Avengers vs. X-Men - 2012 Marvel Event

Originally posted by ODG
^ The schizophrenic attitude when he was Dark Phoenix wasn't any different than when Jean was Dark Phoenix. In the epilogue, Scott obviously knew he brought the planet to the brink of destruction when he tried to possess the entire Phoenixforce and took responsibility for that, but revitalizing the spark of mutantkind was his goal the entire time. And in his opinion, it was worth it.

I've got nothing but admiration for his defiance. Obviously, mileages vary.

I'm talking about what came after he was Phoenix, mostly.

Also, that's some terrible writing right there.

Originally posted by ODG
^ The schizophrenic attitude when he was Dark Phoenix wasn't any different than when Jean was Dark Phoenix. In the epilogue, Scott obviously knew he brought the planet to the brink of destruction when he tried to possess the entire Phoenixforce and took responsibility for that, but revitalizing the spark of mutantkind was his goal the entire time. And in his opinion, it was worth it.

I've got nothing but admiration for his defiance. Obviously, mileages vary.

...I suppose. As long as it's tempered with revulsion for slaughter. I mean, most tend to look down on the "never kill" heroes because it's impractical in any realistic sense. But the wanton slaughter and destruction of Phoenix can't be entirely mitigated by new mutants. It just makes Scott a species-ist, no more enlightened or dignified than someone killing a white man to make room for blacks to have more opportunities or something...an arguably more deranged Magneto (classic Magneto). The counter is the fear and hatred of mutants, but it's not hard to see how that justifies nothing.

Originally posted by Digi
...I suppose. As long as it's tempered with revulsion for slaughter. I mean, most tend to look down on the "never kill" heroes because it's impractical in any realistic sense. But the wanton slaughter and destruction of Phoenix can't be entirely mitigated by new mutants. It just makes Scott a species-ist, no more enlightened or dignified than someone killing a white man to make room for blacks to have more opportunities or something...an arguably more deranged Magneto (classic Magneto). The counter is the fear and hatred of mutants, but it's not hard to see how that justifies nothing.

👆

The problem is that humans are specists. Mutants aren't really like black people or white people, they are an entire different race given their entirely different natural niche and their powers. Would an antartic bear feel that killing a few humans in order to save his race was worth it? Most likely he would, total genetic annihilation is probably the worst thing that can happen to a living species at from a life-moralist's point of view. I don't know, compare it with neanderthals or whatever, it doesn't sound as deranged as you may think.

Originally posted by Bentley
The problem is that humans are specists. Mutants aren't really like black people or white people, they are an entire different race given their entirely different natural niche and their powers. Would an antartic bear feel that killing a few humans in order to save his race was worth it? Most likely he would, total genetic annihilation is probably the worst thing that can happen to a living species at from a life-moralist's point of view. I don't know, compare it with neanderthals or whatever, it doesn't sound as deranged as you may think.

There's a big flaw in your bear example, and it's self-awareness and the ability to transcend biological programming.

This also presupposes that it has to be an "either/or" scenario, when clearly it doesn't.

Originally it was rival tribes, then it was race or religion (and still is sometimes), or more recently in civilization it's xenophobia mixed with patriotism. The next logical step is species-ism (akin to racism). It's another level, but it's still just a fancy dressing on irrational hatred of something that is "other" simply because they are "other." I see no justification in your logic. A more enlightened view would group sentient creatures together, period, especially in a universe like Marvel's.

Ok, so according to you, Neanderthals being extinct should make sense to them because they didn't kill homo sapiens in order to keep existing?

Edit: Gosh, I write Neanderthal differently everytime I type it 😬

Scott isn't specist, though. He's always been the one person besides Xavier working to integrate mutants with humanity. He's supposed to become the new Xavier, not the new Magneto.

Originally posted by Bentley
Ok, so according to you, Neanderthals being extinct should make sense to them because they didn't kill homo sapiens in order to keep existing?

Edit: Gosh, I write Neanderthal differently everytime I type it 😬

Well, ok, let's look at this, because I think it's flawed on a couple points.

As I said before, you're assuming it has to be "us or them." It does not. Neanderthals is a self-serving example, because we know they're extinct. Evolution does many things - among them, diverging to create related but different species that coexist. So, like, gorillas and humans share a common ancestor. That ancestor is extinct, but the ancestor diverged into multiple paths. No one is calling for gorillas' heads because we can't coexist. Substitute gorillas with mutants, and you have yourself an analogy.

If something's too stupid or ill-suited to its environment that, as a species, it will die off...that's going to happen naturally, and the more evolved will continue to survive. Genocide is not necessary. Clearly we're at the point where we are not ill-suited to our environment, and we can survive comfortably as a species, so we are not akin to the Neanderthals.

It's also more gradual than that...I can almost guarantee you there weren't successive generations that couldn't procreate with one another while Neanderthals were being evolved out. There was no crisis moment where they could say "oop! Here's the next species. Us or them now." So the mutant thing is entirely different, because it's on a laughably, and almost inconceivably, faster timeframe than how evolution works irl.

Also, on a more common sense level, is it impossible to conceive of how mutants and humans could live together? Or humans, mutants, Skrulls, Kree, Shi'ar, Space Raccoons, etc. etc. Drawing the line at species is as arbitrary and prejudiced as race or religion.

In conclusion, are you advocating genocide for the sake of a species? I just want to be clear.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Scott isn't specist, though. He's always been the one person besides Xavier working to integrate mutants with humanity. He's supposed to become the new Xavier, not the new Magneto.

Well...sorry. "I'd do it all again" to create a few new mutants at the expense of lives and destruction is rather unambiguous.

I do not think Scott sees it as specism though, but the morality of it can still be argued. I guess Scott figured that to pretend mutant extinction is not the hugest tragedy in comics is to say "hey, mutants and humans are the same thing, so if mutants stop existing is not a big deal", that would be negative specism; which is simply to use an antispecist argument for an specist goal. Scott went for the practical application and decided that until mutants have a "future", you cannot boil it down to human/mutants relationships, because there are no mutants for building that relationship anyways.

Again, we can blame him for being utterly dramatic about it, but considering his race went from extinct to a potential survivor during his lifetime... Its big stuff. Then again: I wouldn't celebrate it, its kind of morbid and you aren't sure mutants got off the hook. But his actions are kind of morally justified, if you believe in that kind of crap, I mean.

Originally posted by Digi
Well...sorry. "I'd do it all again" to create a few new mutants at the expense of lives and destruction is rather unambiguous.

An rather shit and OOC, too.

Originally posted by -Pr-
An rather shit and OOC, too.

Agreed. Just...sorry. That's the convo Bent and I are having, because Scott's stance at the end creates that ethical dilemma.

Originally posted by Bentley
I do not think Scott sees it as specism though, but the morality of it can still be argued. I guess Scott figured that to pretend mutant extinction is not the hugest tragedy in comics is to say "hey, mutants and humans are the same thing, so if mutants stop existing is not a big deal", that would be negative specism; which is simply to use an antispecist argument for an specist goal. Scott went for the practical application and decided that until mutants have a "future", you cannot boil it down to human/mutants relationships, because there are no mutants for building that relationship anyways.

Again, we can blame him for being utterly dramatic about it, but considering his race went from extinct to a potential survivor during his lifetime... Its big stuff. Then again: I wouldn't celebrate it, its kind of morbid and you aren't sure mutants got off the hook. But his actions are kind of morally justified, if you believe in that kind of crap, I mean.

I see it as justified in no possible way. It's still creating an arbitrary line in the sand to justify prejudice. It's absolutely no different than any minority justifying violence for the sake of their kind.

And technically in evolution, the only pre-programmed imperatives are survival of yourself and your offspring. Or I could get even more reductionist and talk about how it's actually individual genes working for survival - the larger organism's survival and procreation is simply a byproduct of this; but that's a tangent we don't need to explore. Point is, any in-group/out-group mentality that values species has absolutely no basis in biological imperatives. It's entirely sociological, and thus subject to the same scrutiny as other prejudices created by ignorance or fear.

Originally posted by Digi
In conclusion, are you advocating genocide for the sake of a species? I just want to be clear.

Of course not, genocide isn't necessary, stupid comics make it so magic bird pulls a genocide that was both unwanted and unrealistic. On that contest, and considering everything was after the fact it seems to me that is morally gray in a way that wouldn't/can't happen in real life.

And yes, mutants are pretty non-sensical from an evolutionary point of view.

Genocide is a part on natural selection though, there are some races that were hunted out of existance, and it was possible than tribes of Neanderthals could've suffered the same fate when they coexisted with homo sapiens. Both races probably interbreed and have a common ancestor, and if they did interbreed then some part of the neanderthal gene pool survived, but the race itself died. I think it's pretty clear that when a race is threatened it should try to survive, it's a natural inclination.

Example B: Say that Gorillas and humans share a natural niche, and that they both compete for the same prey. For whatever reason, human hunting is driving gorillas to extinction -this is part of what makes the mutant example unrealistic, the confrontation doesn't really happens like this in real life, if both races were senitent, they should be able to work a pact so both can live-, and gorillas cannot out-hunt the humans as it is. So they defend their territory from humans. There is no genocide right there, just territorial wars, animals do this kind of stuff all the time. And this is morally justified.

Other than that, senitent races should try not to erradicate each other, but this can be applied to social constructs also, poverty, marginal people, etc.; they shouldn't drive each other into conflict because it's the inmoral thing to do, but conflict happens, and some people will just justify it -trust me, I'm french and there's the french revolution-

Originally posted by Digi
I see it as justified in no possible way. It's still creating an arbitrary line in the sand to justify prejudice. It's absolutely no different than any minority justifying violence for the sake of their kind.

I think at some point in my rant I mentioned this was from a certain life-worshiping/humanist point of view. Technically there are still some moral philosophies that allow violence in order to rectify social injustice. I'm not siding with them in particularly, personally I'm not big on revolutions or whatever, but in our culture the point of view of violence-that-rectifies misgivings still exists.

I do wonder if your argument supposes that such tendency to justify violence is plain wrong, or if you think that the erradication of species is not a big deal or should pose no problem to the individuals.

Originally posted by Bentley
I think at some point in my rant I mentioned this was from a certain life-worshiping/humanist point of view. Technically there are still some moral philosophies that allow violence in order to rectify social injustice. I'm not siding with them in particularly, personally I'm not big on revolutions or whatever, but in our culture the point of view of violence-that-rectifies misgivings still exists.

I do wonder if your argument supposes that such tendency to justify violence is plain wrong, or if you think that the erradication of species is not a big deal or should pose no problem to the individuals.

Good night!

Originally posted by Digi
...I suppose. As long as it's tempered with revulsion for slaughter. I mean, most tend to look down on the "never kill" heroes because it's impractical in any realistic sense. But the wanton slaughter and destruction of Phoenix can't be entirely mitigated by new mutants. It just makes Scott a species-ist, no more enlightened or dignified than someone killing a white man to make room for blacks to have more opportunities or something...an arguably more deranged Magneto (classic Magneto). The counter is the fear and hatred of mutants, but it's not hard to see how that justifies nothing.

After all, he's remorseful over the death/destruction and reviles those actions. He is accepting his punishment, after all. But Scott never set out to hurt anybody with the Phoenix power. He was altruistic with it when it was splintered, reshaping the world. Obviously, the altruism came with a dash of fascism but the Phoenixforce does bring out dark compulsions within you.

And we should all remember, when Scott did eventually go overboard to the point that he actually murdered someone, he was fighting off the Avengers' assault. Even before that, Scott was banished to the Moon and beat up to the point where he couldn't even move after an hour. So by the time Xavier joined in, Scott already had his back to the proverbial wall. The Phoenixforce roiling within him and his mentor turning on him didn't help matters. It's only under those extraordinary circumstances that Scott lost control to the point of murdering people. And while we can all judge and accuse him of knowing better than to try to control the Phoenixforce, it wasn't even his plan (or fault) in the first place. That was Iron Man's blunder.

Originally posted by ODG
I don't think Scott is saying he'd murder Xavier and wreck the world all over again. I think he's saying that he'd risk courting the Phoenixforce and putting all his chips onto Hope again.

After all, he's remorseful over the death/destruction and reviles those actions. He is accepting his punishment, after all. But Scott never set out to hurt anybody with the Phoenix power. He was altruistic with it when it was splintered, reshaping the world. Obviously, the altruism came with a dash of fascism but the Phoenixforce does bring out dark compulsions within you.

And we should all remember, when Scott did eventually go overboard to the point that he actually murdered someone, he was fighting off the Avengers' assault. Even before that, Scott was banished to the Moon and beat up to the point where he couldn't even move after an hour. So by the time Xavier joined in, Scott already had his back to the proverbial wall. The Phoenixforce roiling within him and his mentor turning on him didn't help matters. It's only under those extraordinary circumstances that Scott lost control to the point of murdering people. And while we can all judge and accuse him of knowing better than to try to control the Phoenixforce, it wasn't even his plan (or fault) in the first place. That was Iron Man's blunder.

Originally posted by ODG
I don't think Scott is saying he'd murder Xavier and wreck the world all over again. I think he's saying that he'd risk courting the Phoenixforce and putting all his chips onto Hope again.

After all, he's remorseful over the death/destruction and reviles those actions. He is accepting his punishment, after all. But Scott never set out to hurt anybody with the Phoenix power. He was altruistic with it when it was splintered, reshaping the world. Obviously, the altruism came with a dash of fascism but the Phoenixforce does bring out dark compulsions within you.

And we should all remember, when Scott did eventually go overboard to the point that he actually murdered someone, he was fighting off the Avengers' assault. Even before that, Scott was banished to the Moon and beat up to the point where he couldn't even move after an hour. So by the time Xavier joined in, Scott already had his back to the proverbial wall. The Phoenixforce roiling within him and his mentor turning on him didn't help matters. It's only under those extraordinary circumstances that Scott lost control to the point of murdering people. And while we can all judge and accuse him of knowing better than to try to control the Phoenixforce, it wasn't even his plan (or fault) in the first place. That was Iron Man's blunder.

^ That is partially true. But Cyclops spent a lot of time training Hope to be able to handle the Phoenixforce. During that time, Hope declared that she was ready for it and that she wanted it to come. This happened several times. She declares this to Cyclops in Avengers Vs. X-Men #0. She declares in exasperation to Cyclops that she's ready and that she's trained her entire life in Avengers Vs. X-Men #1 again. She actually runs away from the Avengers trying to take her into custody in Avengers Vs. X-Men #2. She again declares she's ready to meet the Phoenix and actually convinces Wolverine in Avengers Vs. X-Men #4 to take her to the Moon to meet it.

True enough, Hope realized that she wasn't ready when the Phoenixforce was upon them. But at that point, Cyclops was busy trying to protect Hope from Wolverine friggin killing her.

So it isn't like the eeeevil Cyclops forced her to stand in front of the proverbial cannon while the goodie Avengers were trying to protect her from the bad man. Cyclops believed Hope to be ready in his heart -- and Hope's actions didn't exactly dissuade him, nor should they have. While it's very arguable she wasn't ready at that time on the Moon (something we'll never know for sure), Cyclops wasn't exactly manipulating her with heartless disregard for her own safety.

Cyclops actively and vigorously trained her to be ready body and soul. Which proved to be along the lines (if not completely the same thing) as what the Avengers eventually did with Iron Fist and Spidey. Cyclops protected Hope from other dangers, trying to keep her from missions and thwarting Wolverine's attempts to kill her. This, the Avengers also did. Cyclops eventually pinned all his hopes on Hope because he had faith in her and put her in the line of fire against the raw Phoenixforce. And, well... the Avengers basically did the exact same thing except now she had to deal with fighting Dark Phoenix Cyclops on top of dealing with the raw Phoenixforce when released.

And, you know, there's one more thing and it's probably the most important. When Hope talked to Phoenix Cyclops in Avengers Vs. X-Men #6, Hope said she would accept the Phoenixforce if he offered it. Cyclops refused to give it to her. While that rejection may be sourced in a selfish reticence to relinquish the power, it's also arguable that Cyclops realized she wasn't ready for it and so he and the others would carry the burden for her. So I don't think it's fair to suggest that Cyclops didn't care about Hope's choice and completely disregarded her safety.

Originally posted by ODG
^ That is partially true. But Cyclops spent a lot of time training Hope to be able to handle the Phoenixforce. During that time, Hope declared that she was ready for it and that she wanted it to come. This happened several times. She declares this to Cyclops in Avengers Vs. X-Men #0. She declares in exasperation to Cyclops that she's ready and that she's trained her entire life in Avengers Vs. X-Men #1 again. She actually runs away from the Avengers trying to take her into custody in Avengers Vs. X-Men #2. She again declares she's ready to meet the Phoenix and actually convinces Wolverine in Avengers Vs. X-Men #4 to take her to the Moon to meet it.

True enough, Hope realized that she wasn't ready when the Phoenixforce was upon them. But at that point, Cyclops was busy trying to protect Hope from Wolverine friggin killing her.

So it isn't like the eeeevil Cyclops forced her to stand in front of the proverbial cannon while the goodie Avengers were trying to protect her from the bad man. Cyclops believed Hope to be ready in his heart -- and Hope's actions didn't exactly dissuade him, nor should they have. While it's very arguable she wasn't ready at that time on the Moon (something we'll never know for sure), Cyclops wasn't exactly manipulating her with heartless disregard for her own safety.

Cyclops actively and vigorously trained her to be ready body and soul. Which proved to be along the lines (if not completely the same thing) as what the Avengers eventually did with Iron Fist and Spidey. Cyclops protected Hope from other dangers, trying to keep her from missions and thwarting Wolverine's attempts to kill her. This, the Avengers also did. Cyclops eventually pinned all his hopes on Hope because he had faith in her and put her in the line of fire against the raw Phoenixforce. And, well... the Avengers basically did the exact same thing except now she had to deal with fighting Dark Phoenix Cyclops on top of dealing with the raw Phoenixforce when released.

And, you know, there's one more thing and it's probably the most important. When Hope talked to Phoenix Cyclops in Avengers Vs. X-Men #6, Hope said she would accept the Phoenixforce if he offered it. Cyclops refused to give it to her. While that rejection may be sourced in a selfish reticence to relinquish the power, it's also arguable that Cyclops realized she wasn't ready for it and so he and the others would carry the burden for her. So I don't think it's fair to suggest that Cyclops didn't care about Hope's choice and completely disregarded her safety.