|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2016 12:00:18 GMT -5
Human murderers are severely atypical, and it takes a complex series of circumstances and decisions to get them to that point. Some mutants are born with the innate ability to destroy by default, and some are not born equipped with the ability to control those powers. This is demonstrably wrong. And though I don't do it often, I'll go ahead and play the card that I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who has ever represented a murderer in a legal case. It takes seconds to turn an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a murderer. I've seen it a number of times. Most murders aren't plotted out and committed by sociopaths. The premeditation takes seconds and the majority are committed in the heat of the moment by someone the victim knows. As to the question at hand. No. I would not support registering and tracking human beings like cattle based on the perception that they are more likely than a different subset of human beings to do what any given individual is very very capable of doing powers or not. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on May 12, 2016 12:28:55 GMT -5
Human murderers are severely atypical, and it takes a complex series of circumstances and decisions to get them to that point. Some mutants are born with the innate ability to destroy by default, and some are not born equipped with the ability to control those powers. This is demonstrably wrong. And though I don't do it often, I'll go ahead and play the card that I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who has ever represented a murderer in a legal case. It takes seconds to turn an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a murderer. I've seen it a number of times. Most murders aren't plotted out and committed by sociopaths. The premeditation takes seconds and the majority are committed in the heat of the moment by someone the victim knows. As to the question at hand. No. I would not support registering and tracking human beings like cattle based on the perception that they are more likely than a different subset of human beings to do what any given individual is very very capable of doing powers or not. I certainly respect your experience in this matter and don't consider it to be playing any kind of a card. And yet I still disagree. Those "heat of the moment" decisions are the culminations of unique sets of circumstances and experiences. Most people do not just decide to murder a spouse in the middle of a heated argument. When some do, I can only assume it's the ensuing result of a variety of past circumstances and events leading up to their ability to make that one unalterable decision. We agree it happens in the heat of the moment. I disagree that it's just a random crapshoot whether any of us pops off in a murderous rage in the midst of such a moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2016 12:48:59 GMT -5
This is demonstrably wrong. And though I don't do it often, I'll go ahead and play the card that I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who has ever represented a murderer in a legal case. It takes seconds to turn an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a murderer. I've seen it a number of times. Most murders aren't plotted out and committed by sociopaths. The premeditation takes seconds and the majority are committed in the heat of the moment by someone the victim knows. As to the question at hand. No. I would not support registering and tracking human beings like cattle based on the perception that they are more likely than a different subset of human beings to do what any given individual is very very capable of doing powers or not. I certainly respect your experience in this matter and don't consider it to be playing any kind of a card. And yet I still disagree. Those "heat of the moment" decisions are the culminations of unique sets of circumstances and experiences. Most people do not just decide to murder a spouse in the middle of a heated argument. When some do, I can only assume it's the ensuing result of a variety of past circumstances and events leading up to their ability to make that one unalterable decision. We agree it happens in the heat of the moment. I disagree that it's just a random crapshoot whether any of us pops off in a murderous rage in the midst of such a moment. Even if true...and I don't agree that it is...the same culmination of unique sets of circumstances and experiences apply to mutants. Being registered isn't going to keep Mutant "A" from having a really bad day and freezing his wife. And it isn't going to keep Mutant "B" from boiling over at his boss and blasting him out a window. Just as having a State Police tracking chip on Ed the Postman who isn't a mutant from shooting up the post office. And...I just erased a post that was full-on Godwin, because that really is pretty much the only place that the conversation can go. The idea of registration of human beings is anathema to the ideals to which we should aspire. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 12, 2016 12:57:10 GMT -5
It's why I don't think blatant strict gun control is beneficial in the long run. Should any citizen be able to at least own a 9mm handgun or bolt action rifle? Sure. Why? Why does any private citizen in a civilized society need to own a lethal weapon? Well they don't need to, per say. My use of the example was to denote, in this hypothetical scenario, would there be a limit to what power levels are registered and what are not? Just like if you need a 9mm handgun for protection, do you need a grenade launcher? But unlike an inanimate object, mutants would factor in being human and therefore a different approach would be needed. Because a gun can not do anything on it's own. As they say, guns don't kill people do. But as instances have been shown with mutants, their intentions are not always what control their powers. A gun needs someone to pull the trigger. Some mutant powers don't need a trigger, or the trigger cannot be suppressed. |
|
|
|
Post by String on May 12, 2016 13:02:03 GMT -5
With registration, you're branding a entire minority group based solely on the potential of destruction they may cause. It's a clear violation of their civil rights.
As with everything else, the better answer is simply education, knowledge. Part of your argument stems from the majority of mutants not having proper access to training for their abilities which left unchecked, could possibly cause harm, damage, and death.
So, federally fund institutions such as Xavier's school to train mutants in the use of their powers. Learn to control their powers and hopefully, even use them in a constructive fashion to better their communities and cities. Plus, this could lift any stigma that having to register could possibly foster. This isn't meant to demean a mutant, it's just a necessary component for them to live a productive, successful, safe life.
Now, as with our fellow man, even with proper training, some mutants are going to turn criminal. So I would favor the formation of a Federal taskforce/unit trained and equipped to handle/arrest these criminal mutants. The idea of mutants policing themselves (ala Bishop and the XSE) still holds merit as well.
Anything is preferable to registration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 12, 2016 13:08:43 GMT -5
Being registered isn't going to keep Mutant "A" from having a really bad day and freezing his wife. "You might be a comic-book nerd if... you get that reference!" |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 12, 2016 13:16:10 GMT -5
I can see why the Marvel Universe authorities might want to regulate mutant activities (which usually goes hand in hand with some kind of registration and surveillance) even if we don't consider those who can blow up the moon. What about those who can read thoughts or control those of others? They'd make court decisions and business transactions suspect. What about telekinetics who can modify the course of a golf ball? Shape-shifters who impersonate someone's lover?
It would be easy for a populist politician (*cough Trump cough*) to claim that the only way to be safe from them is identification, regulation, discrimination and parking in a reservation. To begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on May 12, 2016 13:18:36 GMT -5
Why? Why does any private citizen in a civilized society need to own a lethal weapon? Well they don't need to, per say. My use of the example was to denote, in this hypothetical scenario, would there be a limit to what power levels are registered and what are not? Just like if you need a 9mm handgun for protection, do you need a grenade launcher? But unlike an inanimate object, mutants would factor in being human and therefore a different approach would be needed. Because a gun can not do anything on it's own. As they say, guns don't kill people do. But as instances have been shown with mutants, their intentions are not always what control their powers. A gun needs someone to pull the trigger. Some mutant powers don't need a trigger, or the trigger cannot be suppressed. Guns do kill people. It's what they were designed for. It's their only function. In a civiized society, nobody needs a 9mm handgun or any other kind of gun for "protection". Because the only people they might need protection from also generally don't have guns. Tell me, do you think someone would need to carry a gun in order to "protect" themselves from a mutant like, say, the origina Angel or Cypher, whose powers are entirely non aggressive? I know what I'd rather see controlled... |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on May 12, 2016 13:53:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't favor registration, and here's why. You're effectively creating a class of people who could potentially be discriminated against, ostracized, and persecuted for something that they haven't done, and since it's genetic, they have no control over. Moreover, the kind of societal conditions such persecution would create could end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy -- a marginalized people with powerful and dangerous abilities who might otherwise have preferred to live peacefully decided instead to lash out against their oppressors.
I think grounding this discussion in a slightly more plausible scenario (while still preserving the underlying principle being discussed) brings some clarity to the issue.
Genetic testing could potentially give us the ability to track the markers that increase the likelihood for sociopathic behaviors. We might be able to determine the genetic markers that are linked to violent temper, self-destructive tendencies, etc. However, behavior is complex and owes as much (or perhaps more depending on who you ask) to nurture as well as nature. So someone might have a greater potential to be, say, a sex offender or a child abuser, but with the right environment, those tendencies may very well be controlled to the point that they never express themselves. But because they have an increased potential due to genetic factors, are we therefore justified in registering and tracking such individuals on that basis?
My answer would be no. And so extrapolating from this scenario to the mutant situation, I would say no to that as well. Mutants might very well have the potential to harbor dangerous abilities, but until they prove themselves to be a danger to society, I don't think we're justified in curtailing their rights. Moreover, blanket registration is problematic when you consider that mutations could manifest in all sorts of ways that are completely innocuous. I think it better to leave people be until such a time that they are proven to be dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 12, 2016 14:09:43 GMT -5
I wouldn't favor registration, and here's why. You're effectively creating a class of people who could potentially be discriminated against, ostracized, and persecuted for something that they haven't done, and since it's genetic, they have no control over. Moreover, the kind of societal conditions such persecution would create could end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy -- a marginalized people with powerful and dangerous abilities who might otherwise have preferred to live peacefully decided instead to lash out against their oppressors. Cyclops comes to mind! I agree with you, but I think the point shaxper makes is that in the context of the Marvel Universe, the risk for massive disaster is so great that people might be willing to treat a segment of the population unjustly. Ordinary Marvel citizens would probably agree that discrimination against mutants is bad, but might be willing to view it as a lesser evil compared to the possibility that a mutant might extinguish the sun because of a bad dream (a scenario that, in the context of the MU, isn't as far-fecthed as it sounds). As ever, these make-belive universes allow us to reflect upon our own society : just how far are we willing to go, in terms of unfairness, when it comes to security? |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on May 12, 2016 14:21:59 GMT -5
just how far are we willing to go, in terms of unfairness, when it comes to security? I'm actually afraid to find out just how far some of my fellow citizens are willing to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2016 14:58:13 GMT -5
As ever, these make-belive universes allow us to reflect upon our own society : just how far are we willing to go, in terms of unfairness, when it comes to security? Well...we know that in the real world we are willing to be completely stripped of our dignity for the illusion of security every time we get on an airplane. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 12, 2016 17:18:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly what Shax was going for, but I wouldn't say that all mutants would have to register, just those that have the potential to cause massive damage, either on purpose or by accident. I assume one would be able to properly identify such. I don't think that's infringing upon civil rights any more than a hunting permit or a driver's license is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2016 17:24:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly what Shax was going for, but I wouldn't say that all mutants would have to register, just those that have the potential to cause massive damage, either on purpose or by accident. I assume one would be able to properly identify such. I don't think that's infringing upon civil rights any more than a hunting permit or a driver's license is. You don't have to have a hunting license or a driver's license unless you hunt or drive. You are suggesting that someone needs to be registered for the mere act of living. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 12, 2016 17:29:53 GMT -5
I suppose that's true, but I don't think it would be fair to the rest of the non-mutant citizens to die walking down the street. This is wehre fantasy and reality can't really match... the Marvel Universe (Damage Control not withstanding), doesn't really have collateral damage when superheroes fight in the middle of the day in New York.. in real life if that happened, there would likely be hundreds if not thousands of fatalities.. getting a little warning that that could potentially happen seems the least one could do.
I mean, it's easy to say it's unfair and whatnot, but if there were a hard reality, that reality would be very hard indeed.
|
|
