Jane's Superhumans

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

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

 

 

I can't believe that actually worked.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I can't believe that actually worked.

Would you believe I feared you litigation superpower?

[Lightray]

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.

This is what it feels like when doves cry.

[Lightray]

Two actual points and then I'm off to bed...

 

---------------

First, the reason I abhor that comparison of super-power legislation to gun control laws. That requires the following chain of logic:

 

1. We legislate access to/use of weapons.

2. Super-powers are equivalent to weapons.

Therefore, we would legislate use of super-powers.

 

In rebuttal:

1. We legislate against some weapons. We have examples of a few that aren't really that restricted (e.g., cars, poisons). Legislating based on destructive power is inconsistent, at best (e.g., bazookas are a no-no, assault weapons a maybe, cars are a yes; all do more damage than handguns, whose restrictions fall somewhere in the middle of those).

2. Super-powers are not equivalent to weapons, in that weapons are separable from the person, whereas super-powers are not seperable from the super-person.

 

---------------

Based on all the scenarios proposed on this thread, the number of super-humans is going to be rather small. Again, we've all assumed a wide distribution of powers -- then we'd be dealing with WMD Guy and Casino-Buster Girl and Laser Lad and Arm-Fall-Off Boy. There might be a few WMD Guys, but not many.

 

For about a dozen people, the government and the public are not going to focus on preparations against a hoarde of same -- legislatively or otherwise. They'll keep an eye on WMD Guy. If he looks unstable, they might make some plans (have him talk to a counselor, or something). If not, everything's fine.

 

All assuming, of course, that you somehow know that WMD Guy is a WMD. I'll give Stan Lee credit for his sneakyness in analogizing mutants with gays -- a lot of the same mentality would apply. If Bob hates teh gay, he might beat up someone he suspects is gay, but that person might not actually be gay. Likewise, if Bob hates teh supers, he might try to get WMD Guy run out of town.

 

Imagine everyone's embarrasement when WMD Guy turns out to be Arm-Fall-Off Boy. Oh, well, he did have the potential to club someone over the head with his fallen-off arm...

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Would you believe I feared you litigation superpower?

 

Please. I'm too poor to get a lawyer.

 

Ah well, sometimes bluffing your Presence attack /does/ work.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

This is what it feels like when doves cry.

 

They should have a test you take and a license you have to get before you're allowed to try arguing statistics in a public forum.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

uh, yeah, if person A freaks out, then the odds of being killed are 1 in 100k.

if WMD freaks out, the odds are indeed 1 in 1.

BUT, the odds of freakout are still 1 in a million, which remains pretty low.

 

please don't tell me you've been working on Mars missions for NASA...

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Ok, so apparently I didnt properly express the difference between a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being one of 10 people killed, and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being one of 1,000,000 people killed.

 

Perhaps one of you bright boys with the college educations would care to enlighten me on the proper way to express that WMDman is 100,000 times more dangerous than a normal man, instead of just mocking me? Or perhaps you're too busy acting like classist/elitist snobs to bother? Am I supposed to be tugging my forelock, bowing and scraping to my betters at this point?

 

Or is this a cases where one person's bigotry (actual, against people who didnt take statistics classes at some fancy college) being OK, while someone else's (hypothetical, against people who dont actually exist (the superpowered)) is reprehensible?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Ok, so apparently I didnt properly express the difference between a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being one of 10 people killed, and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being one of 1,000,000 people killed.

 

Perhaps one of you bright boys with the college educations would care to enlighten me on the proper way to express that WMDman is 100,000 times more dangerous than a normal man, instead of just mocking me? Or perhaps you're too busy acting like classist/elitist snobs to bother? Am I supposed to be tugging my forelock, bowing and scraping to my betters at this point?

 

Or is this a cases where one person's bigotry (actual, against people who didnt take statistics classes at some fancy college) being OK, while someone else's (hypothetical, against people who dont actually exist (the superpowered)) is reprehensible?

 

 

I was teasing you, not ridiculing you. I didn't take stats either--you could have just said, "WMd man is 100k times more dangerous because if he goes off, everyone in the city might die."

A thick skin is a pre-req if you're going to get deep into argument on this board.

I think what people are getting at is that you're positing the equivalent of an apartheid state for superhumans, where their freedom is steeply curtailed in the name of public safety. Unfortunately, from my perspective, that seems likely to take a group of people with no particular greivance against society and give them a big, legitimate one--a group of people who will do an awful lot of damage if they're angry enough.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Perhaps one of you bright boys with the college educations would care to enlighten me on the proper way to express that WMDman is 100' date='000 times more dangerous than a normal man, instead of just mocking me?[/quote']

 

You should probably just let this go.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Unfortunately' date=' from my perspective, that seems likely to take a group of people with no particular greivance against society and give them a big, legitimate one--a group of people who will do an awful lot of damage if they're angry enough.[/quote']

 

You do realize that there is plenty of historical precedent for such a foolish act? People are stupid.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

You do realize that there is plenty of historical precedent for such a foolish act? People are stupid.

 

 

well, in case of a hostile relationship between (human) society and superhumans, three possible situations arise:

1. society is clearly stronger than supers, and imposes their will upon them, up to and including killing them.

2. supers are clearly stronger than society, and either ignore their dictates, or impose their will upon society, up to and including killing them.

3. neither side is clearly stronger than the other, and both either destroy each other, or eventually are forced to compromise in order to avoid mutual destruction.

 

So, it really depends on who's stronger--it may well be that one side or the other overestimates its own might or underestimates the strength of its rival, which can lead to very bad consequences. If society underestimates the strength of the superhumans, or if some megalomaniacal supers overestimate their own power, bad stuff happens.

[Kristopher]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Amazing as it seems, sometimes people do feel motivated to get along and not destroy each other.

 

The US and USSR didn't nuke each other at any point in nearly half a century of hostility and rivalry, for example.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

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

 

How about you actually respond to the point instead of avoiding it by making a joke about it?

 

 

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.

 

And how much harder is it to successfully blind or kill someone (or more especially many someones in a spate) with a pencil, a belt, or some plastic wrap (which, in your example also requires a sleeping victim!) than it is with a firearm, a nuclear bomb, or deadly laserbeams that shoot out of one's eyes? You seem unwilling to address issues of scale, ease, or concealability of weaponry as they relate to regulation of the means to commit violence. Do you really think reynolds wrap is more dangerous than a machinegun, and that the two are (or should be) regulated with the same strictness?

 

 

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.

 

Like most people, I make an assessment of perceived risks, and modify my behavior accordingly. If there is a riot in front of my house, I perceive a greater risk than if there isnt, and I dont go out unless I have some very pressing need. And I do avoid automobiles, especially the front of them when they are barrelling down the street at 35+ mph. As to riding in them or driving them, I assess the risk involved in doing so vs the risks involved in walking or taking the bus to my destination, and accept it as a decent tradeoff for the extra comfort and time saved.

 

Things that a community perceives as carrying more risk than benefit tend to be made taboo or illegal. Hence every citizen isnt allowed to own his own nuclear bomb, or, in some communities, even a handgun. You seem to be arguing that laws prohibiting individuals from possessing such potentially deadly power are unjust, since the potential of committing violence isnt the same as the actuality of committing it. That until someone actually blows up a city, that their potential to do so should not be the law's or their neighbor's concern!

 

 

 

 

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").

 

Oh, yes. The annihilation of an entire city and all the people in it is the moral equivalent of a little noise and a wet porch! How could I miss that!

 

 

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.

 

He may or may not be, depending on how the law is written. If superpowered people did exist, I suspect that laws would be written or rewritten in such a way as to address their existence. So your statement that he is not breaking the law is not really relevant.

 

As to how it is known that he has this power, that isnt really relevant to the arguement either. It is posited that it is known.

 

 

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.

 

So very untrue! If I, and a sufficient number of my other neighbors fear this particular neighbor, we make laws or customs to restrict his liberty and thus oppress him. That is the nature of civilization. People give up, or are forced to give up their liberty for the greated good. Why cant I own a nuclear bomb? Because 'The Law' has oppressively stolen my liberty to do so. No witch hunting here.

 

 

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?

 

If I had such an ability and the community consensus, as expressed by their laws, barred me from living a 'normal' life, I wouldnt neccessarily enjoy it, but thems the breaks. I would (through an intermediary lawyer, most likely) make the argument that I should be allowed back into the community if I met all of the requirements for mental stability and training that allow a Law Enforcement Officer to carry deadly force. If that particular community still declined to allow me back in, or I failed the stability and training tests, I simply wouldnt live there. If ALL accessible communities refused my presence, well, thems the breaks. You cant always get what you want.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

You appear to be utterly missing the point' date=' then. I like cars. What I am pointing out is that you can't use logic to argue how society will react to a threat, because people aren't logical. People are intrinsically irrational. [/quote']

 

Possibly, possibly not. Cars, trucks etc. have tremendous economic value. The damage caused by cars is less than the economic advantages of a flexible, fast, transport network (probably!).

 

Guns, on the other hand, have no economic value (except as trade goods of course). They are also concealable and solely designed causing harm. I dont understand why it is so controversial to equate an intrinsic EB with a concealed weapon? Not that I'm necessarily advocating this stance, but it seems a reasonable one for people to take. Many laws lock people away because of actions they might commit in the future - the incapacitation theory of criminal justice forms the basis of the various 3-strikes laws that are in place, laws about detaining the mentally-ill and so forth. There are plenty of precedents of restricting liberty not because of what someone has done, but because of what they are (or, in some cases, may be) capable of doing. It's harsh, it's horrible, but I can certainly see right-wing governments taking this kind of approach.

[Outsider]

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?

 

1) As if I'm ever gonna get married. But would be an issue for another thread, not that anyone (including me) would be interested in discussing it.

 

2) Perhaps I'm cold hearted, but my reaction to theoretical loved ones being 'the oppressed' would be the same as my reaction to me being it. I'd understand the communities feelings on the issue and try to negotiate a settlement that everyone could live with. If I perceived that acceding to the will of the community represented a greater risk than not doing so (ie, they demand death and nothing else will satisfy them), things might get ugly. Compromise is the glue that holds society together.

[Reneshat]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Registration of all supers, just like registration of all guns (and cars for that matter) seems like a perfectly reasonable situation.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Similar arguments can be made for the ubiquity of use of Laser Lad's powers' date=' though. If you live in foggy England and he's Visible Light Laser Lad, then he's better off just running you over with his car, isn't he?[/quote']

 

Grrr! Has anyone actually been to England recently? Like, since the turn of the century?!

 

I can't recall any gun legislation coming about because of that. And the DC sniper actually killed people. Unlike poor Laser Lad, who's being harrassed only because he might kill someone.

 

No, he's potentially being harassed because he breaches existing arms legislation. It's harsh, because he doesnt choose to be armed, but the fact is that he is armed and I wouldnt be surprised if a government treated him as such. Because most people dont want people with weapons walking around the place.

 

Besides, even western governments have precedents of treating 'difficult' groups harshly. From British internment of Irish terrorist suspects in the 1970s, to the holding of afghan fighters in guantanemo bay; to the indefinite holding of the mentally-ill to criminalising drugs. These are laws that foresake individual human rights for the 'greater good' and for preventing possible crime in the future. I think attitudes and laws might evolve - although this would depend on how many supers there were and how powerful - but I think early attitudes to supers would err on the side of the potential threat, on a cost-benefit analysis of the scale of the threat if it becomes actual, and how well equipped the government is to deal with it.

 

If it was known that LaserLad could emit a high-frequency beam from his eyes that looked cool at raves but could temporarily blind small mammals, no problem. If that beam was as powerful as a taser, self-regulation and "watch your step, sonny". If that beam was a 12d6 EB, there aint no way they're going to let him wander around unsupervised.

 

Phil

[Phil]

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']

 

What, and there are no laws like this already? The mentally-ill are regularly locked away without having done anything. Criminals need only commit 3 crimes in California to get a 20 year sentence, just in case they commit another. It isnt the same as racism, because there you are looking at two identical people and judging them on superficial differences. Here you're looking at two people, one of whom is a walking weapon. It's not what they're doing, it's what they are capable of doing. Being super-strong, being able to fly, having an EB are NOT superficial differences, they are extremely significant differences which potentially would justify a different approach.

 

Now of course, there would be legal challenges saying "We're human too, give us our human rights", and good luck to them. But what we're talking about her is what the response is likely to be, not what it should be in a liberal world.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

In rebuttal:

1. We legislate against some weapons. We have examples of a few that aren't really that restricted (e.g., cars, poisons). Legislating based on destructive power is inconsistent, at best (e.g., bazookas are a no-no, assault weapons a maybe, cars are a yes; all do more damage than handguns, whose restrictions fall somewhere in the middle of those).

We legislate against all weapons that have no reasonable alternative use. We legislate to restrict the use of other items that could be used as weapons but have alternative uses. Cars require licenses and road taxes and to be logged according to unique identity numbers. In return, they increase productivity, spread wealth and promote leisure. Poisonous substances are allowed, but they must be clearly labelled and are usually required to be scented and/or coloured to ensure that they cannot be easily mistaken for harmless equivalents. In return, they keep our houses clean and kill pests.

2. Super-powers are not equivalent to weapons, in that weapons are separable from the person, whereas super-powers are not seperable from the super-person.

If I have a knife surgically attached to my knuckle bones, it doesnt cease to be a weapon. It is a peculiar definition of weapon that it needs to be separable from the human body - some jurisdictions count any assault by trained combatants such as boxers as assault with a deadly weapon.

 

The difference is that people are potentially born with these deadly weapons. Certainly, it is harsh to treat them the same as people who intentionally carry arms. But the law is there because of the potential harm someone could cause using weapons - it's not only convicted criminals who are banned from carrying assault weapons in public, is it?

Based on all the scenarios proposed on this thread, the number of super-humans is going to be rather small.

Which is my mind makes it all the more likely that they'd be treated within existing legislation and possibly quite harshly. It would be harder to generate a body of resistance if the laws only affected one in a million people.

 

Also, I've thrown LaserLad out as a specific example of how someone with an EB might be treated, not of how super-powers generally might be treated. I think it's incorrect to assume that all powers would be treated the same, and that you were either super or not-super.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

First' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

There is no knowing if it would be illegal to be born with it or not, as we live in a world without superpowers and our laws have not been written to cover them. There are laws on the books restricting the liberties of people in the posession of deadly weapons, though. I am operating under the premise that, if the world did have superpowers, the law would likely address them not by making their mere existence illegal, but by restricting the actions of people posessing them in a similar way to how it currently restricts people in the posession of other deadly weapons. And that the more deadly the superpower, the greater the restrictions on the person posessing it would be, just as people in posession of more deadly weapons are more heavily restricted than those in the posession of less deadly ones.

 

I also suspect that in most cases, society (at least my society) would be fairly willing to compromise and meet those with superpowers partway on things. A random person in posession of an automatic weapon isnt allowed into courtrooms, but if that person has a superpower of similar destructive power as a natural part of his being, arrangements or exceptions could be made within the law to allow him access should he need or desire it.

 

In your vision, the superpowered are allowed the liberty of walking about in the possession of extremely deadly force at all times, yet the average man is not so allowed. Sounds to me like your vision also discriminates against some people based on the circumstances of their birth. Those -not- born superpowered are less equal than those who are, and are effectively second class citizens. To be fair, if you're going to allow the superpowered to be armed and dangerous at all times, you should allow the non-superpowered to be so also, though they might require a prosthesis to make up for what nature didnt build in. Machineguns and Nukes for EVERYONE!

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

We legislate against all weapons that have no reasonable alternative use. We legislate to restrict the use of other items that could be used as weapons but have alternative uses. Cars require licenses and road taxes and to be logged according to unique identity numbers.

 

Heh. Its the X-Men argument.

 

"We license people to drive cars..."

 

"Yes, but not to live..."

 

Your argument is interesting, but would never work in any America I would want to live in.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Possibly, possibly not. Cars, trucks etc. have tremendous economic value. The damage caused by cars is less than the economic advantages of a flexible, fast, transport network (probably!).

 

Guns, on the other hand, have no economic value (except as trade goods of course). They are also concealable and solely designed causing harm. I dont understand why it is so controversial to equate an intrinsic EB with a concealed weapon? Not that I'm necessarily advocating this stance, but it seems a reasonable one for people to take. Many laws lock people away because of actions they might commit in the future - the incapacitation theory of criminal justice forms the basis of the various 3-strikes laws that are in place, laws about detaining the mentally-ill and so forth. There are plenty of precedents of restricting liberty not because of what someone has done, but because of what they are (or, in some cases, may be) capable of doing. It's harsh, it's horrible, but I can certainly see right-wing governments taking this kind of approach.

 

1. The difference between the gun and the EB is that *the EB is part of the person*. It cannot be regulated as a tool or object, only the person can be.

 

2. Please don't go claiming that its the Evil Right Wingers who are going to legislate control over superhumans, when you at the same time try to compare superhumans to guns. Try and remember for a moment which side is *against* gun-control.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Registration of all supers' date=' just like registration of all guns (and cars for that matter) seems like a perfectly reasonable situation.[/quote']

 

Guns and cars are objects. Supers are people.

 

Should we register all people??

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

What, and there are no laws like this already? The mentally-ill are regularly locked away without having done anything. Criminals need only commit 3 crimes in California to get a 20 year sentence, just in case they commit another. It isnt the same as racism, because there you are looking at two identical people and judging them on superficial differences. Here you're looking at two people, one of whom is a walking weapon. It's not what they're doing, it's what they are capable of doing. Being super-strong, being able to fly, having an EB are NOT superficial differences, they are extremely significant differences which potentially would justify a different approach.

 

Now of course, there would be legal challenges saying "We're human too, give us our human rights", and good luck to them. But what we're talking about her is what the response is likely to be, not what it should be in a liberal world.

 

The three strike law is not a matter of merely danger; it requires that a criminal actually *do* something, specifically, break the law repeatedly.

 

As for the mentally ill, the whole point of involuntary committment is that the person in question doesn't have sufficient control his own actions.

 

Neither is the case for these hypothetical superhumans.