Would it even be worth it to try policing superheroes?

[Purple]

Have you been paying attention to our elections this year at all?

I have. It's just that from my perspective they look quite different than from yours. I could go into detail on this but I feel it would derail the thread. Bottom line is that I feel the whole thing being an over hyped emotional shock fest on all sides. And that nobody is thinking reasonably about the candidates, neither their proponents nor detractors. From the wide eyed optimists who think that Sanders is going to wave a magic wand and turn america into a Scandinavian socials state to the Trump supporters who think he is the second coming of Jesus and his detractors who think he is the second coming of Hitler and King Herod all in one. All stances far removed from reality.

[Formless]

Hmmmm.

What do you do with 'badass normal' superheroes (to use a TVTroperism)?

By this I mean physically/arguably mentally normal people that become superheroes through either physical strength, high technology, magic or some combination thereof. Doctor Doom, Tony Stark, Batman, Dr. Strange, etcetera.

How do you propose to regulate *that*?

More to the point, we still haven't addressed the problem of the registry being overly broad. Why should everything superhuman be grounds for registering the person in a government database? Simon's argument would lump a woman with a gland in her mouth that produces nitroglycerin in the same category of people as a man whose sole power is that he can breath underwater (or as The Spoony One calls him, The Pool Boy!)

Now don't get me wrong, like I said law enforcement obviously has to adapt in order to police super humans. But that's what makes the ethical problems with the registry proposal so glaringly obvious. In order to even enforce the registry, you already need to have those tools! But if you have the forensics to catch an invisible theif, the profiling tools to catch a telepath, and the powered armor needed to subdue a super human boxer, what possible excuse do you have for requiring these individuals to give up their right to privacy? YOU CAN ALREADY POLICE THEM!

The key difference is that pieces of equipment typically aren't sapient beings, and if they were you'd have a completely separate host of ethical problems. Professional UFC fighters are dangerous and I've never heard of anyone asking to seriously register them as lethal weapons, as a counter example.

If your superpowers aren't potentially more dangerous than a professional UFC fighter, then I wouldn't ask you to register them either. Batman shouldn't have to register. Captain America is a borderline case- superhuman strength and physique but not very superhuman, not enough that mundane martial artists can't give him a run for his money.

But if your powers give you ability to cause harm that is, say, comparable to the powers of a truck to cause harm, or a high voltage electrical system... well, we regulate those things. People who drive trucks and work with electricity have to follow regulations, receive certification, and adhere to certain legal codes governing where you can drive the truck, or how you wire up a house for electricity so as to avoid fire hazards.

That would be a more convincing argument if I hadn't already shown it to be FALSE. There are plenty of dangerous things that aren't regulated at all, including many types of weaponry. Like black powder firearms, replicas included. Just because its an "obsolete" technology doesn't mean they haven't killed millions of people over several hundred years. Even ex cons can buy a replica or original Colt Paterson even though they cannot buy a modern firearm. I'm not kidding, you seriously need to look this shit up before you run your damn mouth off. The fact that you ommitted to address this fact makes me think you are now lying by omission.

You largely canceled out your own argument. You're saying "what if there is legal opposition to passing such a law?" My response is "well then, oppose the opposition, legally." You reply to that "well, there wouldn't be an opposition if it weren't for unethical government experiments!"

You are a moron, you know that? The point was that the legal battle starts once the government starts disregarding the rights of its citizens, whether they be serious abuses of the individual like in the comic example, or statewide abuses of the entire group's right to privacy. One is obviously horrific, yet somehow not out of the realms of the imagination, while the other is more subtle yet no less sinister. Because if the government ever wanted to do some of the more serious violations seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past or the seriously fucked up shit of the Elfen Lied manga, the registry is where it starts. The registry enables them to stalk individuals or round up whole groups at will. And its not like this is unprecedented in American history (let alone world history). McCarthyism, the roundup of Japanese Americans, the treatment of the Native American tribes, the Tuskeegee experiment, etc.

That's why arbitrary registries are necessarily odious.

I give zero shits whether you object to the draft, and am not psychic so I do not know in advance of you actually saying anything how you feel about it, because it's not like I keep a notebook of your random opinions updated over years of time.

Bluntly, whether you approve of it or not, the Selective Service Act is legal, and on the whole people comply with it without politically significant protest. Protest might arise if the draft were instated for frivolous or unworthy reasons, sure, but that's not actually happening. As a rule, people protest government actions, or laws that they expect to directly harm them in consequential ways. Making sure this law doesn't fall under either category is just a matter of being better at writing laws than, oh, a random strawman political idiot in a comic book.

Bluntly, if the best argument you have is legalism, then you should shut the fuck up. This is about ethics, and every legal argument I have made so far is based on the assumption of equality as an ethical principle underpinning the law. At the end of the day, legal arguments bow to ethical ones, because they are predicated on the assumption that the law should be moral. That's why The Romulan Republic compared the registry to racist laws, because none of us would argue that just because Jim Crow was on the books means that segregation was good. The problem with a registry made solely for superhumans is that it shits all over the principle of equality for no good reason except it makes authoritarian turds like you shit their pants at thought of what might happen when there is no proof of a slippery slope.

The law is based on the fact that people who willingly go around trying to act as law enforcement have to be trained. This is a specific subset of why we would need registration, applying to a specific subset of people, which you would already know if you were actually reading my arguments instead of listening to what the magical mystery voices tell me I think about the issue, or however you come to conclusions about other people's opinions.

Again, not every superhuman would want or would be capable of becoming a law enforcer or soldier. Imbecile. I like how, yet again, you cherry pick which points you will address and omit those points which show how stupid your argument is in sum total.

Your right to keep arms is related to your right to bear arms, which is in turn related to (potential) organized, orderly participation in a coordinated fighting force. And to orderly participation in the state's system for regulating the use of force.

All states have their roots in the monopoly of force, including democratic ones that have a legally recognized right to self defense. That's a specific exception to the general principle, which the state can make precisely because of its own basic, generally recognized power to decide when it is and isn't okay to use force on people. The entire reason we try to restrict government is because we have already granted it this monopoly of force by default, and need other ways to keep it from getting out of control without resorting to open rebellion.

The problem is that in a society where metahuman powers are actually common, the monopoly on force breaks down to a point where anarchy is a likely outcome. Some new legal framework is likely to be required to deal with this, just like we needed new laws to regulate the security of cars or airplanes or the Internet when those things were invented.

Prove it.

The difference is that I can use my own martial arts training to neutralize yours, if you decide to abuse yours somehow...

Again, PROVE IT. Prove that this would cause the kind of social upheaval that would require drastic alterations to the law and massive violations of people's privacy. I'm throwing down the gauntlet on this one. I'm not pussyfooting around. This is a claim that should be backed up by evidence, and you aren't giving any. I know you well enough to know the only way to get you to stop using Broken Record tactics is to make an official request that you put up or shut up. This is the central assumption behind all your other arguments, so if you don't support it with facts, the rest are moot points. And I would really love it if you would address my points already about race relations concerns, police harassment, the point I made twice now about black powder firearms and other weapons NOT being regulated, and the uselessness or even harm done by a registry in the face of other factors (presence or absence of visible stigma, sufficiency of existing police investigation methods, stigma and crime potentially caused by the registry, etc.). I will not put up with your cherry picking, especially given the fact you have chosen to pick apart my posts quote by quote in an effort to look more meticulous than you are really being. If you address nothing else, address these things and the previous "prove it" statement I made higher up in this post, and then we will talk. The rest of this post is really just for posterity.

[Formless]

Ah, damnit, I have never needed to make a ghetto edit this big, but here we are. Several quotes and their responses accidentally got removed from the above post, and at least one is misplaced. This is what is supposed to look like. PLease disregard my previous post, for it is wrong.

Hmmmm.

What do you do with 'badass normal' superheroes (to use a TVTroperism)?

By this I mean physically/arguably mentally normal people that become superheroes through either physical strength, high technology, magic or some combination thereof. Doctor Doom, Tony Stark, Batman, Dr. Strange, etcetera.

How do you propose to regulate *that*?

More to the point, we still haven't addressed the problem of the registry being overly broad. Why should everything superhuman be grounds for registering the person in a government database? Simon's argument would lump a woman with a gland in her mouth that produces nitroglycerin in the same category of people as a man whose sole power is that he can breath underwater (or as The Spoony One calls him, The Pool Boy!)

Now don't get me wrong, like I said law enforcement obviously has to adapt in order to police super humans. But that's what makes the ethical problems with the registry proposal so glaringly obvious. In order to even enforce the registry, you already need to have those tools! But if you have the forensics to catch an invisible theif, the profiling tools to catch a telepath, and the powered armor needed to subdue a super human boxer, what possible excuse do you have for requiring these individuals to give up their right to privacy? YOU CAN ALREADY POLICE THEM!

The key difference is that pieces of equipment typically aren't sapient beings, and if they were you'd have a completely separate host of ethical problems. Professional UFC fighters are dangerous and I've never heard of anyone asking to seriously register them as lethal weapons, as a counter example.

If your superpowers aren't potentially more dangerous than a professional UFC fighter, then I wouldn't ask you to register them either. Batman shouldn't have to register. Captain America is a borderline case- superhuman strength and physique but not very superhuman, not enough that mundane martial artists can't give him a run for his money.

But if your powers give you ability to cause harm that is, say, comparable to the powers of a truck to cause harm, or a high voltage electrical system... well, we regulate those things. People who drive trucks and work with electricity have to follow regulations, receive certification, and adhere to certain legal codes governing where you can drive the truck, or how you wire up a house for electricity so as to avoid fire hazards.

That would be a more convincing argument if I hadn't already shown it to be FALSE. There are plenty of dangerous things that aren't regulated at all, including many types of weaponry. Like black powder firearms, replicas included. Just because its an "obsolete" technology doesn't mean they haven't killed millions of people over several hundred years. Even ex cons can buy a replica or original Colt Paterson even though they cannot buy a modern firearm. I'm not kidding, you seriously need to look this shit up before you run your damn mouth off. The fact that you ommitted to address this fact makes me think you are now lying by ommission.

You largely canceled out your own argument. You're saying "what if there is legal opposition to passing such a law?" My response is "well then, oppose the opposition, legally." You reply to that "well, there wouldn't be an opposition if it weren't for unethical government experiments!"

You are a moron, you know that? The point was that the legal battle starts once the government starts disregarding the rights of its citizens, whether they be serious abuses of the individual like in the comic example, or statewide abuses of the entire group's right to privacy. One is obviously horrific, yet somehow not out of the realms of th eimagination, while the other is more subtle yet no less sinister. Because if the government ever wanted to do some of the more serious violations seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past or the seriously fucked up shit of the Elfen Lied manga, the registry is where it starts. The registry enables them to stalk individuals or round up whole groups at will. And its not like this is unprecidented in American history (let alone world history). McCarthyism, the roundup of Japanese Americans, the treatment of the Native American tribes, the Tuskeegee experiment, etc.

That's why arbitrary registries are necessarily odious.

I give zero shits whether you object to the draft, and am not psychic so I do not know in advance of you actually saying anything how you feel about it, because it's not like I keep a notebook of your random opinions updated over years of time.

Bluntly, whether you approve of it or not, the Selective Service Act is legal, and on the whole people comply with it without politically significant protest. Protest might arise if the draft were instated for frivolous or unworthy reasons, sure, but that's not actually happening. As a rule, people protest government actions, or laws that they expect to directly harm them in consequential ways. Making sure this law doesn't fall under either category is just a matter of being better at writing laws than, oh, a random strawman political idiot in a comic book.

Bluntly, if the best argument you have is legalism, then you should shut the fuck up. This is about ethics, and every legal argument I have made so far is based on the assumption of equality as an ethical principle underpinning the law. At the end of the day, legal arguments bow to ethical ones, because they are predicated on the assumption that the law should be moral. That's why The Romulan Republic compared the registry to racist laws, because none of us would argue that just because Jim Crow was on the books means that segregation was good. The problem with a registry made solely for superhumans is that it shits all over the principle of equality for no good reason except it makes authoritarian turds like you shit their pants at thought of what might happen when there is no proof of a slippery slope.

The law is based on the fact that people who willingly go around trying to act as law enforcement have to be trained. This is a specific subset of why we would need registration, applying to a specific subset of people, which you would already know if you were actually reading my arguments instead of listening to what the magical mystery voices tell me I think about the issue, or however you come to conclusions about other people's opinions.

Again, not every superhuman would want or would be capable of becoming a law enforcer or soldier. Imbecile. I like how, yet again, you cherry pick which points you will address and ommit those points which show how stupid your argument is in sum total.

Your right to keep arms is related to your right to bear arms, which is in turn related to (potential) organized, orderly participation in a coordinated fighting force. And to orderly participation in the state's system for regulating the use of force.

All states have their roots in the monopoly of force, including democratic ones that have a legally recognized right to self defense. That's a specific exception to the general principle, which the state can make precisely because of its own basic, generally recognized power to decide when it is and isn't okay to use force on people. The entire reason we try to restrict government is because we have already granted it this monopoly of force by default, and need other ways to keep it from getting out of control without resorting to open rebellion.

The problem is that in a society where metahuman powers are actually common, the monopoly on force breaks down to a point where anarchy is a likely outcome. Some new legal framework is likely to be required to deal with this, just like we needed new laws to regulate the security of cars or airplanes or the Internet when those things were invented.

Prove it.

The difference is that I can use my own martial arts training to neutralize yours, if you decide to abuse yours somehow...

Not if I'm taller and stronger than you, you fucking dolt. The reason people invented weapons to begin with is that other animals were bigger, stronger, and toothier than we are, and the reason we started using them against each other is that some people will always have the upper hand in a fist fight. Its no different when the person's physical abilities include a stinger in their wrist that tazes people. In fact, in a world with superpowers the justifications for the Second Amendment only becomes stronger, not weaker. A gun allows a normal person to survive encounters with crooks who can shoot lasers from their dicks. And by implication, that also means that superhumans would have to benefit from the same right to protect themselves, with their powers if appropriate. The registry shits all over both that right and the right to be treated the same as a "normal" person.

And that you taking martial arts training won't cause you to accidentally leak dangerous radiation or cause other unexpected side effects. And that martial arts training, while useful, isn't useful enough to represent a major national resource* on par with, oh, the college diplomas of the nation's people.

I'll grant that if someone represents a health hazard that they cannot control like radiation, disease, chemical exposure, etc. then appropriate measures should be taken to protect... them from themselves, because its hard to imagine them being immune to the same things that harm others. The thing is, that's a medical/health issue, not a crime issue. That's the kind of thing that generally gets discovered pretty quickly by the superhuman's own doctor, rendering the need to register them by force using a registry specifically for superhumans moot. In fact, that's the kind of thing that would generally go into their medical records, which as someone else pointed out are protected by HIPPA. They might have to deal with special restrictions to prevent them from becoming Typhoid Mary, but again I ask you: how are existing laws incapable of dealing with this problem?

There's no reason why this law should empower the NSA to snoop into anyone's affairs.

That hasn't stopped them yet, has it?

But if Clark Kent can be required to take driver's ed, it should be possible to require him to take "picking up buses safely" ed. At least, if he is now or might reasonably in the future wind up picking up a bus. And not just because he's a vigilante on a day to day basis, but because random or unforeseen events have a high likelihood of giving him some compelling reason to use his powers.

Psst, Simon? You are talking to a guy who doesn't have a drivers license. I hope to make it clear why this is important.

Again, you keep missing the point of self determination for superhumans. Kal El only picks up buses because he chose to be a part time professional Good Samaritan/vigilante. But we don't force everyone in society to take first aid classes just because they might some day have to preform the Heimlich maneuver; in fact Good Samaritan laws are designed to protect people who provide help even if they botch it and cause some harm, because otherwise you disincentiveise helping behaviors by making people afraid of lawsuits. Does that make the connection any clearer? Not all superhumans would want to become a cop, but they can always chose become a cop. If they want to go into an emergency profession like search and rescue or firefighting, that career path should be made open to them. But if they don't want to do it professionally, we shouldn't force them to take classes on the subject unless we start making all people and citizens do so. Any able bodied person could become skilled like Batman right now (because he isn't superhuman, just a normal guy at peak human performance), but should we all be forced to take shuriken throwing lessons and criminology? No, because that is obviously ridiculous, isn't it.

So like I said, I don't have a driver's license. You might know that I have had issues with epilepsy that makes it hard to get one, but I've been seizure free for long enough I could get one right now if I wanted. But unfortunately, there are other obstacles like car trouble that have forced me to put off driving lessons for the time being. I could chose to place higher priority on it, but it is a rational choice for me to just accept the limitation for the time being. Now, I also met people who chose not to get a drivers license who don't have a disability like I do. They just got lucky enough to live in places where public transportation was good enough they never needed it. And as for all those many, many adults I know who do drive, most of them don't have a commercial license needed to drive larger vehicles like sixteen wheelers and buses. Why? Because they didn't go into a profession where they would be driving those vehicles. They have self determination, and that's the disconnect that breaks down your analogy. Its no different when the person can run at mach one.

Which we do because neither of us wants to be doxxed on the Internet by random strangers, and which does not give us a right to refuse to tell the government who we are.

If one of us committed a crime on this website, our anonymity would evaporate really fast... precisely because the government already has lists of information on the identity and addresses of its citizens. And that is exactly how it should be.

So I guess it would be okay with you if all those opinions people post in News and Politics were read by their governments and connected with the real names and street addresses of the people who post them? You don't think that wouldn't get people like Das Kapital censored, now or in the future? When did you become a fascist little prick? This isn't a theoretical, Simon, this is exactly what happens in countries like China where there is no free speech in theory or in practice. There is no reason it couldn't become true in the US if idiots like you are allowed to legislate. Which in theory they are, if Trump's presidential campaign is any indication.

That's a task for a large team of lawyers. The broad outline of it is straightforward, though:
-Significant grace periods and regularly schedule amnesties for those who did not previously register to register.
-Minimal ongoing burden placed upon registrees once they have filled out a few forms and shown up for a visit to an appropriately trained doctor or something.
-No requirement of training beyond reasonable minimums required to ensure that people know how to use their own powers for whatever purposes they intend without needlessly endangering the public.

I notice you said nothing about what the sentence is for someone convicted of the crime of failing to register. That is where the civil liberties problem lies. Are you going to just throw them in prison? Make them do community service? Confiscate thei-- oh, right, that last one is impossible unless you decide they have no right to their own bodies. You are completely out of touch with how the law works, Simon_Asshole.

Because every major innovation that drastically alters what people can and cannot do causes upheaval, and the advent of superpowers is like having dozens of such innovations occurring all at once.

Again, PROVE IT. Prove that this would cause the kind of social upheaval that would require drastic alterations to the law and massive violations of people's privacy. I'm throwing down the gauntlet on this one. I'm not pussyfooting around. This is a claim that should be backed up by evidence, and you aren't giving any. I know you well enough to know the only way to get you to stop using Broken Record tactics is to make an official request that you put up or shut up. This is the central assumption behind all your other arguments, so if you don't support it with facts, the rest are moot points. And I would really love it if you would address my points already about race relations concerns, police harassment, the point I made twice now about black powder firearms and other weapons NOT being regulated, and the uselessness or even harm done by a registry in the face of other factors (presence or absence of visible stigma, sufficiency of existing police investigation methods, stigma and crime potentially caused by the registry, etc.). I will not put up with your cherry picking, especially given the fact you have chosen to pick apart my posts quote by quote in an effort to look more meticulous than you are really being. If you address nothing else, address these things and the previous "prove it" statement I made higher up in this post, and then we will talk. The rest of this post is really just for posterity.

[Batman]

Hmmmm.
What do you do with 'badass normal' superheroes (to use a TVTroperism)?
By this I mean physically/arguably mentally normal people that become superheroes through either physical strength, high technology, magic or some combination thereof. Doctor Doom, Tony Stark, Batman, Dr. Strange, etcetera.
How do you propose to regulate *that*?

I'm just a rich guy with toys. Everything I do should be covered by existing licenses (operate heavy machinery, pilot's license (rotary and fixed wing), driver's license, qualified to handle explosives/dangerous chemicals etc). Tony is interesting-the obvious answer is 'licensed to operate a power suit' but since Tony build the damned things to begin with he'd likely be heavily involved in shaping the rules for that anyway.
Strange and Doom are tricky because the limits and limitations of magic are usually (and usually intentionally) ill-defined.

[General Zod]

Hmmmm.
What do you do with 'badass normal' superheroes (to use a TVTroperism)?
By this I mean physically/arguably mentally normal people that become superheroes through either physical strength, high technology, magic or some combination thereof. Doctor Doom, Tony Stark, Batman, Dr. Strange, etcetera.
How do you propose to regulate *that*?

I'm just a rich guy with toys. Everything I do should be covered by existing licenses (operate heavy machinery, pilot's license (rotary and fixed wing), driver's license, qualified to handle explosives/dangerous chemicals etc). Tony is interesting-the obvious answer is 'licensed to operate a power suit' but since Tony build the damned things to begin with he'd likely be heavily involved in shaping the rules for that anyway.
Strange and Doom are tricky because the limits and limitations of magic are usually (and usually intentionally) ill-defined.

Sorcerers are also incredibly secretive by nature. Frankly if I had super powers I'd be doing everything possible to make sure nobody knew.

[Elheru Aran]

Hmmmm.
What do you do with 'badass normal' superheroes (to use a TVTroperism)?
By this I mean physically/arguably mentally normal people that become superheroes through either physical strength, high technology, magic or some combination thereof. Doctor Doom, Tony Stark, Batman, Dr. Strange, etcetera.
How do you propose to regulate *that*?

I'm just a rich guy with toys. Everything I do should be covered by existing licenses (operate heavy machinery, pilot's license (rotary and fixed wing), driver's license, qualified to handle explosives/dangerous chemicals etc). Tony is interesting-the obvious answer is 'licensed to operate a power suit' but since Tony build the damned things to begin with he'd likely be heavily involved in shaping the rules for that anyway.
Strange and Doom are tricky because the limits and limitations of magic are usually (and usually intentionally) ill-defined.

So... as for existing licenses... could you ever provide evidence that you are actually licensed? I mean, nobody is going to pull out a driver's license that says "BATMAN" under "Name". And I doubt Bruce Wayne is the type to take courses on explosives handling... why would he when he has the money to pay people to do it for him? I can see Bruce Wayne having pilots' licenses, but operating heavy machinery? It would be very out of character with the whole 'billionaire playboy' shtick.

That said, acquiring said licenses isn't illegal, as long as you don't DO anything illegal with them. That's the catch there. Do we really want to *license* superhero vigilantism?

[Simon_Jester]

Sorcerers are also incredibly secretive by nature. Frankly if I had super powers I'd be doing everything possible to make sure nobody knew.

Painfully true.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the government found itself having trouble with members of a profession who want to keep dangerous secrets about their own practices so that they can avoid being held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

In general, this 'guild' mentality does not earn members of the profession much sympathy from the government, and I think that's just as well.

Hmmmm.

What do you do with 'badass normal' superheroes (to use a TVTroperism)?

By this I mean physically/arguably mentally normal people that become superheroes through either physical strength, high technology, magic or some combination thereof. Doctor Doom, Tony Stark, Batman, Dr. Strange, etcetera.

How do you propose to regulate *that*?

Under my rules...

1) Doctor Doom is a foreign head of state.

The correct response to Doctor Doom going on a rampage is to write a diplomatic note to the Latverian government demanding that he be impeached and tried for his crimes, under penalty of war. Just as that would be the correct response for, say, France... if, say, David Cameron climbed into a gigantic Union Jack-festooned mecha and personally laid waste to a couple of districts of Paris.

Since Doctor Doom IS the Latverian government, this note would presumably be ignored, resulting in Congress quite justifiably declaring war on Latveria. Since fighting a war against Latveria would be a true cast-iron bitch of a job, it's a good thing we have a law permitting emergency conscription of metahumans in times of national emergency, because "at war with Doctor Doom" definitely counts as an emergency in anybody's book.

2) Tony Stark's "super" capabilities (in the iterations of the character I'm familiar with) consist of powerful weapons and devices he's constructed. These would presumably be covered under existing regulations for flying aircraft, explosive or otherwise destructive devices, and so on.

By contrast, a guy like Superman is in a different position which does require registration of some kind. See, his powers are not covered under existing laws because the FAA doesn't have regulations in real life to cover a guy who can fly like a bird, precisely because nobody can do that in real life. In a world where that was possible, such regulations would have to exist for obvious reasons.

3) Batman doesn't need to be regulated, or rather doesn't need to be regulated in any ways that existing local, state, and federal law don't already cover. He's amazingly good at what he does, but he doesn't have any tools or weapons that pose a unique or unusual threat requiring new laws or specialized inspections. A batarang is, essentially, a cool throwing knife, so there's no reason it should be more regulated than any other throwing knife.

The biggest problem with Batman from a legal point of view is his anonymity and ability to commit anonymous crimes (which he does, such as trespassing and driving what I'm pretty sure is an unregistered vehicle). It's not that Batman can't pay if he breaks your window in the process of pursuing a criminal, it's that you don't know who to sue for damages.

However, that is a concern for local and state jurisdiction.

4) Dr. Strange is a magician, and under a reasonable definition of "metahuman" he is a metahuman- he has the ability to do things that are not and can never be purely a learned skill. If there were fifty thousand other magicians like him it might be reasonable to argue that he's not a 'metahuman' any more than a concert pianist is... but in that case it would be reasonable to pass laws specifically governing the conduct of magicians, because of the sheer number of them.

He needs to be regulated for the same reasons a guy who shoots lasers from his ears needs to. Specifically, he needs to be registered, in the sense that we know:
1) NOT to trifle with him,on account of him being the Sorceror Supreme,
2) That we know who to call if his cosmic sorcery is needed for some reason,
3) So that if he ever commits some act of negligence that harms bystanders, we know who to sue (if She-Hulk comics are any guide, Marvel's main comics 'verse apparently actually has legal structures in place to cover this, which might be a useful alternative to this registration system and might be easier to implement, assuming they actually work).
4) And, last and arguably least relevant given what he's capable of, so that if "Doctor Strange" ever goes rogue, we have some freaking clue who this guy is.

What if their powers are "always on"? Kilgrave had to be incredibly careful with his words because of that.

If a person has powers that are "always on" and pose a threat to innocent bystanders, then by definition if they are a decent, law-abiding person they should be willing to make a good faith effort to cooperate with the authorities in finding a way to avoid having their powers continue to harm innocent bystanders. Note that I'm not proposing here to do something horrific and cartoon-villain-ish like having people strapped to gurneys and fed through straws for the rest of their life, but seriously. If you're a good human being you won't want to hurt innocent people with your powers, and it's a lot easier to not hurt people if you have the cooperation of a well-equipped organization that has the same goal you do (namely, protecting innocent people).

---

More to the point, we still haven't addressed the problem of the registry being overly broad. Why should everything superhuman be grounds for registering the person in a government database? Simon's argument would lump a woman with a gland in her mouth that produces nitroglycerin in the same category of people as a man whose sole power is that he can breath underwater (or as The Spoony One calls him, The Pool Boy!)

No, it doesn't.

Pool Boy has to fill out a form saying he's a guy who can breathe underwater, and maybe demonstrate this ability under safe circumstances to the satisfaction of a physician. Done. Maybe he comes in every few years for a check-up just to make sure he isn't mutating into a fish-person or anything. I mean, if he IS mutating into a fish person that's fine, fish-men are people too, but he might want to know about that in advance in case he wants to seek medical treatment to mitigate his condition or make his life more comfortable.

This is an extremely non-intrusive and arguably beneficial course of action for Pool Boy.

Spitbomb or whatever her name is has to fill out a form, presumably demonstrate her ability under laboratory conditions, and then something rather more will probably have to happen. Because unlike Pool Boy, Spitbomb's nitroglycerine saliva poses a potential threat to innocent bystanders. And not just the obvious stuff, either. I mean, if I have nitroglycerine saliva and I drink from a glass cup, and put it down, and someone else picks it up later and then sets it down carelessly or forcefully, the traces of nitroglycerine might well go 'bang' hard enough to shatter the glass. Now I'm picking broken glass shards out of my hand and it's arguably her fault for being careless with explosives.

So someone from a government agency might reasonably want to sit down with her, have a brief talk with her about the liability issues, make sure she understands the relevant laws and is prepared to live a lifestyle that is compatible with making sure no one comes to serious harm as a result of her lifestyle. For instance, not drinking from glass cups where other people might pick them up.

She doesn't need special commando training (unless she wants to become a commando). But she DOES need to be aware of the potential for harm caused by her powers, including unexpected and random negligence on her part, or simple bad luck. This is in everyone's best interest, because it means she doesn't get sued for criminal negligence, and others don't get hurt.

Much better to do things this way than to not realize there is a problem until some restaurant dishwasher needs twelve stitches and a tendon reattachment and nobody can figure out why the hell a glass just exploded in his hand and they're wondering if it was some kind of bizarre terrorist attack.
_______________

*This has the beneficial side-effect of making it easier for him to convince, say, an underwater salvage company that he really is a guy who can breathe underwater, not a delusional idiot whose heirs will sue them after he drowns on account of them being dumb enough to hire a delusional idiot.

Now don't get me wrong, like I said law enforcement obviously has to adapt in order to police super humans. But that's what makes the ethical problems with the registry proposal so glaringly obvious. In order to even enforce the registry, you already need to have those tools! But if you have the forensics to catch an invisible theif, the profiling tools to catch a telepath, and the powered armor needed to subdue a super human boxer, what possible excuse do you have for requiring these individuals to give up their right to privacy? YOU CAN ALREADY POLICE THEM!

As noted, it is in everyone's interest if the potential dangers of carelessly handled superpowers are addressed before anyone gets hurt.

That would be a more convincing argument if I hadn't already shown it to be FALSE. There are plenty of dangerous things that aren't regulated at all, including many types of weaponry. Like black powder firearms, replicas included. Just because its an "obsolete" technology doesn't mean they haven't killed millions of people over several hundred years. Even ex cons can buy a replica or original Colt Paterson even though they cannot buy a modern firearm.

This is a legal loophole which exists because it is so seldom abused. If there were an actual widespread problem with criminals buying Wild West six-shooters and muskets and using them to commit crimes, you can bet that there would be gun regulation covering six-shooters and muskets.

Whereas in a universe with ubiquitous superpowers, people carelessly using their superpowers and harming innocent bystanders or damaging public property happens all the damn time. And not just the 'villains,' either.

And yet you are using the existence of a loophole which is seldom a problem as justification to avoid closing a (hypothetical) complete gap in regulation that is (in the hypothetical) a constant problem.

You are a moron, you know that? The point was that the legal battle starts once the government starts disregarding the rights of its citizens, whether they be serious abuses of the individual like in the comic example, or statewide abuses of the entire group's right to privacy. One is obviously horrific, yet somehow not out of the realms of the imagination, while the other is more subtle yet no less sinister. Because if the government ever wanted to do some of the more serious violations seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past or the seriously fucked up shit of the Elfen Lied manga, the registry is where it starts. The registry enables them to stalk individuals or round up whole groups at will. And its not like this is unprecedented in American history (let alone world history). McCarthyism, the roundup of Japanese Americans, the treatment of the Native American tribes, the Tuskeegee experiment, etc.

That's why arbitrary registries are necessarily odious.

Thing is, the government can do these horrific things with or without a "completist" registry. Indeed, I would argue that having a well defined, organized Department of Metahuman Affairs, empowered by a robust and well-written set of laws, is exactly how you stop such things from happening.

If the government has no laws to govern its dealings with superpowers, then the most likely result is for such dealings to become the province of the covert agencies with the greatest ability to hide what they are doing under classified budgets and secret facilities. Who are exactly the people you do NOT want handling this kind of issue, because they are the ones most likely to commit atrocities.

Instead, you want regulation and law and things carried out in the open- just as modern medical ethics regulations exist to prevent something like the Tuskegee experiment.

Bluntly, if the best argument you have is legalism, then you should shut the fuck up. This is about ethics, and every legal argument I have made so far is based on the assumption of equality as an ethical principle underpinning the law. At the end of the day, legal arguments bow to ethical ones, because they are predicated on the assumption that the law should be moral.

By nature, any debate like this will need to invoke a combination of legal and ethical arguments.

You argue that it is ethically loathsome to conscript people even in time of national emergency. Many people disagree with you, and not just in the US. This is a subject that we might reasonably debate- I am arguing for its merits, and you arguing against.

But you can't just come out and say "I disagree with conscription you idiot" and expect that to be taken seriously as a counterargument by someone who is at most a tangential acquaintance. Conscription is a legal precedent and is relevant in considering the legality and constitutionality of the proposed law. If conscription is wrong, fine, we can have that debate, but it's still an example of a law currently accepted in US (and other countries') constitutional law that is in some ways similar to certain aspects of certain possible metahuman registration laws.

That's why The Romulan Republic compared the registry to racist laws, because none of us would argue that just because Jim Crow was on the books means that segregation was good. The problem with a registry made solely for superhumans is that it shits all over the principle of equality for no good reason except it makes authoritarian turds like you shit their pants at thought of what might happen when there is no proof of a slippery slope.

The principle of equality is preemptively shit on in a world where some people can spit nitroglycerin and others can't, and where some people are telepathic aliens and others aren't.

The only way to maintain a semblance of equality is to make sure there is a legal framework in place for allowing the mundanes to ensure their collective safety and well-being, without relying entirely on the pure-hearted efforts of self-appointed demigods to champion them.

Which, well, requires some laws governing how people use superpowers and how to make sure their use of such powers is safe.

The law is based on the fact that people who willingly go around trying to act as law enforcement have to be trained. This is a specific subset of why we would need registration, applying to a specific subset of people, which you would already know if you were actually reading my arguments instead of listening to what the magical mystery voices tell me I think about the issue, or however you come to conclusions about other people's opinions.

Again, not every superhuman would want or would be capable of becoming a law enforcer or soldier. Imbecile.

You continue to call me an imbecile because of your own failure to understand my argument. Hopefully you get it now that I repeated it above in this very post in my description of how to work with Spitbomb Woman.

Your right to keep arms is related to your right to bear arms, which is in turn related to (potential) organized, orderly participation in a coordinated fighting force. And to orderly participation in the state's system for regulating the use of force.

All states have their roots in the monopoly of force, including democratic ones that have a legally recognized right to self defense. That's a specific exception to the general principle, which the state can make precisely because of its own basic, generally recognized power to decide when it is and isn't okay to use force on people. The entire reason we try to restrict government is because we have already granted it this monopoly of force by default, and need other ways to keep it from getting out of control without resorting to open rebellion.

The problem is that in a society where metahuman powers are actually common, the monopoly on force breaks down to a point where anarchy is a likely outcome. Some new legal framework is likely to be required to deal with this, just like we needed new laws to regulate the security of cars or airplanes or the Internet when those things were invented

Prove it.

Do you mean to prove this as a matter of logic, or to prove this empirically? I have a reasonable response in either case, but they're different responses, so I'd like to know which you mean.

Again, PROVE IT. Prove that this would cause the kind of social upheaval that would require drastic alterations to the law and massive violations of people's privacy. I'm throwing down the gauntlet on this one. I'm not pussyfooting around. This is a claim that should be backed up by evidence, and you aren't giving any.

Okay, I'll say again, do you mean to prove this as a matter of logic, or to prove it empirically?

Honestly, knowing how you get when you're in Freakout Mode I wouldn't be surprised if you actually think I'm somehow obliged to prove this claim empirically, which is obviously impossible. I don't think I can- but then, there's no sane worldview in which I should have to. I can reasonably be asked to prove the claim logically... but I'm prepared to do that, assuming you're sober enough to want that explanation.

And I would really love it if you would address my points already about race relations concerns, police harassment, the point I made twice now about black powder firearms and other weapons NOT being regulated, and the uselessness or even harm done by a registry in the face of other factors (presence or absence of visible stigma, sufficiency of existing police investigation methods, stigma and crime potentially caused by the registry, etc.).

1) Race relations issues work both ways. Having unaccountable vigilantes running around isn't a good thing if you're worried about race relations, because you're going to run into this guy sooner or later. I would argue that the solution to the race relations issue you raise is to fix race relations, not to refuse to pass new laws governing new categories of dangerous or criminal activity.

2) Police harassment issues are a valid concern and a good reason to build precautions into the proposed SUPAA bill. There should be mechanisms in play for metahumans to file complaints if they are being harassed by law enforcement beyond what would be appropriate for a mundane with a comparable lack of criminal record and so on. Quite frankly, it is better to have a law that covers this than to have no laws, in which case each individual police department will be setting its own policies on treatment of metahumans. Because most police departments will err on the side of 'witchhunt' if not restrained by state and federal law.

3) Already addressed the blackpowder question higher up, but to summarize, blackpowder firearms are legal because it's a loophole in existing regulations that is harmless enough that there is no real incentive to ban it. In a setting where superpowers are parlor tricks and no one is seriously alarmed by them, they would likewise be such a loophole... but you're out of your mind if you think that's the kind of setting the rest of us are talking about.

Similar counters apply if you advance the same argument about air rifles, crossbows, and so on. Yes, there are categories of weapons which aren't regulated... but they're regulated because they aren't being used to harm or kill humans on a regular basis. Generally, if the level of harm they present increases, they get regulated.

4) This last clause of yours is unclear and I must request clarification before I can respond to it.

Formless, please note that I am agreeing to your demand to "put up" evidence for my core claim that bad things result from unregulated use of superpowers. However, I will require more clarification from you, as to the nature of your charges, before I can mount an effective defense against those charges.

[General Zod]

Painfully true.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the government found itself having trouble with members of a profession who want to keep dangerous secrets about their own practices so that they can avoid being held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

In general, this 'guild' mentality does not earn members of the profession much sympathy from the government, and I think that's just as well.

The biggest problem as I see it is all of the more clandestine government agencies that might want to use people with super-powers for their own dubious ends. You can't tell me the CIA wouldn't be chomping at the bit for a super-powered assassin.

4) Dr. Strange is a magician, and under a reasonable definition of "metahuman" he is a metahuman- he has the ability to do things that are not and can never be purely a learned skill. If there were fifty thousand other magicians like him it might be reasonable to argue that he's not a 'metahuman' any more than a concert pianist is... but in that case it would be reasonable to pass laws specifically governing the conduct of magicians, because of the sheer number of them.

Well . . . . the thing is by definition magic is a learned skill most of the time. Granted, it requires highly specialized knowledged, but it's still something that people with the right aptitude could learn how to do. (In the way that people with the right aptitude can become PhDs in physics.)

If a person has powers that are "always on" and pose a threat to innocent bystanders, then by definition if they are a decent, law-abiding person they should be willing to make a good faith effort to cooperate with the authorities in finding a way to avoid having their powers continue to harm innocent bystanders. Note that I'm not proposing here to do something horrific and cartoon-villain-ish like having people strapped to gurneys and fed through straws for the rest of their life, but seriously. If you're a good human being you won't want to hurt innocent people with your powers, and it's a lot easier to not hurt people if you have the cooperation of a well-equipped organization that has the same goal you do (namely, protecting innocent people).

But what about the ones that aren't decent and have trouble telling whether or not their actions are good? Dudes like Kilgrave could do a lot of damage if they had the inkling. Should we just slice out their vocal cords for life? Lock them up in a plastic cell like Magneto?

[Simon_Jester]

Painfully true.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the government found itself having trouble with members of a profession who want to keep dangerous secrets about their own practices so that they can avoid being held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

In general, this 'guild' mentality does not earn members of the profession much sympathy from the government, and I think that's just as well.

The biggest problem as I see it is all of the more clandestine government agencies that might want to use people with super-powers for their own dubious ends. You can't tell me the CIA wouldn't be chomping at the bit for a super-powered assassin.

Well, as I said to Formless, the best counter to this is to pull government dealings with metahumans out into the light, by creating a legal framework that actually addresses the dangers and opportunities involved.

Trying to be denialist and shoving the whole issue under the rug by sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting "JUST USE EXISTING LAWS" at the top of our lungs is not a good plan for preventing abuses.

4) Dr. Strange is a magician, and under a reasonable definition of "metahuman" he is a metahuman- he has the ability to do things that are not and can never be purely a learned skill. If there were fifty thousand other magicians like him it might be reasonable to argue that he's not a 'metahuman' any more than a concert pianist is... but in that case it would be reasonable to pass laws specifically governing the conduct of magicians, because of the sheer number of them.

Well . . . . the thing is by definition magic is a learned skill most of the time. Granted, it requires highly specialized knowledged, but it's still something that people with the right aptitude could learn how to do. (In the way that people with the right aptitude can become PhDs in physics.)

Doctor Strange is blessed by supernatural entities who don't exactly hand out their support like party favors. He may not be strictly unique, in the sense that another person could theoretically learn to do what he does... but there is a lot of luck involved in the process that made him who and what he is, and a lot of incidents that are not repeatable.

And, again, he also has the capacity to cause harm to innocent people, intentionally or unintentionally, which makes holding him accountable for his actions an important priority.

But what about the ones that aren't decent and have trouble telling whether or not their actions are good? Dudes like Kilgrave could do a lot of damage if they had the inkling. Should we just slice out their vocal cords for life? Lock them up in a plastic cell like Magneto?

Ultimately, if they will not or cannot cooperate with the law... yes. Because that is what governments are for, to protect their citizens from being abused by powerful malefactors. That is literally the biggest reason we even have them and need them.

If you get a malefactor (literally, evil-doer) who continues to do evil, and who cannot be prevented from doing evil without invasive or extremely confining treatment... you treat them however you need to.

[shrugs]

[Formless]

Do you mean to prove this as a matter of logic, or to prove this empirically? I have a reasonable response in either case, but they're different responses, so I'd like to know which you mean.

Okay, I'll say again, do you mean to prove this as a matter of logic, or to prove it empirically?

Honestly, knowing how you get when you're in Freakout Mode I wouldn't be surprised if you actually think I'm somehow obliged to prove this claim empirically, which is obviously impossible. I don't think I can- but then, there's no sane worldview in which I should have to. I can reasonably be asked to prove the claim logically... but I'm prepared to do that, assuming you're sober enough to want that explanation.

Yes, empirically. This is not a "matter of logic" because that's tantamount to talking out of your ass. If you think its impossible to support your claims empirically, then concede them. There is no shame to it. The sane worldview in which you are supposed to do that is the worldview you can find in the debate rules of this forum. You've been here long enough to know where to find them. When you use language like "this will probably happen!" you are implying that you have a factual basis for that prediction. If its just an opinion, people need to know that they can ignore it at their leisure as just an opinion. Or should I email Mike Wong and tell him how far his forum has fallen since he left that people no longer think they have to provide evidence for factual claims around here? And it is a factual claim. It is a claim relating to criminology and sociology, basically that if the average person suddenly found themselves in possession of the means to commission a crime they are more likely than not to do exactly that even if the means to commit the crime also double as the means to do any number of other perfectly legal acts. You can cite studies on self control, studies on aggression, violent crime, sociological data on analogous events, anything which would support this supposition. Anything at all, and we would have a rational basis for this discussion. But if its just a supposition pulled from the contents of your colon, then you are supposed to concede that fact.

This isn't "Freakout Mode", although I know you just love personalized insults that vaguely refer to personal history between us (or anyone else you've interacted with in the past for that matter). I just find debating with you to be a chore. I mean that. There are discussions out there I've had in the last year where I've written whole essays practically, and even though they took a long time to write it was mostly fun. But with you there is no joy in it, because for all the words we've both vomited on the page this debate can be distilled to just one contentious assumption on your part. If it had been distilled sooner, we could have saved time; or if you had cited solid evidence, we probably would be having a very different argument. And if you had conceded this, we wouldn't be talking to each other at all.

[Simon_Jester]

...When you use language like "this will probably happen!" you are implying that you have a factual basis for that prediction. If its just an opinion, people need to know that they can ignore it at their leisure as just an opinion... And it is a factual claim. It is a claim relating to criminology and sociology, basically that if the average person suddenly found themselves in possession of the means to commission a crime they are more likely than not to do exactly that even if the means to commit the crime also double as the means to do any number of other perfectly legal acts. You can cite studies on self control, studies on aggression, violent crime, sociological data on analogous events, anything which would support this supposition. Anything at all, and we would have a rational basis for this discussion...

As I understand it... you are telling me that my belief that superpowers are likely to cause considerable upheaval, and would merit regulation, requires me to cite scientific studies.

Whereas, by contrast, your belief that widespread superpowers are not likely to cause considerable upheaval, and would not merit regulation, does not require you to cite comparably weighty evidence.

Did I get that right?

If I did not understand you, then once again I must ask for clarification before I can mount an effective defense. I can't very well refute your claims if you won't give me a clear idea what they are.

But on the other hand...

...

If I did understand you rightly, then you are impressively biased in favor of your hypothesis. I don't think the history of humanity justifies believing that "a major new development will not cause upheaval or crisis that merits government attention" as the null hypothesis against which other hypotheses must be tested.

It is as though I had argued that dinosaurs were brown, and you had argued that they were green (not just "they weren't brown," specifically that they were green), and then you demand that I provide proof, without providing proof of your own.

Sure, I am making a claim that merits a supporting argument. But so are you, so attacking me for not 'proving' my claim to your satisfaction seems a bit hypocritical and foolish.

Which is not to say I won't try, I'm still willing to try. But I'd like to be sure this is actually what you believe, before I proceed. Since I'd like to think this isn't what you believe... but if it isn't, I am honestly not sure what the hell you're talking about. And while I'm prepared to defend what I've said, I can't defend it against an accusation I don't understand.

...

I must also note that you are suffering under a misapprehension about the meaning of 'empirical' proof. To 'empirically' prove a claim about superpowers I would have to give people superpowers in order to test my claim. Good luck with that.

Now, you asked for a proof which invokes sociological or other scientific results measured in a world that lacks superpowers. That would still be a matter of logic and not empiricism. We would still be using induction and deduction to work out what is probably true based on observations that don't directly tell us anything about the subject of our discussion.

[Formless]

That is a blatant strawman, and you know it. I asked you to prove very specific points, points which do NOT require superpowers to be real, and you refuse to acknowledge what those points are because "lol, superpowers are fictional?" So are turbolasers in Star Wars, yet this board was founded on talking about fictional tech in a factual manner! And that's an area where the claims are "factual" insofar as the math says that such and such is consistent with physics; so I am asking you to do the same, only instead of forming conclusions about fictional technology based on physics, we are forming conclusions about human behavior in the presence of fictional powers, and those statements can either come out of our assholes or they can be backed up with knowledge of criminal psychology and sociology. We can assess your claims by looking at what happens in societies when a sudden increase in gun availability happens, for instance, or from looking at studies indicating what the average person's level of self control is, or all sorts of other scientific studies about what causes crime and what relationship it has with availability of the means to commission a crime. But you won't do that, and I think its because you know that if you looked into it it would invite the possibility that your fears are unfounded. Again, if it is impossible to prove it empirically (and I don't think so), don't make claims that require empirical support. The rules of the forum are very clear on this. It still wouldn't absolve you of bullshitting and pretending you have enough facts to make a predictive statement of probability. Because otherwise, there is no basis upon which we can debate this topic.

Go to hell, and don't send me a forwarding address.

[biostem]

Make it illegal for them to use their superpowers without registration. Just like driving- we can't actually physically prevent you from getting into a car and turning the key in the ignition. But it doesn't matter, because we can ban you from driving legally.

You want to go 'joyriding' by running around town at seventy miles an hour? That's a hazard to pedestrians and possibly to vehicle traffic. Get some training in how to run at superspeed safely first.

You want to fly? You're subject to regulations established by the FAA, as needed to ensure safety. Don't comply? Don't fly, and get thrown in jail if you do.

You want to use mental or vision powers to violate people's privacy? Expect to spend the rest of your life in jail if any evidence of your doing this ever comes to light.

What if their powers are "always on"? Kilgrave had to be incredibly careful with his words because of that.

I suppose that would depend - it would be prudent to legally require Cyclops to wear some form of his ruby quartz eyewear at all times, (at least in public). It would make sense to legally require Rogue to wear reasonable levels of body covering while in public or crowded areas, (gloves, long sleeves, etc). In the case of someone like Kilgrave, (admittedly I'm not that familiar with him), if he can kill with mere words, then perhaps legally requiring him to wear some form of speech or noise cancellation device, or barring that, a gag, may be necessary. I'm required to go through licensing and background checks if I wanted to buy and carry a concealed firearm, and even then, I would need to disclose that I am carrying or can have my firearm taken away if I wanted to enter certain venues - killing with a mere word or phrase is much easier to conceal and much easier to use without warning, (I'd still have to pull out, aim at, and fire said weapon).

[General Zod]

Kilgraves powers essentially meant that people had no choice but to obey anything he said and they interpreted it literally. (Go watch Jessica Jones. ) Telling someone to go screw themselves had some pretty unpleasant consequences.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. Basically, it's very hard to imagine anyone like Kilgrave being integrated into normal society without very severe restrictions on his activities. His right to privacy (or for that matter bodily integrity) doesn't trump the right of literally everyone around him to not be subject to mind control.

You can argue that to say Kilgrave would have to be subject to serious restrictions is somehow racist against metahumans.

I would argue that not restricting Kilgrave is racist against literally everyone who isn't Kilgrave, because his power enables him to oppress, dominate, and control everyone else around him. People like this are in a horrible sense a 'natural aristocracy;' their abilities would grant them immense power even if they barely make any effort and don't deliberately commit any crimes.

I can easily imagine a lawyer arguing in court that Kilgrave "cannot help it if others are naturally inclined to do as he says because of how he smells; he did not choose to experience the chemical accident that altered his scent in this way." And if we really do have ironclad laws saying that it is not permissible to 'discriminate' against metahumans by placing restrictions on their actions to prevent side effects from their powers... frankly, that lawyer is arguably correct.

---

That is a blatant strawman, and you know it. I asked you to prove very specific points, points which do NOT require superpowers to be real, and you refuse to acknowledge what those points are because "lol, superpowers are fictional?" So are turbolasers in Star Wars, yet this board was founded on talking about fictional tech in a factual manner! And that's an area where the claims are "factual" insofar as the math says that such and such is consistent with physics; so I am asking you to do the same, only instead of forming conclusions about fictional technology based on physics, we are forming conclusions about human behavior in the presence of fictional powers, and those statements can either come out of our assholes or they can be backed up with knowledge of criminal psychology and sociology. We can assess your claims by looking at what happens in societies when a sudden increase in gun availability happens, for instance, or from looking at studies indicating what the average person's level of self control is, or all sorts of other scientific studies about what causes crime and what relationship it has with availability of the means to commission a crime. But you won't do that, and I think its because you know that if you looked into it it would invite the possibility that your fears are unfounded. Again, if it is impossible to prove it empirically (and I don't think so), don't make claims that require empirical support. The rules of the forum are very clear on this. It still wouldn't absolve you of bullshitting and pretending you have enough facts to make a predictive statement of probability. Because otherwise, there is no basis upon which we can debate this topic.

Go to hell, and don't send me a forwarding address.

So to summarize, he won't answer my question.

I asked him, does he think that "superpowers would not cause significant upheaval that would merit regulation" is some kind of null hypothesis I am obliged to refute in order to have a right to continue making my argument. And... reading his post, I honestly do not know if he believes that to be the case or not. He seems to be treating it as the default assumption in one sentence, then not as the default in the next.

I also disagreed with him about the definition of 'empirical,' which apparently pissed him off enough to cause him to forget or not read anything else I said, and to ragequit for "strawmanning."

Am I missing anything here?

If anyone else would like to ask me a better-posed question about why I think what I think, I'd be happy to field it, by the way. Still open to that. I have no interest in hiding the reasons I believe that superpowers merit regulation.

[Khaat]

I suppose that would depend - it would be prudent to legally require Cyclops to wear some form of his ruby quartz eyewear at all times, (at least in public).

Not just in public, but for his own safety, but he already does that as a function of his everyday survival. Why does it have to be proscribed by law?

It would make sense to legally require Rogue to wear reasonable levels of body covering while in public or crowded areas, (gloves, long sleeves, etc).

Doesn't she have the right to her own body? Doesn't she have the right to not be grabbed, bumped, jostled, groped, etc.? How is she more dangerous than the average girl walking down the street? She has to act (or be acted upon by others) for her power to be a danger. Like, say, someone trained in martial arts. Or someone with PTSD and martial arts. She should be careful, but she should not be presumed to be a danger to others on the mere basis of her biology.

In the case of someone like Kilgrave, ... then perhaps legally requiring him to wear some form of speech or noise cancellation device, or barring that, a gag, may be necessary.

Great, ball-gags. I don't think it was made clear in Jessica Jones or not, but not everything he said was a "push". Some was just talking.

I'm required to go through licensing and background checks if I wanted to buy and carry a concealed firearm, and even then, I would need to disclose that I am carrying or can have my firearm taken away if I wanted to enter certain venues.

Yes, but your firearm is not a random result of your biology. Or a result of being bitten by a radioactive goat or whatever, it is a choice you made to carry a tool designed to injure or kill humans. Registration after breaking existing laws must be the line.

[okay, so Jessica Jones Netflix show writers, explain to me how Kilgrave would have learned to be a manipulative bastard, if his entire deal-with-other-people life, he's had this power to simply make them do what he wants? He should be a socially awkward troll! Are we presuming psychopath mimic behavior? That's learned behavior from desiring specific reactions from "normals" that he can just force!]

[General Zod]

[okay, so Jessica Jones Netflix show writers, explain to me how Kilgrave would have learned to be a manipulative bastard, if his entire deal-with-other-people life, he's had this power to simply make them do what he wants? He should be a socially awkward troll! Are we presuming psychopath mimic behavior? That's learned behavior from desiring specific reactions from "normals" that he can just force!]

The problem with Kilgrave is that he's a sociopath. He doesn't understand social norms and the concept of right and wrong are on completely different wavelengths to him. He didn't even realize he was forcing people early on, according to him.

[Khaat]

The problem with Kilgrave is that he's a sociopath. He doesn't understand social norms and the concept of right and wrong are on completely different wavelengths to him. He didn't even realize he was forcing people early on, according to him.

That was shown to be a lie, though. He was trying to buy sympathy.
"Your excuse is that you had a bad childhood?!"

[General Zod]

The problem with Kilgrave is that he's a sociopath. He doesn't understand social norms and the concept of right and wrong are on completely different wavelengths to him. He didn't even realize he was forcing people early on, according to him.

That was shown to be a lie, though. He was trying to buy sympathy.
"Your excuse is that you had a bad childhood?!"

His parents weren't the monsters he made them out to be, but he's definitely a sociopath.

[Khaat]

I'm leaning more towards Kilgrave being a psychopath, rather than a sociopath. He didn't "wing it": his plan for turning Jessica was deliberate and developed.

Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long. It is difficult but not impossible for sociopaths to form attachments with others. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard, disorganized and spontaneous rather than planned.

[emphasis mine] But that's off-topic. Sorry.

If "Kilgrave" wasn't an unrepentant criminal in the story already, his powers are no more a threat than the baseball bat in my garage (which is also unregulated until used in the commission of a crime).

[Purple]

Doesn't she have the right to her own body? Doesn't she have the right to not be grabbed, bumped, jostled, groped, etc.? How is she more dangerous than the average girl walking down the street? She has to act (or be acted upon by others) for her power to be a danger. Like, say, someone trained in martial arts. Or someone with PTSD and martial arts. She should be careful, but she should not be presumed to be a danger to others on the mere basis of her biology.

Frankly no. If anything I do not think that such cases require special laws.

It's a simple fact that modern cities are crowded places where people will bump into one another. Whether its standing in public transit, trying to move through a crowd at a concert venue or sporting event or just walking down a busy street people will brush off against you all the time. It's just normal. Happens to me all the time. Live in a city all your life and you won't even notice it. And if I was a trained martial artist with PTSD and reacted to each bump by beating the unfortunate innocent person to death I would go to prison irregardless of my condition. So why should she be treated any differently. Just try her under the same law.

[biostem]

Doesn't she have the right to her own body? Doesn't she have the right to not be grabbed, bumped, jostled, groped, etc.? How is she more dangerous than the average girl walking down the street? She has to act (or be acted upon by others) for her power to be a danger. Like, say, someone trained in martial arts. Or someone with PTSD and martial arts. She should be careful, but she should not be presumed to be a danger to others on the mere basis of her biology.

Imagine she's out somewhere and trips - someone goes to grab her to stop her from getting hurt, an they're put into a coma because of it. In these types of cases, then her rights end where contact with other people begins.

Yes, but your firearm is not a random result of your biology. Or a result of being bitten by a radioactive goat or whatever, it is a choice you made to carry a tool designed to injure or kill humans. Registration after breaking existing laws must be the line.

The commonality here is that both can kill people - so if your powers fall into the category of "firearm-or-greater" stopping power, then the origin of said power is irrelevant. If I had a ranged weapon that didn't use gunpowder to launch the projectile, do you think I should just be able to carry it around and use it without consequence or regulation?

[Khaat]

Whether its standing in public transit, trying to move through a crowd at a concert venue or sporting event or just walking down a busy street people will brush off against you all the time. It's just normal. Happens to me all the time.

How often is that flesh-to-flesh? Really, bare skin-on-skin? Because that's what it takes to suffer from Rogue's unique biology. But we're back to Cyclop's rubyslippers-quartz glasses: she's already taking sufficient precaution in order to just live her life, why does it have to be legislated/regulated/registered? (Granted, the would-be gropers are in for a surprise when this sweet little number knocks them on their ass, in self-defense, for trying to get a handful....)

And if I was a trained martial artist with PTSD and reacted to each bump by beating the unfortunate innocent person to death I would go to prison irregardless of my condition. So why should she be treated any differently. Just try her under the same law.

That's my point: she hasn't super-powered anyone to death casually any more than you have beaten anyone to death casually. She should be prosecuted for existing laws for what she does if or when that happens, not added to a Registry merely because "that's what she might do."

[biostem]

Let's say a person had the mutant power to essentially emits a 10MT blast, at will, and you knew about it. Now if you were in a position to do something to prevent this person from wandering into a populated area, would you intervene? You don't know if they'll use their power because they genuinely can't control it, or whether they'll use it because they're just really pissed off. Don't you think it would be irresponsible not to take action?

[Khaat]

Imagine she's out somewhere and trips - someone goes to grab her to stop her from getting hurt, an they're put into a coma because of it. In these types of cases, then her rights end where contact with other people begins.

Stop her from getting hurt. Really. I must have grown up reading different comics. The Rogue I know a) flies, b) has better dexterity and coordination than some random ass-grabbing troglodyte or even amateur gymnast, and c) has, let's face it Ms. Marvel-rated invulnerablity.
If we're going by movies, well, Marie is already taking precautions, she has taken these precautions in order to live her life as well as she can.
"Someone might mistakenly rip off her clothes and get zapped!" I say they got what they deserved. Before or after she knocks their head off.

Really, your argument is (paraphrasing), "Someone doing something good for the wrong people could result in something bad happening, WE HAVE TO OUTLAW THE WRONG PEOPLE!"? The Trump campaign welcomes your support.

Registration after breaking existing laws must be the line.

The commonality here is that both can kill people - so if your powers fall into the category of "firearm-or-greater" stopping power, then the origin of said power is irrelevant. If I had a ranged weapon that didn't use gunpowder to launch the projectile, do you think I should just be able to carry it around and use it without consequence or regulation?

Okay, so in your hypothetical, you have, say, a slingshot loaded with poisoned darts, or a compound bow, whatever... my answer is, "Yes, until you use it to break existing law*, then fuck you, to the fullest extent of the law."

*We'll just presume for the moment that slingshots and poisoned darts aren't already regulated where you live. Somehow. Because it's drain cleaner. Whatever.