Choose your House!

[Ascended]

Uncle Dudley and The Wizard are technically part of the family, it doesn't matter are old you are just as long as your young at heart and have a big imagination lol.

Well I have the imagination, but deep inside I'm a cranky curmudgeonly son of a bitch, not young at heart in the least.

I'd love to say the Aquaman Family but it'd be a lie.

Probably the Wilsons, or the Anarky/al'Ghul/Ivy Family more realistically.

I mean, the Arrow FAmily could make sense, but being around such a bunch of Centrist/Soft-Right family would be hard for a Leftist like me

....but Ollie's a leftist. That's been his thing for decades.

I feel ya, I'm a centrist and political independent and I can't really speak for the political leanings of Dinah, Roy, or the other Arrows, but Ollie at least is about as far left as you can get.

[manwhohaseverything]

It is an impossible ideal, one I could never achieve which I freely admit. The situation reminds me of the old military joke - "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy". That's about all I can say on the matter I haven't already said.

It's not impossible. There are jain people who actually take that more seriously than even buddhists. They absolutely try to abstain from any and all violence. But, at the end of the day the principal is what matters.Moreover the idea that Superman, A man who is supposed to do something that changes the world. Has nothing to stand up for or no cause to fight for is bad or having no conviction to atleast uphold that is worse. I want something palpable from the character,not just pseudo moralistic platitudes of "be good" that might sound good but has no essence.

[scribbleMind]

Doom Patrol.

[Celgress]

It's not impossible. There are jain people who actually take that more seriously than even buddhists. They absolutely try to abstain from any and all violence. But, at the end of the day the principal is what matters.Moreover the idea that Superman, A man who is supposed to do something that changes the world. Has nothing to stand up for or no cause to fight for is bad or having no conviction to atleast uphold that is worse. I want something palpable from the character,not just pseudo moralistic platitudes of "be good" that might sound good but has no essence.

That said, if someone is threatening to mow down a group of innocent people with a machine gun, you can't talk them down, and you fail to act because you desire to uphold a "good principle" it makes you a bad person (plus a woefully naive person) in my book.

Taking philosophy out of it -

No offense, but this would make for an extremely boring comic book. Stories require conflict.

[manwhohaseverything]

That said, if someone is threatening to mow down a group of innocent people with a machine gun, you can't talk them down, and you fail to act because you desire to uphold a "good principle" it makes you a bad person (plus a woefully naive person) in my book.

Taking philosophy out of it -

No offense, but this would make for an extremely boring comic book. Stories require conflict.

No that's not failure to act. Failure to act would be not choosing to get involved or being ignorance. Here, The man would be first person to stand between innocent people and the gun. He would be first one to get shot. Here, it is just failure.Failing or having short comings is not a sin. There are times when superman cannot get to a person in time. Does that mean he failed to act or does it mean he failed? Moreover, i would say the alternative of talking to a person is far more pronounced than blindly adding to the violence in an already violent world.

You should read vinland saga then, the protagonist gives up violence(as far as i read) . It's about vikings who went to the new world and america. It even has the christ thing going for it.And i believe, you are too late my friend. superman is already very boring. He has even left behind his own action genre. You can't see any form of an action hero in superman . He is the reverse of entertaining in many stories. I mean, i don't get the feeling the people read superman for action adventure. Most people read it for fluff. What he says has no meaning now. Keep in mind, i am talking from a third person perspective. I am part of the violence problem of the world.I am not into ahimsa. I am no gandhi nor buddha.All i want is for the character to stand for something,Anything that the world needs.Superman doesn't inspire me at all.

[Korath]

Well I have the imagination, but deep inside I'm a cranky curmudgeonly son of a bitch, not young at heart in the least.



....but Ollie's a leftist. That's been his thing for decades.

I feel ya, I'm a centrist and political independent and I can't really speak for the political leanings of Dinah, Roy, or the other Arrows, but Ollie at least is about as far left as you can get.

Eh, it's not enough Leftist for me, that was the joke XD !

[Ascended]

Eh, it's not enough Leftist for me, that was the joke XD !

Ollie Queen isn't far left enough for you? Comics' main poster child for uber-progressive politics?

[Güicho]

Great responsibility .... Moreover, that speech is for a selfish kid who didn't want responsibility But all the power. Not superman .

Actually with a different context, it was about Superman first, and about being selfish as Clark so far uses his powers for them alone, pa Kent coming to terms with them having had the gift of Clark to themselves on the farm, who should never belong to them alone, but to the world, and for the greater good.

Clark, because of these great powers, (lists all the powers) ...you have a great responsibility.

*Yeah, Pa Kent said it first, about Superman.

Stan Lee just later cleverly changed it, and applied it to his character who yeah would have first instinctualy used his powers selfishly, until he more tragically comes to terms with his actions, and uncles (same) words.

Yet are both about the realization of using the powers selfishly, then transitioning to the greater good and responsibility that comes with them.

[DrNewGod]

It interests me that the Batfam is not doing better than they are in the poll. I guess liking Batman and wanting to live under his cave-rules are different things.

[manwhohaseverything]

Actually with a different context, it was about Superman first, and about being selfish as Clark so far uses his powers for them alone, pa Kent coming to terms with them having had the gift of Clark to themselves on the farm, who should never belong to them alone, but to the world, and for the greater good.

Clark, because of these great powers, (lists all the powers) ...you have a great responsibility.

*Yeah, Pa Kent said it first, about Superman.

Stan Lee just later cleverly changed it, and applied it to his character who yeah would have first instinctualy used his powers selfishly, until he more tragically comes to terms with his actions, and uncles (same) words.

Yet are both about the realization of using the powers selfishly, then transitioning to the greater good and responsibility that comes with them.

Cool!but Still not remotely the point Nor the version of the character i am talking about.

[Celgress]

No that's not failure to act. Failure to act would be not choosing to get involved or being ignorance. Here, The man would be first person to stand between innocent people and the gun. He would be first one to get shot. Here, it is just failure.Failing or having short comings is not a sin. There are times when superman cannot get to a person in time. Does that mean he failed to act or does it mean he failed? Moreover, i would say the alternative of talking to a person is far more pronounced than blindly adding to the violence in an already violent world.

You should read vinland saga then, the protagonist gives up violence(as far as i read) . It's about vikings who went to the new world and america. It even has the christ thing going for it.And i believe, you are too late my friend. superman is already very boring. He has even left behind his own action genre. You can't see any form of an action hero in superman . He is the reverse of entertaining in many stories. I mean, i don't get the feeling the people read superman for action adventure. Most people read it for fluff. What he says has no meaning now. Keep in mind, i am talking from a third person perspective. I am part of the violence problem of the world.I am not into ahimsa. I am no gandhi nor buddha.All i want is for the character to stand for something,Anything that the world needs.Superman doesn't inspire me at all.

Yup, you let him shoot you perhaps a few people escape before he changes direction but by knocking the SOB out (no need to kill him if you are Superman level powerful) or by just breaking his gun you save everyone. Sorry, but I think a little violence is needed in such a case even more so when dealing with the likes of Doomsday or Brainiac. Anything can be bad when taken to extremes an unwavering commitment to non-violence which is not situationally aware is no different.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yup, you let him shoot you perhaps a few people escape before he changes direction but by knocking the SOB out (no need to kill him if you are Superman level powerful) or by just breaking his gun you save everyone. Sorry, but I think a little violence is needed in such a case even more so when dealing with the likes of Doomsday or Brainiac. Anything can be bad when taken to extremes an unwavering commitment to non-violence which is not situationally aware is no different.

They could say. "Yet, you are doing the samething the other guy is doing and therefore as much of villain causing violence" . Morality is about limiting yourself and its absolute for deontologist. Furthermore, if a guy is capable of taking out a guy with machine gun. He doesn't need to, he can simply destroy the object of terror, "the gun" or use his capacity to jam the fire arm. If you are talking superman he doesn't need to knock out people at all. All he needs to do is take all the bullets from the air and taking all shots himself. He can destroy the weapon if he so chooses as well. On the contrary, its not extreme. You only view it as extreme. Superman can't stop doomsday. He cannot of stop brainiac as well. They are immortalised parts of nature itself. One is a nature in all its darwinist glory defined by kill or be killed.the second one is a seeker of knowledge and collector of it so much so he has become knowledge and wisdom itself. But the problem with second guy is lack of purpose makes him useless, as all knowledge that isn't used for betterment of fellow beings tend to be. The first guy has never known compassion, patience and enduring pain rather than lashing out in wrath. So punching them solves nothing. They are invincible. Power and competence should take you away from needing to be violent and not towards. Don't you think that would be counter productive for a moral person?

You cannot say the guy failed to act. Therefore he is not immoral any regards. Which was your argument. Wasn't it? We all are limited by various things like competence, world view, culture, values,... Etc. Even morality limits. Human morality of any form itself can be limited and can have drawbacks.on the contrary, You view it as extreme because we live in a world of extreme violence. So much so that a person deciding to not hurt a fellow being feels extreme.

[Celgress]

I'll say this much and be done with it. I don't want to drag this thread any further off course -

"The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."

If you can stop an atrocity but won't because of a "higher moral principle" you must shoulder some of the blame for the atrocity you could have prevented.

[manwhohaseverything]

I'll say this much and be done with it. I don't want to drag this thread any further off course -

"The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."

If you can stop an atrocity but won't because of a "higher moral principle" you must shoulder some of the blame for the atrocity you could have prevented.

Again, you just put forward same argument. He isn't a non-actor nor not do anything. There isn't a question of "good people not doing anything". Ahimsa is not pacifism. You aren't avoiding conflicts. You are facing them with conviction of an ideal to be non-violent.

"Those who slay monsters must keep in mind they themselves don't become one"
Adding to the violence in the world makes you a monster the likes you fight.

No, you don't shoulder any blame. If i fail to save a person drowning because of my lack of competency in swimming. Does that mean i should be blamed for the death? As long as i didn't push the person.That person himself is the reason for him drowning. There is no blame to be had. I mean,people fail at different things all the time. This time competence was the limit that stopped the person. In the above condition morality would be.

Finally, i can get behind your argument. It is jason todd like sentiment . For me, i don't particularly care if superman is violent or not as long as he stands for something not platitudes that mean nothing . The superman i like best is goldenage siegel and shuster superman. So, i don't care if superman is violent or not. But, the character is generally pointless nowadays .Also, the vinland saga is action/adventure series with a protagonist that choose to never engage in violence.

[Blue22]

It interests me that the Batfam is not doing better than they are in the poll. I guess liking Batman and wanting to live under his cave-rules are different things.

Please. For as tough as he acts, Bruce is such a damn pushover when it comes to people breaking his "rules". He'll be mad for a little bit. Maybe beat the **** out of you if you are (or have ever been) a Robin. Then you'll be back in the manor having tea with Alfred in no time.