Ah, mattharvest preaching at us about how the SHRA is right and those dirty un-American folks fighting it are wrong.
Anyway, most folks knew the SHRA was wrong from day one for one simple reason. Cap was against it. And in Marvel, at least for the last 30 something years, the one true constant in the universe is that when it comes to moral issues, Captain America is always right.
Here's a tip: if you're picking a view based on who espouses it, you're not making a logical argument. Captain America was introduced fighting a demonized Germany and Japan, so much so that the term 'nip' was present on dozens of covers. You're telling me that Captain America was right then?
Cap was wrong here, because he was written to be wrong. That's fiction.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
Of course, America was also founded by violent action taken against laws that were seen to be wrong.
Yeah, in a government where (a) there was no elected government, (b) no electorate-voted laws, (c) no mechanism to change the government, etc.
You think there's no difference?
There is a difference, but it's still splitting hairs. When America was founded it was done by rebellion against their (at the time) lawful government. Twist it however you like, it doesn't change the truth of it.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
Of course, America was also founded by violent action taken against laws that were seen to be wrong.
Yeah, in a government where (a) there was no elected government, (b) no electorate-voted laws, (c) no mechanism to change the government, etc.
You think there's no difference?
And all of those things were present when Hitler rose to power. Hey, that isn't relevent either.
Captain America is an ideal given form. You can't use the same logic that you would use on the Punisher. It doesn't work (this is where the suspension of disbelief comes in).
(a) I've yet to see a single argument against SHRA that actually shows it to violate any civil rights in a way that the draft doesn't.
(b) If you can use suspension of disbelief to say that I shouldn't be critical of Captain America (you know, the guy who used to beat up 'nips', 'krauts' and other ethnic slurs while having no problem with the lack of civil rights in his country for blacks or women) why do you get to be critical of SHRA?
Either its okay to apply real-world logic to real-world problems present in fantasy universes, or it's not okay. If you're going to be inconsistent, why bother trying to defend your position?
I cannot understand why you (and this isn't you in particular, but everyone who complains about supporting SHRA etc.) would want to read and post on a message board dedicated to talking about comics, if you don't want to talk about comics.
If you don't like what's being discussed, don't participate.
Ah, mattharvest preaching at us about how the SHRA is right and those dirty un-American folks fighting it are wrong.
Anyway, most folks knew the SHRA was wrong from day one for one simple reason. Cap was against it. And in Marvel, at least for the last 30 something years, the one true constant in the universe is that when it comes to moral issues, Captain America is always right.
Here's a tip: if you're picking a view based on who espouses it, you're not making a logical argument. Captain America was introduced fighting a demonized Germany and Japan, so much so that the term 'nip' was present on dozens of covers. You're telling me that Captain America was right then?
Cap was wrong here, because he was written to be wrong. That's fiction.
After the publication of Civil War #7, Mark Millar was interviewed by Newsarama and described the event as "a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag is in chains as the people swap freedom for security", agreeing that a "certain amount of political allegory" was present but that the real focus of the book was on superheroes fighting each other. Contrasting it with The Ultimates, Millar stated that Civil War was "accidentally political because I just cannot help myself".
I took the "freedom for security" line to mean that Millar didn't intend Captain America to be written as "wrong".
Ah, mattharvest preaching at us about how the SHRA is right and those dirty un-American folks fighting it are wrong.
Anyway, most folks knew the SHRA was wrong from day one for one simple reason. Cap was against it. And in Marvel, at least for the last 30 something years, the one true constant in the universe is that when it comes to moral issues, Captain America is always right.
Here's a tip: if you're picking a view based on who espouses it, you're not making a logical argument. Captain America was introduced fighting a demonized Germany and Japan, so much so that the term 'nip' was present on dozens of covers. You're telling me that Captain America was right then?
Cap was wrong here, because he was written to be wrong. That's fiction.
Ah. Because fiction cannot have multiple interpretations? There was more than the core title in Civil War, so there's no definitive wrong other than Cap stopping the fight out of guilt. Edit: Which he said afterwards wasn't a victory for Tony in the slightest.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
Of course, America was also founded by violent action taken against laws that were seen to be wrong.
Yeah, in a government where (a) there was no elected government, (b) no electorate-voted laws, (c) no mechanism to change the government, etc.
You think there's no difference?
There is a difference, but it's still splitting hairs. When America was founded it was done by rebellion against their (at the time) lawful government. Twist it however you like, it doesn't change the truth of it.
It's not splitting hairs at all. Under the British crown, there was precisely zero way for the Colonials to change their country without physical rebellion and loss of life.
Under the US government in 2006 when Rogers launched his armed insurrection, you could change the laws like every other normal citizen: through your legislators, and voting. What was Rogers fighting for, if not the right of every man and woman to voice themselves and be heard in government?
Why does Rogers get to lead an armed rebellion when he doesn't like the law, when no one else is allowed to?
If you don't see the serious difference between a government built around the IMPOSSIBILITY of citizen-change and a government built around the UNIVERSALITY of citizen-change, I cannot imagine how you think you understand what Captain America thought he was fighting for?
Was Rogers fighting for an Oligarchy where super-powered vigilantes get to decide which laws to obey and which ones to ignore?
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
Of course, America was also founded by violent action taken against laws that were seen to be wrong.
Yeah, in a government where (a) there was no elected government, (b) no electorate-voted laws, (c) no mechanism to change the government, etc.
You think there's no difference?
And all of those things were present when Hitler rose to power. Hey, that isn't relevent either.
Captain America is an ideal given form. You can't use the same logic that you would use on the Punisher. It doesn't work (this is where the suspension of disbelief comes in).
(a) I've yet to see a single argument against SHRA that actually shows it to violate any civil rights in a way that the draft doesn't.
(b) If you can use suspension of disbelief to say that I shouldn't be critical of Captain America (you know, the guy who used to beat up 'nips', 'krauts' and other ethnic slurs while having no problem with the lack of civil rights in his country for blacks or women) why do you get to be critical of SHRA?
Either its okay to apply real-world logic to real-world problems present in fantasy universes, or it's not okay. If you're going to be inconsistent, why bother trying to defend your position?
I cannot understand why you (and this isn't you in particular, but everyone who complains about supporting SHRA etc.) would want to read and post on a message board dedicated to talking about comics, if you don't want to talk about comics.
If you don't like what's being discussed, don't participate.
And what about those of us who say Cap wasn't wrong? Should we just go fuck ourselves because we don't agree with your particular interpretation? Just because Cap gave up doesn't mean he admitted defeat, as he said in that last comic with Tony talking to Caps body.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Are you completely and utterly out of your mind? America did not create the concept of Democracy,
Where did I say or imply America invented democracy?
nor is it the first time a nation changed hands without bloodshed or familial succession. You might want to check out a little collection of nations that are now referred to collectively as "Ancient Greece", or the Most Serene Republic of Venice, or many other nations who were electing rulers before America was even discovered (by Europeans that is, I'm sure the native peoples already living there had a fairly clear idea that it existed).
There were zero democratically elected leaders in the modern world, post-Rome/Greece. Find me one.
However, you're correct that I should have limited my statement to the modern, i.e. post-dark Ages, world. Of course, since no ancient world nation was ever anywhere near as large, populous or militarily powerful as the fledgling American state, there is no meaningful comparison between the politics involved.
And as I understand it, if it wasn't for American's rebelling against what they considered to be unjust laws and government, you would all still be a colony of the British Empire.
I've already explained this, but if you cannot see the difference between rebellion against a government that cannot be changed by its citizens, and rebelling against a government that is defined by the citizens' votes, then I don't think you're equipped to talk about this situation.
But despite how proud you clearly are of your countrys history, you apparently are willing to gloss over the areas of that history which don't support your arguments. Bottom line is, if a rebellion succeeds they are heros, whereas if it fails they are criminals. That's how it's always worked, and that's how it worked in Civil War.
I think you're confusing how history books are written with whether or not they were morally right. Armed rebellion against your legitimately elected government, while claiming to be an icon for a nation which is defined by its legitimately elected government isn't morally right: it's logically inconsistent.
I still haven't seen a single answer to the simple question: why did Rogers think he was above the civil process? Why did he think that he alone, unlike all the un-powered citizens, had the right to use force to impose his belief about the law? Why did he claim he was supporting democracy, while challenging democratically endorsed law through 'might makes right' philosophy?
Seriously, I know I haven't been around for long but I'm already tired of your long, insulting, aggressive and arrogant posts and your insistance on restarting the same arguments over and over again. Just let it go man.[/QUOTE]
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
Of course, America was also founded by violent action taken against laws that were seen to be wrong.
Yeah, in a government where (a) there was no elected government, (b) no electorate-voted laws, (c) no mechanism to change the government, etc.
You think there's no difference?
And all of those things were present when Hitler rose to power. Hey, that isn't relevent either.
Captain America is an ideal given form. You can't use the same logic that you would use on the Punisher. It doesn't work (this is where the suspension of disbelief comes in).
(a) I've yet to see a single argument against SHRA that actually shows it to violate any civil rights in a way that the draft doesn't.
(b) If you can use suspension of disbelief to say that I shouldn't be critical of Captain America (you know, the guy who used to beat up 'nips', 'krauts' and other ethnic slurs while having no problem with the lack of civil rights in his country for blacks or women) why do you get to be critical of SHRA?
Either its okay to apply real-world logic to real-world problems present in fantasy universes, or it's not okay. If you're going to be inconsistent, why bother trying to defend your position?
I cannot understand why you (and this isn't you in particular, but everyone who complains about supporting SHRA etc.) would want to read and post on a message board dedicated to talking about comics, if you don't want to talk about comics.
If you don't like what's being discussed, don't participate.
And what about those of us who say Cap wasn't wrong? Should we just go fuck ourselves because we don't agree with your particular interpretation? Just because Cap gave up doesn't mean he admitted defeat, as he said in that last comic with Tony talking to Caps body.
Of course not! I'd love to see arguments in Cap's favor. That's the point of a debate board: to hear both sides. Instead, all I see is people bitching and moaning about my post.
There are some things neither of us can dispute: Tony Stark illegally manipulated this war into happening, while Rogers led an illegal rebellion; Marvel's USA is filled with people who fear their superpowered individuals, while it's also filled with at least a significant number of such superpowered individuals who think they're above the law. These are the facts of the writing.
But there's plenty of debate here: does SHRA violate civil rights, is it a good storytelling device, how should heroes react to these changes, how should the populace react to these changes, etc.
Debate isn't just asserting things though. If you think SHRA violates civil rights, show me how - don't just tell me. If you think Civil War is bad writing, show me how - don't just tell me. Etc.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
Of course, America was also founded by violent action taken against laws that were seen to be wrong.
Yeah, in a government where (a) there was no elected government, (b) no electorate-voted laws, (c) no mechanism to change the government, etc.
You think there's no difference?
There is a difference, but it's still splitting hairs. When America was founded it was done by rebellion against their (at the time) lawful government. Twist it however you like, it doesn't change the truth of it.
That doesn't mean that rebellion against a lawful government is inherently okay.
Heck, the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to explain just why England's rule over the colonies was no longer truly lawful.
Shoot, read the thing. The whole point was to say that the colonies had exhausted all other options.
It's not splitting hairs. There were MANY other ways for the unregistered heroes to go about fighting the SHRA. Like speaking out in public to try to sway public opinion against the SHRA. Or going to the courts to try to get it overturned. Or protesting. Or putting up nonviolent resistance.
But no. Cap and crew just decided to start throwing punches.
Oh, and Captain America bears just as much responsibility for Civil War as Iron Man, since Stark was like, "dude let's just calm down and talk about this" and Steve was like "shutup let's fight."
Oh, and Captain America bears just as much responsibility for Civil War as Iron Man, since Stark was like, "dude let's just calm down and talk about this" and Steve was like "shutup let's fight."
But no. Cap and crew just decided to start throwing punches.
Except this clearly did not happen, Cap took his stance after Maria Hill threatened him and with a whole unit of capekillers with weapons pointed directly at him with no provocation whatsoever.
Are you completely and utterly out of your mind? America did not create the concept of Democracy,
Where did I say or imply America invented democracy?
nor is it the first time a nation changed hands without bloodshed or familial succession. You might want to check out a little collection of nations that are now referred to collectively as "Ancient Greece", or the Most Serene Republic of Venice, or many other nations who were electing rulers before America was even discovered (by Europeans that is, I'm sure the native peoples already living there had a fairly clear idea that it existed).
There were zero democratically elected leaders in the modern world, post-Rome/Greece. Find me one.
However, you're correct that I should have limited my statement to the modern, i.e. post-dark Ages, world. Of course, since no ancient world nation was ever anywhere near as large, populous or militarily powerful as the fledgling American state, there is no meaningful comparison between the politics involved.
And as I understand it, if it wasn't for American's rebelling against what they considered to be unjust laws and government, you would all still be a colony of the British Empire.
I've already explained this, but if you cannot see the difference between rebellion against a government that cannot be changed by its citizens, and rebelling against a government that is defined by the citizens' votes, then I don't think you're equipped to talk about this situation.
But despite how proud you clearly are of your countrys history, you apparently are willing to gloss over the areas of that history which don't support your arguments. Bottom line is, if a rebellion succeeds they are heros, whereas if it fails they are criminals. That's how it's always worked, and that's how it worked in Civil War.
I think you're confusing how history books are written with whether or not they were morally right. Armed rebellion against your legitimately elected government, while claiming to be an icon for a nation which is defined by its legitimately elected government isn't morally right: it's logically inconsistent.
I still haven't seen a single answer to the simple question: why did Rogers think he was above the civil process? Why did he think that he alone, unlike all the un-powered citizens, had the right to use force to impose his belief about the law? Why did he claim he was supporting democracy, while challenging democratically endorsed law through 'might makes right' philosophy?
Seriously, I know I haven't been around for long but I'm already tired of your long, insulting, aggressive and arrogant posts and your insistance on restarting the same arguments over and over again. Just let it go man.
[/QUOTE]
I can't be bothered slicing up the quotes, so I'll answer your comments in order.
1) You implied it when you claimed that the first peaceful transfer of power between american presidents was the "It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession)". That is simply not true, and it stands to reason that if this has never happened before, as you claimed, that it was also the first peaceful election. Therefore, you were implying that this was the first example of a Democracy.
2) Maybe not, but that's not what you said. And again, not a student of history, but I'm under the impression that at its peak Rome was far larger than "fledgling America", and if there was any military superiority it was due purely to technological advancement, not size of armies etc. But that's just my understanding, I'm not stating a fact.
3) You actually "explained" this, inadequately to my mind, after my comment, not before. If you cannot follow a basic timeline of posts, then I don't think you're equipped to post on a forum. I maintain that while there are blindingly obvious differences, the core concept remains the same: Armed rebellion against your government or its laws.
4) I think you are confusing what you consider to be "morally right" with "absolute truth". People do not all agree with you, shocking as that may seem to someone so supremely confident of their own opinion. I personally believe there is justifiable comparisons between the american war of independance and other armed rebellions against their governments, elected or otherwise. You are welcome to disagree, but I am not obliged to take your disagreement to heart.
I'll stop there, as I have no interest in arguing about the SHRA. I have not yet read Civil War, and if I wanted to I would jump in to the actual Civil War thread, not do what you are doing and using any old excuse to fire up your same old arguments. My comments were purely limited to what I considered to be your inaccurate and misleading comments about the founding of America.
I still haven't seen a single answer to the simple question: why did Rogers think he was above the civil process? Why did he think that he alone, unlike all the un-powered citizens, had the right to use force to impose his belief about the law? Why did he claim he was supporting democracy, while challenging democratically endorsed law through 'might makes right' philosophy?
I feel as if I'm too inarticulate and stupid to enter this debate. Oh well, here it goes.
It doesn't seem to me that Cap thought he was above the civil process. As I know it, Cap's situation at the beginning of CW was that SHIELD gave him what many would consider a simple choice: either join a strikeforce dedicated to tracking down those in opposition to the act (which, he probably figured out right away, would include many of his colleagues) or be taken into custody. Obviously, this wasn't a very attractive notion either way, so he GTFO. At that point, he became a fugitive of the law (as far as I know).
What could he do via the civil process? He could challenge it via the courts, but that takes years, and in the meantime, he could either hunt down his friends and former colleagues who don't like the act or rot in prison (which, I believe, was secretly in the Negative zone at that point in time, making communication between any sort of legal representation difficult if not impossible). Once again, not attractive propositions.
He might also attempt to sway public opinon against the act, but how? It's pretty hard to do that via traditional avenues when you're either pressed into enforcing the act or in the Negative Zone.
It calls her whole point, and everything she refers to, as 'cultural flotsam', and it's correct.
No, it's wrong. What you don't get is that she wasn't saying that USA=YouTube or any crap like that. Her point was that Captain America wasn't fighting a war about Americans' rights: he was fighting a war about the rights of costumed criminals to parade around like they're cops without any respect for the criminal justice system, the civil process, or the rule of law.
No, that was pretty much her entire point, was that current fads = American public, and that people would prefer those things to hard-won ideals.
Her point was that the only people Captain American was concerned with were his vigilante buddies. If he was really concerned with the American people, he'd respect their laws and their wishes.
IF this was her point (and that's an IF) then she made it in the worst way possible. What I'm reading her saying is 'I wish you'd stop standing up for yourself, we don't have principles, and don't like hardship'.
Nothing she mentioned is involved with principles, ethics, law, or anything else. She has no idea what is a lasting ideal or principle, and what is a fad.
I don't understand how you can misunderstand writing this severely: she wasn't SUPPOSED to be talking about a lasting principle. She was talking about Rogers' inability to see past his mask. She wasn't saying YouTube or NASCAR were more important than civil rights. What she was saying was that the stuff Rogers was fighting for wasn't America. He wasn't fighting for Americans, and he certainly wasn't fighting for American ideals (unless "American ideals" now includes armed vigilantism). He was fighting for his masked buddies "rights" to fight crime the way they wanted, without training and without accountability.
Cap was willing to fight for the rights of every American. Even the stupid ones who didn't know why those rights were important. She holds up this ignorance AS the ideal. That's the problem.
Might as well ask him about beanie babies, or cabbage patch dolls, or the Wii. None of it's relevant. There are plenty of ACTUAL people who have no idea what those are, who still manage to understand what America is about.
That's true, and those people aren't out there claiming to be above the law. If they did, we'd arrest them when they violated the law. Rogers thought that he was permitted to act above the law when he disagreed with it. He was a criminal, and he didn't want to admit it. He wanted to parade around in spandex and masks without respect for our nations laws, our peoples' wishes, etc.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
When Martin Luthor King took part in Sit-ins, he was literally breaking the law. Was he wrong? Was it legal? I'm sure if you were to ask him about the latest song, or fad of the time, he might not be as up on it as he could be. He was too busy standing up for ideals. Cap is the same way. She's an idiot.
EDIT:: Sorry for derailing so much. I'll leave it at that.
look, we don't have a chat thread, so threads are constantly derailed. Seriously, is it that big of a deal?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
What really makes my blood boil about that Sally Floyd comment is how it's caused everyone to pretty much think she's a complete idiot and hate her. This pisses me off because I fell in love with her when I read the Generation X mini-series, where she wasn't written as a retard, but as a sympathetic, pained, and extremely (for me) likeable character. No one would question her integrity after she wrote her final Ex-Mutant article. She wasn't the type of person who'd think that what's best for American people is what they post on YouTube or print on T-Shirts. And she deserved better than to have been written as a retard and become so hated.
What really makes my blood boil about that Sally Floyd comment is how it's caused everyone to pretty much think she's a complete idiot and hate her. This pisses me off because I fell in love with her when I read the Generation X mini-series, where she wasn't written as a retard, but as a sympathetic, pained, and extremely (for me) likeable character. No one would question her integrity after she wrote her final Ex-Mutant article. She wasn't the type of person who'd think that what's best for American people is what they post on YouTube or print on T-Shirts. And she deserved better than to have been written as a retard and become so hated.
That is also what upsets me about it. I started the comic loving Sally and not caring about Ben. I ended it hating Sally and not caring about Ben.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Yes, because there's a motherfucking Civil War thread. Maybe you guys should move this riveting debate over there and let this thread get back to talking about the July Marvel solicitations.
What really makes my blood boil about that Sally Floyd comment is how it's caused everyone to pretty much think she's a complete idiot and hate her. This pisses me off because I fell in love with her when I read the Generation X mini-series, where she wasn't written as a retard, but as a sympathetic, pained, and extremely (for me) likeable character. No one would question her integrity after she wrote her final Ex-Mutant article. She wasn't the type of person who'd think that what's best for American people is what they post on YouTube or print on T-Shirts. And she deserved better than to have been written as a retard and become so hated.
That is also what upsets me about it. I started the comic loving Sally and not caring about Ben. I ended it hating Sally and not caring about Ben.
I liked her through the rest of Frontline. Hell, I loved the rest of the Frontline series. It was pretty much just that one issue that annoys me.
Yes, because there's a motherfucking Civil War thread. Maybe you guys should move this riveting debate over there and let this thread get back to talking about the July Marvel solicitations.
Right, as opposed to every thread you turn into a black panther jerk-off-a-thon.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
It calls her whole point, and everything she refers to, as 'cultural flotsam', and it's correct.
No, it's wrong. What you don't get is that she wasn't saying that USA=YouTube or any crap like that. Her point was that Captain America wasn't fighting a war about Americans' rights: he was fighting a war about the rights of costumed criminals to parade around like they're cops without any respect for the criminal justice system, the civil process, or the rule of law.
No, that was pretty much her entire point, was that current fads = American public, and that people would prefer those things to hard-won ideals.
Her point was that the only people Captain American was concerned with were his vigilante buddies. If he was really concerned with the American people, he'd respect their laws and their wishes.
IF this was her point (and that's an IF) then she made it in the worst way possible. What I'm reading her saying is 'I wish you'd stop standing up for yourself, we don't have principles, and don't like hardship'.
Nothing she mentioned is involved with principles, ethics, law, or anything else. She has no idea what is a lasting ideal or principle, and what is a fad.
I don't understand how you can misunderstand writing this severely: she wasn't SUPPOSED to be talking about a lasting principle. She was talking about Rogers' inability to see past his mask. She wasn't saying YouTube or NASCAR were more important than civil rights. What she was saying was that the stuff Rogers was fighting for wasn't America. He wasn't fighting for Americans, and he certainly wasn't fighting for American ideals (unless "American ideals" now includes armed vigilantism). He was fighting for his masked buddies "rights" to fight crime the way they wanted, without training and without accountability.
Cap was willing to fight for the rights of every American. Even the stupid ones who didn't know why those rights were important. She holds up this ignorance AS the ideal. That's the problem.
Might as well ask him about beanie babies, or cabbage patch dolls, or the Wii. None of it's relevant. There are plenty of ACTUAL people who have no idea what those are, who still manage to understand what America is about.
That's true, and those people aren't out there claiming to be above the law. If they did, we'd arrest them when they violated the law. Rogers thought that he was permitted to act above the law when he disagreed with it. He was a criminal, and he didn't want to admit it. He wanted to parade around in spandex and masks without respect for our nations laws, our peoples' wishes, etc.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
When Martin Luthor King took part in Sit-ins, he was literally breaking the law. Was he wrong? Was it legal? I'm sure if you were to ask him about the latest song, or fad of the time, he might not be as up on it as he could be. He was too busy standing up for ideals. Cap is the same way. She's an idiot.
EDIT:: Sorry for derailing so much. I'll leave it at that.
Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. Rogers wasn't. King knew the only way he could get people excited was to commit the crime, go to jail, and fight the laws in the courts and on the ballots. Rogers was completely unwilling to do the same. Again, I've explained this repeatedly.
Yes, because there's a motherfucking Civil War thread. Maybe you guys should move this riveting debate over there and let this thread get back to talking about the July Marvel solicitations.
Right, as opposed to every thread you turn into a black panther jerk-off-a-thon.
Wow man, I hate Hudlin (and have debated wwtMask about this on at least a few occasions) but where is that hostility coming from?
Yes, because there's a motherfucking Civil War thread. Maybe you guys should move this riveting debate over there and let this thread get back to talking about the July Marvel solicitations.
Right, as opposed to every thread you turn into a black panther jerk-off-a-thon.
Right, I do that every thread I post in, all the time. And that's really a great excuse to be a thread derailing asshole. I didn't realize that other people doing badly automatically makes it okay for you. :roll:
Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. Rogers wasn't. King knew the only way he could get people excited was to commit the crime, go to jail, and fight the laws in the courts and on the ballots. Rogers was completely unwilling to do the same. Again, I've explained this repeatedly.
Am I correct in thinking that the jail that Cap would be put in would be the Negative Zone prison? I bet that makes a difference.
Yes, because there's a motherfucking Civil War thread. Maybe you guys should move this riveting debate over there and let this thread get back to talking about the July Marvel solicitations.
Right, as opposed to every thread you turn into a black panther jerk-off-a-thon.
Right, I do that every thread I post in, all the time. And that's really a great excuse to be a thread derailing asshole. I didn't realize that other people doing badly automatically makes it okay for you. :roll:
Sorry mask, I didn't mean for that to sound as hostile as it did.
But by the same token, it's not like I'm talking about Civil War in every thread either. In fact, I'm so over Civil War I'm not sure why I even care.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Everyone stop arguing about random shit in here. If you want to argue about Civil War, take it to the Civil War thread. Stop de-railing threads with all of this bullshit.
Yes, because there's a motherfucking Civil War thread. Maybe you guys should move this riveting debate over there and let this thread get back to talking about the July Marvel solicitations.
Right, as opposed to every thread you turn into a black panther jerk-off-a-thon.
Right, I do that every thread I post in, all the time. And that's really a great excuse to be a thread derailing asshole. I didn't realize that other people doing badly automatically makes it okay for you. :roll:
Sorry mask, I didn't mean for that to sound as hostile as it did.
But by the same token, it's not like I'm talking about Civil War in every thread either. In fact, I'm so over Civil War I'm not sure why I even care.
No harm, dude. I'm so used to the way we talk around here, I didn't give it another thought. 8-)
It calls her whole point, and everything she refers to, as 'cultural flotsam', and it's correct.
No, it's wrong. What you don't get is that she wasn't saying that USA=YouTube or any crap like that. Her point was that Captain America wasn't fighting a war about Americans' rights: he was fighting a war about the rights of costumed criminals to parade around like they're cops without any respect for the criminal justice system, the civil process, or the rule of law.
No, that was pretty much her entire point, was that current fads = American public, and that people would prefer those things to hard-won ideals.
Her point was that the only people Captain American was concerned with were his vigilante buddies. If he was really concerned with the American people, he'd respect their laws and their wishes.
IF this was her point (and that's an IF) then she made it in the worst way possible. What I'm reading her saying is 'I wish you'd stop standing up for yourself, we don't have principles, and don't like hardship'.
Nothing she mentioned is involved with principles, ethics, law, or anything else. She has no idea what is a lasting ideal or principle, and what is a fad.
I don't understand how you can misunderstand writing this severely: she wasn't SUPPOSED to be talking about a lasting principle. She was talking about Rogers' inability to see past his mask. She wasn't saying YouTube or NASCAR were more important than civil rights. What she was saying was that the stuff Rogers was fighting for wasn't America. He wasn't fighting for Americans, and he certainly wasn't fighting for American ideals (unless "American ideals" now includes armed vigilantism). He was fighting for his masked buddies "rights" to fight crime the way they wanted, without training and without accountability.
Cap was willing to fight for the rights of every American. Even the stupid ones who didn't know why those rights were important. She holds up this ignorance AS the ideal. That's the problem.
Might as well ask him about beanie babies, or cabbage patch dolls, or the Wii. None of it's relevant. There are plenty of ACTUAL people who have no idea what those are, who still manage to understand what America is about.
That's true, and those people aren't out there claiming to be above the law. If they did, we'd arrest them when they violated the law. Rogers thought that he was permitted to act above the law when he disagreed with it. He was a criminal, and he didn't want to admit it. He wanted to parade around in spandex and masks without respect for our nations laws, our peoples' wishes, etc.
When our country was founded, one of the proudest moments was the first time power was peacefully transferred from one president to another. It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession). Rogers didn't respect that the point of America is that we can solve our disputes through reason.
When Martin Luthor King took part in Sit-ins, he was literally breaking the law. Was he wrong? Was it legal? I'm sure if you were to ask him about the latest song, or fad of the time, he might not be as up on it as he could be. He was too busy standing up for ideals. Cap is the same way. She's an idiot.
EDIT:: Sorry for derailing so much. I'll leave it at that.
Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. Rogers wasn't. King knew the only way he could get people excited was to commit the crime, go to jail, and fight the laws in the courts and on the ballots. Rogers was completely unwilling to do the same. Again, I've explained this repeatedly.
So what were we bitching about being out of character for Captain America if he wasn't willing to lay down his shield and go to jail?
Marvel's full July solicitation are up on Newsarama. Instead of making this thread a bandwidth hog, I'll just keep the linked previews up. You're on your own for the rest of them.
EDIT 2: Link to full solicits added.
These first ones are spoilered to avoid h-scroll breakage.
Posts
Here's a tip: if you're picking a view based on who espouses it, you're not making a logical argument. Captain America was introduced fighting a demonized Germany and Japan, so much so that the term 'nip' was present on dozens of covers. You're telling me that Captain America was right then?
Cap was wrong here, because he was written to be wrong. That's fiction.
There is a difference, but it's still splitting hairs. When America was founded it was done by rebellion against their (at the time) lawful government. Twist it however you like, it doesn't change the truth of it.
(a) I've yet to see a single argument against SHRA that actually shows it to violate any civil rights in a way that the draft doesn't.
(b) If you can use suspension of disbelief to say that I shouldn't be critical of Captain America (you know, the guy who used to beat up 'nips', 'krauts' and other ethnic slurs while having no problem with the lack of civil rights in his country for blacks or women) why do you get to be critical of SHRA?
Either its okay to apply real-world logic to real-world problems present in fantasy universes, or it's not okay. If you're going to be inconsistent, why bother trying to defend your position?
I cannot understand why you (and this isn't you in particular, but everyone who complains about supporting SHRA etc.) would want to read and post on a message board dedicated to talking about comics, if you don't want to talk about comics.
If you don't like what's being discussed, don't participate.
I took the "freedom for security" line to mean that Millar didn't intend Captain America to be written as "wrong".
Ah. Because fiction cannot have multiple interpretations? There was more than the core title in Civil War, so there's no definitive wrong other than Cap stopping the fight out of guilt. Edit: Which he said afterwards wasn't a victory for Tony in the slightest.
It's not splitting hairs at all. Under the British crown, there was precisely zero way for the Colonials to change their country without physical rebellion and loss of life.
Under the US government in 2006 when Rogers launched his armed insurrection, you could change the laws like every other normal citizen: through your legislators, and voting. What was Rogers fighting for, if not the right of every man and woman to voice themselves and be heard in government?
Why does Rogers get to lead an armed rebellion when he doesn't like the law, when no one else is allowed to?
If you don't see the serious difference between a government built around the IMPOSSIBILITY of citizen-change and a government built around the UNIVERSALITY of citizen-change, I cannot imagine how you think you understand what Captain America thought he was fighting for?
Was Rogers fighting for an Oligarchy where super-powered vigilantes get to decide which laws to obey and which ones to ignore?
And what about those of us who say Cap wasn't wrong? Should we just go fuck ourselves because we don't agree with your particular interpretation? Just because Cap gave up doesn't mean he admitted defeat, as he said in that last comic with Tony talking to Caps body.
There were zero democratically elected leaders in the modern world, post-Rome/Greece. Find me one.
However, you're correct that I should have limited my statement to the modern, i.e. post-dark Ages, world. Of course, since no ancient world nation was ever anywhere near as large, populous or militarily powerful as the fledgling American state, there is no meaningful comparison between the politics involved.
I've already explained this, but if you cannot see the difference between rebellion against a government that cannot be changed by its citizens, and rebelling against a government that is defined by the citizens' votes, then I don't think you're equipped to talk about this situation.
I think you're confusing how history books are written with whether or not they were morally right. Armed rebellion against your legitimately elected government, while claiming to be an icon for a nation which is defined by its legitimately elected government isn't morally right: it's logically inconsistent.
I still haven't seen a single answer to the simple question: why did Rogers think he was above the civil process? Why did he think that he alone, unlike all the un-powered citizens, had the right to use force to impose his belief about the law? Why did he claim he was supporting democracy, while challenging democratically endorsed law through 'might makes right' philosophy?
Seriously, I know I haven't been around for long but I'm already tired of your long, insulting, aggressive and arrogant posts and your insistance on restarting the same arguments over and over again. Just let it go man.[/QUOTE]
Of course not! I'd love to see arguments in Cap's favor. That's the point of a debate board: to hear both sides. Instead, all I see is people bitching and moaning about my post.
There are some things neither of us can dispute: Tony Stark illegally manipulated this war into happening, while Rogers led an illegal rebellion; Marvel's USA is filled with people who fear their superpowered individuals, while it's also filled with at least a significant number of such superpowered individuals who think they're above the law. These are the facts of the writing.
But there's plenty of debate here: does SHRA violate civil rights, is it a good storytelling device, how should heroes react to these changes, how should the populace react to these changes, etc.
Debate isn't just asserting things though. If you think SHRA violates civil rights, show me how - don't just tell me. If you think Civil War is bad writing, show me how - don't just tell me. Etc.
Heck, the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to explain just why England's rule over the colonies was no longer truly lawful.
Shoot, read the thing. The whole point was to say that the colonies had exhausted all other options.
It's not splitting hairs. There were MANY other ways for the unregistered heroes to go about fighting the SHRA. Like speaking out in public to try to sway public opinion against the SHRA. Or going to the courts to try to get it overturned. Or protesting. Or putting up nonviolent resistance.
But no. Cap and crew just decided to start throwing punches.
Oh, and Captain America bears just as much responsibility for Civil War as Iron Man, since Stark was like, "dude let's just calm down and talk about this" and Steve was like "shutup let's fight."
Maybe you should reread Civil War 1.
Except this clearly did not happen, Cap took his stance after Maria Hill threatened him and with a whole unit of capekillers with weapons pointed directly at him with no provocation whatsoever.
I can't be bothered slicing up the quotes, so I'll answer your comments in order.
1) You implied it when you claimed that the first peaceful transfer of power between american presidents was the "It was the first time rule of a nation passed peacefully between two rulers (except through familial succession)". That is simply not true, and it stands to reason that if this has never happened before, as you claimed, that it was also the first peaceful election. Therefore, you were implying that this was the first example of a Democracy.
2) Maybe not, but that's not what you said. And again, not a student of history, but I'm under the impression that at its peak Rome was far larger than "fledgling America", and if there was any military superiority it was due purely to technological advancement, not size of armies etc. But that's just my understanding, I'm not stating a fact.
3) You actually "explained" this, inadequately to my mind, after my comment, not before. If you cannot follow a basic timeline of posts, then I don't think you're equipped to post on a forum. I maintain that while there are blindingly obvious differences, the core concept remains the same: Armed rebellion against your government or its laws.
4) I think you are confusing what you consider to be "morally right" with "absolute truth". People do not all agree with you, shocking as that may seem to someone so supremely confident of their own opinion. I personally believe there is justifiable comparisons between the american war of independance and other armed rebellions against their governments, elected or otherwise. You are welcome to disagree, but I am not obliged to take your disagreement to heart.
I'll stop there, as I have no interest in arguing about the SHRA. I have not yet read Civil War, and if I wanted to I would jump in to the actual Civil War thread, not do what you are doing and using any old excuse to fire up your same old arguments. My comments were purely limited to what I considered to be your inaccurate and misleading comments about the founding of America.
Oh no, people are discussing things!
I feel as if I'm too inarticulate and stupid to enter this debate.
It doesn't seem to me that Cap thought he was above the civil process. As I know it, Cap's situation at the beginning of CW was that SHIELD gave him what many would consider a simple choice: either join a strikeforce dedicated to tracking down those in opposition to the act (which, he probably figured out right away, would include many of his colleagues) or be taken into custody. Obviously, this wasn't a very attractive notion either way, so he GTFO. At that point, he became a fugitive of the law (as far as I know).
What could he do via the civil process? He could challenge it via the courts, but that takes years, and in the meantime, he could either hunt down his friends and former colleagues who don't like the act or rot in prison (which, I believe, was secretly in the Negative zone at that point in time, making communication between any sort of legal representation difficult if not impossible). Once again, not attractive propositions.
He might also attempt to sway public opinon against the act, but how? It's pretty hard to do that via traditional avenues when you're either pressed into enforcing the act or in the Negative Zone.
You know. 'Cause this shit isn't even remotely on topic in this thread and it's really fucking annoying.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
No, that was pretty much her entire point, was that current fads = American public, and that people would prefer those things to hard-won ideals.
IF this was her point (and that's an IF) then she made it in the worst way possible. What I'm reading her saying is 'I wish you'd stop standing up for yourself, we don't have principles, and don't like hardship'.
Cap was willing to fight for the rights of every American. Even the stupid ones who didn't know why those rights were important. She holds up this ignorance AS the ideal. That's the problem.
When Martin Luthor King took part in Sit-ins, he was literally breaking the law. Was he wrong? Was it legal? I'm sure if you were to ask him about the latest song, or fad of the time, he might not be as up on it as he could be. He was too busy standing up for ideals. Cap is the same way. She's an idiot.
EDIT:: Sorry for derailing so much. I'll leave it at that.
That is also what upsets me about it. I started the comic loving Sally and not caring about Ben. I ended it hating Sally and not caring about Ben.
I liked her through the rest of Frontline. Hell, I loved the rest of the Frontline series. It was pretty much just that one issue that annoys me.
Right, as opposed to every thread you turn into a black panther jerk-off-a-thon.
Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. Rogers wasn't. King knew the only way he could get people excited was to commit the crime, go to jail, and fight the laws in the courts and on the ballots. Rogers was completely unwilling to do the same. Again, I've explained this repeatedly.
Maybe we can play nice?
So how long can Captain America's title be expected to continue without a lead character?
Wow man, I hate Hudlin (and have debated wwtMask about this on at least a few occasions) but where is that hostility coming from?
Christ man, it's a comic forum. Relax.
Right, I do that every thread I post in, all the time. And that's really a great excuse to be a thread derailing asshole. I didn't realize that other people doing badly automatically makes it okay for you. :roll:
Am I correct in thinking that the jail that Cap would be put in would be the Negative Zone prison? I bet that makes a difference.
Sorry mask, I didn't mean for that to sound as hostile as it did.
But by the same token, it's not like I'm talking about Civil War in every thread either. In fact, I'm so over Civil War I'm not sure why I even care.
No harm, dude. I'm so used to the way we talk around here, I didn't give it another thought. 8-)
So what were we bitching about being out of character for Captain America if he wasn't willing to lay down his shield and go to jail?