Originally posted by inamilistActually, I tried to post my response yesterday at lunchtime, but it told me that my post was about 200 characters too long. While I was trying to edit it, the entire thing accidentally got deleted and I was too pissed to re-type it. I'll probly do it again today around lunchtime.🙁
Con: 1Pro: 0
😛
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
Actually, I tried to post my response yesterday at lunchtime, but it told me that my post was about 200 characters too long. While I was trying to edit it, the entire thing accidentally got deleted and I was too pissed to re-type it. I'll probly do it again today around lunchtime.🙁
ouch, 🙁
i awate
Originally posted by inamilist
the rights infringement is achually more complicated than that and in many ways does not even involve the heroes, it was more of setting my argument.In the american constitution, states are given a large ammount of power, and less is given to the federal government. A federal regestry of this nature could theoretically infringe on the rights of states to govern atonomously.
I dont know a whole lot about the american right to privacy, so i didnt really hit on that, but im not even sure its an issue in this scenario. I dont think that the law is wrong because its unconstitutional, its wrong because it doesnt make logical sense given the normal happenings of the Marvel Universe
Originally posted by inamilist
compleatly, i agree with the rights issue, and i dont like how marvel is trying to push that side of this issue. There are plenty of good reasons for people to want the regestry, my argument is that in any situation government control of something will create unnecessary problems. I think this especially true for heros.
Originally posted by inamilist
We compleatly dont disagree that vigilantism leads to VERY tricky legal conundrums, but that isn't the crux of my argument. The fact that heroes are given anonimity and are somewhat above the law allows them to opperate properly. Given that in the marvel U, there is a neverending line of villians trying to ruin something, heroes need the ability to act in extra-legal ways without the accompanying legal responsability to deal with threats that there is no way police or army personale could deal with.
Originally posted by inamilist
As i said, its not that they would disagree with the SRA, its that these things are normally dealt with at the state level, and most states are very touchy about their rights.
Originally posted by inamilist
I dont see your logic. The New Warriors were a television show, their quest being for ratings. Unless this regestry just turns heroes into glorified cops they are still going to have free will.
Originally posted by inamilist
Would shows like this not exist under the regestry? THAT would be an incrochment of free speech.
Originally posted by inamilist
What if a super powered person who isnt on the regestry goes nuts and does something horrible? There are so many flaws with the actual implmentation of the bill, not necessarily the intent.
Originally posted by inamilist
okso why arent they being arrested?
Originally posted by inamilist
Why would the government knowing their identity stop this?
Originally posted by inamilist
If the regestry tells them how they can and can't use their powers they become unable to properly handle the threats that they alone are capable of dealing with.
Originally posted by inamilist
What if these young avengers and runaways wont regester and keep doing what they are doing? Suddenly you have teams of supervillian teenagers who HAVE to be dealt with in order to have the regestry be effective (no use in having an unenforced law)
Originally posted by inamilist
again, you miss my pointim showing a real world example of another regestry that would seemingly be easier to implement that failed miserably. That is my argument with this regestry.
The problems it creates are worse than the current situation.
Originally posted by inamilist
well, to begin with, since we are demeaning the opinions of eachother now, let me just say how nieve and immature/ignorant it is to associate legeslation with morality.
Originally posted by inamilist
not to mention you are approaching the issue of morality as black or white, trust me son, there is only grey. Nothing is either entirely right or wrong, even victimless actions, since wrong and right are based on our own interpretations of responsability to society.
Originally posted by inamilist
ok, so you are saying that the federal government will have to use superheroes against eachother. Basically creating the same conflict scenarios they are attempting to avoid by pitting their most powerful citizens against eachother in a city full of people.
Ask yourself this, why is it that a “hero” has no qualms about going out on the streets, risking their lives, putting the needs of other before their own needs, in any situation except registration? If the “greater good” of the people was so all mighty and important to them, more important than themselves, then why are they not willing to register if they want to continue the “good fight”?
Originally posted by inamilist
Not every superhero has a punisher complex, they do what they do because they feel it is right, not because they feel it is legal.
And that’s the big thing right there. You’re looking at this as a fan of the Marvel universe. Stop and think of yourself as a citizen of the Marvel Universe. You and I know that Spider-man and Daredevil and good and decent people with the publics best interest at heart, but the average citizen of the MU doesn’t know this. All they know about these heroes is what they see on TV and read in the news. Up until now, they set aside some of the things they saw and read. They tried giving the heroes the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they all had the public’s best interest at heart. Stanford changed that. Now they have to rethink what they’ve read about Spider-man and Daredevil in the Daily Bugle. They saw on live TV a group of heroes that had other motivations besides the good of the people. How do they know there aren’t more?
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN # 535
The Story: CIVIL WAR Tie-in
“THE WAR AT HOME”
Caught in the throes of the Civil War that’s ripping apart the super hero community, Spider-Man contemplates a move that will mean new friends and new foes. In a conflict of this magnitude, three is no middle ground -- Peter Parker’s move will cast him as either George Washington...or Benedict Arnold. Part 3 (of 6).
32 PGS./Rated A ...$2.99
In Stores: 2006-08-30 - see details
That settles it. Spidey's the one that's gonna switch sides.
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
Under the SRA, the heroes would still maintain their secret ID’s, only the US Government would know about them. It’s not like the government doesn’t have experience in that area (the CIA is well versed in maintaining the ID’s of their operatives). CIA Agents are able to act when necessary, even though they must still answer to someone. And if they mess up, they’re held responsible for their actions.
but heroes such as spider-man do not feel that that risk, which is viable in both real-world and marvel contexts, is worth the benefits. there are moles, there are leaks. and just because the guilty party is held accountable does not mean that the information leaked is no longer out there. if someone were to find out peter parker was spider-man, and used it against him [killing mary jane, torturing aunt may, etc. to use his examples,] you think it would be any consolation for the mole to be flushed out?
superheroes maintain their identities secretly as a matter of self-defense, and very few have decided to go public with them. the heroes who have not, such as spider-man and, more recently, iron man, trust their identities to a group of peers they feel are deserving of such a level of knowledge. they've been around these fellow heroes for years, and know their character. the government, however, is not a peer. they don't know the government. and when you're talking about a government who has manufactured weapons to hunt and kill an entire species, has been infiltrated more than once by anti-american terrorists, most often supervillains [red skull comes to mind,] there is little to trust. hell, even S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't what it used to be. you can at least understand their trepidation, yes?
Originally posted by Disappear
but heroes such as spider-man do not feel that that risk, which is viable in both real-world and marvel contexts, is worth the benefits. there are moles, there are leaks. and just because the guilty party is held accountable does not mean that the information leaked is no longer out there. if someone were to find out peter parker was spider-man, and used it against him [killing mary jane, torturing aunt may, etc. to use his examples,] you think it would be any consolation for the mole to be flushed out?
Uh...You may want to restate that using Daredevil as an example. Spider-man's called a press conference in the last Spidey book. He's going public in Civil War #2. Oops, you can't use Daredevil either, Matt is behind bars at the moment and someone else is running around in the costume.
Originally posted by Disappear
superheroes maintain their identities secretly as a matter of self-defense, and very few have decided to go public with them. the heroes who have not, such as spider-man and, more recently, iron man, trust their identities to a group of peers they feel are deserving of such a level of knowledge. they've been around these fellow heroes for years, and know their character. the government, however, is not a peer. they don't know the government. and when you're talking about a government who has manufactured weapons to hunt and kill an entire species, has been infiltrated more than once by anti-american terrorists, most often supervillains [red skull comes to mind,] there is little to trust. hell, even S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't what it used to be. you can at least understand their trepidation, yes?
Yet heroes like the Fantastic Four have faced the same threat levels since day one, and they've gotten by just fine for over 10 years (comic book time).