Jane's Superhumans

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

As opposed to the common person who wants to kill you that "just has to get to where he can see [you]. Knock on the door' date=' wait til [you'] peep through the peephole, then blast [you] right thru the door," with his pistol?

 

Or maybe you're afraid of strength man, who could kill you with one punch and splatter your brain. Unlike crazy with a knife who could kill you with one stab in the back?

 

 

Me? I'd be more concerned about Elastic Man. He can change his body parts into different shapes and sizes. What's the big deal? Tongue. Penis. He'd have the most attractive women in the world oogling over him. Now how can you compete with that?

 

The specific argument was against equating Laserboy's deadly eye-beams specifically with automobiles. Much more awkward to kill someone with a car than with a eye-beam, a firearm, a knife, or most other potentially deadly weapons that can be easily picked up and carried about.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

The specific argument was against equating Laserboy's deadly eye-beams specifically with automobiles. Much more awkward to kill someone with a car than with a eye-beam' date=' a firearm, a knife, or most other potentially deadly weapons that can be easily picked up and carried about.[/quote']

Seems to me the argument is really paranoia versus letting people be. Something about innocent until committing a crime. This reeks of racism. Instead of against Jews, blacks, women (okay that's sexism), etc., it's against people with powers. You know, those different from you and me. Those seen as a threat without doing anything threatening. Those that are a threat simply because they exist.

[Lightray]

The specific argument was against equating Laserboy's deadly eye-beams specifically with automobiles. Much more awkward to kill someone with a car than with a eye-beam' date=' a firearm, a knife, or most other potentially deadly weapons that can be easily picked up and carried about.[/quote']

So we have reduced the argument to the fact that it is more convenient to kill with super-powers, not that they are more deadly than some other means?

 

Because -- again -- it's pretty damned easy to hurt someone else right now, and we're not so alarmed that we're passing Draconian measures to make it "more awkward" to do so.

[Lightray]

Me? I'd be more concerned about Elastic Man. He can change his body parts into different shapes and sizes. What's the big deal? Tongue. Penis.

Uh-oh. What's he going to do through the peephole...

He'd have the most attractive women in the world oogling over him. Now how can you compete with that?

Oh, well, that. Just as long as he's not trying to stick things into my peephole.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Uh-oh. What's he going to do through the peephole...

Oh' date=' well, that. Just as long as he's not trying to stick things into my peephole. [/quote']

Hey, why are you showing him you're peephole?

[Lightray]

Hey' date=' why are you showing him you're peephole? [/quote']

Guess I was assuming he was one of those Elastic Guys with Extra Limb - Tongue (with Stretching) and N-Ray Vision.

 

I hate those guys.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Even granted an equal level of danger, there is a fundamental difference between regulating Guy with Sniper Rifle vs Laser Eye Boy.

 

In the former case, you are regulating a device, a weapon, a tool. In the latter case, you are regulating a *person*.

 

There is no quicker road to Hell than treating people as objects.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

You appear to be utterly missing the point' date=' then. I like cars.[/quote']

 

 

Dude, I'm going to rep you for that just for the truly unintentional cosmic irony here.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Dude' date=' I'm going to rep you for that just for the truly unintentional cosmic irony here.[/quote']

 

You might consider the posibility that it is not unintentional, if you want to take a break from being a jackass for a couple of minutes.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Seems to me the argument is really paranoia versus letting people be. Something about innocent until committing a crime. This reeks of racism. Instead of against Jews' date=' blacks, women (okay that's sexism), etc., it's against people with powers. You know, those different from you and me. Those seen as a threat without doing anything threatening. Those that are a threat simply because they exist.[/quote']

 

 

How nice of you to imply that I am a racist Nazi bastard of some sort.

 

Would you care to explain to me why it is that, even in the US where many kinds of firearms are legal, we dont let law abiding citizens who have never committed any crimes, wander anywhere they please carrying them? They havent DONE anything, after all!

 

Or could it be that it is already a point of law that a person's mere potential to commit violence is enough to limit their liberty? In practice, a person's liberty is not binary so much as it is conditional. As their capacity to commit violence increases, so do the legal limitations on their liberty?

 

 

Example :

Man with Sniper Rifle : Is allowed to walk around in the woods, but is not allowed to walk around the airport, or meet with the President. (Unless he happens to be Man with Sniper Rifle and Several Federal Clearances, anyway.)

 

Man without Sniper Rifle : Is allowed to walk around the woods also, AND can walk around the public concourses of the airport if he likes also. He is still not going to be meeting the President without some background checks top make sure he isnt some sort of emotionally disturbed nutjob with who knows 101 ways to kill a man with his bare hands.

 

2 Month Old Baby (without a Sniper Rifle) : Is generally allowed anyplace his mother/father is allowed to go, including into the presence of the PUSA, without going through a background check, though his swaddling may be checked for contraband placed there by someone else.

 

Descending potential for violence = descending curtailment of liberties/privacy.

 

Just because Laserboy cant put his eyes down, it doesnt mean that his potential for violence should be ignored.

 

 

 

Here is another hypothetical for you :

 

WMD-Man, who is known to be capable of firing off a superpowered explosive blast (with personal immunity) capable of levelling an entire city, is also known to have a severe emotional problems, though not ones quite severe enough that he could be involuntarily committed. Do you want him wandering about in YOUR home town?

 

Why should he be allowed to wander about freely with the power to level a city while any attempt I might make to gain the same power would put me in jail for several decades?

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

So we have reduced the argument to the fact that it is more convenient to kill with super-powers, not that they are more deadly than some other means?

 

Because -- again -- it's pretty damned easy to hurt someone else right now, and we're not so alarmed that we're passing Draconian measures to make it "more awkward" to do so.

 

I would disagree. To me, more convenient with the same power = more deadly. Easier to conceal (to the point of being undetectable, if the super in question didnt take distinctive features relating to his super-status) = more deadly also.

 

Then there is the likleyhood that a world with supers wouldnt just contain "Laserboys" who have the power of a sniper rifle in their glance, but also "WMDmen" (see my previous post) who can kill very large numbers of people on a whim. I will ask you too... would YOU be comfortable living, with your loved ones, in the same town as the emotionally unstable WMDman?

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Even granted an equal level of danger, there is a fundamental difference between regulating Guy with Sniper Rifle vs Laser Eye Boy.

 

In the former case, you are regulating a device, a weapon, a tool. In the latter case, you are regulating a *person*.

 

There is no quicker road to Hell than treating people as objects.

 

 

I see where you're coming from, but the problem is that these people are carrying around a level of firepower that it is -illegal- to carry. That they cant put it down doesnt mean that they dont have it. I will ask you too... Do you want to live in town with WMDman?

[Lightray]

Must leave in a moment; quick response.

In practice' date=' a person's liberty is not binary so much as it is conditional. As their capacity to commit violence increases, so do the legal limitations on their liberty?[/quote']

You need to qualify that a bit, "as their capacity to commit specific types of violence..."

 

Most everyone can drive around in their car, that is easily turned into a weapon. There are more hurdles put in the way of acquiring the capacity to commit violence with sniper rifles (but still, not unsurmountable). It's pretty darn difficult to get an a-bomb, though. Presumably, we must consider access to different weaponry a liberty that is being restricted.

 

 

Here is another hypothetical for you :

 

WMD-Man, who is known to be capable of firing off a superpowered explosive blast (with personal immunity) capable of levelling an entire city, is also known to have a severe emotional problems, though not ones quite severe enough that he could be involuntarily committed. Do you want him wandering about in YOUR home town?

 

Why should he be allowed to wander about freely with the power to level a city while any attempt I might make to gain the same power would put me in jail for several decades?

It is the same problem as with any other emotionally disturbed person. Access to the ability to cause city-wide destruction does not seem too limited after Oklahoma City and the Twin Towers.

 

The problem is not that he could cause destruction. The problem is that he is emotionally disturbed. Society's inept handling of such issues is going to be the same, superpowers or no.

 

But you're advocating legislating against the possibility that WMDguy might, one day, be emotionally disturbed? Unlikely and unrealistic.

 

Comparing people who go out and obtain weaponry, to people born with such, is not a good analogy.

[Victim]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I see where you're coming from' date=' but the problem is that these people are carrying around a level of firepower that it is -illegal- to carry. That they cant put it down doesnt mean that they dont have it. I will ask you too... Do you want to live in town with WMDman?[/quote']

 

No, but I don't really want to live in town with equally disturbed normal guy with explosives skills. Or even normal guy who thinks he has demolitions skills. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that it's already easy enough to kill someone if you don't care about getting away.

 

Living in town with WMDman wouldn't be as dangerous as living in town with WMDman after someone unsuccessfully tries to attack him because he's a menace - because that's going to turn him into a menace. Amidst all the talk about stopping nuclear proliferation or what, you might notice that nobody goes after countries that already have nukes.

 

The US government doesn't seem to hunt down all militias, even though they have lots of weapons and whatnot.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I see where you're coming from' date=' but the problem is that these people are carrying around a level of firepower that it is -illegal- to carry. That they cant put it down doesnt mean that they dont have it. I will ask you too... Do you want to live in town with WMDman?[/quote']

 

Depends. If WMD-Man is, as in your version, mentally unstable, than he should be looked up just like any other dangerously unstable individual.

 

If he's *not* dangerously unstable, than the fact that he can nuke cities is irrelevant.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

It is the same problem as with any other emotionally disturbed person. Access to the ability to cause city-wide destruction does not seem too limited after Oklahoma City and the Twin Towers.

 

Access to the ability to cause city wide destruction is VERY, VERY limited. Oklahoma City and 9/11, as bad as they were, were merely city block wide destruction. The one required access to a considerable amount of (now) tracked substances, and the other required 19 men and a lot of money (flight school) to pull off. Both required a lot of work beforehand, rather than being something an individual could pull off in a moment of pique.

 

 

The problem is not that he could cause destruction. The problem is that he is emotionally disturbed. Society's inept handling of such issues is going to be the same, superpowers or no.

 

I posited that his emotional disturbance, while severe, was not of such a level that he would be committable. The problem that makes his case troubling isnt that he is disturbed, but that his power to destroy is so much greater that the chance that he -might- lose it becomes an unconscionable threat to everyone around him.

 

Consider the following :

Say an individual has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance each year of flipping out and becoming a mass murderer who kills as many people as he can before he stops or is stopped. Further say that, in the absence of superpowers, such a mass murderer kills 10 people on average. The odds of being killed by non-superpowered mass murderer in a given year are, therefore, 100,000 to 1.

 

WMDman, on the other hand, might have the same 1 in 1,000,000 chance of flipping out, but if he does his posession of massively destructive superpowers means that he will be able to kill all 1,000,000 people in the city. The odds of being killed by WMDman are, therefore, 1 to 1.

 

Even if he isnt posited as being any more emotionally disturbed than the rest of us, he's so much more dangerous if he does drop off the deep end that I dont want him in my town.

 

 

But you're advocating legislating against the possibility that WMDguy might, one day, be emotionally disturbed? Unlikely and unrealistic.

 

I'm not advocating any legislation, per se. I'm just thinking of the odds, and that WMDman is a bad risk to live around, regardless of his mental state. and many, many people would probably prefer not to live around him.

 

 

Comparing people who go out and obtain weaponry, to people born with such, is not a good analogy.

 

I'm not. I'm comparing restrictions on people with similar abilities to destroy things, no matter what the source of that power is.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

No, but I don't really want to live in town with equally disturbed normal guy with explosives skills. Or even normal guy who thinks he has demolitions skills. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that it's already easy enough to kill someone if you don't care about getting away.

 

Living in a town with a guy with explosive skills is a lot safer. Such a guy will almost certainly be unable to amass enough explosives to destroy the entire city without getting caught and stopped before his plan comes to fruition. Several freight train loads of high explosive are a tad difficult to acquire, load, unload, or place secretly and alone.

 

 

Living in town with WMDman wouldn't be as dangerous as living in town with WMDman after someone unsuccessfully tries to attack him because he's a menace - because that's going to turn him into a menace. Amidst all the talk about stopping nuclear proliferation or what, you might notice that nobody goes after countries that already have nukes.

 

Living in a town with WMDman is just as dangerous as living in a town with WMDman after someone unsuccessfully tried to attack him. The evil Mindcontrolman can come along at any moment and Mind Control him into using his power, after all. Or sufficiently dedicated and clever normals could just kidnap and brainwash him into blowing up the city. What is he gonna do to stop them? Blow up the city?

 

The only ways to make WMD man safe to be around is to either kill him, or to somehow permanently remove his power. Barring that, keep him under deep cover and in an unpopulated region. If he is a good guy he will recognize the need for this and comply. If he isnt or doesnt, then he's as good as destroyed the city already, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Or we could all just acclaim him as our new superpowered overlord, and maybe volunteer to round up others to toil in his underground nectar mines.

 

The US government doesn't seem to hunt down all militias, even though they have lots of weapons and whatnot.

 

If said militias had prohibited weapons, or insisted on bearing their nominally legal ones in places or ways that are prohibited, the government would come down on them fast enough.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

You might consider the posibility that it is not unintentional, if you want to take a break from being a jackass for a couple of minutes.

 

More irony points.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Anyone who wants to write comics should have to take a 1 year course in Comicology, with the text books based on threads like this one.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

How nice of you to imply that I am a racist Nazi bastard of some sort.

No, I haven't implied that; however, your words are showing great signs of bigotry, whether you like it or not or intended it or not.

 

Would you care to explain to me why it is that' date=' even in the US where many kinds of firearms are legal, we dont let law abiding citizens who have never committed any crimes, wander anywhere they please carrying them? They havent DONE anything, after all![/quote']

You haven't been to the South lately, have you?

 

 

Or could it be that it is already a point of law that a person's mere potential to commit violence is enough to limit their liberty?

Nope. You apparently don't take into account that people are able access all sorts of detrimental items and are put into situations where they can do harm. Again, look at airplanes. How many emergency exits are there on planes? And guess what, people are allowed to sit by them, despite the potential that they could cause harm. Limits are placed on certain types of weapons, yes, but not on human conditions. And, with the exception now of airports, not on any object that can be considered a weapon. You can be blinded, if not killed by someone properly stabbing you with a pencil, but we don't bar school kids from having them, do we? You can be choked with someone's belt, but we don't tell you that you can't wear one because of that. Heck, I can kill you [in general] with paper or plastic wrap in your sleep with a proper amount of water, but they don't prevent me from buying paper or Reynold's simply because of a far-fetched potential.

 

 

Example :

Man with Sniper Rifle :

 

Man without Sniper Rifle :

2 Month Old Baby (without a Sniper Rifle) :

 

Descending potential for violence = descending curtailment of liberties/privacy.

 

Just because Laserboy cant put his eyes down, it doesnt mean that his potential for violence should be ignored.

Do you stay at home and hide simply because of your potential to be harmed? Do you avoid automobiles? People die daily in those, yet we're still allowed in them.

 

Ignoring his potential, or punishing him because of it?

 

Here is another hypothetical for you :

 

WMD-Man, who is known to be capable of firing off a superpowered explosive blast (with personal immunity) capable of levelling an entire city, is also known to have a severe emotional problems, though not ones quite severe enough that he could be involuntarily committed. Do you want him wandering about in YOUR home town?

 

Why should he be allowed to wander about freely with the power to level a city while any attempt I might make to gain the same power would put me in jail for several decades?

What does it matter whether I WANT him in my home town or not. I don't like the people that live above me because they're loud and they don't know how to water their plants (because every time they do so, there's a constant drainage onto my "porch").

 

In your hypothetical situation, how is WMD Man breaking a law simply by existing? He's not. Now, how do we know he has this power? Has he used it on his private property? If so, there's probably not much to be done against him. Has he done this on public land or against someone else? If so, then he should be arrested and tried for whatever crimes he has committed.

 

I for one am not going on a witch hunt simply because people are different. Everyone has the potential to do great harm, that doesn't mean everyone is going to do so. Simply because you fear your neighbor doesn't mean you have the right to oppress him.

 

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Say YOU have the ability to fire a 3d6 RKA flaming attack out of your hands or eyes. The only time you've used your power is to light campfires in controlled circumstances. Is it fair for you to be denied the use of a car, the use of a grocery store, convenience store, or any other retail establishment simply because you have the potential to destroy something? What if your firepower was really only a 3d6 EB? How does anyone else tell the difference? What does it matter?

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Or, what if it was his wife, or child, that had the flamethrower hands or the laser-beam eyes? What 'necessary measures' would he tolerate then?

 

What if WMD man was born into his own family? How would he explain it to them, why it was 'right' for the other people to be making the laws against him that he wanted made?

 

Where do you find the words when it comes home, when it's not just an abstract?

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I see where you're coming from' date=' but the problem is that these people are carrying around a level of firepower that it is -illegal- to carry. That they cant put it down doesnt mean that they dont have it. I will ask you too... Do you want to live in town with WMDman?[/quote']

First, why is it illegal to be born with it? You never have answered that aspect. They didn't purchase or obtain their powers through an illegal means. They were BORN with it. Second, you're constantly using the "fear factor" in your posts. We've gone from laser lad to WMD-man. Big jump there. Yes, this is bigotry and if these people were alive, you'd be prejudiced against them because of a bias of fear if you keep with this trend.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Anyone who wants to write comics should have to take a 1 year course in Comicology' date=' with the text books based on threads like this one.[/quote']

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

 

I want playtester's credit or I'm gonna sue somebody.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I want playtester's credit or I'm gonna sue somebody.

"Special Thanks to Chuckg for his insight into Comicology 101."