Cap didn't start an armed rebellion. You keep forgetting that he actually simply tried to keep on saving people without being forced to hunt down his close friends instead of saving people.
He rebelled by not obeying the law, yes, (even though it had not yet gone into effect at that time if I'm not mistaken, meaning that they wanted him to beat up his friends horribly for no reason at all) but he did not start an armed rebellion. He did not attack the government to try and overthrow the law. It was not until the pro-regs attacked him that Cap started actually fighting them.
Here's a hint: when you need to change someone's quote to make your point, then you've not winning the argument.
I've already explained this in detail, but there's a massive, simple difference between the fight to abolish slavery and the Marvel CW:
Slavery is, by definition, the degradation of an entire people by depriving them of their freedoms. It takes people who are your equals and reduces them to your inferiors as property. SHRA ONLY requires registration, and then only requires licensing if you want to use your powers in a way that would otherwise violate existing laws about vigilantism.
People have a right to be free. That's what the fight against slavery was about.
People do not - and I simply cannot be more clear about this - have a right to be vigilantes. Do you not get that?
SHRA isn't conscription (although as I've already explained, THAT would be legal and constitutional) but just registration and the prohibition of vigilantism. All you have to do to be unaffected by SHRA is not fight crime.
There is no right to fight crime. Period. You are granted the privilege of being able to perform citizen's arrests in limited circumstances, and you are prohibited from endangering anyone when doing so (endangering other innocents invalidates your 'arrest'). This is why, for example, stores can't keep you in their premises if you shoplift: it legally amounts to kidnapping and unlawful detention, at the least.
I find it fascinating that instead of talking about the actual issue - SHRA - and its actual components, you and so many others are forced to argue by broken and inappropriate analogy to something else.
MattHarvest continues to ignore the fact that unless he registered, Cap would have been imprisoned indefinately, denied access to legal counsel, and never, ever be seen in a court of law, let alone in front of a news camera.
Have you ever heard of Guantanamo Bay, Matt?
How about secret torture prisons in Pakistan and Syria?
Cap didn't start an armed rebellion. You keep forgetting that he actually simply tried to keep on saving people without being forced to hunt down his close friends instead of saving people.
He rebelled by not obeying the law, yes, (even though it had not yet gone into effect at that time if I'm not mistaken, meaning that they wanted him to beat up his friends horribly for no reason at all) but he did not start an armed rebellion. He did not attack the government to try and overthrow the law. It was not until the pro-regs attacked him that Cap started actually fighting them.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Your argument in this post says that...
1) if a group of persons arm themselves and take it upon themselves to fight crime (which is already illegal in all 50 states - today, in the real world and in Marvel), they're not criminals.
2) if the police attempt to lawfully apprehend that group of persons, then that group of persons is both morally and legally justified in resisting arrest with potentially (and, in the CW apparently, actually) deadly force.
3) Forming an army, resisting arrest and subverting the rule of law is not a rebellion.
Correct? Before going forward, tell me if I've misrepresented your point.
Now, if all three points are an accurate representation of your view, I'm curious as to your interpretation of the armed militias in America's mid-West and Western states. Unlike the anti-regs, they haven't started fighting crime and so their arming themselves appears fully legal. If those militias do something else illegal - e.g. sexual abuse of children, which is common in many of them - and the legal police/military attempt to enter the compound, are you saying that the militias are morally and legally justified in not only resisting arrest but injuring and/or killing the police?
Here's a hint: when you need to change someone's quote to make your point, then you've not winning the argument.
I didn't change your quote much. I just inserted a different criminal, a different crime, and let your own bad logic show you for the idiot you are.
You inserted a person who broke a fundamentally different kind of law, in a different legal period (pre-antebellum America, there was no legal prohibition on insurrection. There is now).
If you cannot see the difference, it's disturbing you're talking about anyone else being freedom-hating.
Do you have any education in civil rights? In the law? In history? I'm curious, because I'm trying to find out if your mistakes are due to ignorance, or being willfully obstinant.
Taking your argument into account, Cap didn't take all of his options into account, and people got killed.
But using the same argument, Tony didn't take any number of diplomatic stances, which were available to him, considering he knew this was all going to happen and he knew the outcome and had it all planned from the start apparently, and you know what? He didn't. He cloned a god, and put mass murderers in charge, and started the civil war. And people died.
MattHarvest continues to ignore the fact that unless he registered, Cap would have been imprisoned indefinately, denied access to legal counsel, and never, ever be seen in a court of law, let alone in front of a news camera.
Have you ever heard of Guantanamo Bay, Matt?
How about secret torture prisons in Pakistan and Syria?
Apparently you're not familiar with the actual happenings regarding the rights of those prisoners.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that prisoners in Gitmo and other foreign-located but American-run prisons are entitled to their Habeas Corpus claims, and several have successfully filed such claims and gotten relief.
The running of torture prisons is entirely separate - the legal and moral status of torture is entirely separate from the legal and moral status of foreign imprisonment.
Every indication we have in the comics is that (a) Rogers would have gotten a lawyer, (b) would have gotten his day in court, and (c) could have gotten in front of a million news cameras before being arrested if he tried. His disconnect from reality included that he was so unaware of his options.
Moreover, there is no legal right to be on the news.
You seem radically unfamiliar with the stuff you're talking about, since you're presenting points that actually damage your argument. You jump from point to point, unwilling to actually argue anything. You make an assertion, then when your point is damaged you jump to a different assertion instead of supporting it.
Taking your argument into account, Cap didn't take all of his options into account, and people got killed.
But using the same argument, Tony didn't take any number of diplomatic stances, which were available to him, considering he knew this was all going to happen and he knew the outcome and had it all planned from the start apparently, and you know what? He didn't. He cloned a god, and put mass murderers in charge, and started the civil war. And people died.
Yeah, and that's why Stark probably should be in prison too. I don't recall ever saying Stark was a saint, and in fact I explicitly stated just the opposite multiple times.
Why does Stark doing something bad eliminate that Rogers did so to? By that logic, Rogers doing something bad would eliminate what Stark did.
They both committed crimes, and both should be punished. In Marvel, however, apparently only those two reporters know Stark committed those crimes and they've decided not to publish that. Their decision to protect Stark in order to protect what he created is their own, but it's unrelated to whether Rogers or Stark were morally or legally right.
This isn't going to turn into that 20 friggin' page argument we already have in the Civil War thread, right?
'Cause that'd be dumb.
This is a place where we can share the awesomeness of the week.
...
Plus, your posts always make my brain bleed, mattharvest...
I'm not gonna debate him in here. I will mock him and call him a freedom-hater though. That's not debate, that's just good clean fun. :^:
Just thought I'd re-quote this to make the obvious point: jeepguy isn't interested in defending a point, but rather just attacking those who disagree with him, calling them "freedom-haters", etc.
One of the things that's gone wrong with American politics is that both sides of most arguments now don't feel the need to support their views. As Stephen Colbert (the actor) put it, explaining his character's idea of "truthiness", it used to be that everyone had their opinions but the facts stayed the same. Now, people are proud to speak of their opinions without regard to the facts, whether or not their opinions are invalidated by the indisputable facts.
If you want to make a legal assertion, be prepared to make a legal argument. If you want to make a philosophical assertion, be prepared to make a philosophical argument.
To just pop your head in, be insulting and then not stand up for your own arguments doesn't help anyone. It doesn't encourage discussion, and it doesn't foment a good atmosphere for community online.
Taking your argument into account, Cap didn't take all of his options into account, and people got killed.
But using the same argument, Tony didn't take any number of diplomatic stances, which were available to him, considering he knew this was all going to happen and he knew the outcome and had it all planned from the start apparently, and you know what? He didn't. He cloned a god, and put mass murderers in charge, and started the civil war. And people died.
Yeah, and that's why Stark probably should be in prison too. I don't recall ever saying Stark was a saint, and in fact I explicitly stated just the opposite multiple times.
Why does Stark doing something bad eliminate that Rogers did so to? By that logic, Rogers doing something bad would eliminate what Stark did.
They both committed crimes, and both should be punished. In Marvel, however, apparently only those two reporters know Stark committed those crimes and they've decided not to publish that. Their decision to protect Stark in order to protect what he created is their own, but it's unrelated to whether Rogers or Stark were morally or legally right.
And those reporters are why Captain America couldn't get press support. Remember, Captain America AND Nick Fury, the two heads of the admittedly poorly planned actions of the Anti-Reg heroes, both allowed these reporters to follow them, meet them, and interview them. They did go to the press. The press that decided at the last minute to become exactly what you just described- mindless attacks over substantial facts, and clear, almost comical one-sidedness. They, or sally at least, decided to paint Captain America as a demon and Iron Man as an idol. And that's why the press didn't work.
And those reporters are why Captain America couldn't get press support. Remember, Captain America AND Nick Fury, the two heads of the admittedly poorly planned actions of the Anti-Reg heroes, both allowed these reporters to follow them, meet them, and interview them. They did go to the press. The press that decided at the last minute to become exactly what you just described- mindless attacks over substantial facts, and clear, almost comical one-sidedness. They, or sally at least, decided to paint Captain America as a demon and Iron Man as an idol. And that's why the press didn't work.
(a) Nick Fury helped? I don't recall Fury actually being involved outside of having previously told Rogers about these safe-houses. Where did I miss that?
(b) The mis-deeds of two reporters doesn't speak to how the majority of press would have responded. Again, this goes to how disconnected Rogers was from contemporary America, but the smart thing would have been to upload clips to youTube, mail dvds to a dozen outlets, etc.
(c) My point isn't that the press are a panacea, but rather that they're a core component of the civil process. America, despite not having the firm 'fourth estate' system of many continental systems, nonetheless prizes the Free Press as a key part of how the voters can participate in the legal system. There is no doubt that news always has bias, and while we could argue whether CNN or Fox has a more extreme slant (I'm prone to say that Fox is a nightmare, but that's not the point here), there's no doubt that one or both would have aired Rogers' complaints
Again, I'd like to see Stark get punished here too. Without his punishment, this feels a little too much like Watchmen (especially after Frontline revealed how much Stark had manipulated the background, like Ozymandias. Nonetheless, the thing to remember is that however the internal press portrayed the CW, we real-world people should make better decisions. After all, we can see all of it from the outside, including their secret moments.
We should just them each for their actions, and enjoy the stories through it. It makes no sense to pretend one was a saint and the other a demon, when all the writing indicates they were both flawed men, making mistakes in their pursuit of what they thought to be the truth. Not every story - even involving superheroes - actually has a hero in it.
(a) Nick Fury helped? I don't recall Fury actually being involved outside of having previously told Rogers about these safe-houses. Where did I miss that?
if i remember right, he set up the false identities that all the anti-regs were going to use to keep fighting crime underground
edit- and he had winter soldier doing some things too, but really i'd hardly call him a leader of the anti-regs
(a) Nick Fury helped? I don't recall Fury actually being involved outside of having previously told Rogers about these safe-houses. Where did I miss that?
if i remember right, he set up the false identities that all the anti-regs were going to use to keep fighting crime underground
edit- and he had winter soldier doing some things too, but really i'd hardly call him a leader of the anti-regs
Now that I think about it, I recall that when the four original anti-regs were sitting in that cafe, they talked about Fury-provided IDs, but I don't have the issue here. My inclination is that the identities came from Fury in that they were pre-prepared, as opposed to having been made just then. In other words, Fury had these fake IDs laying around in case something like this happened, and they were in the safe-houses.
Does anyone have the issue handy, so they can confirm?
Assuming this is true though, that Fury was directly involved, let's not forget why Fury is missing right now: he led an unsupported and illegal invasion of a foreign sovereign nation using persons of mass destruction (to borrow the Ultimates phrase) in order to topple the legitimate government of that nation. When he failed, he refused to face the consequences and instead chose to go on the lamb using illegally appropriate SHIELD funds (where do you think all that safehouse tech came from?) Not to mention that he obviously stole that serum he has to keep taking to prevent aging.
Frankly, Fury sounds eerily close to Cap there (albeit also, in its own way, this is similar to Stark...).
Here's a hint: when you need to change someone's quote to make your point, then you've not winning the argument.
I didn't change your quote much. I just inserted a different criminal, a different crime, and let your own bad logic show you for the idiot you are.
You inserted a person who broke a fundamentally different kind of law, in a different legal period (pre-antebellum America, there was no legal prohibition on insurrection. There is now).
The law is not fundementally different, it is fundementally the same. It is different in specific details, yes. And insurrection is irrelevant to the Harriet Tubman example, because the crime there was assisting runaway slaves in escaping southern states to the north, which was certainly illegal.
The fact that you find slavery execrable but find the SRA to be like a draft (this is your opinion only, the act is very unlike a draft in many key ways) is also irrelevant.
Your attempts to make an argument from authority by questioning my education will be ignored. If you want to insult my intelligence, go right ahead, I can certainly handle the occasional ad-hominem.
It's a comic book. Those two reporters, as two of the few reporters in the Marvel Universe with names, were meant to represent the press as a whole. That was their role within the story, and additional reporters would have been redundant as their purpose had already been served.
In any case, something as big as the Civil War was probably being covered by numerous news sources anyway, even without Cap granting interviews. There were likely already people speaking on his behalf, and accomplishing nothing.
a) Nick Fury was, at the least, wacky banana holdup man. Also, he coordinated the whole safehouse/secret ID systems the Anti-Regs used. Not a major figure, but he did play a part.
b) This would be the smart thing to do, but the sad truth is the media doesn't take well to hidden videotapes and youtube videos by underground resistance groups. And the sadder part is for every reporter who wants to make a difference and tell the whole story, there are a million sally floyds, who get by on opinions and attacks.
c) I completely agree the press is vital in the civil process. I just think the press in this case gave the anti-regs who DID try to go the press the shaft.
d) Fuck Sally Floyd. I even understand her argument- Cap didn't take actions he could have. But to say Cap is out of touch, and fights for an idealized, perfect America, and to mean it's a BAD THING- what the fuck. Seriously.
Posts
He rebelled by not obeying the law, yes, (even though it had not yet gone into effect at that time if I'm not mistaken, meaning that they wanted him to beat up his friends horribly for no reason at all) but he did not start an armed rebellion. He did not attack the government to try and overthrow the law. It was not until the pro-regs attacked him that Cap started actually fighting them.
Here's a hint: when you need to change someone's quote to make your point, then you've not winning the argument.
I've already explained this in detail, but there's a massive, simple difference between the fight to abolish slavery and the Marvel CW:
Slavery is, by definition, the degradation of an entire people by depriving them of their freedoms. It takes people who are your equals and reduces them to your inferiors as property. SHRA ONLY requires registration, and then only requires licensing if you want to use your powers in a way that would otherwise violate existing laws about vigilantism.
People have a right to be free. That's what the fight against slavery was about.
People do not - and I simply cannot be more clear about this - have a right to be vigilantes. Do you not get that?
SHRA isn't conscription (although as I've already explained, THAT would be legal and constitutional) but just registration and the prohibition of vigilantism. All you have to do to be unaffected by SHRA is not fight crime.
There is no right to fight crime. Period. You are granted the privilege of being able to perform citizen's arrests in limited circumstances, and you are prohibited from endangering anyone when doing so (endangering other innocents invalidates your 'arrest'). This is why, for example, stores can't keep you in their premises if you shoplift: it legally amounts to kidnapping and unlawful detention, at the least.
I find it fascinating that instead of talking about the actual issue - SHRA - and its actual components, you and so many others are forced to argue by broken and inappropriate analogy to something else.
Have you ever heard of Guantanamo Bay, Matt?
How about secret torture prisons in Pakistan and Syria?
I didn't change your quote much. I just inserted a different criminal, a different crime, and let your own bad logic show you for the idiot you are.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Your argument in this post says that...
1) if a group of persons arm themselves and take it upon themselves to fight crime (which is already illegal in all 50 states - today, in the real world and in Marvel), they're not criminals.
2) if the police attempt to lawfully apprehend that group of persons, then that group of persons is both morally and legally justified in resisting arrest with potentially (and, in the CW apparently, actually) deadly force.
3) Forming an army, resisting arrest and subverting the rule of law is not a rebellion.
Correct? Before going forward, tell me if I've misrepresented your point.
Now, if all three points are an accurate representation of your view, I'm curious as to your interpretation of the armed militias in America's mid-West and Western states. Unlike the anti-regs, they haven't started fighting crime and so their arming themselves appears fully legal. If those militias do something else illegal - e.g. sexual abuse of children, which is common in many of them - and the legal police/military attempt to enter the compound, are you saying that the militias are morally and legally justified in not only resisting arrest but injuring and/or killing the police?
You inserted a person who broke a fundamentally different kind of law, in a different legal period (pre-antebellum America, there was no legal prohibition on insurrection. There is now).
If you cannot see the difference, it's disturbing you're talking about anyone else being freedom-hating.
Do you have any education in civil rights? In the law? In history? I'm curious, because I'm trying to find out if your mistakes are due to ignorance, or being willfully obstinant.
But using the same argument, Tony didn't take any number of diplomatic stances, which were available to him, considering he knew this was all going to happen and he knew the outcome and had it all planned from the start apparently, and you know what? He didn't. He cloned a god, and put mass murderers in charge, and started the civil war. And people died.
Apparently you're not familiar with the actual happenings regarding the rights of those prisoners.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that prisoners in Gitmo and other foreign-located but American-run prisons are entitled to their Habeas Corpus claims, and several have successfully filed such claims and gotten relief.
The running of torture prisons is entirely separate - the legal and moral status of torture is entirely separate from the legal and moral status of foreign imprisonment.
Every indication we have in the comics is that (a) Rogers would have gotten a lawyer, (b) would have gotten his day in court, and (c) could have gotten in front of a million news cameras before being arrested if he tried. His disconnect from reality included that he was so unaware of his options.
Moreover, there is no legal right to be on the news.
You seem radically unfamiliar with the stuff you're talking about, since you're presenting points that actually damage your argument. You jump from point to point, unwilling to actually argue anything. You make an assertion, then when your point is damaged you jump to a different assertion instead of supporting it.
Yeah, and that's why Stark probably should be in prison too. I don't recall ever saying Stark was a saint, and in fact I explicitly stated just the opposite multiple times.
Why does Stark doing something bad eliminate that Rogers did so to? By that logic, Rogers doing something bad would eliminate what Stark did.
They both committed crimes, and both should be punished. In Marvel, however, apparently only those two reporters know Stark committed those crimes and they've decided not to publish that. Their decision to protect Stark in order to protect what he created is their own, but it's unrelated to whether Rogers or Stark were morally or legally right.
Just thought I'd re-quote this to make the obvious point: jeepguy isn't interested in defending a point, but rather just attacking those who disagree with him, calling them "freedom-haters", etc.
One of the things that's gone wrong with American politics is that both sides of most arguments now don't feel the need to support their views. As Stephen Colbert (the actor) put it, explaining his character's idea of "truthiness", it used to be that everyone had their opinions but the facts stayed the same. Now, people are proud to speak of their opinions without regard to the facts, whether or not their opinions are invalidated by the indisputable facts.
If you want to make a legal assertion, be prepared to make a legal argument. If you want to make a philosophical assertion, be prepared to make a philosophical argument.
To just pop your head in, be insulting and then not stand up for your own arguments doesn't help anyone. It doesn't encourage discussion, and it doesn't foment a good atmosphere for community online.
if i remember right, he set up the false identities that all the anti-regs were going to use to keep fighting crime underground
edit- and he had winter soldier doing some things too, but really i'd hardly call him a leader of the anti-regs
God damn it people.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Now that I think about it, I recall that when the four original anti-regs were sitting in that cafe, they talked about Fury-provided IDs, but I don't have the issue here. My inclination is that the identities came from Fury in that they were pre-prepared, as opposed to having been made just then. In other words, Fury had these fake IDs laying around in case something like this happened, and they were in the safe-houses.
Does anyone have the issue handy, so they can confirm?
Assuming this is true though, that Fury was directly involved, let's not forget why Fury is missing right now: he led an unsupported and illegal invasion of a foreign sovereign nation using persons of mass destruction (to borrow the Ultimates phrase) in order to topple the legitimate government of that nation. When he failed, he refused to face the consequences and instead chose to go on the lamb using illegally appropriate SHIELD funds (where do you think all that safehouse tech came from?) Not to mention that he obviously stole that serum he has to keep taking to prevent aging.
Frankly, Fury sounds eerily close to Cap there (albeit also, in its own way, this is similar to Stark...).
The law is not fundementally different, it is fundementally the same. It is different in specific details, yes. And insurrection is irrelevant to the Harriet Tubman example, because the crime there was assisting runaway slaves in escaping southern states to the north, which was certainly illegal.
The fact that you find slavery execrable but find the SRA to be like a draft (this is your opinion only, the act is very unlike a draft in many key ways) is also irrelevant.
Your attempts to make an argument from authority by questioning my education will be ignored. If you want to insult my intelligence, go right ahead, I can certainly handle the occasional ad-hominem.
In any case, something as big as the Civil War was probably being covered by numerous news sources anyway, even without Cap granting interviews. There were likely already people speaking on his behalf, and accomplishing nothing.
b) This would be the smart thing to do, but the sad truth is the media doesn't take well to hidden videotapes and youtube videos by underground resistance groups. And the sadder part is for every reporter who wants to make a difference and tell the whole story, there are a million sally floyds, who get by on opinions and attacks.
c) I completely agree the press is vital in the civil process. I just think the press in this case gave the anti-regs who DID try to go the press the shaft.
d) Fuck Sally Floyd. I even understand her argument- Cap didn't take actions he could have. But to say Cap is out of touch, and fights for an idealized, perfect America, and to mean it's a BAD THING- what the fuck. Seriously.
e) God Bless you, Spider-Man.
All threads are Civil War threads.
Lets fuck up a thread that has nothing to do with CW with a whole bunch of CW arguements and bullshit!
That'll be swell!
What he said.
Google+//http://gplus.to/chorazin
FitBit//Profile
3DS Friend Code: 3823 8527 9997
Wii U NNID Chorazin