|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 27, 2007 6:46:11 GMT -5
This whole argument seems oddly reminiscent of the Civil War debate in which you insisted that Cap was admitting he was wrong even though it was obvious to everyone else that he was only backing down because of the collateral damage. p The hilarious thing here is that you're still wrong, Mark Millar, Joss Whedon and Tom Brevoort all agree with me, Joe Q has indicated that he does, the book itself flat out says he thinks his side were losing the argument and pretty much every subsequent book has fully backed up that assertion. In contrast, your argument consists of "I don't think he was wrong ergo HE can't think he was wrong."
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on May 27, 2007 11:48:55 GMT -5
The case of slavery (I realize it's not quite the same as Registration, but it's very useful to illustrate my point...) is quite illuminating: was it WRONG for people to hide slaves from justice back when they were legitimately, legally owned by their masters...? After all, it WAS the law of the land, but I posit that there are laws which are inherently wrong, corrupt, unjust & immoral... and that if a person, in good concience, cannot justify them them said person has a duty, to himself, to humanity & to justice, to refuse to follow said law... Furthermore: lets say you were a person completely opposed to slavery back then, who saw it for the monstruous institution that it was, and one day you saw an owner, about to shoot an escaped slave... would it have been wrong for you to shoot the owner 1st...? To allow this human being to at least have a little chance at regaining his God-given freedom...?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 27, 2007 13:51:37 GMT -5
Slavery is clearly not remotely comparable. THe argument used of "Slavery was a law and so is Registration" could be used identically to argue against laws against MURDER. Or laws like Gun Registration. The fact remains, unlike slavery registration does not hurt anybody and treats no one as more or less equal. Slavery clearly defies the principles of the Constitution. The SHRA just as clearly does NOT.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 27, 2007 16:17:56 GMT -5
If only because Super powers aren't refferenced in the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 27, 2007 16:46:23 GMT -5
Plus the whole fact that if the Constitution doesn't indicate the average person should carry a gun freely (it doesn't) then I doubt the finders had superpowers in mind. The great irony is if there were powers at the time it was written, it probably would have been those founders who drafted the first SHRA!
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 27, 2007 17:06:21 GMT -5
Slavery is clearly not remotely comparable. THe argument used of "Slavery was a law and so is Registration" could be used identically to argue against laws against MURDER. Or laws like Gun Registration. The fact remains, unlike slavery registration does not hurt anybody and treats no one as more or less equal. Slavery clearly defies the principles of the Constitution. The SHRA just as clearly does NOT. The SHRA clearly does not treat anyone differently? Again, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Who else other than "meta-humans" does the SHRA affect? What's the difference between making a law that only affects those with superhuman powers or abilities vs. a law that only affects those with a particular skin color? And I would also have to wildly disagree with your apparent definition of hurting somebody. Apparently supressing an individuals right to self-determination or expression, which the SHRA clearly does to those who want to use their abilities but don't want to be an agent of the government, is not hurtful? I would say that it is. Plus the whole fact that if the Constitution doesn't indicate the average person should carry a gun freely (it doesn't) then I doubt the finders had superpowers in mind. The great irony is if there were powers at the time it was written, it probably would have been those founders who drafted the first SHRA! I don't think we need a full-blown discussion on the 2nd Amendment, which obviously your interpretation is going to be wholly different than mine. Even without the 2nd amendment, nowhere does it state that a persons right to carry arms should be infringed. That alone gives individuals the right to bear arms, it didn't need to be stated in the Bill of Rights, but the founding fathers wanted to be absolutely certain on some main freedoms, so they crafted the first 10 amendments, just a clarity. The federal government has no authority to anything that the constitution doesn't EXPRESSLY provide it. The constitution isn't a set of rules for the people exactly, but more of a rule book for what the government can do. Just because it isn't in there doesn't mean they can do it.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 27, 2007 17:21:20 GMT -5
The SHRA clearly does not treat anyone differently? Again, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Who else other than "meta-humans" does the SHRA affect? What's the difference between making a law that only affects those with superhuman powers or abilities vs. a law that only affects those with a particular skin color? I would think the difference is INCREDIBLY clear, those with different skin colours can't blow up buildings on a whim. Except it doesn't., You can register, use your abilities and not be an agent of the government. It's fact, confirmed in comics AND by editors. The SHRA does not surpress self determination or expression at all, that's basically canon. I don't think we need a full-blown discussion on the 2nd Amendment, which obviously your interpretation is going to be wholly different than mine. Even without the 2nd amendment, nowhere does it state that a persons right to carry arms should be infringed. That alone gives individuals the right to bear arms, it didn't need to be stated in the Bill of Rights, but the founding fathers wanted to be absolutely certain on some main freedoms, so they crafted the first 10 amendments, just a clarity. The federal government has no authority to anything that the constitution doesn't EXPRESSLY provide it. The constitution isn't a set of rules for the people exactly, but more of a rule book for what the government can do. Just because it isn't in there doesn't mean they can do it. The Constitution does not forbid laws like the SHRA though. One might well argue it encourages them. The fact is, it is either a gross misinterpretation or a flat out lie to claim the SHRA violates the Constituion. It can violate people's personal ethics, sure, but the law of the land? Nope.
|
|
Tone-Loc
Reservist Avenger
R.I.P. (... for now)
Posts: 200
|
Post by Tone-Loc on May 27, 2007 18:21:16 GMT -5
I would think the difference is INCREDIBLY clear, those with different skin colours can't blow up buildings on a whim. So a whole class of people are to be damned due to the POTENTIAL of only some of their ranks? Except it doesn't., You can register, use your abilities and not be an agent of the government. It's fact, confirmed in comics AND by editors. The SHRA does not surpress self determination or expression at all, that's basically canon. This gets stated all the time, yet I have yet to see it actually upheld in a book. Every instance I read, shows people who have powers being forced to register. Period. There seems to be a lot of contradiction. But I guess that is just interpretaton issues with individual writers... And in what PRACTICAL sense is Cloud 9's power completely dangerous again? The Constitution does not forbid laws like the SHRA though. One might well argue it encourages them. The fact is, it is either a gross misinterpretation or a flat out lie to claim the SHRA violates the Constituion. It can violate people's personal ethics, sure, but the law of the land? Nope. And it is my opinion that you can flip that statement completely around. I believe it is wholly discriminatory, unnecessary (as there are plently of other laws on the books to punish those who do unlawful things... intentionally or not), and simply put... bad law. But that is just my $.02.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 27, 2007 20:15:13 GMT -5
Think of it like driving. You can own a car, but if you use it, you need a driver's liscence. You can have powers, but if you want to use them in a public fashion you need to be registered. Cars without insurrance/licence plates parked on the street will get ticketed. Known meta humans who are not using their powers are similarily targeted as a violation (primarily because their identity is known to someone in the SHRA heirarchy.)
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 28, 2007 5:13:02 GMT -5
So a whole class of people are to be damned due to the POTENTIAL of only some of their ranks? Couldn't one argue it's MORE discriminatory to pick some powered people and leave out others? Who decides, after all? Sure, a person with the power to see everyone in a slight tint of yellow might be fine but I'd say more than half of superpowers out there have huge potential to go wrong. Worry no more: Firebird. Frontline #2. Hell, Jessica Jones in NA 22 is only ADVISED to register. Avengers: The Initiative #1: "If you WANT TO FLY, then you'll need a licsence..." Almost every time someone is forced, it is illegal SHIELD blackmail they couldn't do anyway. Oh come on. Give any real world villain that power and they'd be all over it in a second. And it is my opinion that you can flip that statement completely around. I believe it is wholly discriminatory, unnecessary (as there are plently of other laws on the books to punish those who do unlawful things... intentionally or not), and simply put... bad law. But that is just my $.02. Then you abolish them. You beat them lawfully, in the courts, as long as you can do so. And as long as you CAN do so, which opponents to the SHRA can, then you have ZERO right to resort to armed rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 29, 2007 15:13:38 GMT -5
God knows, the last thing I thought I'd ever be doing is discussing the Constitution and what it means to be an American on a comics board. But it seems like we've gone beyond talking about the actions of comics characters to questions of civil rights and the role of government.
First and foremost, when discussing the Constitution, it must be recognized that its primary function is to protect the rights of the individual. This is the primary precept in all American law and it is deeply ingrained in every American, whether they have read one word of the Constitution or not, or whether they could even express it. Individual rights are the backbone of life in America, although it can often be abused or misunderstood. The "rugged individualist" is still the American ideal. Along with this comes a general mistrust of government. This too has been ingrained in us as a society.
Although the slavery comparison has been shrugged off by some, it has its place in these discussions. Unless you have lived in America for some time, you can not understand how deeply even to this day slavery casts a shadow over our society. It is seen every day in the inequities of socio-economic reality for whites and blacks. It is also seen in the pervasive racism, sometimes overt but more often subtle, that still afflicts our country. When you have seen people still segregated after death - as I have in the south with whites only and blacks only cemetaries - then maybe you can understand how strongly this subject affects us.
Marvel's Registration Act hits a nerve because it reeks of unfairness. It singles out a group of people who have not commited any criminal acts and assumes their guilt. It forces them to reveal information which may put their loved ones in jeopardy. It treats people like weapons. There is every indication that those who register may be compelled to participate in combat (just look at Avengers Initiative issue 2). It has the smell of a draft, whether it is called one or not. And a draft is nothing less than involuntary servitude - which is also covered by the 14th ammendment, along with slavery.
I'm not saying that a superpowered person who commits a crime shouldn't be held culpable for his actions. I also can recognize that finding a masked person who has commited a crime may not be easy. But there has to be a better way then turning an entire group of people into a super-army.
As far as fighting the law in court, I said this before but I'll repeat it: if you are a hero whose identity is secret, how do you fight the law in court? There's no way you would be allowed to testify in a mask (we actually saw this is true in the MU in Amazing Spider-Man). So how do you go about fighting this law? It seems to me the very subjects of this law are unable to contest it.
I haven't even gotten into the corruption we've seen, whether it be in SHIELD or the people running the Initiative. It's been made clear that people in the government are using this as a way to get superpowered operatives into military situations. Considering the problems we have faced over the years with nuclear weapons, I can only shudder to think what a superhuman arms race would be like.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 29, 2007 15:41:35 GMT -5
First and foremost, when discussing the Constitution, it must be recognized that its primary function is to protect the rights of the individual. This is the primary precept in all American law and it is deeply ingrained in every American, whether they have read one word of the Constitution or not, or whether they could even express it. Individual rights are the backbone of life in America, although it can often be abused or misunderstood. The "rugged individualist" is still the American ideal. Along with this comes a general mistrust of government. This too has been ingrained in us as a society. All accepted. I think you may forget a little who you speak to, tana. Let us consider for a moment, I live in Northern Ireland. Believe me when I say I know more than a little about injust laws, and more than a little about segregation. We STILL have schools for different religions and cemetaries for different religions. It's only within the last fifty years MY religion got full civil rights here, Hell got more than a vote per household. I'm not as ignorant as you might think. I understand that concern. Please, don't think for a moment that I don't. And yes, it IS unfair to the guy who can see things in a slightly different shade of yellow. Hell, it IS unfair to the guy who is fully trained and knows exactly how to blow up a building and works on the side of the angels. But to these people, it's little more than an inconvenience. Please understand, this is a group with unimaginable powers. Put yourself in the shoes of an average american in the marvel uni. These people have come from absolutely nowhere. They wield INCREDIBLE power. And every so often, it seems like every day, one of them is mind controlled or goes mad, or is betrayed, or loses someone close to them and goes on a rampage. It's every WEEK a city or a building or whatever is blown up and the death toll rises. And you're trying to raise a family and the world keeps going to Hell, and for every one of these wierdoes who saves you another dozen are trying to kill your race, your species, your WORLD. Now you're offered accountability. Offered a way you can KNOW whose side who is on, a way you KNOW that if the bad guy comes, someone WILL come to get them, a way you KNOW these guys are being held accountable and doing their work to save people. That same thing is suddenly rapidly decreasing crime of all sorts, that same law is making your streets safer, and is ensuring you still recieve the protection of those heroes but now you know what to do when the worst comes. Can anyone here really say for a moment they wouldn't welcome it with open arms? Now put yourself in the shoes of one of those heroes. You have the power of an A-bomb. You don't know what to do. You've heard rumors... You don't want to give up your secret, you're afraid your family will get hurt and you sure as Hell don't want to go fight some terrorist in Iraq, don't want to be forced to work for a government you don't trust.... but you don't want everyone to hate your guts. You are terrified that because you don't know what you're doing fully, you'll kill someone, maybe people you love. You're afraid a villain will take you over, will find a way to use you. And you are absolutely DREADING the truth that villains just bust out again and come after you and one day your family may pay the price. And you don't think people SHOULD feel afraid, and you think that maybe here in America, people have a right to know that the guy with the power of an A-bomb will give his last breath to defend them. And then YOU are offered a way out. A way you divulge your identity to one person, one of the founding fathers of heroism, who all the heroes have trusted at one time or another and whose doing his best to save super-humans-and divulge it ONLY to him, to no-one else. And you're told you will GET the training you need to be a good hero, and people Don't HAVE to be scared anymore. And you'll be PAID into the bargain, to help your family, and you can go on the streets and keep heroing and KNOW that if you go mad, someone WILL take you in, and you KNOW that when you put the super-villain away he WON'T get out. That, in a nutshell, is why I support this act. Because evn though the EXECUTION is more than just flawed, the law itself is sound, the law itself works for all parties. Don't blame the law for the execution. The law is Constitutional, it's sound, it's not that it punishes the innocent for the deeds of the guilty, it's that it gives guilty and innocent alike ACCOUNTABILITY for their actions. The Law is not doing that. What's doing THAT is Henry Peter Gyrich, really. The Initiative, if used properly, could be a colossal force for good. And again, don't blame the idea for the execution. Actually we've seen that since they need only divulge their identity to Director Stark they could do so and thne continue fighting the lurt with mask on. We already know super-heroes can tesify in court under the SHRA with only Director Stark knowing their identities. I'd be interested in knowing how much corruption there has been in the Intiiative outside Gyrich and in SHIELD since Director Stark took over beyond what he's trying to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 30, 2007 12:50:35 GMT -5
First and foremost, when discussing the Constitution, it must be recognized that its primary function is to protect the rights of the individual. This is the primary precept in all American law and it is deeply ingrained in every American, whether they have read one word of the Constitution or not, or whether they could even express it. Individual rights are the backbone of life in America, although it can often be abused or misunderstood. The "rugged individualist" is still the American ideal. Along with this comes a general mistrust of government. This too has been ingrained in us as a society. All accepted. I think you may forget a little who you speak to, tana. Let us consider for a moment, I live in Northern Ireland. Believe me when I say I know more than a little about injust laws, and more than a little about segregation. We STILL have schools for different religions and cemetaries for different religions. It's only within the last fifty years MY religion got full civil rights here, Hell got more than a vote per household. I'm not as ignorant as you might think. I understand that concern. Please, don't think for a moment that I don't. And yes, it IS unfair to the guy who can see things in a slightly different shade of yellow. Hell, it IS unfair to the guy who is fully trained and knows exactly how to blow up a building and works on the side of the angels. But to these people, it's little more than an inconvenience. Please understand, this is a group with unimaginable powers. Put yourself in the shoes of an average american in the marvel uni. These people have come from absolutely nowhere. They wield INCREDIBLE power. And every so often, it seems like every day, one of them is mind controlled or goes mad, or is betrayed, or loses someone close to them and goes on a rampage. It's every WEEK a city or a building or whatever is blown up and the death toll rises. And you're trying to raise a family and the world keeps going to Hell, and for every one of these wierdoes who saves you another dozen are trying to kill your race, your species, your WORLD. Now you're offered accountability. Offered a way you can KNOW whose side who is on, a way you KNOW that if the bad guy comes, someone WILL come to get them, a way you KNOW these guys are being held accountable and doing their work to save people. That same thing is suddenly rapidly decreasing crime of all sorts, that same law is making your streets safer, and is ensuring you still recieve the protection of those heroes but now you know what to do when the worst comes. Can anyone here really say for a moment they wouldn't welcome it with open arms? Now put yourself in the shoes of one of those heroes. You have the power of an A-bomb. You don't know what to do. You've heard rumors... You don't want to give up your secret, you're afraid your family will get hurt and you sure as Hell don't want to go fight some terrorist in Iraq, don't want to be forced to work for a government you don't trust.... but you don't want everyone to hate your guts. You are terrified that because you don't know what you're doing fully, you'll kill someone, maybe people you love. You're afraid a villain will take you over, will find a way to use you. And you are absolutely DREADING the truth that villains just bust out again and come after you and one day your family may pay the price. And you don't think people SHOULD feel afraid, and you think that maybe here in America, people have a right to know that the guy with the power of an A-bomb will give his last breath to defend them. And then YOU are offered a way out. A way you divulge your identity to one person, one of the founding fathers of heroism, who all the heroes have trusted at one time or another and whose doing his best to save super-humans-and divulge it ONLY to him, to no-one else. And you're told you will GET the training you need to be a good hero, and people Don't HAVE to be scared anymore. And you'll be PAID into the bargain, to help your family, and you can go on the streets and keep heroing and KNOW that if you go mad, someone WILL take you in, and you KNOW that when you put the super-villain away he WON'T get out. That, in a nutshell, is why I support this act. Because evn though the EXECUTION is more than just flawed, the law itself is sound, the law itself works for all parties. Don't blame the law for the execution. The law is Constitutional, it's sound, it's not that it punishes the innocent for the deeds of the guilty, it's that it gives guilty and innocent alike ACCOUNTABILITY for their actions. The Law is not doing that. What's doing THAT is Henry Peter Gyrich, really. The Initiative, if used properly, could be a colossal force for good. And again, don't blame the idea for the execution. Actually we've seen that since they need only divulge their identity to Director Stark they could do so and thne continue fighting the lurt with mask on. We already know super-heroes can tesify in court under the SHRA with only Director Stark knowing their identities. I'd be interested in knowing how much corruption there has been in the Intiiative outside Gyrich and in SHIELD since Director Stark took over beyond what he's trying to stop. Ah, now this is the kind of debate I can appreciate. You talked to my points and presented your own very clearly. Thank you. Let me respond from top to bottom here: Regarding the issue of American racism and the historical mistreatment of the Irish: I wasn't intending to insult you or say you couldn't understand that slavery has affected us as a society. However, just as I have some knowledge of "The Troubles" and can see (from a distance) the racism against the Irish, I can't truly understand it on the same level as yourself or anyone who has lived with it. I would say the same is true for anyone who has not lived some time in America, in as far as they can understand the impact of slavery. But my main point was to not have people discount how powerfully it affects us and informs us as a nation. The idea alone that a group of people in America could be forced into some kind of servitude is enough to get most of us absolutely livid. I honestly believe that's one of the reasons we haven't seen the return of the military draft (although not the only one). As far as the Registration Act itself goes, yes, I can see that it is going to make normal people, and even some superhumans, happy. I agree there needs to be accountability. But accountability for actions, not potential. This is where I believe the law goes astray, in the assumption that all superhumans are dangerous. Back in the 40's, we assumed all Japanese Americans were spies, and they were put into concentration camps. Sure, maybe a small percentage of them were spies, but most of them were good citizens (look at all the Nisei that volunteered to fight). Yet an entire group of people were singled out based on the fears of what some of them might do. While supers are not being put into camps, they are being singled out. They are unable to use their abilities unless they register. Does a person have an inalienable right to use their superpower? I suppose that's a case for the Marvel Supreme Court. The execution of the law is every bit as important as the law itself. The way it started out - with supers being thrown into prison, disregarding habeus corpus - I think this severely affected how the law was viewed. Perhaps Stark was playing to the normals, but a 'kinder, gentler' execution might have defused the civil war. A couple of times you mention that no one will know the secret ID of a hero except Tony Stark. I realize Marvel has said this too, but I find it easier to believe that a human being can have a genetic mutation that will cause his eyes to develop extradimensional portals that channel tremendous force beams than to believe that one man is the only person to get the ID data. Marvel has yet to explain how this works. Is Stark personally registering all heroes? No, we have seen registration centers, where it appears that supers go in and do the usual bureaucratic dance - they fill out forms. Do they put their personal info on these forms? One would assume. But say that they don't. The data still has to get from them to Stark. How is it being transferred? There has to be a large number of people in that chain. If I walk into the Registration center in Phoenix, who do I talk to, and where does my data go from there? Based on all the lost files we've seen in the news recently, I would not feel very secure at all about divulging my ID. Considering the number of supervillains out there who would be dying to get that info, I would feel almost certain it would fall into the wrong hands. But we have yet to see this process explained. As far as fighting the law in the courts, I would be extremely surprised if the Supreme Court - or any other US court for that matter - would let a super "unmask" to Stark and then testify. Even if they did, there would be many who would find this unacceptable. I'm also wondering what happens to all those names if Stark gets killed? Who gets to be the next "Supers czar" if something happens to him? On a side note here, it is truly disturbing to see so much power being amassed by an individual that has been appointed rather than elected. But that's a subject for another time.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 30, 2007 13:42:20 GMT -5
Ah, now this is the kind of debate I can appreciate. You talked to my points and presented your own very clearly. Thank you. Well I dogenerally try to address points one by one though I am often tired and do so in a very sarcastic manner for which I apologize. No offence taken. I find that interesting, and a degree of perspective I hadn't though about before. Certainly, I understand it -insofar as it is possible for me to for as you said full comprehension is difficult if not impossible. But I would ask this question in return- could that deeply ingrained sense not lead to a degree of parnoia? What I mean, without meaning to trivilaise for a MOMENT the sentiment ingrained into so many consciousness's, is thatsurely this deep feeling could lead to some paranoia and seeing threats where none exist? And is that not potentially almost as harmful as not seeing a threat where one DOES exist? Just food for thought. Again, I don't think they're all that comparable. I mean again, Japanese people don't have the power to blow up buildings. The camps were wrong, yes, of course. But I'm willing to pet their primary aim wasn't to get Japanese people working to save lives, to have almost none locked away and that this wasn't spearheaeded by the Japanese-Americans themselves. I don't think this is really the case. Now if it were ALL mutants and they were required to publicly reveal it then sure. No, it's not. A flawed execution does not make a good idea worthless. YEsterday, Balok said that the US Government ideals at the founding are the best in the world. It is almost inarguable that they have NOT been remotely among the best executed in history. Does that mean they are deprived of their meaning? A law badly executed does not maketh the law bad. It didn't start out that way though. The prison was deployed towards the end of the year, and they were almost all free in months, and Habeas Corpus is debatable at best. Certainly we've seen it can be done in the real US and apparantly the Supreme Courts have no problems with it despite it's blatant unconstituionality, I'll grant you that. All very valid concerns. And I have to agree that it seems implausible. But nevertheless, that IS what we're being told and it hasn't gone wrong so far so until we know more I don't feel you can use this as much of an argument. But that's one of the points of the law- that heroes can teisfy to get criminals sent to jail for example while their identity remains anonymous. The government trust Stark to do the job so if Stark says it's okay, their own law clearly permits it. It's Tony Stark, I think he'll definitely have a back-up for that. He IS a futurist so all we can do is assume he's prepared for the eventuality. I agreew long term it's disturbing but as a short term solution it's extremely effective. He has been appointed by all the elected officlas though, and has a huge popularity rating as we saw in IM 15 so he would in fact have been elected anyway had it been a Democratic system.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 1, 2007 20:07:19 GMT -5
No offence taken. I find that interesting, and a degree of perspective I hadn't though about before. Certainly, I understand it -insofar as it is possible for me to for as you said full comprehension is difficult if not impossible. But I would ask this question in return- could that deeply ingrained sense not lead to a degree of parnoia? What I mean, without meaning to trivilaise for a MOMENT the sentiment ingrained into so many consciousness's, is thatsurely this deep feeling could lead to some paranoia and seeing threats where none exist? And is that not potentially almost as harmful as not seeing a threat where one DOES exist? Just food for thought. Sure, some people go too far and distrust everything the government says. But personally I think the old phrase "question authority" is a useful one to live by. I do see the value of a national centralized government. In fact, I wish the U.S. gov did more for its citizens - health care being just one example. But I think we have to be careful that we don't give up too much responsibility to our government. We also need to be aware of what is being done in our name. I was primarily trying to show another case of a group of people being singled out and treated as if they had commited a criminal act based purely on inherent qualities. Obviously there are huge differences between the two but the basis for mistreatment (potential threat) is similar. The problem is, there is no good real world comparison. And I refuse to treat people like weapons - which is essentially treating them as commodities. Poor execution does affect the perception of the law. Perhaps it also reflects weaknesses in the law, that would allow for such flaws in judgment to be made? Here we definitely part ways. As soon as the law was passed, Stark was busting down doors. How much chance did he give folks to see that the Act could work? He could've used persuasion, instead he used a club. And Cap doesn't get off lightly here either. I still think after the fiasco on the helicarrier, he should have gone to Stark, the Senate, whoever, to make his case. But what's done is done. What's happened in this country regarding the blatant dismissal of habeas corpus is inexcusable. Another reason to get out and vote! I'm just waiting for the inevitable moment when someone steals all or some of the names. As much as I disapprove of the Act, I also don't like the idea of someone being able to testify against someone and not reveal their identity! Law in a super-filled world would be very difficult indeed.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 1, 2007 21:50:18 GMT -5
Slavery is clearly not remotely comparable. THe argument used of "Slavery was a law and so is Registration" could be used identically to argue against laws against MURDER. You miss the point. The comparison was not made to point out that, because Registration is law just as slavery was law, Registration is therefore wrong. The comparison is being used as a reductio ad absurdum. It is a response to the notion that, because Registration is law, any morally correct way of opposing it requires nonviolation of Registration law so long as it remains law. Slavery is being cited as an counterexample to that principle—i.e., disobeying slavery laws, which are generally considered morally objectionable on grounds other than their being laws, is being posited as a valid moral choice. Consequently, if it might be moral to disobey slavery laws for reasons relating to their immorality, it might also be moral to disobey other laws such as the SHRA on the grounds of those laws’ immorality. Now, whether that argument is valid or not depends on accepting that violation of slavery laws can be moral and on whether there is sufficient similarity between the cases of slavery laws and Registration law. But rejecting that argument by recasting it as “slavery is a law; slavery is morally wrong; therefore any law we choose to oppose is morally wrong” is a straw-man approach.
Every instance I read, shows people who have powers being forced to register. Period. There seems to be a lot of contradiction. But I guess that is just interpretaton issues with individual writers... Worry no more: Firebird. Frontline #2. Hell, Jessica Jones in NA 22 is only ADVISED to register. Avengers: The Initiative #1: "If you WANT TO FLY, then you'll need a licsence..." - Once again, it’s Firestar, not Firebird. And once again, CW: Front Line #2 is at best an inconclusive piece of evidence for your argument.
- In NA #22, Jessica is advised and not arrested because, at the time, the deadline for registration has not yet arrived.
- I’m not sure what your point about Avengers: The Initiative #1 is. Your quote is inexact: War Machine actually says, “You wanna fly? You need a license.” In any case, presumably what this agent of the US federal government means is that if Cloud 9 wishes to fly within US jurisdiction without running afoul of the law, she needs to obtain some sort of governmental permission, and that permission presumably entails registration.
Japanese people don't have the power to blow up buildings. Actually, they do. So do Arab Muslims. So do white Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Jun 2, 2007 4:59:23 GMT -5
[ You miss the point. The comparison was not made to point out that, because Registration is law just as slavery was law, Registration is therefore wrong. The comparison is being used as a reductio ad absurdum. It is a response to the notion that, because Registration is law, any morally correct way of opposing it requires nonviolation of Registration law so long as it remains law. Slavery is being cited as an counterexample to that principle?i.e., disobeying slavery laws, which are generally considered morally objectionable on grounds other than their being laws, is being posited as a valid moral choice. Consequently, if it might be moral to disobey slavery laws for reasons relating to their immorality, it might also be moral to disobey other laws such as the SHRA on the grounds of those laws? immorality. Now, whether that argument is valid or not depends on accepting that violation of slavery laws can be moral and on whether there is sufficient similarity between the cases of slavery laws and Registration law. But rejecting that argument by recasting it as ?slavery is a law; slavery is morally wrong; therefore any law we choose to oppose is morally wrong? is a straw-man approach. Actually, I agree. The sad thing is that the argument of "Slavery is a law, slavery is morally wrong therefore any law we choose to oppose is morally wrong" is actually an argument adopted by many over Registration, thankfully none on this site that I'm aware of.
[/quote] I have to disagree AGAIN. We haven't seen her since. So what do we do? We ask the editors. What does Tom Brevoort say? Thbat Firestar was allowed to resign in peace. Case Closed. [/li][li]In NA #22, Jessica is advised and not arrested because, at the time, the deadline for registration has not yet arrived.[/quote] And how do you know that? Only your own opinion. This is at least as inconcuslive for you as you claimed the last piece was for me. And again, if it's a deadlock we go to the editor and what does Tom B say? That she didn't have to register if she had no intention of using her powers, and thus was just advised to! [/li][li]I?m not sure what your point about Avengers: The Initiative #1 is. Your quote is inexact: War Machine actually says, ?You wanna fly? You need a license.? In any case, presumably what this agent of the US federal government means is that if Cloud 9 wishes to fly within US jurisdiction without running afoul of the law, she needs to obtain some sort of governmental permission, and that permission presumably entails registration.[/li][/ul][/quote] Right. So if she DOESN'T want to fly, she doesn't need a liscence. Ergo, no draft. You twisted that and you know it. It's not hardwired into their genetic code.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 3, 2007 21:21:40 GMT -5
I have to disagree AGAIN. We haven't seen her since. So what do we do? We ask the editors. What does Tom Brevoort say? Thbat Firestar was allowed to resign in peace. Case Closed. Or mind closed. Once again, Brevoort has already demonstrated himself to be a flawed authority on the subject. (Of course, if your hypothesis regarding Jenkins’ Marvel œuvre is correct, then the wet tissue paper that already is the Firestar case dissolves entirely.) In NA #22, Jessica is advised and not arrested because, at the time, the deadline for registration has not yet arrived. And how do you know that? Only your own opinion. This is at least as inconcuslive for you as you claimed the last piece was for me. And again, if it's a deadlock we go to the editor and what does Tom B say? That she didn't have to register if she had no intention of using her powers, and thus was just advised to! This sort of methodology may surprise you, but my opinion is based on an examination of the evidence. From the NA #22’s recap: “Today, the Act has been passed—the law goes into effect at midnight. Any person possessing superhuman powers who doesn’t register will be considered a criminal.” The following page begins with a caption: “Harlem, today”. Later on the page, Iron Man says, “At midnight, the Superhuman Registration Act becomes law.” Next page, Iron Man says, “ […] at midnight, if you don’t [sign on] …you and Jessica are effectively criminals.” Much later into the issue, after Iron Man and his registration partner Ms. Marvel have left and after Jessica Jones has left for Canada, it’s night, and a clock shows 12:00, and that’s when SHIELD shows up at Cage’s apartment. In my opinion, it looks like NA #22 presents no opportunity for Jessica Jones to be arrested for noncompliance with Registration, since Registration is not yet required of anyone while she’s still in the country. I’m not sure what your point about Avengers: The Initiative #1 is. Your quote is inexact: War Machine actually says, “You wanna fly? You need a license.” In any case, presumably what this agent of the US federal government means is that if Cloud 9 wishes to fly within US jurisdiction without running afoul of the law, she needs to obtain some sort of governmental permission, and that permission presumably entails registration. Right. So if she DOESN'T want to fly, she doesn't need a liscence. Ergo, no draft. Since it was Registration that was being discussed, not a draft, you are moving the goalposts. In conclusion, Tone-Loc’s evaluation and concerns remain valid, despite your edict that he drop them.
You twisted that and you know it. It's not hardwired into their genetic code. I twisted nothing. Who was talking about genetic code? I’m no geneticist, but given the widespread and historically extensive history of humans committing atrocities against one another, I can’t as yet rule out some sort of genetic predisposition. But that doesn’t even matter. Your overall argument about the validity of Registration apparently rests on its being a means of protecting the public from potential threats to life and limb, and you frequently deflect criticisms based on real-world analogies by pointing out that the sorts of threats the SHRA is meant to counter have no real-world analogues. Although it’s easy to see that the Marvel Universe is full of superpowers that don’t exist in our world, at least some of the threats do, and there is a basis for real-world analogies. Whether it’s with the aid of technology or with one’s own bare hands (and other body parts), most, if not all, people have the capacity for committing atrocities against others. Here’s an excerpt from one of your recent arguments: Now you're offered accountability. Offered a way you can KNOW whose side who is on, a way you KNOW that if the bad guy comes, someone WILL come to get them, a way you KNOW these guys are being held accountable and doing their work to save people. That same thing is suddenly rapidly decreasing crime of all sorts, that same law is making your streets safer, and is ensuring you still recieve the protection of those heroes but now you know what to do when the worst comes. Can anyone here really say for a moment they wouldn't welcome it with open arms? This isn’t new. The above scenario sounds like totalitarian propaganda. (Note the emphasis on loyalty to government.) On a smaller scale (which could slide into a larger scale), I see it being tried in my country, and I assure you I do not welcome it with open arms. Sorry, once again, we are free to dissent from your opinion. (At least—for now…)
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 11, 2007 7:14:35 GMT -5
What si more likely, for Tony to permanently depower her or for him to temporarily depower her and tell her it's permanent to calm her down? Once upon a time, I'd have said Tony would make the effects temporary, but now? I think the way he's been thinking lately, he'd make 'em permanent. Telling me you'd permanently maimed me wouldn't calm me down. It would make me more angry. Generally, what one scientist can devise another can circumvent, and there are many folks smarter than Tony in the Marvel Universe - Forge is a better engineer because of his mutant gift, to name one example. But the point is that Tony clearly expects them to be permanent (or lied to Rhodey), and that without help they are permanent. This raises a point that could probably spark a thread of it's own: is Tony doing all this because he's jealous of folks with inherent abilities, while he has to bend every ounce of his considerable skill to the crafting of a man-portable jet engine to compete? I have seen nothing that would permit speculation either way, but it seems like the kind of deep motivation that could drive someone hard. And Tony has some fairly fundamental insecurities...
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 11, 2007 17:15:37 GMT -5
If Hulk 106 is any indication, Tony was advised by Doc Samson to depower She-Hulk because she was unstable (If the word of Amadeus Cho can be trusted). I would think pending psych evaluations by Mr. Samson, her powers may have eventually be reinstated.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 11, 2007 17:23:58 GMT -5
Or mind closed. Once again, Brevoort has already demonstrated himself to be a flawed authority on the subject. (Of course, if your hypothesis regarding Jenkins’ Marvel œuvre is correct, then the wet tissue paper that already is the Firestar case dissolves entirely.) This sort of methodology may surprise you, but my opinion is based on an examination of the evidence. From the NA #22’s recap: “Today, the Act has been passed—the law goes into effect at midnight. Any person possessing superhuman powers who doesn’t register will be considered a criminal.” The following page begins with a caption: “Harlem, today”. Later on the page, Iron Man says, “At midnight, the Superhuman Registration Act becomes law.” Next page, Iron Man says, “ […] at midnight, if you don’t [sign on] …you and Jessica are effectively criminals.” Much later into the issue, after Iron Man and his registration partner Ms. Marvel have left and after Jessica Jones has left for Canada, it’s night, and a clock shows 12:00, and that’s when SHIELD shows up at Cage’s apartment. In my opinion, it looks like NA #22 presents no opportunity for Jessica Jones to be arrested for noncompliance with Registration, since Registration is not yet required of anyone while she’s still in the country. Since it was Registration that was being discussed, not a draft, you are moving the goalposts. In conclusion, Tone-Loc’s evaluation and concerns remain valid, despite your edict that he drop them.
I twisted nothing. Who was talking about genetic code? I’m no geneticist, but given the widespread and historically extensive history of humans committing atrocities against one another, I can’t as yet rule out some sort of genetic predisposition. But that doesn’t even matter. Your overall argument about the validity of Registration apparently rests on its being a means of protecting the public from potential threats to life and limb, and you frequently deflect criticisms based on real-world analogies by pointing out that the sorts of threats the SHRA is meant to counter have no real-world analogues. Although it’s easy to see that the Marvel Universe is full of superpowers that don’t exist in our world, at least some of the threats do, and there is a basis for real-world analogies. Whether it’s with the aid of technology or with one’s own bare hands (and other body parts), most, if not all, people have the capacity for committing atrocities against others. Here’s an excerpt from one of your recent arguments: Now you're offered accountability. Offered a way you can KNOW whose side who is on, a way you KNOW that if the bad guy comes, someone WILL come to get them, a way you KNOW these guys are being held accountable and doing their work to save people. That same thing is suddenly rapidly decreasing crime of all sorts, that same law is making your streets safer, and is ensuring you still recieve the protection of those heroes but now you know what to do when the worst comes. Can anyone here really say for a moment they wouldn't welcome it with open arms? This isn’t new. The above scenario sounds like totalitarian propaganda. (Note the emphasis on loyalty to government.) On a smaller scale (which could slide into a larger scale), I see it being tried in my country, and I assure you I do not welcome it with open arms. Sorry, once again, we are free to dissent from your opinion. (At least—for now…) Dude you completely sidesteped the Cloud 9 issue. And there hasn't been anything i've seen to show me that strictly having powers makes you a target. The people who are asked to register are using their powers or have publicly used them in the past. And retirement on the stipulation of not using your powers is an option.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 11, 2007 21:19:02 GMT -5
You twisted that and you know it. It's not hardwired into their genetic code. Two points: 1) Not all supers have inherent powers. Some, like Tony, built their powers. In your scenario those are not different from suicide bombers, inasmuch as each can pick up a weapon and do great harm with it. So, really, the SHRA should require the registration of anyone who owns a gun, who owns a knife, who's in construction, or mining (can use explosives), whose a chemist (poisons), or a geneticist (biologicals). Also any soldier who's part of the nuclear command (understands nukes), anyone who works at a nuclear power plant (potential saboteur), anyone with a car (you could run someone over with that!). Add doctors and nurses (drugs, poisons, scalpels and dangerous therapeutic machinery), electricians (electricty), plumbers (water, pipe), mechanics (heavy tools), wood and metal workers (heavy tools, sharp tools). By your reasoning, every one of these dangerous people could snap at any minute and therefore, the SHRA should cover them all. And by God if they catch some unregistered homeowner doing plumbing on his home on the weekend, they'd better get him into 42 right quick. Uh, oh! Looks like they'll be coming for ME next. I think I hear Komodo outside right now; I'd better go remind her what her bosses will do to her if she fails, then shove the whimpering little ball of scales off my property! Sorry, but when you put forward absurd arguments, expect mockery in reply... 2) Even when the powers are hardwired genetically, the will to use them for evil may not be. The SHRA is pessimistic because it starts from the assumption that having powers means you will misuse them. That assumption flows from a single mistake made by a small group, out of all the many encounters between powered folk that have occurred over the decades. ONE incident. That's a bad precedent for passing a draconian law that strips a whole class of Americans of their right to privacy.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 11, 2007 21:42:14 GMT -5
Balok, point one isn't fair at all and you know it. Reg is for people with "super tech" which is basically tech that only exists in comic books. And people with guns do regsiter, and you need a liscence to drive a car, I could go on to cover the rest, and actually make a good point myself. The entire liest of people you've put forth are all required to register in some capacity in real life as a part of their proffession.
On the whole japanese don't have the power to blow up buildings, I think Doom meant in the real world with their bare hands they don't have the power the blow up buildings, making internment a very different situation from registration.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 11, 2007 23:41:14 GMT -5
Dude you completely sidesteped the Cloud 9 issue. I don’t see how. Here’s a quick overview to help you keep score: Every instance I read, shows people who have powers being forced to register.
Worry no more: Firebird. Frontline #2. Hell, Jessica Jones in NA 22 is only ADVISED to register. Avengers: The Initiative #1: "If you WANT TO FLY, then you'll need a licsence..."
- I post with the intention of showing that the examples Doom has cited in an attempt to conclusively demonstrate that Tone-Loc’s contention is incorrect are, in fact, inconclusive for the purposes of Doom’s argument. I also state that I’m not even sure where Doom was trying to go with the Cloud 9 example. (In that post I also discuss other matters.)
So if she [Cloud 9] DOESN'T want to fly, she doesn't need a liscence. Ergo, no draft.
- I post again; on the subject of Cloud 9, I point out that a draft is not the subject of discussion; adding it in this manner is a classic example of moving the goalposts. In case my goal in pointing out the problems in Doom’s examples was not clear, I summarize by stating that “Tone-Loc’s evaluation and concerns remain valid”.
And there hasn't been anything i've seen to show me that strictly having powers makes you a target. The people who are asked to register are using their powers or have publicly used them in the past. As I already pointed out in the post you quoted, New Avengers #22 explicitly states in omniscient narrative, “Any person possessing superhuman powers who doesn’t register will be considered a criminal”. (I’ve compiled, in a post in another thread, some other examples showing that mere possession of superhuman powers is sufficient to require registration under the Act.) One should not be surprised that, in practice, some sort of manifestation of powers—i.e., evidence—is required to attract the attention of the Registration establishment. (I should further hope that one would not be disappointed that some sort of evidence is required to incur deprivation of life, liberty, or property.)
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 12, 2007 3:41:05 GMT -5
Everyone you've cited has openly acted as a superhuman operative in the past and said actions are a mater of public record.
And there have been several characters allowed to retire in peace, so I don't understand why know operatives wouldn't register, if they didn't want to do anything they could simply retire.
On Cloud 9, how did he move the goalposts? The point was in her instance she was required to register the momment she used her powers, and she needed to register if she wanted to continue using them. Did the Innitiative kick down her door while she was sitting at home? No they found her when she was illegally using superhuman powers in US airspace. Nobody asked to register has completely refrained from power use.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 12, 2007 7:20:10 GMT -5
Balok, point one isn't fair at all and you know it. Reg is for people with "super tech" which is basically tech that only exists in comic books. And people with guns do regsiter, and you need a liscence to drive a car, I could go on to cover the rest, and actually make a good point myself. The entire liest of people you've put forth are all required to register in some capacity in real life as a part of their proffession. Unfair? I don't think so. Exaggeration? Sure. The point is that is very *easy* to find reasons why this group or that must be treated "differently" but it does the individuals of that group a grave disservice, because it starts from the idea that they're all going to behave badly, because some of them have. In other words, to address the whole argument you need to address both points. On the whole japanese don't have the power to blow up buildings, I think Doom meant in the real world with their bare hands they don't have the power the blow up buildings, making internment a very different situation from registration. I know what he meant. I'm merely attacking the argument at its weak spot, and revealing that it's pretty crumbly. The people who set the internment camps in motion over here, hell, the people over in Germany and Russia and China and Cambodia - most of them convinced themselves it was for the common good. We humans have a remarkable ability to sidestep issues of right and wrong by, essentially, lying to ourselves about the ethics of what we're doing. When one starts treating people as if all of them will act badly because some of them do, one is guilty of baseless prejudice - and I think most of us know what that can lead to. If I thought Marvel had made this change to their world to illustrate the kind of problems that baseless prejudice, such as we see here against Muslims and others, is wrong - to illustrate what it can lead to - I'd give them a standing ovation. Because I'd know they'd exploited the fact that their readers tend to be younger folks who will one day set policy, and they're trying to reach them with some moral guidance. But then I see people like Doom, who actually buy into the SHRA as if it was a good thing, and I worry what happens when they're a little older, and setting policy for the world. Doom, in particular, baffles me, because he's from a place where prejudice led to tremendous suffering in the last few decades.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 12, 2007 14:51:13 GMT -5
the SHRA is a good thing from a "I enjoy this story" persepective is different than a "I would support a policy like this in real life" perseptive.
The whole prejudice against people with powers is nothing new in the MU, neither is registration, It was a staple of X-books for so long, and one of the reasons I got into them in the first place. The wide range of powers and origins makes it a little less interesting than the mutant angle though
I like the SHRA because most of the time it has pros and cons, heroes and corrupt sections, just like a real government organization.
As far as the MU universe goes, if I lived in said Universe without any powers, I would problably be inclined to support the SHRA too. If I had powers, I think I'd fall in with the anti-reg forces.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Jun 12, 2007 20:55:39 GMT -5
the SHRA is a good thing from a "I enjoy this story" persepective is different than a "I would support a policy like this in real life" perseptive. I'll grant you that. It's got folks interested in and talking about Marvel and it has really helped sales. The whole prejudice against people with powers is nothing new in the MU, neither is registration, It was a staple of X-books for so long, and one of the reasons I got into them in the first place. The wide range of powers and origins makes it a little less interesting than the mutant angle though I like the SHRA because most of the time it has pros and cons, heroes and corrupt sections, just like a real government organization. As far as the MU universe goes, if I lived in said Universe without any powers, I would problably be inclined to support the SHRA too. If I had powers, I think I'd fall in with the anti-reg forces. But the X-Men was Stan commenting about bigotry and racism. It was always presented that such laws were crafted by men motivated by racism or fear or bigotry or combinations thereof. Those men were never presented as heroes. Yet the advocates of the SHRA are presented to us as heroes. I'd fall in with the anti-reg forces either way, because if I think it would be wrong for the government to do it to me, I have to assume it would be wrong for the government to do it to someone else, either. Now, if an individual demonstrated anti-social behavior (as supervillains do), that's a different story - if convicted, then yeah, share their names with the world, take their powers until their sentence is over, and so on. But you have to do something wrong first. That's my view, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jun 17, 2007 19:28:41 GMT -5
Everyone you've cited has openly acted as a superhuman operative in the past and said actions are a mater of public record. Granted, but I’m not sure what your point is. Since the SHRA requires persons possessing superhuman powers to register, it makes sense to target enforcement toward persons known to have superhuman powers. Going after people not known to have superhuman powers (perhaps even persons known not to), while I’m sure it would be mouthwateringly appealing to career despots and would-be despots, does not seem to actually be occurring. Yet. (I have thought there might be some interesting stories in wrongly targeted enforcement. What if the government or its cronies captured a person incorrectly purported to be covered by the SHRA? How does the government prove its case? How does the suspect clear himself? What are the ways in which such a problem could arise in the first place—frame job, political maneuver, honest mistake, loss of powers…?) Several? Please cite. (Note: I don’t understand this string of words, alone or as part of the sentence I pulled it from. I’ve tried many times and failed to parse it. But perhaps I’ve understood enough of the surrounding post that it doesn’t matter.) Assuming “they” are superhuman operatives or the like, privacy and other concerns about governmental roles would be an obvious answer. As I’ve already pointed out, the SHRA as written (at least, as described as written) required Cloud 9 to register either the moment it went into effect or the moment she came into possession of her powers, whichever came second*. However, obviously she could not be personally hounded by the Registration Establishment until they learned of her. So far as I know, the scene in Initiative #1 in which War Machine approached her took place more or less immediately upon the discovery of her existence as a superhuman. If you do not understand what is meant by the expression “moving the goalposts”, please read the description I linked to. As I already outlined for you, when Doom’s argument about Cloud 9 (that her case was evidence that Tone-Loc’s contention regarding registration requirements was not valid) was rebutted, Doom rephrased the Cloud 9 question as being about a draft, not about registration. The two are different things, and a lack of a draft does not logically imply the lack of required registration ( cf. automobile or gun registration, neither of which are usually accompanied by automobile or gun drafts, at least in the US), and therefore he was moving the goalposts. *I have yet to hear of a registration grace period applying to persons who obtain superpowers and/or first learn of them after the moment that the SHRA’s registration requirements went into effect. But there might be such a grace period; if you know of one or come to learn of one, then please view my phrase “the moment she came into possession of her powers” charitably, and please cite the information.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on Jun 17, 2007 20:17:20 GMT -5
Everyone you've cited has openly acted as a superhuman operative in the past and said actions are a mater of public record. Granted, but I’m not sure what your point is. Since the SHRA requires persons possessing superhuman powers to register, it makes sense to target enforcement toward persons known to have superhuman powers. Going after people not known to have superhuman powers (perhaps even persons known not to), while I’m sure it would be mouthwateringly appealing to career despots and would-be despots, does not seem to actually be occurring. Yet. (I have thought there might be some interesting stories in wrongly targeted enforcement. What if the government or its cronies captured a person incorrectly purported to be covered by the SHRA? How does the government prove its case? How does the suspect clear himself? What are the ways in which such a problem could arise in the first place—frame job, political maneuver, honest mistake, loss of powers…?) Several? Please cite. (Note: I don’t understand this string of words, alone or as part of the sentence I pulled it from. I’ve tried many times and failed to parse it. But perhaps I’ve understood enough of the surrounding post that it doesn’t matter.) Assuming “they” are superhuman operatives or the like, privacy and other concerns about governmental roles would be an obvious answer. As I’ve already pointed out, the SHRA as written (at least, as described as written) required Cloud 9 to register either the moment it went into effect or the moment she came into possession of her powers, whichever came second*. However, obviously she could not be personally hounded by the Registration Establishment until they learned of her. So far as I know, the scene in Initiative #1 in which War Machine approached her took place more or less immediately upon the discovery of her existence as a superhuman. If you do not understand what is meant by the expression “moving the goalposts”, please read the description I linked to. As I already outlined for you, when Doom’s argument about Cloud 9 (that her case was evidence that Tone-Loc’s contention regarding registration requirements was not valid) was rebutted, Doom rephrased the Cloud 9 question as being about a draft, not about registration. The two are different things, and a lack of a draft does not logically imply the lack of required registration ( cf. automobile or gun registration, neither of which are usually accompanied by automobile or gun drafts, at least in the US), and therefore he was moving the goalposts. *I have yet to hear of a registration grace period applying to persons who obtain superpowers and/or first learn of them after the moment that the SHRA’s registration requirements went into effect. But there might be such a grace period; if you know of one or come to learn of one, then please view my phrase “the moment she came into possession of her powers” charitably, and please cite the information.It took me a while to get the draft/registration reasoning for the goalposts comment. I kept reading them as interchangeable terms but now I get the point, C9 was required to register, but also to fight even though she had no desire to do so right? As for the retired Firestar(you can question if she was allowed to retire, cuz she kinda just did it on her own in CW Frontline) Julie Power - Described by Phil Urich as "Registered, but retired" in the Loners LS. Urich goes on to say that the whole team is retired, this includes Darkhawk, Turbo, and Richochet. Mattie Franklin (Spider woman 3) is also in this group and described as retired with them, but she made it clear in previous issues that this was a ruse and she was inintersted in retirement. Urich himself apparently didn't need to register because he was no longer in possession of any goblin tech when the act was passed. (I assume this because he doesn't say anything about being registered himself) The point I want to make on power usage is the fundamental difference between the SHRA and the older Mutant Registration act. SHRA doesn't concern itself with empowered invidividuals who have not used thier powers(Thus far at least) The Mutant Registration act had agents actively searching for any mutants, active or otherwise. This included people who didn't initially know they had powers either. The Mutant Registration act was a way to make comments on racism in society The SHRA is a way to make comments on security vs freedom in socciety. This 'debate' I feel makes the difference between 'evil'(MRA) and the real (if Cynical) world (SHRA)
|
|