X-Force: Counter Terrorism Unit or Murders?

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
It's not his fault but he was naive. His vision didn't account for events such as those sending human/mutant relations back to the stone age.

No im sorry hes managed to stop alien invasions and other threats you are just mentioning his failures nobody is perfect.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak

X-Men TAS misrepresented Charles gravely. Charles was a complete bastard in Uncanny X-Men 1. Sure there's no crime in being a grumpy old man who is still grieving over the loss of his legs but he used to mindwipe people left right and centre.

I suspect he might have had some good reasons.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Plus sending a bunch of very green teenagers to fight Magneto would be seen as pretty ridiculous thing to do in this day and age. Also when he recruited his O5 he did everything and anything to get them to join the team. Went even as far to mindwipe Beasts parents. Charles was not a nice man in those early issues.

He sent teenagers probably because thats what readers wanted to see. Batman did it with Robin.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak

Then comes the long list of retcons from X-Men Hidden years to Deadly Genesis.

Oh well thats just the writers trying to change him into a dick.

Originally posted by Deadline
[B]No im sorry hes managed to stop alien invasions and other threats you are just mentioning his failures nobody is perfect.

Umm. No. I am not blaming him for those events. I am saying that his vision is/was too narrow minded as it did not account for situations like those I listed. He himself did not object to killing Wanda Maximoff. He is a hypocrite of the highest order regarding both the use of his powers and his ethos mainly because it's just not practical.

I suspect he might have had some good reasons.

He had good reason to make Beasts parents forget him? Really? I will quote Claremont on this as it's one of the few times we actually agree on something...Xavier was creating his own army of child soldiers.

He sent teenagers probably because thats what readers wanted to see. Batman did it with Robin.

Doesn't make it any less of a bastard move from a story perspective. Especially since all the writers have picked up on it even back then with Byrne and Claremont.

Oh well thats just the writers trying to change him into a dick.

He was a dick from issue 1 (Stan Lee) I'm not sure if that was intentional though. He was a dick under Stan Lee and Roy Thomas's pen. Under Byrnes pen under Claremonts pen. Plus a plethora of newer writers.

I think it was just Lobdell's pen where he wasn't so bad. Oh wait no that was pre and post Onslaught. He was a dick.

Also funny enough it was not what people wanted to see. Because Uncanny X-Men got cancelled after 66 issues and had to be relaunched with an older team.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Read some manlier manga. 😮

There's this one series I watched the anime of and the the mangs of, these are some of the events:

In the anime:

Spoiler:
On their way to fight the antagonist, the protagonist's closest friend's are all killed. Leaving the protagonist all alone in the middle of nowhere. Upon arriving at the location of the antagonist the love interest shows up possessed by the antagonist. The love interest winds up dieing. The protagonist goes on to fight the antagonist. The protagonist wins the fight and then dies.

in the manga:

Spoiler:
First, the love interest is killed off by the antagonist in front of the protagonist, and the protagonist blocks the incident out of their memory. Then the protagonists closest friends are murdered in front of the protagonist, and the protagonists newest friends trigger the protagonist's memories of the love interest's death, sending the protagonist into a near breakdown. Next, some more of the protagonist's friends are killed one by one, the protagonist again loses their memory, and then the protagonist's pets and newest friends are killed. The protagonist nearly gets burned to death by one of the antagonist's minions and is forced to watch another friend get impaled by another minion. If poor the protagonist hasn't had enough to deal with, it gets even worse when they turn up at the antagonist's base and is forced to fight their reanimated friends and the love interest. After having the crap beaten out of them, the protagonist manages to get their strength back and kill the reanimated friends, only for the antagonist to toss the love interest off a cliff, which winds up killing the protagonist's child.

Would you read that manga, or watch that anime?

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Umm. No. I am not blaming him for those events. I am saying that his vision is/was too narrow minded as it did not account for situations like those I listed. He himself did not object to killing Wanda Maximoff. He is a hypocrite of the highest order regarding both the use of his powers and his ethos mainly because it's just not practical.

Neither did magneto's vision or anyone else's for that matter. Those facts were completelly unpredictable and impossible to cope with. What other philosophical current would have yielded better results? Nobody could anticipate things like that and everyone was powerless to stop them.

The fact that he did not object to the killing of the SW simply shows he did not believe any other alternative was possible. On the other hand, he does believe that coexistence with the humans and less than lethal use force in most situations are. He's saved the world a lot as others pointed out.

He was always distant and arrogant, but the retcons are what made him such a hypocritical ******* as far as the use of his powers go.

Originally posted by 753
Neither did magneto's vision or anyone else's for that matter. Those facts were completelly unpredictable and impossible to cope with. What other philosophical current would have yielded better results? Nobody could anticipate things like that and everyone was powerless to stop them.

The fact that he did not object to the killing of the SW simply shows he did not believe any other alternative was possible. On the other hand, he does believe that coexistence with the humans and less than lethal use force in most situations are. He's saved the world a lot as others pointed out.

He was always distant and arrogant, but the retcons are what made him such a hypocritical ******* as far as the use of his powers go.

Scotts vision or whatever you want to call it works for the very reason that his ethos is adaptable. He dropped X-Force as soon as he believed it was not needed. The problem with Xavier and Magneto is they never adapted their visions as the problem grew. Now, while I believe that I don't like that the writers went that way. I don't like that Wolverine is going to take the hit for Scott.

My problem with Xavier is that he had a no kill policy under any circumstances. Killing people like Sabertooth, Mystique, Emma Frost etc.. would have saved a lot of pain. However when it comes to Wanda it's alright. The fact that he was so adamant about it before and then to suddenly change his mind. He has yet to admit that in the MU it's sometimes necessary. At least Wolverine has the guts to admit that not letting Phoenix kill Selene was a mistake.

I wouldn't have called him hypocritical at the start because he never preached ethical use of his telepathy back then. However when he started training Jean telepathically he berated her and started taking the high ground when it came to messing with people's minds when he clearly had no qualms about it early on in his career.

Originally posted by Creshosk
What would be your opinion on the morality of killing an entity like Data?

data, i would consider murder, but i don't know if batman would.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
The X-Men aren't the same team they were when Cyclops was a teenager. They are no longer a peace keeping and public relations team out to garner good press by fighting evil mutants. They are focus solely on the protection and survival of the handful mutants left. Their mission statement has been completely revised in the last decade, it's pretty foolish to think that their method's wouldn't evolve as well. Cyclops' is a different leader than Professor X and he is fighting a different battle, there is no room for him to be the same person he was when he was 15.

If Cyclops hadn't adapted to the situation at hand someone else less capable would have had to step up and take his place... so he adapted. Scott Summer's isn't a "peace time" or a "war time" leader, he is a leader... period. It's easy for people not in a position of power, like Beast, to put on the Monday morning quarterback hat and talk out of his ass, because he has the luxury of his decisions not mattering but Cyclops' choices have repercussions for an entire species. He's done what he's had to do, not what he wanted to do but when you are in charge what is necessary sometimes supersedes what is right. Real leaders make the hard choices, thats what Cyclops has done.

Some people are just upset he is no longer the stagnant 2 dimensional cardboard stand in for Clark Kent he used to be. He got all his cub scout badges, now its time for him to be a man. 😈

posts like that are the reason nobody gives cyclops the f*cking credit he deserves.

he had adapted fine to bigger threats over the years without a complete character shift, which is what fraction did.

cyclops grew plenty over the years, and just because he's suddenly "cool" people seem to think that's somehow f*cking better and more developed. my arse.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
The way the X-Men have been written though is awful. Scott is supposed to be a brilliant tactician yet he admits to winging most of his decisions. Plus for some reason he enjoys beating on dinosaurs for shits and giggles.

Emma Frost is a shadow of her former self. Someone should just shoot her and put her out of her misery.

Beast is a rabid dog that pees on your grave.

Ororo try as she might, is still a housewife who can't hold her own intellectually against the likes of Scott, Reed Richards and now Logan. T'challa has trained her well.

Charles Xavier is senile but in this case at least they are consistent.

I am enjoying Dr. Nemesis and Namor though.

👆

finally. i won't even get started about fraction's raping of the character as a leader.

also, when did scott drop x-force?

Originally posted by -Pr-
data, i would consider murder, but i don't know if batman would.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Where do you draw the line?

me personally?

i honestly don't know, considering the fact that i think some humans deserve to die.

Originally posted by -Pr-
me personally?

i honestly don't know, considering the fact that i think some humans deserve to die.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well, yes. though I mean in a more general sense. what qualities must one posses to be considered murder if they're killed?

murder is a legal definition to me, so it's entirely relative.

what i would consider murder would be the willfull killing of any live, sentient/self-aware being. the live part is important.

can you kill deadman, say? sure, if you consider it possible to kill something that's already dead. is it murder? not imo.

it's my opinion, so i know some will disagree.

Originally posted by -Pr-
murder is a legal definition to me, so it's entirely relative.

what i would consider murder would be the willfull killing of any live, sentient/self-aware being. the live part is important.

can you kill deadman, say? sure, if you consider it possible to kill something that's already dead. is it murder? not imo.

it's my opinion, so i know some will disagree.

Originally posted by Creshosk
What qualities must one posses to be considered alive?

life, really. plants are alive. insects are alive, but do we consider it murder every time we take a fly swatter and flatten one? i don't, but i consider them alive all the same.

so we go in to self awareness, which is a key part when talking about murder for me. data has self awareness. then he has the ability to grow and evolve, even if it's not physically. it could even be argued that he has a soul if you really wanted to.

that and to not be stated to be something else. deadman isn't "alive". he's dead. hence the name. do i think a character should act less shocked and horrified if someone obliterated the skinny b*stard? of course not.

it's all semantics imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
life, really. plants are alive. insects are alive, but do we consider it murder every time we take a fly swatter and flatten one? i don't, but i consider them alive all the same.

so we go in to self awareness, which is a key part when talking about murder for me. data has self awareness. then he has the ability to grow and evolve, even if it's not physically. it could even be argued that he has a soul if you really wanted to.

that and to not be stated to be something else. deadman isn't "alive". he's dead. hence the name. do i think a character should act less shocked and horrified if someone obliterated the skinny b*stard? of course not.

it's all semantics imo.

[list=1]
[*]Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
[*]Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
[*]Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
[*]Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
[*]Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
[*]Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
[*]Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
[/list=1]

Vampires fit all those qualities. One in particular is even capable of catching a cold and sweating.

Originally posted by Creshosk
What would constitute life then though? On a scientific sense the currently accepted qualities that constitute life.

[list=1]
[*][b]Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
[*]Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
[*]Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
[*]Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
[*]Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
[*]Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
[*]Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
[/list=1]

Vampires fit all those qualities. One in particular is even capable of catching a cold and sweating. [/B]

you are right, though i was using solely DC vampires as part of my argument.

plus, vampires are generally stated to be undead, not alive. that's true in DC too iirc.

Originally posted by -Pr-
you are right, though i was using solely DC vampires as part of my argument.

plus, vampires are generally stated to be undead, not alive. that's true in DC too iirc.

Language rather breaks down in this area.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So the difference between someone who is alive and someone who is undead is the alignment of the energy animating them?

Language rather breaks down in this area.

it can be, yes.

aye, it does.

Originally posted by -Pr-
it can be, yes.

aye, it does.

Horrendously so.

Undead -> Dead but still animate.
Dead -> Not alive
alive -> Living
Living-> Posessing life
life -> See the qualities I mentioned before that some undead have.

Son of a *****.

The fact that undead are mostly fictional is probably why the area is so weak. Not a lot of philosophers quantified the concept of undead.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So what of undead who are animated by positive forces? Such as an Arch-litch as opposed to the regular variety?

Horrendously so.

Undead -> Dead but still animate.
Dead -> Not alive
alive -> Living
Living-> Posessing life
life -> See the qualities I mentioned before that some undead have.

Son of a *****.

The fact that undead are mostly fictional is probably why the area is so weak. Not a lot of philosophers quantified the concept of undead.

what's an arch-litch?

and you're right, it isn't.

look at buffy for example. vampires in that tend to be animated dead. they have feelings to an extent. sentience. hunger. they feel temperatures iirc. what would they be classed as? undead? or alive?

Originally posted by -Pr-
what's an arch-litch?

Originally posted by -Pr-
and you're right, it isn't.

look at buffy for example. vampires in that tend to be animated dead. they have feelings to an extent. sentience. hunger. they feel temperatures iirc. what would they be classed as? undead? or alive?

Is it at the same point amongst the living that it should be considered acceptable to kill an undead?

Sorry, I'm a platonic Nightmare fetishist so this is an area of school of thought that interests me.

Mind you the platonic part means without the sexual quality. What some people consider nightmare fuel or even high octane nightmare fuel doesn't bother me as much, outside of my weakpoints.