonable competent adult should know that if their car is used in a crime (even without their permission) they will be subject to police scrutiny and questioning, so I can only conclude you were being deliberately disingenuous, and as you blanked my statement of that fact, it is clearly You who is being a contrarian...
As I said above, this is not a 'discussion' because there is no conversation taking place, just the kind of echo-chamber repetition of a narrow-minded idea and utter rejection and dismissal of any other opinion or viewpoint, which resulted in America having Trump as President-elect...
After this posting, any further 'inquiries' or attempts to draw me into conversation on this subject, will not be responded to, simply reported as trolling... Mark and yourself clearly have no intent to engage in a sincere dialogue, so I fail to see why I should extend either of you the courtesy of acknowledging your posts, which are clearly intended as belig deliberately disingenuous and baiting, so shall be treated accordingly...
For someone not talking about it and not listening, Marcus, you certainly seem determined to demonstrate that you're reading what we're typing - even if you don't understand your own contradictions (we certainly were discussing the SHRA, which is not the supers version of the Witness Protection Program seen in The Incredibles - my comments on that were in a completely separate post).
Priding yourself on being contrarian is fine, but please try to recall which arguments you're being contrarian about...
Yeah he gave a few incredibly vague examples and otherwise didn't bother explaining. Most crucially, his explanation of why he felt the version from the Incredibles was a success seemed a bit.... rose colored. Describing it as a "witness protection program" sort of thing is partially true, but it's just as much like house arrest. The supers in question were forbidden from using their powers, and had to pretend to be normal people. That's only marginally better than being in prison, especially in a situation where you look around you and see countless reasons to use your powers.
Vague?!? Are you serious?!? I gave incredibly clear and specific examples of instances where entitled behaviour will not only not be tolerated, but will result in prosecution:
-Public nudity, and approaching children.
American law, confirmed by a (albeit televised judge) does not accomodate 'self-indulgent brat(s)', ie someone who levitates in public to relax 'just because they can', someone who walks through walls around others 'just because they can'. (someone who walks into a shopping mall naked 'just because they can' or who approaches children for conversation in a park 'just because they can') The considerate individual, does not indulge in eccentric freedoms around others which might disturb others 'just because they can', but I wouldn't expect you to understand how a considerate individual operates in society... If you disagagree with those examples, and are going to try and insist that they are neither inappropriate, nor subject to prosecution, then frankly, you have no business walking the streets, because you are clearly unhinged from reality, and a potential danger to others...
-I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation that any Super in flight represents a risk of mid-air collision with a plane due to lack of communication with said plane(s) or air-traffic control... And all you came back with, was to observe that it's illegal to let up balloons and the like, completely ignoring the fact, that the Super's flight is equally illegal!
-I gave a perfectly clear example of where a person's freedom of movement, can land them with a citation from the police: Jay-walking. Do you deny that? Walk across a busy intersection at random and let me know what happens, or better yet, take a wingman with you to film it for YouTube, because the likely outcome will be you bouncing off the hood of someone's car...
-I gave a perfectly clear example that a driver who drives eratically will not be prosecuted for jay-walking, but will be prosecuted for at least dangerous driving, at most, vehicular manslaughter, due to the increased aspect of danger which a car brings to the situation (an example of the difference in 'capacity for danger' between a Homo Sapien, and Super, because cars (and drivers) are subject to a different set of laws, licensing legislations and statutes than pedestrians! Not even the most obtuse of people could deny such a thing!
-I gave another perfectly clear example that if a driver's licence states that the individual needs to wear driving glasses, then if they don't wear glasses while driving, then they are violating the terms of their license and can again, be prosecuted for their failure to comply with the statutes...
If you seriously believe those are 'vague' examples, then you are in need of professional help. If you are just trying to be a jerk by pretending to 'not get' what I'm trying to illustrate, then congratulations, you've succeeded...
If you want to talk about me, have the courtesy to do it privately, rather than making public comments such as the one responded to, which is deliberately baiting a response...
None of which actually supports your assertation that the law is useful. You keep using examples that are already covered under existing laws. None of which explains why you think more laws would be needed. For the Cloud 9 example that you love so much.... it's already illegal for her to fly above airstrips or in designated airlanes. Why add another law? THAT you have yet to bother addressing.
Actually, what I meant by "vague" was that your explanation of why you thought the version seen in the Incredibles was better. Heh, you seem to have read all of one word of what I just said.
And "courtesy"? If you feel that it would actually be a courtesy.... I remember what you said last time I discussed something with you via PM. I'm not going there again. You want courtesy? Don't spit on it.
None of which actually supports your assertation that the law is useful. You keep using examples that are already covered under existing laws. None of which explains why you think more laws would be needed. For the Cloud 9 example that you love so much.... it's already illegal for her to fly above airstrips or in designated airlanes. Why add another law? THAT you have yet to bother addressing.
Actually, what I meant by "vague" was that your explanation of why you thought the version seen in the Incredibles was better. Heh, you seem to have read all of one word of what I just said.
And "courtesy"? If you feel that it would actually be a courtesy.... I remember what you said last time I discussed something with you via PM. I'm not going there again. You want courtesy? Don't spit on it.
Re-read what I wrote:
I did not say if you want to discuss the issue with me, do it privately, I said, 'if you want to talk about me have the courtesy to do it privately... You accuse me of reading only one word you said (when you gave no clue as to what you thought I was being vague about, despite me specifically answering your questions as posed) yet clearly failed to read what I wrote, because all you're interested in doing is arguing, and finding a way to argue with what I write, rather than engaging in a two-way conversation... Any example of statutes I give, you claim to find irrelevant, and refuse to even acknowledge the reason (as illustrated by the drivers and pedestrians example) why there would need to be additional statutes to deal with Supers, rather than existing laws, which do not cover the full extent of their abilities or capacity for risk. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that Supers are beyond question or scrutiny, despite the repeated observation, that numerous Supers have personality disorders, distain for authority and impulse-control problems, and that's not even taking the Super Villains into account! Do you seriously not see that? This truly is my last attempt to discuss this topic with you. Please do not directly respond to any of the points I have just raised in a way which merits a response from me. I get that you disagree with my point of view, I get that you think your opinion is the only accurate one, and I get that nothing I say on the subject, will convince you to even consider an alternate perspective, so I'm no longer going to waste my time trying, so would ask that you refrain from engaging me on the topic further.
You're whining about how I didn't dissect every last thing you said to explain why it was wrong? And you're going to "ask" that I NOT respond? Ok.... so no matter what I do you're going to whine more later? Hmmm.....
Jay-walking is an issue based on impeding traffic. It is NOT a universal statute and only gets applied in areas with dense traffic. In fact the town where I live doesn't have any sort of statute for it on the books at all. Many areas don't bother with it because it means they need to spend money to create and maintain crosswalks. I previously didn't bother discussing this simply because of how little value it adds to a conversation about superheroes.
Also the example you keep posting about cars.... Motor vehicle control is very different than using super powers to accomplish the same end.
And the example about flying.... I've repeatedly explained how it is covered under existing laws, yet you act as if the laws regulating airspace don't apply to citizens? Actually I have no idea WHAT you're trying to say here.:"-I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation that any Super in flight represents a risk of mid-air collision with a plane due to lack of communication with said plane(s) or air-traffic control... And all you came back with, was to observe that it's illegal to let up balloons and the like, completely ignoring the fact, that the Super's flight is equally illegal!" I didn't ignore anything. I stated THAT the existing laws cover the subject:"The Cloud 9 example, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is covered by existing laws... you know the same ones that make it illegal to fly remote controlled aircraft, or release helium balloons in controlled airspace?" Yeah I directly stated that it would be illegal under existing laws for her to fly around above an airport.
As for supers with "impulse control problems".... Yes you demonstrated why laws exist to control human behavior, but you said not one word that requires more laws than what exist already. Pot meet kettle. *points at your previous posts claiming you have left the topic for good* I'm betting you'll reply to this post too.
You know, in The Incredibles, they didn't actually say supers were outlawed, they were just prohibiting the way superheroes usually work. To quote the lady in the newsreel, "It's time for their *secret* identities to become their *only* identities - time for them to join us, or go away."
So one could suppose that in the intervening decades, the villains were suppressed by those heroes willing to knuckle under to the government, and work only on what they were told to rather than fighting crime and evil in general. So attempts to take over the world go down, armed robberies and muggings go up - it's a tradeoff, really.
And then along came Syndrome, who started off by killing all the heroes he could so that he could appear more awesome when he emerged into the public eye, and thus was not controllable by the new methods - requiring the heroes to come back out of hiding...
They also weren't rounded up and sent to concentration camps for experimentation and mass execution...
The point I'm trying to make, is that a registration act doesn't have to be the 4th Reich, which Marvel insists via its dialogue... The idea itself is not inherently good or bad, but has more analogies in contemporary laws (driving/guns/clothes/local taxes) which protect everyone (as much as possible) from unregulated, untrained and undisciplined psychos, or entitled a55holes who think "I can, so I will..." I'm reminded of Edgar Friendly's little rant about "because I might just feel the need to..." in Demolition Man*: "Because I might feel the need to," is no justification for any kind of behaviour, and as I said upthread, a reasonable person appreciates that while they might have the legal freedom to do something, consideration for those around them means not doing it. For example, a person might be perfectly entitled to walk round their home stark naked. But if they get a knock at the door, common decency says they put a robe or some pants on before opening the door, rather than subjecting the visitor to a view of their bits and pieces... Someone shouldn't have to point to the court-doll to show what the defendant had uncovered...
*Yes, I do have three seashells on the top of the cistern...
the problem you face, though, is that a "Fourth Reich" can't happen if the populace aren't disarmed and helpless first. (actually demonstrated many times just in the 20th century). It is, after all, fundamentally easier to abuse power when the bulk of the population has no means to strike back or even endanger your jack booted thugs.
In that aspect, Marvel's dialogue is spot-on. Since humans tend to become abusive when granted (legitimate) power over others by law,
witness: Jim Crow laws, the history of Indian Reservations, the Concentration Camp from Africa to Europe, Japanese american Internment, etc. etc. or even the history of Protestants in Catholic Europe before 1900...and catholics in Protestant Europe during the same time period...) the fundamental check on abuse, is found in concepts like Habeas Corpus where a crime must first be proven to have been committed before anyone is charged, much less imprisoned.
Registration schemes by their very nature are pre-emptive actions, "Precrime" investigation, if you will. when your registry by definition includes birth defects, that creates a second-class tier of citizens ripe for abuse...and power (Particularly POLITICAL power) is inherently both corruptive, and attractive to the corrupt. (how many middle class MP's in Britain have become rich in office, how many formerly middle class Congressmen in the U.S. are now millionaires on less than a tenth that per year?)
Let me put it another way: a guy who can **** lazers at you can certainly kill you-but a vote cast in congress can kill your whole family and everyone you love. which is more dangerous? which needs tighter control-a guy who farts lasers, or the guy who can push a button and in so doing, end all life on earth in thirty minutes or less?
Neither of them are by necessity GOING to do it, both have strong reasons NOT to do it...but, one will have to be registered even if he doesn't do it, and the other? well, they can order the assault cops to storm your house with looser rules than a Marine in Fallujah just on the suspicion you gave material to Wikileaks, or send a drone to make you a smear because you MIGHT have said something harsh about them in the foreign press.
and the second one doesn't even need to know your NAME, or face you to do it.
it's a very dangerous thing, power. but in general, when you're talking 'supers' you're talking about a retail threat that can be countered. when you're talking about Government, you're talking about people with "Sovereign Immunity" who can basically get away with killing you anonymously if they fill out the right forms, or hold high enough office.
I know which one is a bigger threat, and it's not the goofball in spandex whose power is restrained by having to actually be physically present, whose reach is restrained by what he cn actually see with his own eyes.
Back in after a few busy days. not sure I want to be here ...
The last quote of patrickngo sums up the essential fear of many I work with. When will we get orders which we cannot in good conscience follow? What if local authority caves in to abusive authority as happened in New Orleans? What if one jurisdiction finds itself in actual conflict over enforcement and ethics where it happens to overlap with another?
If you are forced to stand on principle, and not only refuse to follow illegal orders, but act to stop illegal orders from being carried out by others, then who is going to have your back if the community is powerless to do anything more than cheer you on with just words? If you beleive in your community, why wouldn't you want them armed for the most extreme emrgencies? Would you rather that they had only you to protect them, and that they were helpless without you?
Governments that premptively remove power from the hands of the people, or even only from some of the people, are taking the first significant step needed for tyranny to take hold. Therefore the attempt to remove any portion of that power should be immedialtly suspect, no matter the 'good' reason given for it.
Sure it may scare people to have neighbors who have weapons. If that is a reason to premptively remove the 'power' which the weapons provide, then it is at least as valid, actually even more so, to use fear as a reason to premeptively disband the DHS and the military, since all the 'power' they have is organized and therefore even more dangerous.
Of course then everyone would be helpless together.
"Equally valid"? More like equally horrible. It was presented in the movie as the superhero version of a dystopian future where superheroing was effectively banned and all supers were essentially under house arrest.
So, tell me, in what way was your discussion of Kitty Pryde and Abigail Boylen related to the Incredibles? Because none of what you said in relation to them seems to have any earing on the version of SHRA from that movie.
What was the topic again ... ?
Oh right, I remember. It involved contemporary real politics conflated with fictional alternatives, and what we might prefer.
I don't think the topic got nearly as derailed as I first expected. Discussion of the amazing abilities of the fictional characters, the way they deal with them, and the ramifications of all that when applied to the real world, seems to tie in very neatly to the idea of making a fair comparison for the sake of the question in the poll.
I don't think there was actual flaming, as much as there was very strong disagreement in what was the most rational and proper limit to authority, and which characters best exemplified what was desirable. For me that was Scrooge McDuck.
Granted, I still like all this better as a dedicated joke thread.
It is very much a burning house, so time to leave. "It would have been glorius!"
If this thread proves anything, it is that we are all so very very different, and yet all pretty much the same.
We care about ethics. We want safety and liberty. We want the law to work for the good. These traits are combined inside each of us.
But we also embody the I.D.I.C. and so the traits combine in an infinite variety of ways.
I want to say that whether I agree, or disagree, it is important we always try to respect each other. We have to remember that every life experience is different, and we can't really know the other persons thoughts.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. I'll take some of the blame for any rising heat from this topic. I'm sorry.
I actually like all of you. We are the community. Time to finish our bloodwine and stop punching each other in the face for now. Maybe we can do one of those goofy Federation group hugs?
I respectfully agree to disagree even if I originally agreed in the first place. If you agree to disagree in a similar fashion, quote me, and lets all leave together. Lets close this before it gets closed by someone else. Power to us! let us close this by just leaving. We can shake hands and do it all again somewhere else. I look forward to seeing you all on other threads.
If this thread proves anything, it is that we are all so very very different, and yet all pretty much the same.
We care about ethics. We want safety and liberty. We want the law to work for the good. These traits are combined inside each of us.
But we also embody the I.D.I.C. and so the traits combine in an infinite variety of ways.
I want to say that whether I agree, or disagree, it is important we always try to respect each other. We have to remember that every life experience is different, and we can't really know the other persons thoughts.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. I'll take some of the blame for any rising heat from this topic. I'm sorry.
I actually like all of you. We are the community. Time to finish our bloodwine and stop punching each other in the face for now. Maybe we can do one of those goofy Federation group hugs?
I respectfully agree to disagree even if I originally agreed in the first place. If you agree to disagree in a similar fashion, quote me, and lets all leave together. Lets close this before it gets closed by someone else. Power to us! let us close this by just leaving. We can shake hands and do it all again somewhere else. I look forward to seeing you all on other threads.
Governments that premptively remove power from the hands of the people, or even only from some of the people, are taking the first significant step needed for tyranny to take hold. Therefore the attempt to remove any portion of that power should be immedialtly suspect, no matter the 'good' reason given for it.
Sure it may scare people to have neighbors who have weapons. If that is a reason to premptively remove the 'power' which the weapons provide, then it is at least as valid, actually even more so, to use fear as a reason to premeptively disband the DHS and the military, since all the 'power' they have is organized and therefore even more dangerous.
This touches on something that often gets overlooked. What would real-world governments do about supers? Well, they'd want the supers to work for them! That's one of the things Malibu comics got right. They treated each super as an individual with differing ideas on the proper use of authority. In the case of Savage Dragon, Dragon is actually a police officer. He often improvises when deciding proper procedure(such as the many times he gets into fistfights with supervillains), but he generally follows police procedure when dealing with suspects.
And realistically.... every government agency would want supers working for them in some way or another. NYPD, CIA, Delta Force..... you name it, they'd want it. Someone like Kitty Pryde working for the CIA? Yeah.... they'd make an effort to recruit her. This is something Marvel and DC generally either ignore or avoid. for example, Spiderman almost never works for the authorities. But that hasn't stopped Nick Fury from asking nicely.
One oddity is that I can't think of a DC or Marvel character who is a super with a military background who became military AFTER getting powers. Steve Rogers, Frank Castle, Carol Danvers, all were military first, then left that.
Honestly though, a lot of those "regular guy with powers" type people IRL would get an offer from one agency or another that would basically amount to "if you work for us we'll give you a bigger paycheck than what you currently get." In-universe, people like Nick Fury figured out who Spiderman was, they just never had a reason to make it public. That's just not what they do. This got mirrored in the Civil War movie by the way Stark recruited Spiderman.
Comments
Priding yourself on being contrarian is fine, but please try to recall which arguments you're being contrarian about...
My character Tsin'xing
-The Incredibles showed legislation dealing with Supers...
-The MU showed N4zi-esque legislation dealing with Supers... (Writer's biasses)
-What the MU showed, is not the only way such an act could be enacted...
-While people are protesting that it is oppressive and discriminatory, I have given several examples of Real Life legislations which show society's need for consideration of others, rather than entitled disinhibited eccentricity...
-American (nor English) law does not tolerate entitled disinhibited excentricity, but that is Not oppression...
-There are situations (Pedestrians and drivers) where there NEED to be different laws, to accomodate the different capacities involved, and that is a reasonable comparison to Supers and Homo Sapiens
You, clearly do not 'get' the subtleties of Real Life. You tried to state that car ownership carries no legal obligations or implications of if a car is used criminally, which is not only blatantly incorrect, but any reasonable competent adult should know that if their car is used in a crime (even without their permission) they will be subject to police scrutiny and questioning, so I can only conclude you were being deliberately disingenuous, and as you blanked my statement of that fact, it is clearly You who is being a contrarian...
As I said above, this is not a 'discussion' because there is no conversation taking place, just the kind of echo-chamber repetition of a narrow-minded idea and utter rejection and dismissal of any other opinion or viewpoint, which resulted in America having Trump as President-elect...
After this posting, any further 'inquiries' or attempts to draw me into conversation on this subject, will not be responded to, simply reported as trolling... Mark and yourself clearly have no intent to engage in a sincere dialogue, so I fail to see why I should extend either of you the courtesy of acknowledging your posts, which are clearly intended as belig deliberately disingenuous and baiting, so shall be treated accordingly...
-Public nudity, and approaching children.
American law, confirmed by a (albeit televised judge) does not accomodate 'self-indulgent brat(s)', ie someone who levitates in public to relax 'just because they can', someone who walks through walls around others 'just because they can'. (someone who walks into a shopping mall naked 'just because they can' or who approaches children for conversation in a park 'just because they can') The considerate individual, does not indulge in eccentric freedoms around others which might disturb others 'just because they can', but I wouldn't expect you to understand how a considerate individual operates in society... If you disagagree with those examples, and are going to try and insist that they are neither inappropriate, nor subject to prosecution, then frankly, you have no business walking the streets, because you are clearly unhinged from reality, and a potential danger to others...
-I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation that any Super in flight represents a risk of mid-air collision with a plane due to lack of communication with said plane(s) or air-traffic control... And all you came back with, was to observe that it's illegal to let up balloons and the like, completely ignoring the fact, that the Super's flight is equally illegal!
-I gave a perfectly clear example of where a person's freedom of movement, can land them with a citation from the police: Jay-walking. Do you deny that? Walk across a busy intersection at random and let me know what happens, or better yet, take a wingman with you to film it for YouTube, because the likely outcome will be you bouncing off the hood of someone's car...
-I gave a perfectly clear example that a driver who drives eratically will not be prosecuted for jay-walking, but will be prosecuted for at least dangerous driving, at most, vehicular manslaughter, due to the increased aspect of danger which a car brings to the situation (an example of the difference in 'capacity for danger' between a Homo Sapien, and Super, because cars (and drivers) are subject to a different set of laws, licensing legislations and statutes than pedestrians! Not even the most obtuse of people could deny such a thing!
-I gave another perfectly clear example that if a driver's licence states that the individual needs to wear driving glasses, then if they don't wear glasses while driving, then they are violating the terms of their license and can again, be prosecuted for their failure to comply with the statutes...
If you seriously believe those are 'vague' examples, then you are in need of professional help. If you are just trying to be a jerk by pretending to 'not get' what I'm trying to illustrate, then congratulations, you've succeeded...
If you want to talk about me, have the courtesy to do it privately, rather than making public comments such as the one responded to, which is deliberately baiting a response...
Actually, what I meant by "vague" was that your explanation of why you thought the version seen in the Incredibles was better. Heh, you seem to have read all of one word of what I just said.
And "courtesy"? If you feel that it would actually be a courtesy.... I remember what you said last time I discussed something with you via PM. I'm not going there again. You want courtesy? Don't spit on it.
My character Tsin'xing
I did not say if you want to discuss the issue with me, do it privately, I said, 'if you want to talk about me have the courtesy to do it privately... You accuse me of reading only one word you said (when you gave no clue as to what you thought I was being vague about, despite me specifically answering your questions as posed) yet clearly failed to read what I wrote, because all you're interested in doing is arguing, and finding a way to argue with what I write, rather than engaging in a two-way conversation... Any example of statutes I give, you claim to find irrelevant, and refuse to even acknowledge the reason (as illustrated by the drivers and pedestrians example) why there would need to be additional statutes to deal with Supers, rather than existing laws, which do not cover the full extent of their abilities or capacity for risk. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that Supers are beyond question or scrutiny, despite the repeated observation, that numerous Supers have personality disorders, distain for authority and impulse-control problems, and that's not even taking the Super Villains into account! Do you seriously not see that? This truly is my last attempt to discuss this topic with you. Please do not directly respond to any of the points I have just raised in a way which merits a response from me. I get that you disagree with my point of view, I get that you think your opinion is the only accurate one, and I get that nothing I say on the subject, will convince you to even consider an alternate perspective, so I'm no longer going to waste my time trying, so would ask that you refrain from engaging me on the topic further.
Jay-walking is an issue based on impeding traffic. It is NOT a universal statute and only gets applied in areas with dense traffic. In fact the town where I live doesn't have any sort of statute for it on the books at all. Many areas don't bother with it because it means they need to spend money to create and maintain crosswalks. I previously didn't bother discussing this simply because of how little value it adds to a conversation about superheroes.
Also the example you keep posting about cars.... Motor vehicle control is very different than using super powers to accomplish the same end.
And the example about flying.... I've repeatedly explained how it is covered under existing laws, yet you act as if the laws regulating airspace don't apply to citizens? Actually I have no idea WHAT you're trying to say here.:"-I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation that any Super in flight represents a risk of mid-air collision with a plane due to lack of communication with said plane(s) or air-traffic control... And all you came back with, was to observe that it's illegal to let up balloons and the like, completely ignoring the fact, that the Super's flight is equally illegal!" I didn't ignore anything. I stated THAT the existing laws cover the subject:"The Cloud 9 example, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is covered by existing laws... you know the same ones that make it illegal to fly remote controlled aircraft, or release helium balloons in controlled airspace?" Yeah I directly stated that it would be illegal under existing laws for her to fly around above an airport.
As for supers with "impulse control problems".... Yes you demonstrated why laws exist to control human behavior, but you said not one word that requires more laws than what exist already. Pot meet kettle. *points at your previous posts claiming you have left the topic for good* I'm betting you'll reply to this post too.
My character Tsin'xing
Back in after a few busy days. not sure I want to be here ...
The last quote of patrickngo sums up the essential fear of many I work with. When will we get orders which we cannot in good conscience follow? What if local authority caves in to abusive authority as happened in New Orleans? What if one jurisdiction finds itself in actual conflict over enforcement and ethics where it happens to overlap with another?
If you are forced to stand on principle, and not only refuse to follow illegal orders, but act to stop illegal orders from being carried out by others, then who is going to have your back if the community is powerless to do anything more than cheer you on with just words? If you beleive in your community, why wouldn't you want them armed for the most extreme emrgencies? Would you rather that they had only you to protect them, and that they were helpless without you?
Governments that premptively remove power from the hands of the people, or even only from some of the people, are taking the first significant step needed for tyranny to take hold. Therefore the attempt to remove any portion of that power should be immedialtly suspect, no matter the 'good' reason given for it.
Sure it may scare people to have neighbors who have weapons. If that is a reason to premptively remove the 'power' which the weapons provide, then it is at least as valid, actually even more so, to use fear as a reason to premeptively disband the DHS and the military, since all the 'power' they have is organized and therefore even more dangerous.
Of course then everyone would be helpless together.
Qapla!
OK, that is freaking funny.
I had a response about car liscensing, but I'll leave you to it.
Qapla!
What was the topic again ... ?
Oh right, I remember. It involved contemporary real politics conflated with fictional alternatives, and what we might prefer.
I don't think the topic got nearly as derailed as I first expected. Discussion of the amazing abilities of the fictional characters, the way they deal with them, and the ramifications of all that when applied to the real world, seems to tie in very neatly to the idea of making a fair comparison for the sake of the question in the poll.
I don't think there was actual flaming, as much as there was very strong disagreement in what was the most rational and proper limit to authority, and which characters best exemplified what was desirable. For me that was Scrooge McDuck.
Granted, I still like all this better as a dedicated joke thread.
It is very much a burning house, so time to leave. "It would have been glorius!"
Qapla!
If this thread proves anything, it is that we are all so very very different, and yet all pretty much the same.
We care about ethics. We want safety and liberty. We want the law to work for the good. These traits are combined inside each of us.
But we also embody the I.D.I.C. and so the traits combine in an infinite variety of ways.
I want to say that whether I agree, or disagree, it is important we always try to respect each other. We have to remember that every life experience is different, and we can't really know the other persons thoughts.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. I'll take some of the blame for any rising heat from this topic. I'm sorry.
I actually like all of you. We are the community. Time to finish our bloodwine and stop punching each other in the face for now. Maybe we can do one of those goofy Federation group hugs?
I respectfully agree to disagree even if I originally agreed in the first place. If you agree to disagree in a similar fashion, quote me, and lets all leave together. Lets close this before it gets closed by someone else. Power to us! let us close this by just leaving. We can shake hands and do it all again somewhere else. I look forward to seeing you all on other threads.
Will you quote me?
Qapla!
Absolutely so, Qapla!
And realistically.... every government agency would want supers working for them in some way or another. NYPD, CIA, Delta Force..... you name it, they'd want it. Someone like Kitty Pryde working for the CIA? Yeah.... they'd make an effort to recruit her. This is something Marvel and DC generally either ignore or avoid. for example, Spiderman almost never works for the authorities. But that hasn't stopped Nick Fury from asking nicely.
One oddity is that I can't think of a DC or Marvel character who is a super with a military background who became military AFTER getting powers. Steve Rogers, Frank Castle, Carol Danvers, all were military first, then left that.
Honestly though, a lot of those "regular guy with powers" type people IRL would get an offer from one agency or another that would basically amount to "if you work for us we'll give you a bigger paycheck than what you currently get." In-universe, people like Nick Fury figured out who Spiderman was, they just never had a reason to make it public. That's just not what they do. This got mirrored in the Civil War movie by the way Stark recruited Spiderman.
My character Tsin'xing