NationStates Jolt Archive

Assume that mutants are real. Assume that a minority have exploited their powers into thievery and murder.

Now the issue is brought forth to the voting public. There is a Bill being motioned in the House which proposes that all mutants and their powers are identified with their addresses listed.. There is a more radical side in support of the bill that also wants mutants with potentially dangerous abilities be quarantied. On the other side of the spectrum are those who believe their privacy is top priority.

So where do you lie? What's your take on the issue and why?

PRIVACY.

You go after criminals. You don't go after people because of an accident of birth.

Privacy. The bill was very akin to Gun Control, that meaning it was based on ignorance, paranoia, emotional passion, and personal insecurity as reasons for taking away people's rights.

PRIVACY.

You go after criminals. You don't go after people because of an accident of birth.

But what about, say, a seemingly innocent person who has the ability to threaten other people's lives. Perhaps on a grand scale? Wouldn't we be safer knowing who he/she is and what he/she can do?

Analyze and asses the danger they present to the public and deal accordingly. Catalogue and create classifications for each mutant based on their destructive powers, kind of like they have for tornadoes or eathquakes.

The more dangerous should, at the very least, be monitored very closley by authorities. Ones who's mutation is only represented in physical differences (blue skin, magenta eye color, etc...) should probably be left alone. However, I would not feel comfortable having "superhumans" that can kill you with a thought roaming unchecked and unmonitored.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why should mutants be any different. Can you imagine a few Magneto types deciding to run amok? Who exactly would stop them? What about someone like Storm, who can hold entire countries hostage by creating massive drought or constant tornadoes.... or Xavier who can take control of your mind?

If they commite a crime, registered, otherwise no. Treat it like pedophiles or rapists.

You mean a regular human can't threaten peoples lives? Perhaps even on a grand scale. Did you ever hear of guns, bombs, knives, poisons, even fists can threaten peoples lives.

I think everyone with hands or feet should have to register them, because any seemingly innocent person threaten lives with them.

No, a regular human cannot threaten you the way someone with Storm, Xavier, or Magnetos powers can. Very few "normal" people can cause that kind of damage.

It seems that these super-mutants are far more common than your average nuclear wielding dictator/radical.

No, a regular human cannot threaten you the way someone with Storm, Xavier, or Magnetos powers can. Very few "normal" people can cause that kind of damage.

It seems that these super-mutants are far more common than your average nuclear wielding dictator/radical.

To be fair. One ordinary person has a hell of a lot more potential for destruction then you give him credit for.

Analyze and asses the danger they present to the public and deal accordingly. Catalogue and create classifications for each mutant based on their destructive powers, kind of like they have for tornadoes or eathquakes.

The more dangerous should, at the very least, be monitored very closley by authorities. Ones who's mutation is only represented in physical differences (blue skin, magenta eye color, etc...) should probably be left alone. However, I would not feel comfortable having "superhumans" that can kill you with a thought roaming unchecked and unmonitored.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why should mutants be any different. Can you imagine a few Magneto types deciding to run amok? Who exactly would stop them? What about someone like Storm, who can hold entire countries hostage by creating massive drought or constant tornadoes.... or Xavier who can take control of your mind?

I would definately have to agree. The more potentially powerful (and dangerous) the more strict the monitoring. The less powerful the less monitoring is needed. Those with no detected mutational powers should be left alone altogether.

It's like... those with an excessive training in martial arts or a vast knowledge of guns and weapons. It should be a known thing.

Or perhaps a law that says "no blowing up of buildings with powers" or of the sort. Just to be on the safe side, y'know?

No, a regular human cannot threaten you the way someone with Storm, Xavier, or Magnetos powers can. Very few "normal" people can cause that kind of damage.

It seems that these super-mutants are far more common than your average nuclear wielding dictator/radical.

Getting killed by a knife or a bullet or lightning or having all the iron in your blood pulled out, its all the same. Dead is dead. Once you get there it don't really matter what did you in.

Getting killed by a knife or a bullet or lightning or having all the iron in your blood pulled out, its all the same. Dead is dead. Once you get there it don't really matter what did you in.

Yes but one "normal" wacko with even a sniper rifle can take out what? 10? 20? tops? Lets say this wacko blows up a building Oklahoma City style - around 250?

What about someone who can cause 100 tornados to appear in Los Angeles or NYC? 100 dead? 1000? What about a drought in a 3rd world country where 100,000 might die?

Assume that mutants are real. Assume that a minority have exploited their powers into thievery and murder.

Now the issue is brought forth to the voting public. There is a Bill being motioned in the House which proposes that all mutants and their powers are identified with their addresses listed.. There is a more radical side in support of the bill that also wants mutants with potentially dangerous abilities be quarantied. On the other side of the spectrum are those who believe their privacy is top priority.

So where do you lie? What's your take on the issue and why?

It's a complicated issue, isn't it? I can think of three (or four, depending on 2nd Amendment considerations) reasons not to pass the bill, and only bigotry and fear as reasons to pass it.

You don't, after all, register all bodybuilders because of strong-arm robberies, or register everyone with 20/20 or better eyesight because of the D.C. Snipers.

On the other hand, Mutants with powers but limited judgement are a hazard. Similarly, people who have those abilities, but know knowledge-base to control them are likewise a danger to themselves and others.

The most practical course (without ending Civil Liberties) is to seek some kind of nonintrusive middle-ground.

No one should be punished for what they might do.

I might add that if someone can cause a hundred tornados to appear in Los Angeles or NYC, then if that person obeys the law and doesn't hurt people, it's because of his/her conscience, not any threat of force. Treat that person like a criminal anyway, simply for being powerful? Setting aside the (horrendous) moral implications of "you might commit a crime so you have to be registered," that would be really, really stupid.

The most practical course (without ending Civil Liberties) is to seek some kind of nonintrusive middle-ground.

Could you provide some sort of example? Perhaps something like the Xavier School for the Gifted, only government funded?

No one should be punished for what they might do.

I might add that if someone can cause a hundred tornados to appear in Los Angeles or NYC, then if that person obeys the law and doesn't hurt people, it's because of his/her conscience, not any threat of force. Treat that person like a criminal anyway, simply for being powerful? Setting aside the (horrendous) moral implications of "you might commit a crime so you have to be registered," that would be really, really stupid.

How would it be punishment? It's a security measure. Measures are enforced with those who buy guns. Why not with dangerous powers?

And if that person has their powers tied to emotion? What should happen if a family member dies, or s/he is traumatized by something? Or even gets angry at a failing grade? S/he may not do something purposefully, but the consequences of letting him/her out open to such threats is a dangerous thing. Would you still be in support of his/her privacy?

I'm torn: This issue is a lot more difficult than I had previously thought.

On the one hand, the proposed system is probably unconstitutional in at least 3 ways.

On the other, one Magneto-type mutant could topple every government in the world. What to do?

Privacy. Most of us are capable of all sorts of nasty stuff, but we don't do it - and you can't lock us up pre-emptively.

Ordinary humans could, for example: hijack a plane and force it to drive into a large office building; poison a whole bunch of Tylenol tablets; go to the top of a clock tower and start firing. A few extra abilities are unlikely to alter most people's basic unwillingness to do such things.

If, however, you did lock up the mutants pre-emptively, you'd suddenly find yourself with serious resistance. A la Magneto, in fact...

A normal person is as dangerous as any mutant. A single charismatic speaker can incite a war or lead a genocide, I give you Adolf Hitler, a man who through the power of the spoken word, incited the greatest war ever seen.

There are about 7 constitutional reasons not to pass the bill.

Then again, there are about more then enough reasons to pass it, looking at X-Men.

The best way to handle this is a compromise. No quarintines or wars... but a "Patriot Act" for mutants.

A normal person is as dangerous as any mutant. A single charismatic speaker can incite a war or lead a genocide, I give you Adolf Hitler, a man who through the power of the spoken word, incited the greatest war ever seen.

However, thease people do thease horrible things on purpose. Mutants who can't control thier powers can accidently hurt some one, and themselves.

Anybody here from PDX who read the "I Heart Television" review in the Mercury?

No? Okay.

Think of it as a metaphor for homosexuals.

And if you hadn't already thought of that, I hereby bash you over the head with Bobby's mother's line: "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?"

There is my two cents on the topic of X-Men.

I'm torn: This issue is a lot more difficult than I had previously thought.

On the one hand, the proposed system is probably unconstitutional in at least 3 ways.

On the other, one Magneto-type mutant could topple every government in the world. What to do?

Yes but one "normal" wacko with even a sniper rifle can take out what? 10? 20? tops? Lets say this wacko blows up a building Oklahoma City style - around 250?

What about someone who can cause 100 tornados to appear in Los Angeles or NYC? 100 dead? 1000? What about a drought in a 3rd world country where 100,000 might die?

What about someone with a reaaaaally big magnifying glass, which could be used to incinerate the entire eastern seaboard?

The sooner we start building Sentinels, the sooner Mankind becomes enslaved to the Machines.

I think the real danger presented by the bill is that of mutant-lynchings by fearful people. I'd propose a slight modification: have a database of all known dangerous mutants, but restrict access to this database to governmental and law-enforcement agencies. That way, you minimise the risk of vigilantes, while at the same time knowing who to call on if there's a sudden outbreak of un-forecast tornadoes.

I think the real danger presented by the bill is that of mutant-lynchings by fearful people. I'd propose a slight modification: have a database of all known dangerous mutants, but restrict access to this database to governmental and law-enforcement agencies. That way, you minimise the risk of vigilantes, while at the same time knowing who to call on if there's a sudden outbreak of un-forecast tornadoes.

And government grants to the bald guy in the wheelchair. :D

How would it be punishment? It's a security measure. Measures are enforced with those who buy guns. Why not with dangerous powers?

And if that person has their powers tied to emotion? What should happen if a family member dies, or s/he is traumatized by something? Or even gets angry at a failing grade? S/he may not do something purposefully, but the consequences of letting him/her out open to such threats is a dangerous thing. Would you still be in support of his/her privacy?

Buying a gun (or picking one up illegally) is a conscious, deliberate, choice.
Using similar logic to the MRA, a racist could justify registering all young, Black/hispanic/arabic men. (Seeing as those ethnicities compromise a significant portion of the Prison Population for violent crimes).

To preserve a free society, you have to accept the risks. A more rational approach would be to aggressively recruit Mutants into Police ranks to deal with those Mutants who choose to do harm to others. (similar to the aggressive recruiting of Vietnam Veterans into Police Departments in the 1970's.) You can not sacrifice Liberty for Safety and retain Liberty. It just doesn't happen that way. Most times, you also don't get to be safe.
These are human beings. Sure, they have "Powers", and can become quite dangerous, but an ordinary man can become quite dangerous if his back is to the wall as well.

one aspect I could see coming out of the situation, is that "Gun Control" would become a non-issue. Governments would have to trust the law-abiding with weapons, because Police can't be everywhere at once, and the thing is, if a guy is hurling plasma-bolts down a crowded street, he's probably not bulletproof, and stopping him is definitely a "Right Now" issue.

No, a regular human cannot threaten you the way someone with Storm, Xavier, or Magnetos powers can. Very few "normal" people can cause that kind of damage.

It seems that these super-mutants are far more common than your average nuclear wielding dictator/radical.


Timothy McVeigh killed around 100 people in the blink of an eye, and didnt do it with Optic Beams.
He did it with a Rental Truck full of fertilizer.

It doesnt matter if you have superpowers or not.
Those do not determine who will decide to cuase havok to innocent people.
If a person wants to be a mass murderer, he wouldnt need to be a mutant to do it.

So, if there were such people, registering them would be natural.
Just as most people are registered to a Political Party, or for a census.
The only situation that would warrant close observation would be if such person were :

a: possessed of a power that would be a danger to themselves or others, willing or unwilling.

B: Had a criminal record of with a history of violent crimes.

In ALL other cases the rights to privacy as any other citizen of the United States, would HAVE to prevail.
Its almost as bad as wanting to write laws against homosexuals into the Constitution.

Timothy McVeigh killed around 100 people in the blink of an eye, and didnt do it with Optic Beams.
He did it with a Rental Truck full of fertilizer.

It doesnt matter if you have superpowers or not.
Those do not determine who will decide to cuase havok to innocent people.
If a person wants to be a mass murderer, he wouldnt need to be a mutant to do it.

So, if there were such people, registering them would be natural.
Just as most people are registered to a Political Party, or for a census.
The only situation that would warrant close observation would be if such person were :

a: possessed of a power that would be a danger to themselves or others, willing or unwilling.

B: Had a criminal record of with a history of violent crimes.

In ALL other cases the rights to privacy as any other citizen of the United States, would HAVE to prevail.
Its almost as bad as wanting to write laws against homosexuals into the Constitution.


"Almost" as bad? It's the same thing.

If you don't mind, I'm going to expand on your points for a moment:
[rant]
Once you start writing laws based on what someone is rather than what they do, where do you stop? A violent criminal who uses eye-beams or plasma-fists or whathaveyou is no different, at its base, to a violent criminal who uses an automatic shotgun, or high-explosives. He's a violent criminal with, or without powers. I would suspect most "Mutants" wouldn't use their abilities to harm others any more than most gun owners are out there shooting at schoolbuses. One of the big problems I see in REALITY, is an increasing tendency for people to identify themselves by a single trait, this is dangerous to freedom in general, and in a Mutant-verse, it's potentially even MORE dangerous.

Examples from the Reality world:

Gays
Conservatives
Republicans
Liberals
Progressives
Atheists
Straight
Christian

From a Mutantverse:

Mutant
Non-Mutant
Mundane

When people start identifying themselves by a single portion of their lives, that portion becomes overwhelmingly a stereotype of the most dangerous sort-because it will tend to reinforce the prejudices of others.

IRL, you are Not your gender, your Sexual Preference, your Political Affiliation, or your Economic Status. you are not your home furnishings, or your car, your clothes, or who happens to be in the bed with you when you go to sleep. you aren't defined solely by how you get off, or the gun in the gun-safe in your gun-room. (or the one under the pillow when you sleep.)
you're not your physical fitness either, how much you bench-press does not define what kind of person you are, nor are you defined solely by your choice of Religious or Non-Religious observance.

In a Mutantverse, you can add to the above statement "You are NOT your POWERS (or lack thereof), you are not your Genes, you are not your relative throw-weight in TNT or Megajoules..."

But what about, say, a seemingly innocent person who has the ability to threaten other people's lives. Perhaps on a grand scale? Wouldn't we be safer knowing who he/she is and what he/she can do?

What you are proposing then is something akin to "Minority Report" in which people are executed for crimes they have not committed, or any number of Eugenics programs, where people's genetics are examined and if they are not "perfect" they are destroyed or else made second class citizens.

Japanese internment camps unjustly imprisoned many innocents because they "might' be sympathetic to the cause of Japan during the Second World War -- and the US government has apologized for that injustice and made some reparations for it (though how you can pay someone back, particularly toddlers and children, for placing them in prison for no reason I don't know.)

But sure, go ahead -- and confirm the feeling that the minority group has that the majority are out to screw them. That will certainly cut down on the number of disgruntled and dangerous criminals. (Actually, what you propose would cause more resentment, insurgency, etc.)

It amazes me that so many people can howl with outrage at a perceived limitation on freedom of speech, and yet casually will eliminate the rights of another group so long as it's not their ox being gored.

Hey, I know -- let's all be fingerprinted and registered as computer users because any one of us might be OMG HACKERS!

What you are proposing then is something akin to "Minority Report" in which people are executed for crimes they have not committed, or any number of Eugenics programs, where people's genetics are examined and if they are not "perfect" they are destroyed or else made second class citizens.

Japanese internment camps unjustly imprisoned many innocents because they "might' be sympathetic to the cause of Japan during the Second World War -- and the US government has apologized for that injustice and made some reparations for it (though how you can pay someone back, particularly toddlers and children, for placing them in prison for no reason I don't know.)

But sure, go ahead -- and confirm the feeling that the minority group has that the majority are out to screw them. That will certainly cut down on the number of disgruntled and dangerous criminals. (Actually, what you propose would cause more resentment, insurgency, etc.)

It amazes me that so many people can howl with outrage at a perceived limitation on freedom of speech, and yet casually will eliminate the rights of another group so long as it's not their ox being gored.

Hey, I know -- let's all be fingerprinted and registered as computer users because any one of us might be OMG HACKERS!

Many of the mutants in X-Men started out not being able to (fully) control their powers--hence the reason for the Xavier Institute. It's much akin to giving a toddler a handgun or hand-grenade: they probably don't know what it is, but they're definately capable of pulling the trigger/pin. In many of the instances they were a danger to themselves and the rest of society.

I'm certainly not proposing that those with harmless powers be limited, only those with harmful powers and especially those who don't know how to handle them. If anything there should be some sort of government run mutant institute--much like Xavier's in nature--on a grand scale. Just like American public schools, attendance to those specified mutant types is mandatory. Let them learn to control their powers, if not completely subdue them. Once they "graduate" give them the opportunity to live freely, although register their names and mutant abilities into a government list classified to the public*.

Other public schools should not limit the inclusion of other mutants with the knowledge of this mutant-only school, however. As mentioned before, "safe"-type mutants are not required to attend and can join other public schools if they so choose without any discrimination.

It's my firm belief that those who hold knowledge or power to harm others should be taught the effects and responsiblities of that knowledge or power. Those who purchase guns or other weapons should be required to take information classes or some kind of requirement that affirms that they know the responsibilites of handling said weapon(s). If they refuse, they don't get a gun. Simple as that. Those who take martial arts should be prepared to sign papers saying that they will not abuse such knowledge, and practice it only in a legitimate case of self defense or a certified and legal event. If they refuse to sign it they don't get to take the class.

Safety and security is just as important as freedom and privacy. There must be a balance. To ignore the fact that there would be mutants with harmful powers would be sacrificing safety. However, to cut them off and follow their every move would be an infringement on the individual's privace and civil rights. There must be a balance.

*--I'm debating on whether or not employers should know about such dangerous powers. Some jobs require information on what kind of weapon or handgun an employee may have in their posession, so it would be safe to assume that the same would go for a harmful power.

(As a note: when did I ever howl about protecting freedom of speech, if that was directed at me?)

treating mutants like criminals may well alienate them enough to become criminals. this must be avoided

we do however need to keep a data base of mutant powers. not tied to individuals (unless they come up against the crimimal justice system) but to powers and potentials. that way we can know what might happen and what needs to be guarded against.

To be fair, the mutations in the X-men universe start to manifest at puberty, so it wouldn't be like handing a toddler a shotgun; it would be like handing a teenager a shotgun.

I'm inclined to say that privacy should be the norm, although were the X-men mutations real, it would probably be necessary to alter the education system. Mutants would require a much greater amount of counseling in order to curb potentially violent tendencies (just imagine the look of shock on the schoolyard bully's face when little Timmy suddenly picks up the jungle gym and throws it at him), and there would be much greater need for philosophical/ethical training. Much more emphasis would need to be placed on what people should and should not do as compared to the modern elementary education.

(snip)Safety and security is just as important as freedom and privacy. There must be a balance. To ignore the fact that there would be mutants with harmful powers would be sacrificing safety. However, to cut them off and follow their every move would be an infringement on the individual's privace and civil rights. There must be a balance. (snip)
(As a note: when did I ever howl about protecting freedom of speech, if that was directed at me?)
Now what was that quote about sacrificing liberty for security deserving neither?

Ever play baseball? Ever swing a hammer? "Then you hold knowledge or power to harm others" Should we register you?

To treat someone who has committed no crime, no offense, no transgression as a criminal is itself criminal and that person should be locked away. Report to your local detention center and turn yourself in.

Registering innocent people for supervision because of the potential to commit crimes is retarded. Period.

And also, much of the mutants fighting against the government had to do with shit like that in the first place.

treating mutants like criminals may well alienate them enough to become criminals. this must be avoided

we do however need to keep a data base of mutant powers. not tied to individuals (unless they come up against the crimimal justice system) but to powers and potentials. that way we can know what might happen and what needs to be guarded against.
The problem with this data base is that mutant powers, by virtue of being mutations are unique to the individual. So you would have a database "not tied to individuals" but would in effect be tied to individuals. Someone later would take that list and say "This is too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely among us... we must, for our own safety, lock away him, her, them".

The X-Men is an allegory for the world today. Because a small fraction of the population is guilty of criminal behavior, the entire community is tarred with the same brush.

I say no. You interfere, you only go about bringing the end of the world frequently because disgruntled people have a reason to vent their disgruntledness.

Obviously we simply trust professor X' judgement and he'll keep everything OK.

To be fair, the mutations in the X-men universe start to manifest at puberty, so it wouldn't be like handing a toddler a shotgun; it would be like handing a teenager a shotgun.

I'm inclined to say that privacy should be the norm, although were the X-men mutations real, it would probably be necessary to alter the education system. Mutants would require a much greater amount of counseling in order to curb potentially violent tendencies (just imagine the look of shock on the schoolyard bully's face when little Timmy suddenly picks up the jungle gym and throws it at him), and there would be much greater need for philosophical/ethical training. Much more emphasis would need to be placed on what people should and should not do as compared to the modern elementary education.

Point. Although you still have to admit that they probably won't know what to do with said powers upon emergance. I mean.. look at movie!Rogue. She nearly killed her boyfriend and it was completely unintentional. Without his special visor and sunglasses, Cyclops would either have to be choicefully blind or shoot down everything he sees. Jean Grey, without the help of Prof. X, would be giving herself as well as everyone else immediately around her migranes at the very least, not to mention having things (and maybe people) tossed about the place. Beast would be a, well, beast, and Jubilee (as wimpily lame as her powers are--I mean.. come on, fireworks?!) would have fried everything.

Those with harmful powers do need to be able to control them. If they can't then you can't say they're not a danger to society. Be it a school, therapy, or something else that helps them, they do need to be helped and they--and the government--need to know that the powers can be and are controlled. Once that's affirmed, they can go about their business (and should be) free of fear and persecution.

Point. Although you still have to admit that they probably won't know what to do with said powers upon emergance. I mean.. look at movie!Rogue. She nearly killed her boyfriend and it was completely unintentional. Without his special visor and sunglasses, Cyclops would either have to be choicefully blind or shoot down everything he sees. Jean Grey, without the help of Prof. X, would be giving herself as well as everyone else immediately around her migranes at the very least, not to mention having things (and maybe people) tossed about the place. Beast would be a, well, beast, and Jubilee (as wimpily lame as her powers are--I mean.. come on, fireworks?!) would have fried everything.

Those with harmful powers do need to be able to control them. If they can't then you can't say they're not a danger to society. Be it a school, therapy, or something else that helps them, they do need to be helped and they--and the government--need to know that the powers can be and are controlled. Once that's affirmed, they can go about their business (and should be) free of fear and persecution.

You wouldn't necessarily need a government program in order to do that, though. Lots of people have biological conditions now that on the one hand pose legitemate security concerns, but are dealt with while leaving the government out of it. People with bipolar disorder are far more likely to engage in criminal behavior than average, but its a matter dealt with through private insurance and counseling, as well as trips to the school nurse, not through government intervention. In that sense, I'm not seeing much difference between clearance for Tommy to visit the nurse at lunch for his Zyprexa and Jimmy getting permission to wear some modified sunglasses to prevent him from frying everyone he looks at.

The problem with this data base is that mutant powers, by virtue of being mutations are unique to the individual. So you would have a database "not tied to individuals" but would in effect be tied to individuals. Someone later would take that list and say "This is too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely among us... we must, for our own safety, lock away him, her, them".
well yes and no
so i know there is a shape shifter out there. or the govt does and maybe i can find out. that doesnt mean i know her name, social security number, address. i cant hunt her down and kill her.

but we know that such a person exists and that there CAN be more. (cant there? im not all that up on xmen) law enforcement officials need to be aware that such a person exists in case of baffling shape shifting cases coming up.

its like keeping track of HIV without keeping the names of everyone and passing them around. we know how many people have aids but we cant look up to see if our neighbor has it.

Now what was that quote about sacrificing liberty for security deserving neither?

Ever play baseball? Ever swing a hammer? "Then you hold knowledge or power to harm others" Should we register you?

To treat someone who has committed no crime, no offense, no transgression as a criminal is itself criminal and that person should be locked away. Report to your local detention center and turn yourself in.

I never said to treat them like criminals. I'm not in favor of a quarantine, unless they absolutely cannot control harmful powers, nor am I wanting a constant survellance to every or most mutants. All I'm in favor of is the mandatory helping of these mutants. Give them the capability to control their powers, then teach them why it's unethical to use them towards the harm of others. If they can control their powers, then number two still applies. Those who buy guns and use martial arts should know it would be wrong to use them harmfully. The difference, as someone against my argument said, is choice. Because they don't have a choice and have a harmful power fall into their lap--most of the time without control at first--they need to be informed about it and let them know the ethics to it.

You wouldn't necessarily need a government program in order to do that, though. Lots of people have biological conditions now that on the one hand pose legitemate security concerns, but are dealt with while leaving the government out of it. People with bipolar disorder are far more likely to engage in criminal behavior than average, but its a matter dealt with through private insurance and counseling, as well as trips to the school nurse, not through government intervention. In that sense, I'm not seeing much difference between clearance for Tommy to visit the nurse at lunch for his Zyprexa and Jimmy getting permission to wear some modified sunglasses to prevent him from frying everyone he looks at.
by not demonizing mutants, its more likely that they will be willing to reveal themselves and accept any necessary treatments/councilling/special glasses.

What if cows could fly? this whole thread is Irrelevant because its not gonna happen, humans are done evolving so long as there is not some dramatic change to the environment

You wouldn't necessarily need a government program in order to do that, though. Lots of people have biological conditions now that on the one hand pose legitemate security concerns, but are dealt with while leaving the government out of it. People with bipolar disorder are far more likely to engage in criminal behavior than average, but its a matter dealt with through private insurance and counseling, as well as trips to the school nurse, not through government intervention. In that sense, I'm not seeing much difference between clearance for Tommy to visit the nurse at lunch for his Zyprexa and Jimmy getting permission to wear some modified sunglasses to prevent him from frying everyone he looks at.

A reason--if not the only one--for the government run schooling/counseling is the mandatory attendance. Things like this should require the presence of the mutant(s) at hand. Learning to control your powers and learning the ethics of not using them shouldn't be optional. Much like refusing to learn about basics in school now is punished by law after a certain extent. Only instead of knowledge this is more "life and death", thus far more important (not discrediting basic schooling).

If it's a private institution, then perhaps they need to include a certain budget into their schooling, the number pertaining to the size of the school. It shouldn't be underfunded, and we shouldn't allow such a risk to be taken.

All in all I find it easier for the government to regulate and fund such kinds of institutions.

More intelligent people are probably more able to commit large-scale crimes, but we don't automatically keep strict tabs on anyone with a high IQ, now do we?

Anyone and everyone is capable of committing a crime. We don't start regulating and tabulating them until they do so. I don't see how this would be any different.

What if cows could fly? this whole thread is Irrelevant because its not gonna happen, humans are done evolving so long as there is not some dramatic change to the environment

Of course it's irrelevant. I wanted a debate that didn't pertain to "OMGEE fAgs r gaY!!1" or "goD iz st00pid loll an soo r u!! lolz!". "What if" debates are fun and, at times, enlightening.

More intelligent people are probably more able to commit large-scale crimes, but we don't automatically keep strict tabs on anyone with a high IQ, now do we?

Anyone and everyone is capable of committing a crime. We don't start regulating and tabulating them until they do so. I don't see how this would be any different.

The difference is control. As I said, many emerging mutants are not able to control any powers they may receive. Thus comes the "immediate danger" to themselves and everyone else. Those who high IQ generally know (I hope) how to control that intelligence and use it as a benefit and not a detriment to society. Those with newfound powers usually don't know squat about it and thus need to be helped...taught. Anything that let's them control that power and keep themselves ethical about it.

Of course it's irrelevant. I wanted a debate that didn't pertain to "OMGEE fAgs r gaY!!1" or "goD iz st00pid loll an soo r u!! lolz!". "What if" debates are fun and, at times, enlightening.

Also quite the source of income for Marvel and DC comics. ;)

Also quite the source of income for Marvel and DC comics. ;)

So true. But...don't tell them I said that. I don't want to risk my job...

Oh wait..

You didn't hear that. ;)

Heh.

Would it shock you to know Magneto is probably my favorite "villain", though really, I think of him more as a tragic hero?

Heh.

Would it shock you to know Magneto is probably my favorite "villain", though really, I think of him more as a tragic hero?

Yeah, he's up there with me too. I don't really see him as a villian either...just more of a...protagonist to the X-Men. Not necessarily evil (at least he thinks so), but not "good" either, per se.

For a more official villian, Apocalypse will have to be my fav. when it comes to X-men.

All I've seen are some poor attempts at comparisons between mutants and either gays, blacks, asians, minorities, etc.... and some arguments about constitutionality.

The race/gener/sexual preference comparisons hold ZERO water. They are apples and oranges.

The only argument that hols some water is the unconstitutionality of any mutant registration/regulation act but then that is eliminated once you look at our current situation and the war on terror and some ligislation passed directly as a result of that - the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II.

Just as the Patriot Acts were put in place to ensure some security sou would a mutant registration act. We need to know who can be harmfull and just how harmfull. The more powerfull of mutants should be monitored. Highly unusual weather patterns are appearing? Monitor Storm. Magetic field acting up? Question Magneto.

Look at it another way - people are not allowed certain weapons because of a variety of reasons including destructive power, knowledge of weapon, training required to operate it, etc...

The everyday Joe cannot own a nuke. There are perfectly legitamate reasons for this. Yet, we would be dealing with mutants who would have that kind of raw power manisfested through any means. There were mutants in the X-Men universe who could do anything they wanted - their power very extensive and devestating.

Lets look at Professor Xavier's evil counterpart - the Shadow King. His telepathic powers made him one of the strongest mutants around. He was, and so is Professor X, in many regards much more powerfull and had the potential for far more damage than any mutant who's powers were manifested physically.

Now, no one here is suggesting concentration camps or anything similar to Genosha. For those that aren't comic book nerds, Genosha was supposed to be an island nation that was like the Warsaw Ghetto of the X-Men universe. Mutants born on this island were automatically raised as slaves by the state.

Registration of mutants - and their abilities allows us to monitor mutants based on the threat level they present. That way, if someone powerfull does run amok, we won't be taken by surprise and we will have some idea of how to deal with them.

As I said earlier, the government should do the monitering. I don't think revealing who is a mutant (like the way sexual predators are revealed under Megan's Law) would be prudent because it would cause violent outbreaks that could lead to very damaging situations.

Going back to my point about how certain weapons are allowed while others are not, let's look at the constrictive gun laws of Canada, Australia, Germany, and the UK. In those places, gun are either outright banned or are only allowed under very specific conditions where permits are very hard to obtain. Imagine in such a society where we have normal, unarmed people, and hen we have mutants whos powers behave like weapons - firestarters, blaster beams, shockwaves, etc....

What we now have is a weapon carrying minority of the population that is totally unregulated. Obviously gub laws would not apply to mutant powers but some regulation for mutants is needed to adjust for this deficiency. A limit on the use of powers or outright ban depending on the severity of the powers.

Another point along similar lines is - all legal gun owners are registered. Why? Because they need to have greater responsibility because they have provaleges/powers that can be potentially harmfull and this person now carries a greater responsibility. They are also registered because if they fail in that responsibility, it would be easier to track them down and deal with them. This was a point made by someone earlier and I have not seen any real rebuttels to this.

All I've seen are some poor attempts at comparisons between mutants and either gays, blacks, asians, minorities, etc.... and some arguments about constitutionality.

The race/gener/sexual preference comparisons hold ZERO water. They are apples and oranges.

Not in the least. All of them are accidents of physiology, if you will. They are factors of a person that they had no input into. Being or not being a mutant would be the same. Would the powers set one apart from others? Certainly, just as any physical trait places us into little groups.

The only argument that hols some water is the unconstitutionality of any mutant registration/regulation act but then that is eliminated once you look at our current situation and the war on terror and some ligislation passed directly as a result of that - the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II.

Note that these particular laws also have their constitutionality questioned, so perhaps using them as an example is a bad idea. You may want to find a law that is uncontested but still undeniably unconstitutional.

Another point along similar lines is - all legal gun owners are registered. Why? Because they need to have greater responsibility because they have provaleges/powers that can be potentially harmfull and this person now carries a greater responsibility. They are also registered because if they fail in that responsibility, it would be easier to track them down and deal with them. This was a point made by someone earlier and I have not seen any real rebuttels to this.

Irrelevant. A gun owner chooses to be a gun owner. You are not forced by nature to buy a gun and then regulated.

Not in the least. All of them are accidents of physiology, if you will. They are factors of a person that they had no input into. Being or not being a mutant would be the same. Would the powers set one apart from others? Certainly, just as any physical trait places us into little groups.

Being black does not mean you have the possibility to harm people simply because of your black skin. Being gay doesn not mean you can harm people because you are simply gay. Being a mutant does mean you pose a potential threat to those around you because of the simple fact that you are born a mutant. Apples and oranges.

Note that these particular laws also have their constitutionality questioned, so perhaps using them as an example is a bad idea. You may want to find a law that is uncontested but still undeniably unconstitutional.

Question all you want but these laws ARE in the books. If you want an example of an uncontested law than this link of the US Federal gun laws (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html) should suffice. Pay close attention to part b section 4.

Under that part, machine guns and certain shotguns are banned, as is the use of certain ammunition. This can be construed as unconstitutional if you look at the second amendment.

Irrelevant. A gun owner chooses to be a gun owner. You are not forced by nature to buy a gun and then regulated.

Not irrelavent. Whether by choice or not, we would have a segment of the population that is "armed". Just as we regulate gun owners we would need to regulate this minority in some fashion.

Being black does not mean you have the possibility to harm people simply because of your black skin. Being gay doesn not mean you can harm people because you are simply gay. Being a mutant does mean you pose a potential threat to those around you because of the simple fact that you are born a mutant. Apples and oranges.
In terms of practical applications and consequences, you're probably right about the utility of a registration law for mutants, at least the most powerful ones. Magneto, Storm, and Xavier could all do enormous damage if they misused their powers. However, before the adamantium augmentation, Wolverine's healing powers hardly posed a threat to public safety. Without any qualifications on strength of powers, you've started down an extremely dangerous path. Someone who's quite strong (not mutant strong, more like Ahnold-style strong) could pose a threat if they don't know their strength and accidentally knock someone down or choose to use their strength for evil. A genius could also use their intelligence in the wrong ways. Would the government monitor abnormally strong and smart people as well? I don't think so.

Question all you want but these laws ARE in the books.
This is a stupid argument. Essentially, you're arguing that every law on the books is constitutional because it was passed by Congress. That makes segregation, Japanese internment, the Alien and Sedition acts - the worst violations of the Constitution in American history - unable to be declared unconstitutional. Hell, you just eliminated the need for constitutional law, because we can't declare anything Congress passes to be unconstitutional.

If that's not what you meant, then this gets you nowhere in your above argument. Because the mutant law really is unconstitutional. Read the Fourth and Fifth amendments. Mutant registration is tantamount to submitting to a search without probable cause, because one is being watched and monitored (thus searched biologically) at all times. It also allows the mutants to be detained without charge (6th amendment) if any disturbances similar to their powers arise. So you'd really have to pass a constitutional amendment to get this law through. But that amendment could be dangerous on its own.

If you want an example of an uncontested law than this link of the US Federal gun laws (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html) should suffice. Pay close attention to part b section 4.

Under that part, machine guns and certain shotguns are banned, as is the use of certain ammunition. This can be construed as unconstitutional if you look at the second amendment.
Again, this is silly constitutional law. The second amendment says that the people should have the right to a "well-regulated militia." It makes zero qualifications onto how that militia could be armed, as long as it can be armed. Your interpretation of the law would prevent the government from stopping the acquisition of nuclear weapons by private citizens, because they are a type of armament. No judge would ever buy that.

Not irrelavent. Whether by choice or not, we would have a segment of the population that is "armed". Just as we regulate gun owners we would need to regulate this minority in some fashion.
Some. Not all. This is above.

Again, this is silly constitutional law. The second amendment says that the people should have the right to a "well-regulated militia." It makes zero qualifications onto how that militia could be armed, as long as it can be armed. Your interpretation of the law would prevent the government from stopping the acquisition of nuclear weapons by private citizens, because they are a type of armament. No judge would ever buy that.

AHA! So we place sensible limits on our rights. The right to bear arms doesnt mean that you or I should possess nukes nor does the first amendment allow you to scream fire in a crowded building - the same can be reasonably appled to the 4th and 5th amendments. There was a reason why the framers not only allowed for changes in the constitution to be made but they purposly were not very specific when they wrote things. As times change they new that certain things may be interpreted differently. This is another reason why the constitution comes equipped with the "necessery and proper" clause.

However, before the adamantium augmentation, Wolverine's healing powers hardly posed a threat to public safety.

Which is why mutant's powers are rated and addressed accordingly. Mutants with mere asthetic changes (eye color, skin pigment, etc...) would be left allone. Each mutant's powers would be evaluated upon manifestation (or earlier since we would simply look for the X-Factor gene which causes mutations).

Someone who's quite strong (not mutant strong, more like Ahnold-style strong) could pose a threat if they don't know their strength and accidentally knock someone down or choose to use their strength for evil.

How strong are we talking about? 5x the normal strength of a human? 10x? 1000000x? This is where the "rating" system would come into play. Each mutant's powers would be measured and evaluated to determine maximum damage they can inflict.

A genius could also use their intelligence in the wrong ways. Would the government monitor abnormally strong and smart people as well? I don't think so.

A genius COULD yes. But it is far more realistic to monitor mutants than it is smart people. A genius would have to have many resources to cause widespread harm, a powerfull mutant wouldn't need shit.

This is a stupid argument. Essentially, you're arguing that every law on the books is constitutional because it was passed by Congress. That makes segregation, Japanese internment, the Alien and Sedition acts - the worst violations of the Constitution in American history - unable to be declared unconstitutional. Hell, you just eliminated the need for constitutional law, because we can't declare anything Congress passes to be unconstitutional.

True, however, we have already shown that certain freedoms do have limits.

Replace the word "Mutant" with "Muslim" and does it read any more differently?

We must ensure their privacy, but we must also work on a way to give everyone mutant powers so nobody is left jealous and vulnerable.

Replace the word "Mutant" with "Muslim" and does it read any more differently?

Well, if Muslims fly, lift up (and toss) buses with ease, shoot nuclear beams from their mouths, and control the weather, then no it wouldn't.

AHA! So we place sensible limits on our rights. The right to bear arms doesnt mean that you or I should possess nukes nor does the first amendment allow you to scream fire in a crowded building - the same can be reasonably appled to the 4th and 5th amendments. There was a reason why the framers not only allowed for changes in the constitution to be made but they purposly were not very specific when they wrote things. As times change they new that certain things may be interpreted differently. This is another reason why the constitution comes equipped with the "necessery and proper" clause.

Which is why mutant's powers are rated and addressed accordingly. Mutants with mere asthetic changes (eye color, skin pigment, etc...) would be left allone. Each mutant's powers would be evaluated upon manifestation (or earlier since we would simply look for the X-Factor gene which causes mutations).

How strong are we talking about? 5x the normal strength of a human? 10x? 1000000x? This is where the "rating" system would come into play. Each mutant's powers would be measured and evaluated to determine maximum damage they can inflict.

A genius COULD yes. But it is far more realistic to monitor mutants than it is smart people. A genius would have to have many resources to cause widespread harm, a powerfull mutant wouldn't need shit.

True, however, we have already shown that certain freedoms do have limits.

You, sir, are my hero. At least...someone I can respectfully admire. Kudos to you. *bow*

Point. Although you still have to admit that they probably won't know what to do with said powers upon emergance. I mean.. look at movie!Rogue. She nearly killed her boyfriend and it was completely unintentional.

True, Rogue was special case.

Without his special visor and sunglasses, Cyclops would either have to be choicefully blind or shoot down everything he sees.

Head injury caused that. Plus Cyclops wasn't fully human he was part alien(father). When you add aliens to the mix things get freaky.

Beast would be a, well, beast
and Jubilee (as wimpily lame as her powers are--I mean.. come on, fireworks?!) would have fried everything.

Yeah, well Beast didn't maniufest beastly feelings. He just looked weird and could walk on ceiling. He kept his scientific mind. So you lost that one. Jubiliee needed to find a schood school, but treating her like a outcast is bad.

Those with harmful powers do need to be able to control them. If they can't then you can't say they're not a danger to society. Be it a school, therapy, or something else that helps them, they do need to be helped and they--and the government--need to know that the powers can be and are controlled. Once that's affirmed, they can go about their business (and should be) free of fear and persecution.
Xavier school isn't mandatory because noone has the right to force a person to go to only one school. You have choice of public schools for a reason.

For those who want to lock up or treat up Mutants as secobd class citizens play We Are the Champions by Queen.
"I've done my Sentence, but commited no crime. And bad mistakes, I've made a few. I've been kicked in the face but I've pulled through."

And Another quote, " I consider it a challenge before all human race and I Never lose! We are Champions...we are Champions!...No time for Losers because we are Champions, of the world!"

You, sir, are my hero. At least...someone I can respectfully admire. Kudos to you. *bow*

And the next step would be to licence having children, being gay/straight, being a jew..... hang on, haven't we already had something like that? Hitler and his prats....how about China and their licencing of having children? It's all exactly the same.