Point One, since you insist on debating this:
Vaccinations are given to everybody, regardless of gender or ethnicity.
Point Two:
Again, they don't change a trait. In most cases they are a dormant version of the virus/infection, to help your body build up an immunity. It is, essentially, training your T and B cells to guard against said virus should you be introduced to it through natural means. In some cases the vaccination will be a live virus, but a weakened version of it. Either way, receiving a vaccination is enhancing a trait that's already there, i.e. your immune system. It did not introduce your immune system and it is not removing it. So, I'm sorry, but that example is a false equivalence.
But yes, the SHRA would have been improved by voluntary registration instead of forced conscription.
Depends on what you mean by "voluntary registration". We don't allow policemen and soldiers to decide whether they will be regulated by democratic institutions. When cops and soldiers are free, no one else is.
For a comic book story, it does have to something which over reaches for conflict and drama, because a sensible law fairly implemented which no one has a problem with would make for a very very boring story. The point of this is to generate conflict and drama for entertainment value. It's a super hero story, not CSPAN.
But that aside, there's a very simply reason why the SHRA we got wasn't sensible. Because sensible reasons one might implement a superhuman registration act basically had nothing to do with the actual reasons the people were implementing it in the first place. Remember that the list of identities the government collected weren't kept by the US government... just SHIELD and Stark. Which tells you one thing... the government didn't actually give a dam about accountability. All they wanted was an excuse to build themselves a superhero army... once they got what they wanted, by whatever means necessary, they stopped caring about the rest.
The SHRA, while inherently unlawful, DOES legitimately have a reasonable rationale behind it. But because no one actually gave a dam about any of that, we ended up getting what we got instead.
Not really a comparable example though. You're not forced to be a police officer. It's a choice. And when you choose to do that for a living, in theory you're choosing to be regulated by whatever institutions the police department serves. If you don't want to be regulared by such institutions, don't be a cop.
But plenty of meta humans weren't given a choice in being meta human.
I wasn't talking about metahumans, I was talking about superheroes. Of course, this is hardly the first time the fuzzy line between a metahuman and a superhero has caused confusion. They are really two separate issues that are blurred together both by people discussing it in threads like these, and the comics themselves.
The issue with metahumans is that some have Cyclops-like powers that are massive health-hazards regardless of intent, and which make comparing them to people with harmless racial differences very dubious.
The issue with superheroes is that they have volunteered for a role in society that combines policemen and soldier yet many are unwilling to accept the regulations that keep policemen and soldiers from being monsters.
Two very separate issues which both debates and the comics themselves blur.
Last edited by MichaelC; 01-15-2020 at 05:19 PM.
But the problem is that this wasn't a super HERO registration act. It was a super HUMAN registration act.
If it were purely a super hero registration act, it could have avoided a lot of the issues that it had. It STILL would have had some problems... but people wouldn't be attacked by SHIELD for sitting on their living room couch.
Well then I oppose that version of it, we are in agreement and moving on.
Now, onto the issue of superheroes being unwilling to accept the regulations that keep policemen and soldiers from being monsters.
Last edited by MichaelC; 01-15-2020 at 05:28 PM.
Again though, most super heroes never agreed to follow such regulations in the first place. Prior to the SHRA, they didn't work for the government. If any super hero voluntarily signs up to work with the government then YES they should be expected to follow whatever regulalations the government gives them. The government effectively becomes their boss.
But it was probably a bit naive to assume that the heroes who werent' working for the governemnt (which was basically 99% of them) would start following the governments orders.
Policemen/policewomen decide they want to to be policemen/policewomen. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "you have to go to the police academy or else". If that is what you want as your career, more power to you! Freewill to decide your trade is but grand thing. But if you'd rather be a chef, that's great, too.
The SHRA forced everyone with superpowers to sign or they were put in a prison with dirt floors, no medical treatment, and not given so much as a dirty mattress, or any mattress at all, while they slowly went mad because that's what the Negative Zone does. Or, worse, because as hard as it is to believe there is a worse, yet the pro-registration side certainly brought their 'worse game', it got you killed by an evil Thor clone the pro-registration side created to hunt you down without any deference to what real!Thor might think of that. Or hey, if you prefer, your fate could have been being hunted by murderers the pro-registration side let out of prison specifically to hunt you down and beat you nearly to death, then get bridle carried by Frank Castle while you desperately try to cling to life. So many fun options.
Do we see the difference between choosing a profession then following the rules of that profession voluntarily and being conscripted? Because there is a huge whomping difference.
The Avengers were not opposed to regulation. They had a charter. They were a non-state actor with the UN. How do we know this? Because that status was lost to them, get this, for bad behavior. Or rather, possessed!Wanda induced bad behavior, otherwise known as Bendis-really-hates-female-characters-he-didn't-create-himself-and-Wanda-in-particular, otherwise known as Avengers Disassembled.
So hey, obey the rules, you keep your non-state actor status and are backed by the UN, disobey the rules/protocol/guideline and you get booted, like any job. Like being a policeman/policewoman. This was already a thing associated with being an Avenger.
This is the third time I had to bring this up and you keep ignoring it. Do you need a panel? Okay, here:
What Steve and the others were protesting was the SHRA IN PARTICULAR because it was a bs, human-rights violating, law. One with which, within seconds of hearing about it, Steve was shot at for, before the thing had even passed. But hey, at least he came out of this whole experience alive, unlike poor Bill Foster... OH WAIT.
Last edited by capandkirby; 01-15-2020 at 05:50 PM.
vaccines are given to everyone because everyone is capable of being a carrier. In a hypothetical mutant only society, these measures would still apply and can be self implemented
and while im aware all it does it teach your system to recognize an antigen and create antibodies, thus upregulating the production of certain types of memory b-cells, it is still perceived as seminatural by many groups.
Hypothetically, in marvel a similar medicine can target and enhance only the naturally occurring inhibitory mechanisms (which can be trained without the medicine), upregulating them so that the trait itself isn't removed, but involuntary activation is suppressed.
Last edited by Ichijinijisanji; 01-15-2020 at 05:49 PM.
I'm not going to get into anti-vaxxers in a thread about comics. Seriously. Especially as they have no scientific backing for their beliefs and the guy who originally claimed that vaccinations caused autism was not only proven wrong but had his license to practice yanked. He was, in other words, publicly disgraced. And good riddance.
You have a pre-existing immune system prior to getting vaccinated. The introduction of a vaccination does not create one. Nor does it take it away. The comparison was a false equivalence. Forcing children to have their superpowers removed is an entirely different discussion. I'm not budging, so, moving on...
This was the conversation you were responding to...
So yes, the conversation was about the moral and ethical implications about forcibly removing powers from children, which I feel is a human rights violation and wrong and am firmly against. You trying to move the goalpost now doesn't change that.
Now, seriously, I'm done.