- Epinephrine
- Nov 7, 2008
-
|
I feel like this gets into the weeds, the broader question I think was nailed earlier; does actually having those kinds of powers justify depriving them of their human rights. I feel that in of itself is probably a whole topic without an easy answer.
Because it isn't hard to adjust the lens and consider similar topics; what about people with really enhanced cybernetics that basically give them superhuman abilities; or genetic engineering to be stronger, faster, smarter; not as much as in comics but what about 30% better in all categories. Or aliens who might have abilities and adaptations that make them appear to be superhuman in some respects, but in all of the above there is a group of people who potentially are a risk.
I think from the categorical imperative I feel if there's even 1 scenario where the answer is clearly and emphatically no we can't take away their rights, then we can't do it to any of them.
The 2000 X-Men movie touched on this framing, come to think of it:
Senator Kelly, on the phone, on a helicopter posted:Senator, listen, you favor gun registration, yes? Well some of these so-called children posses the destructive force over 10 times that of any handgun. . . . No I don't see a difference; all I see are weapons in our schools. . . . Well that's fair enough. Alright. [hangs up]
Kelly was also playing to the bigots in that movie and the argument here dehumanizes mutants by claiming children aren't really children if they can shoot laser beams out of their eyes [EDIT: Oh, and he explains seconds later that the reason he exists is to wage war against mutants, you don't have to squint too hard to see the bigotry between the lines], but it's not to hard to see a spectrum from "has a gun" to "has a cybernetic implant that shoots bullets" to "my skeleton allows me to shoot bone shards that may as well be bullets."
Epinephrine fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Nov 5, 2021
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 07:02
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2024 13:40
|
|