|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 21, 2007 10:29:25 GMT -5
He's turned 616 into a much darker place, where heroes like Iron Man suddenly have feet of clay, Heroes were always uncertain and torn, that's the genius of Stan and Jack. No, they fight both- another long standing tradition right back to Cap and Iron Man fighting because IM thought Cap was Chameleon! They're not supposed to be heroes, except in the comic-verse people's perceptions and it's no different to the Suicide Squad or whatever of yesteryear.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 22, 2007 12:09:35 GMT -5
Heroes were always uncertain and torn, that's the genius of Stan and Jack. Uncertain and torn isn't quite the same thing as "decides they know what's best for everyone else, tramples the civil rights of people who disagree and commits crimes right and left to achieve his goals." If you don't understand the difference between the two by now, you never will. The fact that so few people understand this difference is why we have the Patriot Act here in the United States, and why, one day, we will have a dictatorship. No, they fight both- another long standing tradition right back to Cap and Iron Man fighting because IM thought Cap was Chameleon! Generally, hero vs. hero fights generated in misunderstandings, and not in the decision of one "hero" to reorganize the world according to his whims. They're not supposed to be heroes, except in the comic-verse people's perceptions and it's no different to the Suicide Squad or whatever of yesteryear. But the New Marvel government regards them as such. They're part of the Initiative. Another long standing tradition, remember when Gyrich was Avengers liason? Or Nixon in the Whitehouse. Even then Gyrich didn't cover up murders, and employ ex-Nazi scientists to do who knows what sort of experiments. Because back in the Silver Age, Spider-Man had a great life between Gwen Stacy dying, his Aunt being sick and his uncle getting shot? The road's never going to be free of potholes. But from my perspective, New Marvel is nothing but potholes. They've already turned their heroes into government run goons. I wonder what's next? Well you're incorrect. In fact, reading any previews at all would tell you Spidey is moving to become MORE lught hearted, MORE carefree, MORE like in the days of yore- but this doesn't fit into your perception of New Marvel, so you change it until it does. This doesn't really address my point. I contended that the public wouldn't mind a bit if Mary Jane died. How does this answer that? You might be right about what's going to happen - I'm sure you'll keep us informed - but if they do that and sales slip even a little, look for the book to turn dark and nasty again. Dark and nasty sells books right now. Just not to me. And, yes, I'm bitter about it. And as above, Marvel don't want rid of MJ, they want rid of the marriage. The marriage DOES limit storytelling, there's simply no question about it. It's just that it's only Joe Q who's getting around to doing something about it. Quesada has said this, but has never failed to make the case. Simply put, I don't believe him.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 22, 2007 16:58:12 GMT -5
Uncertain and torn isn't quite the same thing as "decides they know what's best for everyone else, tramples the civil rights of people who disagree and commits crimes right and left to achieve his goals." If you don't understand the difference between the two by now, you never will. The fact that so few people understand this difference is why we have the Patriot Act here in the United States, and why, one day, we will have a dictatorship. No actually, while I disagree with the Patriot Act in many many ways I think people who are so willing to spin facts, radically misinterpret things to suit their own PoV and ignore the repeated times some of their points are proven wrong- I think these are the people who are responsible for the current abysmal state of affairs in America. Like, perhaps, yourself. Again, you have less than nothing to substantiate your claim, considering that Iron Man has A) done an OBSCENELY poor job reorganizing the world if that was his aim. Not that he's done it, and badly, but that he hasn't done it at all. B) Apparantly forgotten that if you want to reorganize the world, you shouldn't let yourself be accountable, which he is. So what? Again, Suciide Squad. Even you can't spin MVP's death into a murder, and the real life government has employed ex-Nazi sicentists for plenty of things. Maybe next they can actually turn their heroes into government run goons and then what you just said will be true? Your point is pretty irrelevant. I don't really know if they'd mind or not if she died, I don't think it's related to the discussion in question. Funny, because every one of Millar's marvel books has had a fairly light, hoyful and happy ending. Even Civil War had a pretty light tone in it's last few pages, a "bright new world" type thing. Dark and nasty sells books right now. Just not to me. And, yes, I'm bitter about it. And, as you know, Millar sells. No, you disagree with him. Saying you don't believe him is just silly, it implies you think he's lying which he has no motive for. While you probably DO think he's lying, it's a lot more logical/sane/rational/whatever to simply say you disagree.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 22, 2007 17:31:27 GMT -5
Again, you have less than nothing to substantiate your claim, considering that Iron Man has A) done an OBSCENELY poor job reorganizing the world if that was his aim. Not that he's done it, and badly, but that he hasn't done it at all. B) Apparantly forgotten that if you want to reorganize the world, you shouldn't let yourself be accountable, which he is. The fact that he has not yet suceeded, not yet finished, or did not do a very good job doesn't change the fact that he engineered a wholesale change to the status quo that is worse for the civil liberties of the heroes involved. So what? Again, Suciide Squad. Why keep bringing Suicide Squad up? Does the fact that DC made a mistake justify Marvel making the same mistake? Even you can't spin MVP's death into a murder, and the real life government has employed ex-Nazi sicentists for plenty of things. Very well. Manslaughter. Maybe next they can actually turn their heroes into government run goons and then what you just said will be true? They've already done that. You simply aren't paying attention. Your point is pretty irrelevant. I don't really know if they'd mind or not if she died, I don't think it's related to the discussion in question. Not at all. Sales drive everything a company does. So if the public wants her whacked, they should have that. I recommend they set up a couple of 900 numbers, where they can let people dial in to vote lives or dies, and then do what the fans want. Worked for DC! Funny, because every one of Millar's marvel books has had a fairly light, hoyful and happy ending. Even Civil War had a pretty light tone in it's last few pages, a "bright new world" type thing. Only you could find the ending of Civil War in any way bright or hopeful. It is a triumph of statist autocracy over individual liberty. No, you disagree with him. Saying you don't believe him is just silly, it implies you think he's lying which he has no motive for. While you probably DO think he's lying, it's a lot more logical/sane/rational/whatever to simply say you disagree. Very well, I disagree with him AND I think he's lying. Happy?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 23, 2007 4:49:53 GMT -5
The fact that he has not yet suceeded, not yet finished, or did not do a very good job doesn't change the fact that he engineered a wholesale change to the status quo that is worse for the civil liberties of the heroes involved. No he didn't, you're just reading what you want to read. THe denial of rights is debatable at best and you're forgetting that it's now established canon that if Iron Man was not there, then changes would have happened but they would have been WORSE for the heroes- someone like Gyrich or Hill in charge of SHIELD, or a new Project Wideawake, or ALL heroes being banned, etc. I don't view it as a mistake. Hell, if sales figures are anything to go by, neither does most of the readership. I'm not sure what your beef is with THunderbolts except that you personally dislike the dark satirical tone ergo it MUST be a bad book. The tone doesn't even resemble most of marvel these days. And you honestly think the real life government has never covered up manslaughter? My that's an idealistic world you live in. Not at all. We have the Fantastic Four- registered, licensed heroes who go about their business as per usual. We have Iron Man, Director of SHIELD, who has not yet been bossed around by tthe government in his own title. We have the Mighty Avengers, leaders of registered heroes, who have not yet been bossed around by the government but have requisitioned help from SHIELD that would not have previously been available. We have the New Avengers and Spider-Man, not being bossed around by the government. We have The Order, the California branch of The Initiative, who have thus far not been bossed around by the government. In fact, I can't name a single hero outside of Avengers: The Iniative who has even been bossed around much by the government post Civil War- yet you claim they're ALL government goons. Hmmm... and I'm the one reading the actual books... Why? Despite what you so FERVENTLY wish to believe, Marvel do not sacrifice characterization and characters just for sales. I think I'll enjoy reading your response to this one. No, it's not. It's clearly supposed to be an upbeat note unless you're a diehard anti-regger. Hell, the last words are: "I promise you- the best is yet to come!" What it IS is a triumph of accountability and democracy over one man getting to overturn whatever law he chooses on a whim. What on EARTH does he have to gain by knowing that the marriage doesn't close story paths but saying that it does? Seriously, what does he possibly have to gain, or do you just think he's lying for the sake of lying?
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Aug 23, 2007 12:20:27 GMT -5
oh yeah Civil War, the feel good book of the year. where can I buy some capekiller action figures...?
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 23, 2007 12:35:52 GMT -5
THe denial of rights is debatable at best Well, when the government treats you like a criminal (requiring registration) when you haven't ever done anything wrong, I'd say that's an intrusion on personal freedom. We may take freedom more seriously over here in the United States, although one would think it would have value to the Irish, as well, given what the English did to you. and you're forgetting that it's now established canon that if Iron Man was not there, then changes would have happened but they would have been WORSE for the heroes- someone like Gyrich or Hill in charge of SHIELD, or a new Project Wideawake, or ALL heroes being banned, etc. Where was this established? Remember I don't read much Marvel. And, you've been known to spin things to say what you want them to say, as much as you accuse others of this. I'm going to need some cites. I don't view it as a mistake. Hell, if sales figures are anything to go by, neither does most of the readership. I'm not sure what your beef is with THunderbolts except that you personally dislike the dark satirical tone ergo it MUST be a bad book. The tone doesn't even resemble most of marvel these days. It's a moral mistake to suggest that vile people should be regarded as heroes. The book's existence does validate my assertion that sales figure, and only sales figures, drive what Marvel does. I can't really fault them for that, because if you don't make what people will buy, you will go out of business. Rather, I am deeply disappointed in the reader who likes this book, as I feel he is short-changing himself and everyone else. And you honestly think the real life government has never covered up manslaughter? I'm sure it has. I'm sure it's done first degree murder and covered it up, but... My that's an idealistic world you live in. ...pardon me if I want something better from what was once a more idealistic universe. So, yeah, as a break from living in a world where my government doesn't listen to me and never will, I'd like to read about a world where people have higher aspirations. Not at all. We have the Fantastic Four...Iron Man...Mighty Avengers Yep. And every one of them subject to the government telling them to go do something whenever they wish, or else they risk imprisonment. Right now, the government could order the Mighty Avengers to level Tehran, and if they elected not to, could imprison them on the Raft or in 42. That's what the SHRA means, Doc. We have the New Avengers and Spider-Man, not being bossed around by the government. Not really a good example, because they'll be imprisoned indefinitely whenever the government gets a minute to sic an Initiative team on them. In fact, it's getting kind of ludicrous that so much time has passed and it hasn't already happened. In fact, I can't name a single hero outside of Avengers: The Iniative who has even been bossed around much by the government post Civil War- yet you claim they're ALL government goons. Hmmm... and I'm the one reading the actual books... The government knows who they are and can exert all of its pressure to get them to comply. It can bring the Initiative to bear against them. If Marvel takes their brave new world to its logical conclusion, they'd already be writing the stories about how these heroes get told to go do something, like kill some foreign leader, or else face a lifetime of tax audits, or perhaps imprisonment on a trumped up charge. Two things are universally true of governments, history shows us: (1) if given a power, they use that power, and (2) they are not run by nice people. Why? Despite what you so FERVENTLY wish to believe, Marvel do not sacrifice characterization and characters just for sales. I think I'll enjoy reading your response to this one. Civil War. What on EARTH does he have to gain by knowing that the marriage doesn't close story paths but saying that it does? Seriously, what does he possibly have to gain, or do you just think he's lying for the sake of lying? After what he's done to the Marvel I used to love, I don't trust him and I don't like him. He has been a poor custodian of the universe although a fine custodian of the money. I tend to assume such people are dishonest unless they can prove honesty, rather than the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 23, 2007 14:54:27 GMT -5
Well, when the government treats you like a criminal (requiring registration) when you haven't ever done anything wrong, I'd say that's an intrusion on personal freedom. We may take freedom more seriously over here in the United States, although one would think it would have value to the Irish, as well, given what the English did to you. Requiring registration doesn't mean treating you like a criminal. Gun owners everywhere in America have to register- people have to register to drive. You believe driving licenses? And as for people in the US taking freedom more seriously.... yeah right, look out your window at what's happening, reread a few of the laws your government have passed in recent years, remember just how free, unimpeached and uncensored your president is, and what he's done and THEN tell yourself you all view your freedom much more highly over there. I just think we're less paranoid over here. Civil War #5- Iron Man specificlaly states that if he didn't take over, forces much worse that wanted to destroy super humans would. Civil War: Casualties of War Special- Iron Man actually names Project Wideawake as what was planned for super heroes if they didn't step in with the SHRA. And of course, Fantastic Four #542- Reed says that beyond a shadow of a doubt, anything but the SHRA leads to global apocalypse. That's off the top of my head. No, it does not. Thunderbolts is a satirical look at heroes, at villains, at America in general, etc. NO ONE in the real world is supposed to regard these villains as anything but that: Villains. And of cxourse we have our core of heroes among them- Songbird, Radioacitve Man- struggling to break free. They do. In fact, it's that extra real world essence, that loss of innocence in the government, in the world itself, which means that when the heroes DO triumph- as they do- in the face of more overwhelming odds than ever, it means far, far more. No, it's not, Balok. What the SHRA means is that if someone did decide to blow up Tehran they'd be brought to justice. Heroes CHOOSE to work for the government, they choose to be so lisenced. What you're saying- that's like saying the government could decide to send every policeman in the world to Tehran on a whim. Actually, no, we clearly won't. Firstly, the Mighty Avengers have already chased them, secondly it's widely established - in New Avengers, in his own title, in World War Hulk, that as soon as they've got them, Iron Man will persuade them to accept an amnesty and register. In fact, there's no "indefinite imprisonment at all"- everything points against that and in favour of them getting trials, and the only thing that disagreed has been retconned to hell. No, it doesn't. Express all the scepticism you want but it's canon that ONLY Tony Stark knows the secret identities. Not at all. If Marvel took this to it's logical conclusion, there's be an American paradise with no super villains. But that won't happen, of course. Your cynicism is far past the healthy mistrust every person should have. Right. Living proof that Marvel will work within their characters and their characterization without sacrificing sales. ... ... I'm sorry, I'm still not entirely sure what you've done except tiwst the subject. You think he's lying about the marriage restricting story possibilities... because he can't prove he's telling the truth in your eyes? Wow. That's... ...I mean I know you're hellbent on hating everything Marvel does these days but even for you that's pretty hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 23, 2007 15:33:57 GMT -5
Requiring registration doesn't mean treating you like a criminal. Gun owners everywhere in America have to register- people have to register to drive. You believe driving licenses? We don't actually have gun registration, yet. What we have is a list of people not allowed to own - felons, people with mental problems, and suchlike. Your name can't appear on that list or you can't buy a weapon. But fortunately, freedom respecting citizens have until now managed to stymie Federal efforts to build databases of gun owners. In each of these cases, individuals chose whether to own a firearm or not, whether to drive or not. People born with an inherent difference, like a mutant, didn't chose that. In that sense, registration is similar to Jim Crow legislation. And as for people in the US taking freedom more seriously.... yeah right, look out your window at what's happening, reread a few of the laws your government have passed in recent years, remember just how free, unimpeached and uncensored your president is, and what he's done and THEN tell yourself you all view your freedom much more highly over there. Well, you got me here. I should have said "ideally" but I tend to thing in terms of my close friends, who respect freedom, rather than the people who keep government growing. (Democrats and Republicans - there's little difference between them.) I just think we're less paranoid over here. Governments use - and abuse - the powers they're given (or that they take. And they're not run by nice people. That's not paranoia, that's history. Civil War #5...Civil War: Casualties of War...Fantastic Four #542 All written as part of the Civil War arc. When you establish a particular goal, nothing written after that point serves as credible support, really. Marvel wanted registration and they wrote a story designed to lead to it, and they wrote side stories to support that story. Find something a little older. Sure, it does. T-Bolts promotes the view that villains are heroes (newspeak, anyone) and it sells well. If it didn't, it would be retooled as has happened in the past. When the idea was that the villains were actively working towards redemption the concept interested. Folks like Bullseye are actively working towards crippling and killing people under the government's watchful eye. He's not working for redemption at all. And folks like Jack Flag get crippled for life because... they refused to sign a piece of paper. Anyone who supports these characters does a grave disservice to the good things Marvel once was, to themselves, and to other Marvel readers. But it sells well, so they'll keep publishing it. They do. In fact, it's that extra real world essence, that loss of innocence in the government, in the world itself, which means that when the heroes DO triumph- as they do- in the face of more overwhelming odds than ever, it means far, far more. We will have to disagree on this point. I do not regard the current Marvel as an improvement, and likely never will. No, it's not, Balok. What the SHRA means is that if someone did decide to blow up Tehran they'd be brought to justice. Unless, of course, they were the Initiative. Heroes CHOOSE to work for the government, they choose to be so lisenced. What you're saying- that's like saying the government could decide to send every policeman in the world to Tehran on a whim. Along comes "Resurrection Man." He can restore the dead to life. He does not wish to work for the government, but you can bet he will, anyway, if they have to send the Initiative to kidnap him and threaten his family. Because that's how governments work, and it's why the best government is a small government that can *barely* do the *essential* things necessary. Actually, no, we clearly won't. Firstly, the Mighty Avengers have already chased them, secondly it's widely established - in New Avengers, in his own title, in World War Hulk, that as soon as they've got them, Iron Man will persuade them to accept an amnesty and register. In fact, there's no "indefinite imprisonment at all"- everything points against that and in favour of them getting trials, and the only thing that disagreed has been retconned to hell. And if they refuse to sign on? What happens to them, then? And if Iron Man keeps handing out amnesties, what's to keep people from continuing to break the SHRA? At one point does compliance become a joke? No, it doesn't. Express all the scepticism you want but it's canon that ONLY Tony Stark knows the secret identities. For now. But far better would be if those identities never got stored in a central repository. Because they're not anyone's business. It's like forcing me to register because I know how to write in C++, and therefore could conceivably someday hack a bank computer somewhere. It's absurd. And it's fundamentally disrespectful of the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Not at all. If Marvel took this to it's logical conclusion, there's be an American paradise with no super villains. But that won't happen, of course. Your cynicism is far past the healthy mistrust every person should have. And the government, through the Initiative, would have its boot on everyone's neck. Right. Living proof that Marvel will work within their characters and their characterization without sacrificing sales. Now you're being silly. Even you said, on many previous threads, that Civil War twisted the characters of Cap and Iron man at a minimum. And it was done for money. As far as Quesada is concerned, I dislike the man professionally. Personally, he might be a nice guy, but I hate what he has done to Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 23, 2007 15:57:25 GMT -5
We don't actually have gun registration, yet. What we have is a list of people not allowed to own - felons, people with mental problems, and suchlike. Your name can't appear on that list or you can't buy a weapon. But fortunately, freedom respecting citizens have until now managed to stymie Federal efforts to build databases of gun owners. In each of these cases, individuals chose whether to own a firearm or not, whether to drive or not. People born with an inherent difference, like a mutant, didn't chose that. In that sense, registration is similar to Jim Crow legislation. Which is why the act is not limited to mutants. If it was limited to mutants, you'd have a point. The problem is, that's like saying - and this is a hypothetical, in NO way meant to be anything like a real like statistic- that 65% of gun owners are black, therefore gun registration is racist. That's seriously like what you're saying. I support gun registration, you don't. I think there's something very very very wrong when a man can go out there on a whim, buy a gun, take it home, point it at someone's head and until the moment he pulls teh trigger he has not commited a crime. But that's just me. Hmm. See the difference between us is- you associate big government with being automatically restricting. I don't think there's a problem with big government, with proper checks and balances. But you're right- unfortunately- in how little difference there is these days. No, it's selective history. For all the times goveernments have done evil, we need to look at all the times they have done good. Nonsense. You say he's responsible, I say he's not, you decide to ignroe the proof that this would have happened anyway because it was written after the fact? Sorry, Balok, doesn't fly. It's canon that had he not taken charge, it would have been MUCH worrse for heroes and you can't just say "Well, that didn't happen in 1966 ergo it's meaningless!" or whatever. No, Thunderbolts promotes the view that the government can be idiots (surely you should think this promotion is a good thing!) and that not all books have to follow heroes. It's a deliberate satire and you can't serioously think ANYONE is meant to read the book and come away saying Venom is a super hero. Hardly. Anyone who supports thie book loves satire, loves a dark, brooding story which manages to be enormously fun at the same time, loves villains- I love Doom, and this book has made me like Bullseye as a villain as well and loves original ideas for super hero books. You're assuming they'd let that happen. Again, guess we'll just have to disagree. Because you believe big government is inherently evil and I strongly disagree with that viewpoint. A big government has greater potential for evil, and far greater potential for good as well. They'll go on trial and go to The Raft. Beats me, but it sure beats the alternative. No, it's not, at all. Again, guess we're going to have to disagree, I think it's more like if you have a nuclear bomb in your backyard, it's probably a good idea that the government know. Guess we'll jsut have to disagree on that one given how little they've attempted to do that at all so far. Not at all. I fully believe it's true to their respective characterizations. What I have said is that it EVOLVED them throughout the story, but I know you disagree on that count. Really? d**n, you should be more open Balok, i could never have picked up that you don't like Marvel today in every single one of your posts/sentences ever.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 24, 2007 7:48:36 GMT -5
Which is why the act is not limited to mutants. If it was limited to mutants, you'd have a point. You're being a little too literal. I was discussing, generally, the concept of individuals who have powers thrust upon them, as distinct from the Tony sort, who invented their powers. That former category didn't ask to be what they are (in most cases) and yet are treated differently - as if they were going to do wrong - by the government. I think that's wrong. The problem is, that's like saying - and this is a hypothetical, in NO way meant to be anything like a real like statistic- that 65% of gun owners are black, therefore gun registration is racist. Actually, this argument has been made in certain cities, like Washington, D.C. where folks cannot own a gun to defend themselves against the many criminals who simply ignore such laws. I support gun registration, you don't. I think there's something very very very wrong when a man can go out there on a whim, buy a gun, take it home, point it at someone's head and until the moment he pulls teh trigger he has not commited a crime. But that's just me. Well, as a supporter of individual liberty over state authority, let's just say I disagree and leave it there. But I do feel obligated to point out that most gun crime is committed by individuals who came by their weapons illegally, despite what groups like the Brady folks and the VPC say. Hmm. See the difference between us is- you associate big government with being automatically restricting. I don't think there's a problem with big government, with proper checks and balances. But you're right- unfortunately- in how little difference there is these days. The problem is that those checks and balances aren't reliable. Maybe they work over there in Ireland, but here in the United States, especially in recent years, folks find all kinds of clever ways around them, the biggest offender being Mr. Bush (current). That's why my fundamental view is that the absolute best check on government is to limit how big it can grow so that it simply does not have the power to match the ambitions of the venal men who typically run it. No, it's selective history. For all the times goveernments have done evil, we need to look at all the times they have done good. Sure, when everything goes well, they do good. They can do things for people that the people can't do for themselves. The problem is, when they're bad, they're very, very bad indeed. And history is replete with examples. Which, again, argues for small, weak governments that can't abuse their power, because they haven't got it to abuse. One of the worst things governments can do is blur the line between what people can't do for themselves (national defense) and what they can do, but in a lot of cases don't want to do (take care of themselves). Out of compassion, governments try to take care of people, which simply serves to make them weak and dependent on government, which serves as an excuse to grow. Meanwhile, the self-reliant folks find themselves paying for it all. Why do you think, for example, that the Beatles left England? Or that U2 uses tax shelters in other countries? Nonsense. You say he's responsible, I say he's not, you decide to ignroe the proof that this would have happened anyway because it was written after the fact? Sorry, Balok, doesn't fly. It's canon that had he not taken charge, it would have been MUCH worrse for heroes and you can't just say "Well, that didn't happen in 1966 ergo it's meaningless!" or whatever. I'm certainly not requiring that foreshadowing go all they way back to 1966. I am saying that prior to Civil War, there was no evidence of the problems registration was designed to solve. The destruction of Stamford was done to create a problem so they could solve it. On many previous occasions, you KNOW similar things happened, but Marvel chose to ignore them. So the idea that registration was necessary because of established, pre-Civil War canon suggesting dire alternatives is simply bunk. All the canon that established the dire alternatives occurred within the context of the Civil War storyline itself. Suppose I owned an auto glass store, and hired a thug to break folks' car windows, and miraculously, he did not get caught. That's creating a problem I've positioned myself to solve. (Yes, this happened a few years ago in this city, except that the guy DID get caught.) No, Thunderbolts promotes the view that the government can be idiots (surely you should think this promotion is a good thing!) and that not all books have to follow heroes. It's a deliberate satire and you can't serioously think ANYONE is meant to read the book and come away saying Venom is a super hero. And the fact that the book exists, and sells so well, irritates me, which is all I've been saying. Its supporters irritate me for the same reason a museum would irritate me if it hung "Dogs Playing Poker" in a classical art gallery. Again, guess we'll just have to disagree. Because you believe big government is inherently evil and I strongly disagree with that viewpoint. A big government has greater potential for evil, and far greater potential for good as well. It's a real struggle for people to be good. For most, it takes hard work done daily. Being evil, on the other hand, is easy. Government amplifies the traits of people. Therefore, its potential for evil is far greater than its potential for good. But don't take my word for it. Go ask an Iraqi. They'll go on trial and go to The Raft. Avengers: The Raft! The ultimate decompressed storyline! Here's your chance to buy a book with 22 pages of folks in a prison cell! I'll bet some sad folks out there would buy it, too. Beats me, but it sure beats the alternative. We'll just have to disagree. You still haven't persuaded me, or I think too many others, that the SHRA is a step in the right direction for Marvel. No, it's not, at all. Again, guess we're going to have to disagree, I think it's more like if you have a nuclear bomb in your backyard, it's probably a good idea that the government know. Okay, suppose I had worked for a company that builds nukes, and as a result, know how to build one (I don't, but we're pretending here). Does that, in your view, give the government the right to know where I am at all times, to harass me if I don't tell them? Maybe you think it does. I would find that an unwarranted intrusion on my freedom. Or, suppose I'm a tenth dan black belt who can kill with a single karate punch. Does that mean the government should know where I am at all times, because I might someday misuse that skill? Not at all. I fully believe it's true to their respective characterizations. What I have said is that it EVOLVED them throughout the story, but I know you disagree on that count. I'm far from the only one who disagrees with you on that one, but we'll leave it alone. When Marvel starts producing quality books, I'll boost it again.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 24, 2007 9:37:21 GMT -5
You're being a little too literal. I was discussing, generally, the concept of individuals who have powers thrust upon them, as distinct from the Tony sort, who invented their powers. That former category didn't ask to be what they are (in most cases) and yet are treated differently - as if they were going to do wrong - by the government. I think that's wrong. But they're not being treated differently from the people who invented their powers, like the Tony Sort. I find there irony in the fact that you belive people should be teated as innocent until proven guilty in all cases, and the government should be treated as guilty and evil until and even if proven innocent. Sure, but I disagree with it. Well, honestly, I feel that's like saying "I support individual liberty. People should have the right to kill people if they want to, and sending people to jail for murder is a violation of their civil rights!" Heh. George Bush does not run around the checks and balances. He just ignores them. If the people were more vocal and made Congress do their job, Bush would be impeached and imprisoned for a couple of dozen lifetime sentences. Again, have to disagree. History is also replete with examples of big governments doing GOOD things, and there are any number of things that could never have been accomplished without them. Just because something comes iwth a big risk, that's no reason not to do it if there is huge potential gain. Oh fine, you can make that case to argue against the crososver. Unfortunately, that's not what we were discussing- you were blaming Tony and saying he caused the war, I proved this was not the case, and you're trying to change the subject after losing that particular argument. Okay. Mind you, I'd feel the same way about anyone who tried to compare the Kree/Skrull War, a story which has not aged at all well, to, say, Ed Brubaker's Captain America. So to each his own. Iraq proves nothing. The potential for good is equal to the potential for evil. You can say there is a greater LIKELIHOOD it will do evil. But when it does good, as it so often does, it can do far more good than evil. Well considering there was a Daredevil arc about a year ago about DD in prison which was hailed as the best Daredevil story since Frank Miller... And yo haven't persuaded me, or many others, that it's not. Go figure. No, but they have a right to know that you're building nukes and where. Which is all the SHRA really demands. And I'm far from the only one who disagrees with YOU, but let's leave it for now. So much for people having rights and individual liberty and whatnot! Screw this "opinion" rubbish, when Balok says it's not quality, this is an unalterable fact from God!
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Aug 24, 2007 9:56:51 GMT -5
Oh and where can I get the six hundred dead kids to complete my Civil War diorama? I really want to complete it, because it's fun for the whole family... Light hearted series and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 24, 2007 12:41:46 GMT -5
Oh and where can I get the six hundred dead kids to complete my Civil War diorama? I really want to complete it, because it's fun for the whole family... Light hearted series and all that. You can place it right beside that diorama of a planet of billions of dead beings - actually, couple of hundred planets- courtesy of Stan and Jack's Galactus.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 24, 2007 14:37:47 GMT -5
But they're not being treated differently from the people who invented their powers, like the Tony Sort. But the difference is, they can't ever not be what they are. Tony could, if he wanted, box up the Iron Man armor and then he'd be a normal man (well, before Extremis he could, anyway. Having not really followed his book, I don't know how important a role the Extremis powers have played in recent stories or even if he still has them). The mutants, mutates, aliens, and so on don't have that option. They're people born different that the government treats differently, and were Marvel the real world, they could bring suit that the SHRA is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Whether they'd win is a discussion for legal scholars. I find there irony in the fact that you belive people should be teated as innocent until proven guilty in all cases, and the government should be treated as guilty and evil until and even if proven innocent. Government, like large corporations, tends to amplify whim while diminishing personal responsibility. Yes, different standards do apply. But I haven't said government is guilty, per se, I'm simply advocating that the best way to keep it honest is to keep it small and weak. I trust individuals because they can be held accountable. With rare exceptions, that is not true of corporations or governments. Who do you hold accountable if the Initiative kills someone? Judging by Gyrich's example, no one. Well, honestly, I feel that's like saying "I support individual liberty. People should have the right to kill people if they want to, and sending people to jail for murder is a violation of their civil rights!" You can feel like that all you like, but it's an absurd position to take. First, owning a gun is not a crime most places. Second, even if it was, there's a huge difference in severity between that kind of crime and murder. Finally, neither I nor anyone else I am aware of who supports gun ownership suggests that actual criminals not go to jail for their crimes. Heh. George Bush does not run around the checks and balances. He just ignores them. If the people were more vocal and made Congress do their job, Bush would be impeached and imprisoned for a couple of dozen lifetime sentences. Sort of true, but not really the point. The point is, if government had less power, Bush could do less harm with it. Again, have to disagree. History is also replete with examples of big governments doing GOOD things, and there are any number of things that could never have been accomplished without them. Just because something comes iwth a big risk, that's no reason not to do it if there is huge potential gain. Well, you clearly believe the potential of big government for good outweighs its potential for evil. I'll never agree that this is true, for the reasons I've already argued and for reasons of what I regard as common sense. So we'll just disagree on this point. Oh fine, you can make that case to argue against the crososver. Unfortunately, that's not what we were discussing- you were blaming Tony and saying he caused the war, I proved this was not the case, and you're trying to change the subject after losing that particular argument. Geez, topics drift, okay? Tony caused the war in the sense that he decided the SHRA was good for everyone (without consulting them) and then forwarded that agenda ruthlessly and by committing crimes. (Which is not an evolution of his character, so much as a perversion of it, but I digress.) No, but they have a right to know that you're building nukes and where. Which is all the SHRA really demands. No. The SHRA wants to know about people whether they use their powers or not. Not just if they plan to use them, but that they have them at all. That's equivalent to the government keeping tabs on me because I know how to build the nukes, regardless of whether I'd ever actually do so. I haven't read about it anywhere, but I'm assuming that registered heroes are required to keep the government apprised of such things as whether their correct address and other facts of the sort skip tracers might use. That's how selective service registration (which I also oppose) works over here. So much for people having rights and individual liberty and whatnot! Screw this "opinion" rubbish, when Balok says it's not quality, this is an unalterable fact from God! Not even close to what I said. C'mon, do I really have to put "In my opinion" in front of every sentence? Geez. You and 'thew40' really seem to find disagreement a personal affront. I don't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 24, 2007 14:58:27 GMT -5
But the difference is, they can't ever not be what they are. Tony could, if he wanted, box up the Iron Man armor and then he'd be a normal man (well, before Extremis he could, anyway. Having not really followed his book, I don't know how important a role the Extremis powers have played in recent stories or even if he still has them). The mutants, mutates, aliens, and so on don't have that option. They're people born different that the government treats differently, and were Marvel the real world, they could bring suit that the SHRA is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Whether they'd win is a discussion for legal scholars. Right, but I'm rather certain they wouldn't. See the problem is, the aliens and Gods don't seem to HAVE to register. The mutants on the other hand were already catalogued after M-Day. So the mutants aren't being singled out, they're de facto registered. What you're left with is the guys who got hit by cosmic rays or who built themselves a device. See the thing is, it's not like being singled out because you're black for example. Being black does not give you the power to explode on a whim and kill 600 children, or to freeze time by clicking your fingers. And yeah, Tony's a meta with Extremis, which he still has- as superhuman as Spider-Man. Camp Hammond is an example of the Iniative running in a flawed way. The Order is an example of it running in an open, honest way. Members broke their legal contracts, they were fired because of it, because they acted irresponsibly, all open and above board. For every example of government being abused there is an example of it working. On one hand someone KILLS someone and it's kept secret, on the other people drink in violation of their contracts and they are given the appropriate response. Two halves, depends on the people in charge. The principle remains the exact same though; gun registration could theoretically be considered a violation of rights BUT on the upside it saves lives. That exact same thing can be said about laws against murder. Rubbish. If someone like Bush gets in control of a government without much power, he'll simply use what power he has, abuse it, and then GET more power. On the other hand, if someone like Nelson Mandela had had much less power, he could have done less good with it. Okay, makes sense. And if Tony HADN'T endorsed the SHRA, then it would have been much worse for the metas involved- either most superhumans in camps, or dead, or a global apocalypse, take your pick. He went for the lesser of two evils. No it's not, it's equiaveltn to the government keeping tabs on your back garden because you have a nuke there, regardless of whetehr you plan to use it. Hasn't been mentioned in the comics, unclear if it happens. Might be logical though. Sometimes I think it would be a lot better if we all did, but such brusque statements as though it were indispuitable fact DO irritate me. No, I don't think that's it. I have no problem with you disagreeing. I do have a problem with people stating their views are fact and insulting anyone who disagrees- but that's not meant as an attack, you're much less guilty of this than most.
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Aug 25, 2007 0:12:20 GMT -5
Oh and where can I get the six hundred dead kids to complete my Civil War diorama? I really want to complete it, because it's fun for the whole family... Light hearted series and all that. You can place it right beside that diorama of a planet of billions of dead beings - actually, couple of hundred planets- courtesy of Stan and Jack's Galactus. which issues did they show the charred bodies? I must've missed those Stan and Jack classics...
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Aug 25, 2007 12:32:00 GMT -5
Reed Richards should make a machine to tell who's a Skrull and who's not a Skrull but I doubt that will happen.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 25, 2007 16:03:36 GMT -5
Right, but I'm rather certain they wouldn't. See the problem is, the aliens and Gods don't seem to HAVE to register. The mutants on the other hand were already catalogued after M-Day. So the mutants aren't being singled out, they're de facto registered. What you're left with is the guys who got hit by cosmic rays or who built themselves a device. The principle of the Fourteenth Amendment permits even one individual to bring suit, if he believes he has not received equal protection. The size of the group does not matter. Whether he could win depends very much on the judges involved. We're supposed to have laws that protect whistleblowers over here, but I just read an article about how the government has persecuted a number of them for reporting about corruption in various Iraqi reconstruction efforts. So even the courts are no guarantee of fair treatment. See the thing is, it's not like being singled out because you're black for example. Being black does not give you the power to explode on a whim and kill 600 children, or to freeze time by clicking your fingers. And yeah, Tony's a meta with Extremis, which he still has- as superhuman as Spider-Man. You can read the text of the Fourteenth Amendment here, but it does not make allowances for the type of difference as a mitigating factor permitting unequal treatment in some cases. So the reason for the differences is largely irrelevant to the discussion. Camp Hammond is an example of the Iniative running in a flawed way. The Order is an example of it running in an open, honest way... True, but because it is so much easier for people to behave badly than well, more of them behave badly. When insulated from the consequences, as most government and many corporate officers are, it gets worse. I don't agree at all, for these reasons and others that I've stated, that the potential for good equals or exceeds the potential for evil. That isn't the case for humans, and large aggregations like government that block personal consequences simply make that worse. The principle remains the exact same though; gun registration could theoretically be considered a violation of rights BUT on the upside it saves lives. That exact same thing can be said about laws against murder. First, it's very debatable that gun registration saves lives. Now who's stating as a firm conclusion something that is his opinion? Second, there remains the difference in degree between possession of contraband and murder. Gun control is working well in Britain, however! (Believe it or not, purely coincidental that someone on another board I visit linked that article today.) Rubbish. If someone like Bush gets in control of a government without much power, he'll simply use what power he has, abuse it, and then GET more power. Perhaps, but that's an extra step that, at least in theory, lets people see what's happening and react to it before it goes to far. On the other hand, the idiotic Italians of the 1930s let Mussolini become a dictator entirely legally, and the idiotic Venezuelans of right now are doing it with Chavez, so who's to say. But weak government at least allows time for the vigilant man to react. And if Tony HADN'T endorsed the SHRA, then it would have been much worse for the metas involved- either most superhumans in camps, or dead, or a global apocalypse, take your pick. He went for the lesser of two evils. And we come back to where we already were: that the dire future Tony predicted was not a logical extrapolation of existing trends in 616, but instead manufactured within the context of Civil War for the purpose of giving Tony a motive for his actions. Which, to me, makes it less valid. If they'd built on existing trends there might have been some justification, but they didn't. It happened this way: they wanted a Civil War, they picked who'd be on each side, and then they figured out why. No it's not, it's equiaveltn to the government keeping tabs on your back garden because you have a nuke there, regardless of whetehr you plan to use it. Nope. Because if I had a nuke there it was presumably because I took specific action to build one. Not because one grew there, or in some other fashion appeared there without my taking any action. The fundamental disagreement is that I believe in punishing people for what they do (that's wrong) and the SHRA punishes people for what they ARE. Even gun control laws are more justified than that, and they're not justified at all, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 25, 2007 16:52:09 GMT -5
The principle of the Fourteenth Amendment permits even one individual to bring suit, if he believes he has not received equal protection. The size of the group does not matter. Whether he could win depends very much on the judges involved. We're supposed to have laws that protect whistleblowers over here, but I just read an article about how the government has persecuted a number of them for reporting about corruption in various Iraqi reconstruction efforts. So even the courts are no guarantee of fair treatment. Which is your way of covering youself. I find it INCREDIBLY unlikely any court would rule that the SHRA violates the fourteenth amednemtn. As I'm sure you're aware by now, I have more than a little politics in my background so I can assure you, I have read the Bill of Rights and whatnot, and have a pretty fair knowledge of US law, so I'm fully aware of what the 14th amendment says. That said, I do not believe the SHRA is a violation of it. Guess we just have to completely disagree then. Unfortunately, that works against you. The problem is that even with that, gun deaths in Britain are the tiniest fraction of what they are in the USA. And obviously we need to make allowances for scale, but it just doesn't jibe, the maths doesn't add up. Combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia. You have a population roughly the size of that of the United States. In one sample year, those countries had 112 gun related deaths. In the same year, the United States had 32,000. So, are Americans more homicidal by nature? Or is it maybe vaguely related to the fact that every one of the countries in the first batch use gun control/registration laws. Or Canda. Population about 10% of that of the USA, gun related deaths about 2%. In theory. If you have a populace who will let someone harness strong government control to abuse it (Bush), the same populace would almost certainly have allowed that person to harness WEAK government control and expand it. "Buying time" is great as a theoretical argument, not so much in practice, especially when you consider how many people you'd be sacrificing (Since bigger government can help more people) for a theoretical fear. Okay. But it makes it no less valid as an argument for why Tony did these things. You can't just say "to me, it does" when... it doesn't. That would be like me saying "All issues prior to Year X were before my time, ergo what happens in them is less valid." Or, "I don't like JMS ergo all issues he writes are less valid." A rather significent % of heroes DID take action to create their powers. Nevertheless, the theory still applies, it's a MUCH closer analogy than being of a minority race, since it takes into account potential for destruction. If you were born with a nuke in your head you could choose to detonate at any time, yeah I think the government have a right to know where your house is. No, I'd say the fundamental disagreement is that you believe the SHRA is punishment. The REAL disagreement here comes down to the heart of the matter: You think you can't trust a government if it's big, I think you can. That's what it's about. It all boils down to that, really. I think there's a big hypocrisy in your case, in that you believe the government should be punished and limited for what they MIGHT do, and yet blame the SHRA which you percieve to be doing this exact thing to other people. You note yourself it's easier to do bad than do good, and claim that the government should be limited because of this, but absolutely refuse to "limit" people for the same reason. An inherent weakness to your argument in my view.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 25, 2007 17:28:15 GMT -5
Which is your way of covering youself. I find it INCREDIBLY unlikely any court would rule that the SHRA violates the fourteenth amednemtn. Not in the slightest. It's pointless for me to cover myself since the matter will never be examined in a real court of law. It's my way of saying that judges aren't any more trustworthy, in aggregate, than anyone else. Combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia. You have a population roughly the size of that of the United States. In one sample year, those countries had 112 gun related deaths. In the same year, the United States had 32,000. I'd need to know a lot more to even begin to comment. For one example, how many of those gun deaths were committed by people who came by their guns illegally? It doesn't matter what laws you pass, such individuals will simply ignore them as they've ignored other laws. So, are Americans more homicidal by nature? Or is it maybe vaguely related to the fact that every one of the countries in the first batch use gun control/registration laws. I don't think you can boil it down to a simple dichotomy like this. The genie is out of the bottle. Guns exist, and evil men will always be able to obtain them. The police cannot prevent crime (and lawsuits have proven that they are not required to), which means if I want to safe, I have to make myself safe. Now, I don't expect the government to care whether I live or die, and as the response to Katrina made clear, it doesn't. But I do expect it to get out of my way when I want to protect myself. We have a lot of crime in this country because we (1) make some things crimes that really ought not to be, and (2) we don't treat the real crimes seriously enough. A murderer, for example, should go to jail and never leave. But judges here rarely do that and only in the case of extremely depraved killers. In theory. If you have a populace who will let someone harness strong government control to abuse it (Bush), the same populace would almost certainly have allowed that person to harness WEAK government control and expand it. "Buying time" is great as a theoretical argument, not so much in practice, especially when you consider how many people you'd be sacrificing (Since bigger government can help more people) for a theoretical fear. Well, we're getting really far afield here, but another problem I have with big government is that it's not good for people to help them too much. It makes them weak and dependent, and in a generation or two they come to feel entitled. We have that problem in this country. Okay. But it makes it no less valid as an argument for why Tony did these things. Sure it does. It's the difference between Civil War being the logical extrapolation of existing circumstances, or something made up and wholly self-contained. I can't explain it any better than that, but... You can't just say "to me, it does" when... it doesn't. ... I note that you are doing what you accused me of earlier: there needs to be an "in my opinion" in front of "it doesn't" in that sentence. That would be like me saying "All issues prior to Year X were before my time, ergo what happens in them is less valid." Or, "I don't like JMS ergo all issues he writes are less valid." No, more like the difference between a well written mystery, in which the murderer turns out to be one of the suspects, and the author's character shows you the clues he used to figure it out, and a poorly written mystery in which the solution comes out of left field. One evolves naturally, and the other is attached with duct tape and paper clips. A rather significent % of heroes DID take action to create their powers. Nevertheless, the theory still applies, it's a MUCH closer analogy than being of a minority race, since it takes into account potential for destruction. If you were born with a nuke in your head you could choose to detonate at any time, yeah I think the government have a right to know where your house is. We will have to disagree on this point. The government thinking its entitled to know this is equivalent to assuming that I will do that at some point without prior reason. It's the same sort of appeal to fear argument that has enabled Mr. Bush to get away with so much. And it's morally unsound. No, I'd say the fundamental disagreement is that you believe the SHRA is punishment. The REAL disagreement here comes down to the heart of the matter: You think you can't trust a government if it's big, I think you can. That's what it's about. It all boils down to that, really. The SHRA assumes people will commit crimes. Otherwise, why care about their capabilities? I find any such legislation morally unsound. I think there's a big hypocrisy in your case, in that you believe the government should be punished and limited for what they MIGHT do, and yet blame the SHRA which you percieve to be doing this exact thing to other people. You note yourself it's easier to do bad than do good, and claim that the government should be limited because of this, but absolutely refuse to "limit" people for the same reason. An inherent weakness to your argument in my view. In your view. I've explained several times that government is more dangerous because it amplifies and insulates. The weakness in my argument arises because you consistently ignore that point without actually refuting it.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 25, 2007 17:30:10 GMT -5
Reed Richards should make a machine to tell who's a Skrull and who's not a Skrull but I doubt that will happen. I'm not sure he knows how. Remember that the Skrulls have centuries to hone their skill at deception and develop technologies to make their impostures difficult to pierce.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Aug 26, 2007 17:17:10 GMT -5
We have the New Avengers and Spider-Man, not being bossed around by the government. Not really a good example, because they'll be imprisoned indefinitely whenever the government gets a minute to sic an Initiative team on them. In fact, it's getting kind of ludicrous that so much time has passed and it hasn't already happened. Actually, an Initiative team went after one of the New Avengers, Spider-Man, in A:I #3.
I think there's a big hypocrisy in your case, in that you believe the government should be punished and limited for what they MIGHT do, and yet blame the SHRA which you percieve to be doing this exact thing to other people. You note yourself it's easier to do bad than do good, and claim that the government should be limited because of this, but absolutely refuse to "limit" people for the same reason. An inherent weakness to your argument in my view. A government is not a person! A government is simply a social construct, like corporations and religions. Their only legitimacy stems from their ability to serve the interests of real persons. These abstract social inventions are not automatically entitled to the same rights as real persons and deserve no rights beyond those required to fulfill their mandate to serve real persons. The inability to make the distinction is a fundamental detriment to one’s ability to function healthily within society. In my opinion, of course.
Reed Richards should make a machine to tell who's a Skrull and who's not a Skrull but I doubt that will happen. I'm not sure he knows how. Remember that the Skrulls have centuries to hone their skill at deception and develop technologies to make their impostures difficult to pierce. Young Avengers #12 suggests that, at least in the short term, they cannot even distinguish one Skrull from another, even in the case of one Skrull with artificial superpowers posing as another Skrull who’s half-Kree and whose identity and security is of utmost importance. On the other hand, Fantastic Four #2 suggests that Skrulls cannot, with the naked eye, distinguish color photography from four-color comics on cheap newsprint.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Aug 27, 2007 13:39:50 GMT -5
Not in the slightest. It's pointless for me to cover myself since the matter will never be examined in a real court of law. It's my way of saying that judges aren't any more trustworthy, in aggregate, than anyone else. Fair enough. I don't see how that's of major importance here. The fact remains it's an INCREDIBLY disturbing statistic, and indeed, even if you're to disavow gun control, it still implies Americans are more commited to their law breaking than those in the other countries I named. To suggest that the gun control thing is COMPLETELY coincidental is more than a little stretch. Funny, it's that type of thinking, albeit on a larger scale, that leads to things like Iran or India getting nukes, "I need to protect myself, I don't trust anyone else to protect me." 1) Few examples? 2) I completely disagree on the murderer thing. You're claiming it's impossible for someone to reform and you apparantly have no concern at allo for the conditions of the murder. Again, I just have to disagree. Could it potentially happen? Perhaps. But the problem in America isn't that big government is helping too much so people become dependant, it's that it's ONLY helping one class of people, and every time it increases help, it's for that class only. Again, it can make a difference to your view from the EXTERIOR of the universe but within the universe itself, such a view is anh irrelevancy. But that wasn't an opinion. It's a fact, more or less. You can't say "Everyone in the marvel universe itself should hate the Sentry because he was only put on New Avengers because Bendis likes him." It's illogical. It makes no sense in the context. Again, have to disagree. In many ways, the Marvel Uni has been leading up to this for years. No, that's just a very narrow minded way of viewing it. The SHRA does not assume people will commit crimes- that's like saying taking health insurance assumes someone will have cancer. A hero can be a COLOSSAL threat to those around them simply by virtue of being a target and possessing power. They're an enormous danger without ever commiting crimes. Too many enemies. No, it's just that we disagree completely and irreconcilably. So I think your point is mad, you think I'm ignoring it. A government is RUN by people, and in my view Balok is saying people in government should be treated opne way (IE: with NO trust) and people outside government in another (IE: with COMPLETE trust.)
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 27, 2007 17:30:23 GMT -5
I don't see how that's of major importance here. The fact remains it's an INCREDIBLY disturbing statistic, and indeed, even if you're to disavow gun control, it still implies Americans are more commited to their law breaking than those in the other countries I named. To suggest that the gun control thing is COMPLETELY coincidental is more than a little stretch. But I didn't say it was completely coincidental. I said the issue was more complex that "gun control = low murder rate." If you can't see how those aren't the same statement, I can't help you. For example, we have a number of gun control laws in this country that are spottily enforced or not enforced at all. We have others that are useless (given that they have resulted in no additional convictions). Funny, it's that type of thinking, albeit on a larger scale, that leads to things like Iran or India getting nukes, "I need to protect myself, I don't trust anyone else to protect me." Well, as I said, what happened following Katrina suggests that the man who expects government to look after him is foolish indeed. That disaster was surely big enough to make the news, even over there? It's interesting that many people over here debate exactly where the failure occurred, but all the candidates are governments (local, state, or Federal). So, no, I don't trust government to look after me. I have a small collection of emergency supplies - water and camping gear - stockpiled in the event that my family ever needs them following a disaster. Now, if I have that, all my neighbor needs is a gun and the knowledge that I have that, and suddenly I might as well not have bothered. But if I have a gun, then my family gets protected (because I took the precautions), and his family gets protected (if he took precautions) or not (if he didn't). Many liberals, at least over here, tend to disparage self-reliance but at the end of the day it is the self-reliant man who lives, and the dependent man who dies. Most drug crimes. Neither I nor government should care if another adult chooses to take drugs. People make bad choices all the time, and there's no real way to stop them. But the "War on Drugs" spends a lot of money and effort trying. Now, if someone takes drugs and then gets behind the wheel, or the controls of the train, that IS a crime - an existing crime called reckless endangerment, or depraved indifference, or whatnot. Fact is, I don't care if some idiot goes in his bedroom and drinks drain cleaner. He's an adult, that's his choice to make, and I have no right to interfere with his freedom - even his freedom to destroy himself - until it hurts other people. 2) I completely disagree on the murderer thing. You're claiming it's impossible for someone to reform and you apparantly have no concern at allo for the conditions of the murder. A murderer takes something that can never, ever be returned. I have sympathy for the victims and their families, not for the criminals. Also, a man who commits murder once is more likely to do it again, statistically speaking. Why tolerate the presence of people who choose murder to solve their problems? I also support three-strikes laws (three felonies and you go away for a minimum of twenty years) because repeat offenders are people who regard you and I as prey. We don't need such folk walking the streets. Again, I just have to disagree. Could it potentially happen? Perhaps. But the problem in America isn't that big government is helping too much so people become dependant, it's that it's ONLY helping one class of people, and every time it increases help, it's for that class only. Actually, it doles out a lot of help - it bails out large corporations, which should be allowed to sink on the basis of their directors' poor decision making, and it bails out people foolish enough to build their city on the coast, below the water line, and hope that the levees will keep out the hurricanes, and it bails out people who make bad decisions. When you reward bad behavior, you'll get more of it. Peoples' bad decisions need to sting. And it's not good to rely on government. Rely on yourself. Then, if you hit a patch of bad luck, the government can maybe offer you some temporary help. Someone - Bastiet, perhaps? famously said that democracy survives until people realize they can vote themselves cash from the public fisc. Then it collapses. If he's right, and trends over here seem to support the concept, then this country will last another hundred years, tops. Perhaps less. Again, it can make a difference to your view from the EXTERIOR of the universe but within the universe itself, such a view is anh irrelevancy. I disagree. In this case the perspectives aren't distinct. Things that could have been extrapolated into the need for the SHRA would be other Stamford type incidents. And maybe they happened. Certainly it's hard to believe that they didn't considering the magnitude of the fights, *except* that Marvel chose not to mention them. In a sense, the trope was different there: for the same reason no one can pierce Clark Kent's simplistic disguise, no towns were slaughtered. Until, abruptly, Marvel decided to slaughter one. The rules of comic books were different from those of the real world, and that's what made them enjoyable to read. I live in the real world, I don't need to read about it. Here's another point we have already disagreed on, but: Marvel noticed how Ultimates was selling, and instead of telling Civil War in the Ultimates universe where that kind of dark story belongs, they decided to see if the same thing could be done to 616. And to my sorrow and your delight, it worked. Sales are spectacular, and Marvel and I have parted company. But that wasn't an opinion. It's a fact, more or less. You can't say "Everyone in the marvel universe itself should hate the Sentry because he was only put on New Avengers because Bendis likes him." It's illogical. It makes no sense in the context. Nope. It's an opinion. You can't say your opinions are facts and that makes them facts any more than I can. Sorry. No, that's just a very narrow minded way of viewing it. The SHRA does not assume people will commit crimes- that's like saying taking health insurance assumes someone will have cancer. You don't understand insurance, either? Dude, that's *exactly* what it assumes. Well, actually it assumes there is some *risk* of developing a disorder, and in exchange for money, an insurer agrees to share that risk with you. If you had perfect health and great resistance to physical harm, you would not purchase health insurance. A hero can be a COLOSSAL threat to those around them simply by virtue of being a target and possessing power. They're an enormous danger without ever commiting crimes. Too many enemies. And a good way to deal with that is to get his name in a big database somewhere from which it can someday be stolen. And it will be stolen, there are dozens of people smarter than Tony who could do it. And that database is a honkin' huge target. No, it's just that we disagree completely and irreconcilably. So I think your point is mad, you think I'm ignoring it. I'll translate: "so I can't refute your point, so I'm ignoring it. " A government is RUN by people, and in my view Balok is saying people in government should be treated opne way (IE: with NO trust) and people outside government in another (IE: with COMPLETE trust.) It's not just governments. Look at how any large aggregate of people behaves: corporations, religions, even mobs. They *never* rise the moral standards of the best of them, they sink to the moral standards of the *least* of them. This is a point you refuse to acknowledge and evidently can't refute. And until you can, your argument falters.
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Aug 28, 2007 0:44:37 GMT -5
a couple of things I have to say about this thread: One, skrulls are shape shifters. That's what marvel calls 'em and I see no reason to disagree. www.marvel.com/universe/SkrullsThey don't become perfect duplicates, so something as simple as a DNA test would show their Skrullian nature. I suppose someone could say they have tech that could make them undetectable, but why? Earth has shown that as long as they are not dragged into conflict they are not a strong enough space presence to be a concern. yet even time earth is drawn into a conflict, they kick Skrull a$$. so it's almost like looking for trouble. Plus the Skrulls have many planets in their empire, it would seem very difficult to create a scientific device that could fool virtually all detection in the MU (How do you prepare for hi-tech, mutant telepathy, godly divination and sorcery, anyway?). According to the marvel bio they ain't much smarter than us and we can't even cure the common cold... next about Tony Stark... Look we can go around the SHRA junk until someone turns blue in the face, but let's not forget Tony Stark Reed Richards et al have seen wonders. Wonders of the universe. They have seen gods and viewed our planet from the heavens, they have met Death and forestalled her, they have touched the face of God really, in every shape and form. I got very lucky and a pal took me to see an advanced screening of a documentary called In The Shadow of the Moon, about the only men who've ever walked on the moon, and every one of these men talked about how profound an effect being that much closer to the infinite had on them. It just seems that heroes who've touched the infinite shouldn't come across so poorly. Yet marvel has managed to make them seem small and angry and too flawed. the astronauts, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Cernan, Mike Collins, Charlie Duke et al, reminded me of the JSA. They just had a great spark within them, that wonderful thrill of having faced the unknown and doing the right thing. And they also talked about how they felt for the last almost forty years-- how they had to hold that standard and be the heroes that people celebrated them to be. man I wish marvel heroes still had that thrill. So argue the finer points of this thing all day. I wish more of marvel was devoted to making their heroes seem like these heroes, who are far more cool than anything the house of ideas has produced in years.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Aug 28, 2007 9:21:23 GMT -5
They don't become perfect duplicates, so something as simple as a DNA test would show their Skrullian nature. No doubt there are those on this board who would disagree, but wholesale screening of individuals against the chance they might be Skrulls is a grave imposition on civil liberties. Although maneuvering governments into a position where they feel they have to do this would certainly foster the kind of paranoia and mistrust that makes a united defense much harder to mount. They don't even really need tech. Part of what their centuries of experience being shapeshifters would give them is tactics. You don't, for example, replace the President. You replace an advisor. Or even someone who types stuff. You don't replace Miriam Sharpe. You replace someone who put the idea in her ear. And so on. I got very lucky and a pal took me to see an advanced screening of a documentary called In The Shadow of the Moon, about the only men who've ever walked on the moon, and every one of these men talked about how profound an effect being that much closer to the infinite had on them. It just seems that heroes who've touched the infinite shouldn't come across so poorly. Yet marvel has managed to make them seem small and angry and too flawed. the astronauts, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Cernan, Mike Collins, Charlie Duke et al, reminded me of the JSA. They just had a great spark within them, that wonderful thrill of having faced the unknown and doing the right thing. And they also talked about how they felt for the last almost forty years-- how they had to hold that standard and be the heroes that people celebrated them to be. man I wish marvel heroes still had that thrill. So argue the finer points of this thing all day. I wish more of marvel was devoted to making their heroes seem like these heroes, who are far more cool than anything the house of ideas has produced in years. I wish Marvel heroes were still heroes, too. If I want to read about how real people behave, I can pick up a newspaper. If I want to read about how heroes behave, I used to be able to pick up a Marvel comic. Not so much any longer.
|
|
|
Post by fyrehand on Sept 7, 2007 1:33:05 GMT -5
so umm who do think the skrull is hehe
look the debate is fun and all but the topic is whos the skrull not how the world of marvel reflects the current state of the world.
for the record i dont like the civil war stuff and i have read it all but i want to see where it ends up before i decide that these men are all evil genuises or base born morons
that said i think the skrull is gynrich always a good choice but normally a red herring
|
|
|
Post by balok on Sept 7, 2007 8:43:15 GMT -5
Gyrich is venal and divisive enough as a human. His agenda of sowing distrust would serve Skrull interests; I see no need to replace him.
I doubt seriously that the Skrulls have replaced anyone too high in profile. It's vaguely possible that the dead Captain America was a Skrull, but I doubt it - they've had too long to examine the body for that to go unnoticed. Likewise, if Bendis' is honest in saying he does not plan to mess with the outcome of Civil War, that pretty much lets out most of the big Civil War players unless the replacement occurred after the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Sept 7, 2007 10:36:54 GMT -5
I always think of the Grinch song when I see Gyrich. "Your a mean one, Mr. Gyrich....."
|
|