Should we support the mutant registration act?

[Muad'Dib]

All ready passed in the congress, the Mutant Registration Act is now up for debate in the senate. As many of you know the country is quite polarized on the issue with many leftist groups comparing it to the forced registration of Jews in Hitler’s Germany, while many on the right claiming it is necessary for our safety.

Personally, I support the registration act. This is not a simple situation of bigotry as many on the left would like you to believe. These mutants often have strengths and abilities that are frighteningly powerful. Just as we do not allow people to freely own automatic weapons, high explosives, or nuclear armaments we cannot allow people to freely walk about with powers that would rival even our best artificial weapons. What is more, many of these mutants are quite young, and not able to reliably control their own powers. There was a story in the paper the other day of a girl in New Orleans that was randomly absorbing the "life force" of those around her. The poor thing did not even know what was going on herself, but in the end thirteen people are in the hospital, four in deep comas. Luckily the girl was safely apprehended and is now in a controlled safe environment.

The rise of destructive and evil mutants makes this legislation even more necessary. We must begin genetic testing and registration of all new-borns and immigrants. For our good, and their own.

[Harborwolf]

Wrong forum Bastion. You and the rest of the sentinels should try cafe society.

And of course we shouldn't support the registration act. Some of those mutants are crazy hawt.

[Lobsang]

Well, being a mutant myself (I can make really annoying things happen) I naturally oppose it. I don't want to be 'registered' like a sex-offender. I want to annoy with annonymoniymonininity.

[Muad'Dib]

Wrong forum Bastion. You and the rest of the sentinels should try cafe society.



This is a serious discussion about the future of civil rights in America! If you can't understand that maybe you should leave.

[SteveG1]

I think we need more mutants. They are the only ones who look really sexy in Spandex (unlike us "normals").

[Lightnin']

Can we get a definition of the word "mutant" first, though? I hear there's a guy out there who can change a blue object into a yellow object- not a phenomenally useful power, and by no means dangerous, but he's still technically a mutant. Should he have to register?

[Scott Plaid]

I don't see any proof these "mutants" are any real danger. They see themselves as responsab;le remember of society, like anyone else. Even if they were, should we then start register baseline human-norms who have a genetic proposition towards muscles, and height? After all, one of them is dangerous to "normals".

[glee]

I don't support any legislation that stops Halle Berry or Famke Janssen walking around. :)

[Scott Plaid]

glee, I hope those people you just named are out n' proud, becuause otherwise, you just violated their privacy bigtime.

[Harborwolf]

glee, I hope those people you just named are out n' proud, becuause otherwise, you just violated their privacy bigtime.

If you can't tell that they are some sort of incredibly attractive superbabe just by looking at them, you need to have your ruby quartz visor adjusted.

[Kythereia]

Down with the mutant registration act! [/cheers, whoops, hollers]

[Scott Plaid]

I am fully aware of the fact that their is a rumor going around usenet that she is a mutant, but while she might not being called a babe, you are certainly implying that she is a member of the vigilanties know as "The X-People", and I heard she took someone to court over this.

[Bippy the Beardless]

These mutants need help, some are dangerous to others, some are dangerous to themselves, and the fact that little is known about them means that normal people are often affraid of them and likely to react badly to them.
We need to help them, but to be able to help them we need to know who they are. Is it wrong that government keeps lists of people found to be HIV+ve or people who have been administered to psychiatric institutes? No, of course it isn't wrong. These people get the expensive drugs and counciling that they need because they are known about. Simply detecting and classifying mutants is a necessary step towards helping them become the valuable members of society that they wish to be. Anyone who opposes registration is an enimy of mutants, no better than the missled thugs who attack mutants out of fear of their powers. Only through study, classification, and where necessary medication can the mutants be propperly understood and become fully assimilated into our culture.

[Bryan Ekers]

If there's a serious discussion to be made of this, is there a chance that infertile couples of the late 21st century will have access to powerful genetic screening tools (as a routine matter, since all embryos produced through future-IVF therapy will be casually screened before implantation) which prove so advantageous that even fertile couples will seek to use them?

[andros]

We already have laws on the books. Enforce them.

We punish actions in this country, and we punish people who commit those actions. We do not, and must not, punish people for who they are. We can only punish them for what they do.

[SisterCoyote]

I second andros.

[Bippy the Beardless]

We punish actions in this country, and we punish people who commit those actions. We do not, and must not, punish people for who they are. We can only punish them for what they do.
No punishment is implied by simple registration. These people need help and to give them help they need to be identified. Anti mutant feeling is high amongst ordinary people, this feeling can only be removed if we educate those people about mutants and their powers and show that the most dangerous mutants are being kept in an environment where they are both safe and not able to cause harm to others. In the same way that the insane are helped whenever possible but those who are dangerously insane and uncurable are kept in safe places where they can harm neither themselves nor others.

[Harborwolf]

No punishment is implied by simple registration. These people need help and to give them help they need to be identified. Anti mutant feeling is high amongst ordinary people, this feeling can only be removed if we educate those people about mutants and their powers and show that the most dangerous mutants are being kept in an environment where they are both safe and not able to cause harm to others. In the same way that the insane are helped whenever possible but those who are dangerously insane and uncurable are kept in safe places where they can harm neither themselves nor others.

Give me a break. The only reason you want their names on the lists is so you can round them up later and lock them up regardless of sanity or danger to society. You people are just as bad as the nazis.

[carnivorousplant]

Just as we do not allow people to freely own...nuclear armaments

WTF? When did this start? Do I need to register them or something?

[Bricker]

It's unclear to me how merely registering individuals would create a problem. This legislation furthers a rational government interest and does not impact a suspect class.

I'm perfectly aware of the slippery slope argument, and I would resist any attempts to do more than register. But given the powers that some of these individuals possess, and assuming that there is a clearly definable genetic state of being a mutant -- contrary to what Scott_Plaid suggests, the intrusion of their liberty and privacy is tiny, and the interest in public safety is served.

I support the Act.

[Bricker]

Give me a break. The only reason you want their names on the lists is so you can round them up later and lock them up regardless of sanity or danger to society. You people are just as bad as the nazis.

Slippery slope. Registration will not lead to round-ups.

[SisterCoyote]

And yet registration will encourage demonization of mutants as "the other," when - despite their genetic differences - they generally have the same feelings, wants, and needs as those who will ostracize them.

Not to mention that the act of registration is an invasion of their right to privacy.

[SisterCoyote]

What, exactly, is the "interest in public safety" you mention, Rick? How does someone leading their own life, talented or not, cause a hazard to public safety?

Criminals endanger public safety, but law-abiding citizens, whatever their nature, do not.

[Harborwolf]

Slippery slope. Registration will not lead to round-ups.

Sez you bub. Next thing you'll deny the existence of giant robots created to end the so called "mutant menace."

Keep on blindly following Senator Kelly you fascist.

[MLS]

We register dogs, and cars. So far no one's attempted to confiscate Porsches or Poodles as long as they are "used" appropriately.

But it depends on how you define "mutant." Dangerous mutations, or any mutation? Some of my family are lacking wisdom teeth -- a quite beneficial mutation of which I am envious. Do they have to to register? Huh? Huh?

[SisterCoyote]

We register dogs, and cars. So far no one's attempted to confiscate Porsches or Poodles as long as they are "used" appropriately.

Porsches and Poodles are Property, not People.

But it depends on how you define "mutant." Dangerous mutations, or any mutation? Some of my family are lacking wisdom teeth -- a quite beneficial mutation of which I am envious. Do they have to to register? Huh? Huh?

Good point. Similar to the one raised above about the gentleman who can only change blue objects into yellow ones.

[Harborwolf]

But it depends on how you define "mutant." Dangerous mutations, or any mutation? Some of my family are lacking wisdom teeth -- a quite beneficial mutation of which I am envious. Do they have to to register? Huh? Huh?

Then why not simply register those convicted of crimes. Forcing innocent citizens to register because they may do something in the future stands opposed to innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, you could use registered precognitive mutants. But that particular movie has sailed. Wasn't that good either.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Give me a break. The only reason you want their names on the lists is so you can round them up later and lock them up regardless of sanity or danger to society. You people are just as bad as the nazis.
If there has ever been a case of wining by Godwins law clearer than this one, I have not seen it.
Thank you Bricker for carrying on this important fight against ignorance. A fight for the safety of all humans normal or otherwise.

[tomndebb]

a case of wining by Godwins law Would that be a Liebfraumilch or a Moselwein?

[Bricker]

What, exactly, is the "interest in public safety" you mention, Rick? How does someone leading their own life, talented or not, cause a hazard to public safety?

Criminals endanger public safety, but law-abiding citizens, whatever their nature, do not.


From the OP:

There was a story in the paper the other day of a girl in New Orleans that was randomly absorbing the "life force" of those around her. The poor thing did not even know what was going on herself, but in the end thirteen people are in the hospital, four in deep comas.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Would that be a Liebfraumilch or a Moselwein?
Champagne, once those foolish peoplel who oppose governmental help for the mutants within our society realise that registration can only be good for us and the mutants.

[Bricker]

Then why not simply register those convicted of crimes. Forcing innocent citizens to register because they may do something in the future stands opposed to innocent until proven guilty.



We're not imprisoning them. This is an administrative requirement, civil in nature.

The girl mentioned in the OP is not guilty of any crime; she didn't intend to harm anyone. But she's dangerous.

[SisterCoyote]

Rick, then presumably said girl needs education and assistance in learning how not to do what she did. Accidents happen all the time, particularly where teenagers are concerned (as the auto insurance people can tell you).

However, I'd be willing to lay money that she didn't know she was a mutant until this began happening, and therefore is unlikely to have been registered anyway. Perhaps I'm a mutant and don't know it; assuming this genetic component, are we to have all babies tested from this point forward? Even those whose parents refuse? And must all adults go in for testing as well?

[elfkin477]

I think it's the basest of bigotry to require mutants who have done nothing wrong to be part of some "registry." You can't tell me that if we have some sort of mutant war with the USSR that mutants aren't going to be rounded up and drafted. Requiring registration for the selective service is an invasive method the government uses to keep tabs on people they might draft for their lunatic wars, and this is no different. The mutants, given their super abilities and pervasive distrust/dehumanization the media (and certain politicians) attempts to brew within the general public, are even more likely than the average 18 to 27-year-old male to be deemed "fit" for combat. It's not right.

Not to mention that many mutants' powers reveal themselves during childhood. As standard practice the powers that be take care to protect the privacy of minors, so should we hold mutant children to a different standard, one deemed less worthy of protectionary status? Would this registry be available for all and sundry to view? If so, what's to stop "normal" people from protesting when they learn that there's a mutant in their kids' class? Or stop pedophiles with a taste for the exotic from targeting these kids? I don't think anyone here wants to be part of helping making it easier for a monster to prey on children...

[Squink]

I support the Act.
You are obviously not thinking clearly. The very existence of these mutants provides us with an ideal pretext with which to agitate for the repeal our county's unjust laws against personal possession of destructive devices, up to and including backpack nuclear devices and 1920's style death rays.
The nanny state has already proven itself incompetent to protect us from the dangers of simple terrorists, what makes you think they can do a better job against mutants? When government fails, personal safety becomes each citizen's private responsibility. Government has already failed, so the time is now to reclaim the tools we need to protect ourselves!

[Bricker]

Rick, then presumably said girl needs education and assistance in learning how not to do what she did. Accidents happen all the time, particularly where teenagers are concerned (as the auto insurance people can tell you).

However, I'd be willing to lay money that she didn't know she was a mutant until this began happening, and therefore is unlikely to have been registered anyway. Perhaps I'm a mutant and don't know it; assuming this genetic component, are we to have all babies tested from this point forward? Even those whose parents refuse? And must all adults go in for testing as well?

These are good questions.

So far as I can tell - and my expertise in this area is limited to watching two movies that addressed the subject; these movies may not be completely accurate when compared to more detailed works - there is a single, identifiable "mutant" characteristic. And it's possible to test for this characteristic.

I would say that submitting to this test should be mandatory for getting a driver's license, receiving student loans, attending schools that receive federal support, and similar activities.

[SisterCoyote]

These are good questions.

So far as I can tell - and my expertise in this area is limited to watching two movies that addressed the subject; these movies may not be completely accurate when compared to more detailed works - there is a single, identifiable "mutant" characteristic. And it's possible to test for this characteristic.

To be honest, it's been years since I read the source material, and I don't know if they ever determined that the "X-factor" could be tested for; we'll have to leave that to the experts in the field.

I would say that submitting to this test should be mandatory for getting a driver's license, receiving student loans, attending schools that receive federal support, and similar activities.

The girl in the OP, IIRC, is in her early teens and therefore has done none of the above with the possibility of school; we don't know if she attend(ed) public or private elementary and secondary schools (I'm assuming you are not simply talking about college or university education on that last point; please correct my misapprehension if I'm wrong). Assuming, for the moment, that she was not attending public school, then what has happened, accidentally, would still have happened, without warning.

Also, the gun analogy holds a bit, here; although there are people who go around crying that guns should be banned when one child accidentally shoots another, I think that many others simply feel that safety education is called for. The key, here, is that what has happened is accidental, not intentional. If the action is taken with intent, then a crime has been committed. Until that time, you're asking to punish a segment of the population - and as high-minded as we would like to think people are, to be "known" as out of the norm is still a punishment - who have done nothing wrong and pose no greater threat to their neighborhood than a handgun in a properly locked gun safe. Even less, in the case of those whose mutations are in the realm of missing third molars or simple color-changes.

Plus, what elfkin said about children's right to privacy.

[SisterCoyote]

sigh.

with the possible exception of school

[Cervaise]

I hear there's a guy out there who can change a blue object into a yellow objectThis post has been micturated by The Micturator.

[DrFidelius]

This post has been micturated by The Micturator.

For us old-school types, don't you mean The Whizzer?

[Scott Plaid]

I'm perfectly aware of the slippery slope argument, and I would resist any attempts to do more than register.andros already showed why this is has better points against it then for. However, you still don't have a case, even if he never posted. The "slippery slope" arguement is already a real danger, and soon after this law comes into effect, I bet we will see people pointing out the registration as a recognition of dangerous people, and greater action should be taken against them.

[Jake]

annonymoniymonininity:
Finally somebody spelled the word correct!

[Evil Captor]

I'm OK with the mutant, but please ... no Irish.

[DrFidelius]

... are mongoose blood and Gingold soda goimg to be on the "restricted substances" lists?

[Scott Plaid]

... are mongoose blood and Gingold soda goimg to be on the "restricted substances" lists?I hope not. Not only do those not lead to the type of mutation mentioned here, but the day the gov. tries to take away my abilty to stretch, or the ability to run real fast is the day I <This message censored by order of the Sentenal Supreme. Return to the last page.>

[David, God of Frogs]

This is such a non-issue.

You guys are just making this whole thing up in order to have something to rant about.

[hildea]

We need to help them, but to be able to help them we need to know who they are. Is it wrong that government keeps lists of people found to be HIV+ve or people who have been administered to psychiatric institutes?This is a good point. Actually, those who are HIV+ are a perfect paralellll (extra l's added to make sure I have enough). They can be dangerous to others, especially if they do not know of their condition, and there's still an unfortunate tendency to view them with fear among general public, especially the ignorant ones.

The ethical way to treat mutation registration is to handle it as all other sensitive medical information. What we do here in United States of Europe is to test all newborns for various medical conditions. The information is kept strictly confidential, but all parents get a list of likely problems to look out for, and those who need it will also get reminder letters from the Department of Health if there are conditions which are likely to be triggered at some specific age. To take one example: I got a reminder letter at 12, telling me that my nearsightedness was likely to set in within a few years, and could thus get corrective treatment at the first onset of the problem, instead of having to wait until I noticed that I couldn't see things clearly. (I read a diary written by an ancestor of mine in the 1980's, and it seems like that's what happened to her. Seems like the stone age, to me.)

So, test everybody, keep the info strictly confidential, and have some kind of support/treatment center which contact those who are at risk.

And yes, I do know that there's a danger of confidential information getting loose. You don't have to remind me of the latest scandal in Brussels. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems to be the best one available.

[Dunderman]

I would say that submitting to this test should be mandatory for getting a driver's license, receiving student loans, attending schools that receive federal support, and similar activities.
I would say that this test should be administered at birth or even prenatally. We test for many dangerous things, and this is a dangerous thing - both to the child and the people around it. Test each baby, inform the parents of the result, and keep it strictly confidential.

[Bricker]

andros already showed why this is has better points against it then for. However, you still don't have a case, even if he never posted. The "slippery slope" arguement is already a real danger, and soon after this law comes into effect, I bet we will see people pointing out the registration as a recognition of dangerous people, and greater action should be taken against them.

Then I'll oppose the actions urged by those people.

[Bricker]

The girl in the OP, IIRC, is in her early teens and therefore has done none of the above with the possibility of school; we don't know if she attend(ed) public or private elementary and secondary schools (I'm assuming you are not simply talking about college or university education on that last point; please correct my misapprehension if I'm wrong). Assuming, for the moment, that she was not attending public school, then what has happened, accidentally, would still have happened, without warning.

If the girl was attending private school or being home-schooled, I suppose you're right.

But a solution doesn't have to be perfect to be desirable. We do an instant background check on all people buying guns from a dealer. We do this in spite of the fact that a person can buy a gun from a private citizen with no such check. We don't scrap the background check simply because there are circumstances in which it can be avoided.


Until that time, you're asking to punish a segment of the population - and as high-minded as we would like to think people are, to be "known" as out of the norm is still a punishment - who have done nothing wrong and pose no greater threat to their neighborhood than a handgun in a properly locked gun safe. Even less, in the case of those whose mutations are in the realm of missing third molars or simple color-changes.

Plus, what elfkin said about children's right to privacy.

"Register." Not "punish." With the lists kept private, no one is "known" as out of the norm, as you suggest, and not punished thereby.

[Harborwolf]

Then I'll oppose the actions urged by those people.

Others may not. We all know how convincing arguments can be when sprinkled with words like "imminent danger" or "threat to our country/liberty/freedom/society."

You can't compare being a mutant to owning a firearm. You can buy a gun. You can steal a gun. ou choose to own a gun. You can't be born with a gun.

These people would be registered simply for being different. If someone proposed the Asian registration act, they'd be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Why is it okay for mutants? Because they could be dangerous? We don't know that they are dangerous any more than we know any other person is dangerous. It doesn't take mutant powers to be a danger.

[Dunderman]

It doesn't take mutant powers to be a danger.
No, but mutant powers help, especially when you can hospitalize thirteen people by accident, just by being you.

[Harborwolf]

No, but mutant powers help, especially when you can hospitalize thirteen people by accident, just by being you.

You can do the same in a car, just by being you.

[Dunderman]

You can do the same in a car, just by being you.
I support registering dangerous drivers. If there were a test that could be administered at birth to ascertain whether a person is a dangerous driver, I'd support that test and the registration of its results.

[Dunderman]

Oh, and it's not a perfect analogy. Dangerous drivers aren't dangerous just by being themselves. They make choices. Mutants don't make the choices, and the girl who hospitalized thirteen people didn't make the choice. It just happened.

[Harborwolf]

Oh, and it's not a perfect analogy. Dangerous drivers aren't dangerous just by being themselves. They make choices. Mutants don't make the choices, and the girl who hospitalized thirteen people didn't make the choice. It just happened.

So for one person, a whole group should be persecuted?

[carnivorousplant]

I support registering dangerous drivers.

And who will decide if a driver is dangerous, Microsoft?
:rolleyes:

[Bricker]

These people would be registered simply for being different. If someone proposed the Asian registration act, they'd be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Why is it okay for mutants? Because they could be dangerous? We don't know that they are dangerous any more than we know any other person is dangerous. It doesn't take mutant powers to be a danger.


The Supreme Court would rightly strike down the Asian Registration Act.

Classifications based on race aare inherently suspect, and must pass the strict scrutiny test.

The mutant gene is not a racial characteristic, and classifications based on it are not inherently suspect; the government needs only to pass the rational basis test.

[Sage Rat]

Certainly anything like a official register could be used for negative purposes--every bit as much as the national census could be misused if handed to the wrong person.

The important issue here is that, regardless that humans with extra powers could just as equally help out the nation as harm it--there is no way to assess these powers and deal with them in a proper way without them being registered.

In the case of rogue mutants for instance--a mutant could kill a person with only the power of his mind from a mile away. How can we expect the police to determine who the culprit is when the victim simply fell dead where he stood? Thr only way to solve such a crime might be an exhaustive search of the capabilities of local mutants. Most will not have been able to commit the crime in such a method and they can be ignored, leaving a list of names to check and see if there is any connection to the victim. There is nothing nefarious in that--and simply an organized system of law and order cannot continue without the powers of and the knowledge of the mutants living in our towns and cities.

[holmes]

So then it would be okay to have a Registration Act for Down's Syndrome; a genetic mutation...because we can't have those people with their lesser abilities becoming a danger to us....yes? or would you consider Down's Syndrome to be part of the Mutant Registration Act? What about Sickle Cell?

Does any genetic deviation from the norm count as a mutation or does one have to have the specific "X" gene to count? How would it be constitutional to allow registration of one type of genetic mutation and not the other?

Why does my "X" gene that allows me to grow red nose hair require me to register for the Act, but Timmy's Down Syndrome doesn't?

[Sage Rat]

Because we know what Down's Syndrome does. The X gene however has an unlimited variety of possible results, some of which need to be known and most of which are indeed probably of no importance.

[Arwin]

Tricky stuff this. Really intelligent people can be as dangerous as mutants, in fact, they could be a lot more dangerous. In fact, I attended a particular brand of Kung Fu lessons, and if I had continued those lessons for more than a few months, I'd have had to officially register myself.

I would set up a mutant danger classification system, and require only those who propose clearly defineable and forseeable threats to society to register, with obligatory training at Xavier's Institute.

[Steve MB]

and assuming that there is a clearly definable genetic state of being a mutant -- contrary to what Scott_Plaid suggests
This assumption is clearly contrafactual. Either one uses the biological definition (presense of at least one incorrectly copied parental gene) or one uses the colloquial definition (possessor of unusual abilities arising from mutant genes). The former applies to approximately 100% of the population; the latter is (as Scott_Plaid correctly noted) so vague as to be useless.

[dropzone]

I attended a particular brand of Kung Fu lessons, and if I had continued those lessons for more than a few months, I'd have had to officially register myself.Even if you weren't any good at it?

[Scott Plaid]

You guys took what I posted, and you really ran with it. It makes me feel good. However, I see an irritating pattern.

Someone posts why this registration would be a bad thing
Rick posts why it would be justified.
Someone posts why it would not in fact be justified.
Rick comes up with a new reason why he can justify it to himself, and possibly hand-waves away a very real danger.
Rinse brain, and repeat.
Now, I'll go back a step, rather then leave Rick thinking there are plenty of good reason why such an act should exist, but people are simply ignoring them. I intend to do so by tearing apart the argument that he posted a little bit ago.

In response to my showing that any registration act could later be used as a precedent, Rick said the following: ""Then I'll oppose the actions urged by those people." Well, Harborwolf already covered this, but the fact of it is, saying that you personally would be opposed to the act leaning that way, doesn't mean it would not lean that way. The likelihood, based on past experience, is that it would. Until you prove human nature is something other then what it is, you are clearly supporting an issue liable to cause great harm. You may be able to support a claim legally, (And even that I doubt) but morally, you have no support, and should just... What? What conclusion do you draw from this?

[Bricker]

This assumption is clearly contrafactual. Either one uses the biological definition (presense of at least one incorrectly copied parental gene) or one uses the colloquial definition (possessor of unusual abilities arising from mutant genes). The former applies to approximately 100% of the population; the latter is (as Scott_Plaid correctly noted) so vague as to be useless.

When Magneto constructed a device concealed in the Statute of Liberty, the effect of the device was limited to non-mutant humans. This rather clearly suggests a specific genetic mutation that is testable, not a vague, useless model.

(And if you were not aware that that the OP was discussing a fact pattern derived from a specific fictional source... now you are).


In response to my showing that any registration act could later be used as a precedent, Rick said the following: ""Then I'll oppose the actions urged by those people." Well, Harborwolf already covered this, but the fact of it is, saying that you personally would be opposed to the act leaning that way, doesn't mean it would not lean that way. The likelihood, based on past experience, is that it would. Until you prove human nature is something other then what it is, you are clearly supporting an issue liable to cause great harm. You may be able to support a claim legally, (And even that I doubt) but morally, you have no support, and should just... What? What conclusion do you draw from this?

The conclusion I draw is that you are unaware of the logical fallacy (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php) of slippery slope, which is correctly rebutted by showing that the final event need not occur as a consequence of the initial event.

Which I did.

In debate, the onus then returns to you, to refute me by showing that the final consequence must occur, or is strongly likely to occur, as a result of the inital proposition. You do this by providing citations to facts or events that support your claim, not by vague and unsupported references to "past experience" or "human nature." That's how it's done in debate. And, you see, this forum is "Great DEBATES."

[Mtgman]

It's unclear to me how merely registering individuals would create a problem. This legislation furthers a rational government interest and does not impact a suspect class. This is a bit unfair. The "suspect class[es]" have been derived in a world entirely free of mutants. Due consideration should be given to determining if "mutant" should be added to the list versus merely noting that they are not on it and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny protection. Given the history of the test for admission into the "suspect class" category I'd say it is a toss up. The components of this determination are made on basis of the difference between members of the class and the general population being unchangeable characteristics, having a strong chance of discrimination, and a history of poor treatment.

Generally mutants meet these standards. Thus the rational basis test is inadequate and strict scrutiny should be applied.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Scott Plaid]

Which I did..No you didn't. When I claim the world is screwed because of the existance of x, then by showing things would have happend the way they did even without x. However, that applies when something has already happend. All you are saying is "It is likely to not go that way" while I say it is quite likely.

(Proof it's an error: Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.)

[Lady Eboshi]

I hear there's a guy out there who can change a blue object into a yellow object- not a phenomenally useful power, and by no means dangerous,

Not unless you're Green Lantern.

:p :p :p

[smiling bandit]

It seems to me that we are facing several distinct problems:

(1) The Civil aspect

In other words, people don't really want a fascist state, regardles of whether or not this will lead to it. This ultimately rests on whether people are more afraid of mutants than they are of the government. This is a non-trivial question, given the repors of mutants able to toy with people's minds.


(2) The Knowledge aspect

Most people do not know what mutants are or how they can bend the laws of physics. The registration is in part designed to address this, so we can get a clear non-sensationalized picture of what the heck is going on.


(3) The Control aspect

Most people do not seem to specifically want mutants dead or in prison, but rather want them controlled. So far, we haven't had a mutant criminal on the 11:00 news. It is just a matter of time, however, until one does. If the public does not have enough knowledge, this is likely to result in anti-mutant riots and even harsher methods.

Presumably, the registry would only cover those with mutations, beneficial or otherwise, which fundamentally screw with our knowledge of physics.

Now, from a practical angle, aspect (2) is the most important. We don't really know what's going on. At the least, the government is likely to need a well-balanced team of superpowered employees trained in law-enforcement techniques. These individuals could then be seen taking down pordinary criminals to build public trust.

I also note the work of several biologists whose studies imply that everyone, mutant or not, has the same genetic structures. Through an unknown and fallible triggering mechanism, mutants are created. It's implied that the trigger is puberty-linked, but the exact cause remains hidden. The portion of mutants seems to be rising, but should never take over completely It may never cover more than a small fraction of the population.

[SteveG1]

No lists would be private for long, just look at the latest credit card account incident. Besides, lists and registrations wouldn't control any of the mutants, it would just piss them off. How could anyone control a Magneto, Storm, Phoenix, or other superdupermega powered type? All you can do is be very polite and not give them a reason to whack you.

[Bricker]

No you didn't. When I claim the world is screwed because of the existance of x, then by showing things would have happend the way they did even without x. However, that applies when something has already happend. All you are saying is "It is likely to not go that way" while I say it is quite likely.

(Proof it's an error: Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.)

The person who says "It is likely" is the proponent, and the one that has the burden of proof.

I'm saying that people are quite capable of demanding registration without more intrusive laws. Guns - the sale of firearms to individuals must be registered. But that has been required for dozens of years without a further step to banning them being taken. Drivers were required to submit to licensing and registration without steps being taken to ban drivers. Handlers of hazardous materials have been required to submit to registration without anyone banning the transportation of hazardous materials.

In fact, I cannot think of ANY activity that has started out with registration and ultimately been completely banned. What sort of "experience" are you relying upon that tells you otherwise? What historical examples were you relying upon to form your opinion that it's very likely registration would lead to more odious forms of oppression?

[Bricker]

This is a bit unfair. The "suspect class[es]" have been derived in a world entirely free of mutants. Due consideration should be given to determining if "mutant" should be added to the list versus merely noting that they are not on it and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny protection. Given the history of the test for admission into the "suspect class" category I'd say it is a toss up. The components of this determination are made on basis of the difference between members of the class and the general population being unchangeable characteristics, having a strong chance of discrimination, and a history of poor treatment.

Well, there is a case-or-controvery requirement for federal courts. We are considering support of a law. I suppose it's true that once the law is passed, the Court may find that mutant classification is deserving of a higher standard of review... but then again, they may not. The reason that racial classifications are inherently suspect is that we understand that racial discrimination is unlawful -- that was the purpose of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Why? I would argue it's because we regard racial distinctions as invidious -- that is, there is no actual, legally discernable, recognizeable relevant distinction between the races. This country is not prepared to grant that race has any legal relevance in determining how a person is regarded before the law.

Mutants, however, may have differences that are highly relevant. The decision that we will regard mutants as legally indistinguishable is not compelled by any precedent that has come before. Unlike race, they represent acutal differences that are highly relevant to the general welfare and safety of society.

[Scott Plaid]

The person who says "It is likely" is the proponent, and the one that has the burden of proof.All you are saying is "It is likely to not go that way" while I say it is quite likely. In fact, I cannot think of ANY activity that has started out with registration and ultimately been completely banned. What sort of "experience" are you relying upon that tells you otherwise? What historical examples were you relying upon to form your opinion that it's very likely registration would lead to more odious forms of oppression?I can think of one example of when a government got ahold of information about who wasn't and who was part of a group, and used it to discorage a certain kind of behavior. However, that is likely to lead down a long and twisted path. Anyone else have any examples?

[flight]

We are basing this discussion off of mutations that have been observed, but we currently do not know if there are any limitations on potential mutant powers. It is entirely reasonable that the next little girl who does not know she is a mutant may, rather than puting a few people in a coma, nuke New York.

If she were tested at birth, then she and her parents (and likely special social workers taxied with the job of helping new mutants learn to control their powers) would be able to work to control her powers from the beginning rather than leading to a potentially massively fatal accident.

I would only support registration, however, when passed with accompanying legal protections for mutants. This should, at the least, make them a protected class. In this way we could protect both society from mutants, and mutants from society.

[Harborwolf]

Well, a better example using America would be the relocation camps of asians because they could be traitors and saboteurs. At the time, I'm sure it seemed like a reasonable idea. Right now, listing people because of a bad gene or two seems like a reasonable idea. If they become dangerous, who knows what will seem like a good idea.

Something else I just thought of. How are we going to keep an accurate list of mutants when they can't even be trusted to stay dead. :p

[Harborwolf]

We are basing this discussion off of mutations that have been observed, but we currently do not know if there are any limitations on potential mutant powers. It is entirely reasonable that the next little girl who does not know she is a mutant may, rather than puting a few people in a coma, nuke New York.

If she were tested at birth, then she and her parents (and likely special social workers taxied with the job of helping new mutants learn to control their powers) would be able to work to control her powers from the beginning rather than leading to a potentially massively fatal accident.

I would only support registration, however, when passed with accompanying legal protections for mutants. This should, at the least, make them a protected class. In this way we could protect both society from mutants, and mutants from society.

Sorry, but the bolded part sounds creepy.

As for the rest, we have no way of knowing exactly what their mutation will be until it manifests (I'm not even going to get into secondary mutations). You could get a NYC nuker. You could get someone who changes a shoe into a bottle of beer.

[andros]

Couple things.

Rick, you should be quite aware that I understand the slippery slope logical fallacy. SO knowing that, you know that I'm keepign it in mind when I say that I keep the possibility in mind while not using it as a logical argument. That is to say, I accept it as a flawed rhetorical device, but I also have seen too many slipper slopes not to take the possibility into consideration. When I argue that registration can lead to abuse, I merely recognize the possibility and do not argue that it will.

However, one need not attempt to apply a slippery slope argument in order to recognize the power of a precedent.

My primary concern with this proposed legislation is not the possibility of descent into fascist repression of mutants. I'm more concerned about the idea of registering individuals based on their genetic makeup--based on who they are, rather than what they do.

But more importantly in my mind is the issue of what, precisely, the registration is supposed to accomplish. Why have a registry of X-factor carriers? Senator Kelly and some in this thread have said that it would be held by the Government, that it would not be made public. So, then, what use is the Registry to the Government?

Will it stop horrible accidents?

Look, stipulating for the moment that there is indeed an identifiable "X-factor" (and the jury seems still to be out on that point), we then assume that some carriers of this trait are inherently dangerous. That's fine, we've seen evidence of this. But we must also assume that other carriers are not inherently dangerous to others. and anecdotally, it appears they're in the majority.

Looking at an extreme hypothetical, poor Joe Mutant might have as his sole "ability" the power to explode in a nasty fireball. That power can only manifest once, and then we bid a sad farewell to little Joe. By virtue of his unique power, he cannot learn or be taught to control it--he's doomed to explode the only time his powers manifest. And he's going to cause damage with it.

Registration cannot help Joe. The only way to avoid his causing damage is to imprison him at birth--before we know what he can do. And the only way to save his life is to eliminate the "X-factor" in utero or infancy.

What use is the Regsitry in Joe's case?

Then there's Jane Mutant, who has the ability to make her left third toenail grow or shrink by 1/8 inch at will. Perhaps she will never recognize this ability. Or Juan Mutant, whose sole ability is to communicate with telempathic silicon-based lifeforms. Ain't no way he'll get the chance to use that or ever recognize it. Nevertheless, they carry this supposed "X-factor" and would be registered. Why? What purpose will the Registry serve in their cases?

I'm sorry, but I'm convinced that Senator Kelly seeks a slippery slope. There can be no use whatsoever for a Government-held Registry of mutants unless it is to provide a means for future control of those people and the the means for repression of their civil rights.

Give me a valid and practical use for the Registry and I'll consider it earnestly.

I'm not fully convinced about this subject, truly. I'm deeply concerned, as are many Americans. For every toenail-grower there might well be an exploding kid; I just don't know. The "X-factor" might be dominant and might propogate throughout H Sap; I just don't know. We might find ourselves in a war of species survival between H Sap and H Novo; I just don't know. And I don't think anyone does. I hope we can all agree that research is vital to the future of all of us and to our nation.

[MMI]

Hmm. I wonder if pre-natal testing is possible. Should be that be a part of standard pregnancy care so that parents can make informed decisions? Should couples seek genetic counseling so that they are informed as to the probability that their progeny will be a mutant (as some ethnic groups do now with respect to certain heritable disorders)?

[/hijack]

Who will have access to the registry? Will it be open due to the issue of public safety as in the Megan's law registries or will it be kept for the government's use. Is it for the collection/collation of statistics or as a precaution against what exactly?

[VarlosZ]

Slippery slope. Registration will not lead to round-ups.
No, but it will facilitate them.

If the current socio-political climate were calmer or more tolerant, I would see no reason to oppose the Mutant Registration Act -- as has been said, we register drivers and we register gun owners, and mutants pose a (potentially) much greater risk than either.

However, there is no pervasive, extreme prejudice against drivers or gun-owners. There is unlikely ever to be the political will to use information culled from their respective registries to imprison or otherwise harm them. Clearly, the same cannot be said for mutants. Given the overwhelming anti-mutant sentiment in the government (to say nothing of the population in general), I believe the likelihood of abuse is far too great to allow for passage of this act.

[Scott Plaid]

andros, thank you. Who will have access to the registry?It hardly matter who has access to it, theoretically, for as SteveG1 said pack in post #71, "No lists would be private for long, just look at the latest credit card account incident."

[Bricker]

But more importantly in my mind is the issue of what, precisely, the registration is supposed to accomplish. Why have a registry of X-factor carriers? Senator Kelly and some in this thread have said that it would be held by the Government, that it would not be made public. So, then, what use is the Registry to the Government?

1. It's a source available to law enforcement.
Under normal circumstances, if a bank opens its vault Monday morning and the contents are missing, with nothing but a slippery slime left behind, police would begin suspecting an inside job. If they have a database that notes that someone living in the area has the ability to move through walls holding objects, but he leaves behind a slippery slime when he does, that's at least a reason to talk to the guy. If a woman reports that she's been molested by a guy who vanished in a puff of purple smoke, police might be tempted to send her for a psych evaluation... but perhaps the database lists someone in the area that can apport, leaving behind a puff of purple smoke. These are valuable pieces of data for law enforcement to possess.

2. It's a source for research and data-gathering
While it seems clear that we are not able to pinpoint a specific reason for the presence of the "X-factor," research efforts might well be aided by showing regions that have higher orr lower concentrations of mutants, or specific powers/abilities that appear in certain regions. Like census data, the individual data will be kept private, but in the aggregate, it can be used by researchers to gain valuable insight into the phenomenon.

3. It provides an aid for public safety
Mutants with dangerous abilities can be offered counseling, training, and assistance to ensure that they do not inadvertantly injure or kill.

[Scott Plaid]

However, I see an irritating pattern.

Someone posts why this registration would be a bad thing
Rick posts why it would be justified.
Someone posts why it would not in fact be justified.
Rick comes up with a new reason why he can justify it to himself, and possibly hand-waves away a very real danger.
Rinse brain, and repeat.
P.S> Current technology can not tell us how the mutant genre would activate, only that it might. We are not able to see if a baby might someday exhibit an ability to "to move through walls holding objects" so your idea would require teenagers past puberty to go in and get tested. "Ah, but what if they decide not to be tested voluntarily!" Well then, we would have to create devices to scan for activated mutants. It is only a short step from there to dragging them into testing centers, perhaps via the aide of policemen, or robots with built in sensing devices. However, down that way lies madness.

[Mtgman]

Well, there is a case-or-controvery requirement for federal courts. We are considering support of a law. I suppose it's true that once the law is passed, the Court may find that mutant classification is deserving of a higher standard of review... but then again, they may not. The reason that racial classifications are inherently suspect is that we understand that racial discrimination is unlawful -- that was the purpose of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Why? I would argue it's because we regard racial distinctions as invidious -- that is, there is no actual, legally discernable, recognizeable relevant distinction between the races. This country is not prepared to grant that race has any legal relevance in determining how a person is regarded before the law.

Mutants, however, may have differences that are highly relevant. The decision that we will regard mutants as legally indistinguishable is not compelled by any precedent that has come before. Unlike race, they represent acutal differences that are highly relevant to the general welfare and safety of society.
Effects/manifestations of the immutable differences between the members of the class and the general population is not an element of the test for protected class status. I see this going one of two ways(as a constitutional challenge is sure to arise virtually the instant the law passes). Firstly the test for suspect classes may change to include an element which relies on the effects/manifestations of the immutable differences. I wouldn't think this would happen though because you would immediately have all kinds of racist assholes popping up with studies of how there are biological differences in the brains or bone structure between whites and blacks and therefore treating them differently with regards to hiring practices and health care, etc. would be justifiable.

The more likely course of action would be to grant mutants suspect class status and then to say that mutant registration rises to the level of compelling state interest. The state's interest in protecting the welfare and safety of its citizens from either accidental or intentional harm from the use of mutant abilities could be the justification.

Enjoy,
Steven

[andros]

1. It's a source available to law enforcement.
Ok, it's a source.

However, I have trouble accepting this unless you also support the registration of any and all persons with any abilities to commit crimes. I study Tae Kwon Do. Shall I be registered as having a greater-than-normal ability to kick the shit out of people? I'm taller than average. Shall I be registered as having the ability to reach the top shelves in the bank vault? You are a lawyer. Shall you be registered as having a greater-than-normal ability to circumvent the law?

Beyond that, however, I think you have a severely begged question here. You assume that the registry will include specific abilities held by those posessing the X-factor, and yet the Kelly Bill would register all mutants, whether they have catalogued powers or not.

2. It's a source for research and data-gathering
Then treat it as census data. Gather it as self-report. We need the same kinds of data in all sorts of sociological, psychological, and medical studies right now, but we gather them without registering the innately violent, or african-americans, or AIDS patients.

3. It provides an aid for public safety
Another begged question here, I'm afraid. You're assuming that we can know who has a "dangerous" ability before said ability manifests. I don't see how this is possible at the current time. Again, we're left with responding to incidents, to providing, even perhaps requiring, counselling after a potentially dangerous ability manifests. And it seems you would have us register all mutants not because of what they do, or what they can do, but merely because they can do something, and it might prove a danger.

[andros]

I'm also curious to know what provisions Senator Kelly and supporters of his proposal would put in place to ensure security of the Registry. If it's accessible, as you've suggested, Bricker, to law enforcement, researchers, and the "we're here to help" agencies, what provisions can we put in place to keep it from the general public? I believe firmly that Senator Kelly would like nothing more than to see it released publicly--and there are undoubtedly others in government and law enforcement who share that view. Given the recurring news stories about computer intrusions into census data, the IRS, and credit card databases, how on earth can I be assured that a Federal registry of honest Americans will not be leaked to the public?

Anyone is free to explain to me, after recognizing the fear and anger many Americans hold toward mutants and mutation itself, how this would not be a complete charlie foxtrot and shitstorm.

[Bricker]

P.S> Current technology can not tell us how the mutant genre would activate, only that it might. We are not able to see if a baby might someday exhibit an ability to "to move through walls holding objects" so your idea would require teenagers past puberty to go in and get tested. "Ah, but what if they decide not to be tested voluntarily!" Well then, we would have to create devices to scan for activated mutants. It is only a short step from there to dragging them into testing centers, perhaps via the aide of policemen, or robots with built in sensing devices. However, down that way lies madness.

Once again, you are offering dire results that will not occur. And once again, you have failed to offer any specific evidence, historical or otherwise, that supports the contention that these are likely outcomes.

I don't favor devices to scan for activated mutants, dragging anyone into testing centers, or the use of robots, with or without sensing devices.

I am supporting a registration requirement combined with testing, enforced only by requiring testing on file in order to do common things. If you apply for a driver's license, your name must appear in the list of people that have had a test. If you attend school, your name must appear. If you join the military, get a federally-subsidized loan, work for the government, get a passport, etc., then you must have had the test.

This doesn't purport to be foolproof. Undoubtedly, we may imagine a person home-schooled, that doesn't drive, doesn't use a bank account, etc., not getting tested. But the solution doesn't have to be perfect -- just have a reasonable reach. And this does.

If the testing and interview with positive subjects does not reveal the specific power or ability, then that's that. That line of the record remains blank until some future event fills it in.

That's all I'm proposing. Don't argue against my proposal by filling in your own endings and then pointing out how terrible they would be.

[Scott Plaid]

Once again, you are offering dire results that will not occur. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

I'm also curious to know what provisions Senator Kelly and supporters of his proposal would put in place to ensure security of the Registry. If it's accessible, as you've suggested, Bricker, to law enforcement, researchers, and the "we're here to help" agencies, what provisions can we put in place to keep it from the general public?

A good analogy is census data.

In 2000, your family filled out a census form. It included all the information about each resident of the dwelling: how old they were, where they were born, where their parents were born, the occupation of each person, and (for females) how many living children each has.

Now, that data could be quite a prize to marketeers. But I haven't heard any serious hue and cry about its collection, because it's kept private. The aggregate data is made available to the "we're here to help" agencies; the individual data will not be made a matter of public record until 2070. (As an interesting side note: the individual data from the 1930 US Census has now been made public, and I was able to look up my mother's family and see my mother, age 4, my two uncles, ages 6 and 8, all living at my grandparent's then-home).

If the concern about the release of private data is so compelling, what of the US Census data?

[DocCathode]

Re Testing

You'll hear about in a few months. I heard about from no less a genetics expert than Charles Xavier (Yep. The author of The Structure And Function Of X. The book most folks keep next to their unread copy of A Brief History Of Time.). He read one of my papers in a psychological journal and found it interesting. While discussing harnessing the untapped potential of the mind (my area of research.) the conversation drifted to human potential and mutation. Xavier had recieved a preliminary report on a blood test that can be performed quickly and at neglible cost. The research team wants to triple check everything to be sure. But, Xavier said the test worked. You should see it on the news in a few months.

Re Registration

What about doctors Banner, Morbius, and Octavius? None of them are mutants. None of them would have been required to register. Banner has caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. Morbius killed over 20 people by drinking their blood. Octavius has killed more people than I can remember, stolen billions of dollars worth of equipment, and is a threat to national security.

Find me three mutants as dangerous as those three scientists. If mutants are so damn dangerous, why have I never read an article about an entire county being evacuated because a rampaging mutant is coming? I've read plenty about the Hulk. Why have I never turned on the news and seen a report on a superhuman serial killer mutant?

13 people in comas? How many children and other innocents has Frank "The Punisher" Castle killed over the years?

Anybody remember what the last FoolKiller's bodycount was? Remember how he killed a university dean at a press conference because the dean had to decided to institute politically correct speech policies?

You say we should register mutants because they're a threat? Prove it.

[Bricker]

:rolleyes:

An argument remarkable for its cogency.

Where did you study debate?

[andros]

A good analogy is census data.

In 2000, your family filled out a census form. It included all the information about each resident of the dwelling: how old they were, where they were born, where their parents were born, the occupation of each person, and (for females) how many living children each has.

But I chose to provide information, and what information to provide. I don't see this as a reliable comparison.

Now, that data could be quite a prize to marketeers. But I haven't heard any serious hue and cry about its collection, because it's kept private. The aggregate data is made available to the "we're here to help" agencies; the individual data will not be made a matter of public record until 2070.

You're right, Census data is well-kept. But as you point out, the only release is in aggregate. You propose much wider release than that.

[Bricker]

The research team wants to triple check everything to be sure. But, Xavier said the test worked. You should see it on the news in a few months.

That's additional evidence in favor of a test, then.

What about doctors Banner, Morbius, and Octavius? None of them are mutants. None of them would have been required to register. Banner has caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. Morbius killed over 20 people by drinking their blood. Octavius has killed more people than I can remember, stolen billions of dollars worth of equipment, and is a threat to national security.

Yes, and Ted Kazinski blew people up, and John Wayne Gacy killed dozens of chidlren, and Jeffrey Dahmer ate people. What of it? This isn't intended to stop all crime. You're offering the fallacy of false analogy. Non-mutant criminals are a different subject, and should be dealt with by different means.

[Lemur866]

...how this would not be a complete charlie foxtrot and shitstorm.

I think those guys have their own monthly title now. One's a by-the-book law enforcement superagent, the other's a mutant who makes his own rules and spews...welll...

[Bricker]

But I chose to provide information, and what information to provide. I don't see this as a reliable comparison.


It's relevant to the issue of dissemination.


You're right, Census data is well-kept. But as you point out, the only release is in aggregate. You propose much wider release than that.

No. Law-enforcement only. At time of testing, individuals may be offered specific counseling and guidance. But I don't propose a follow-up visit to the home of a person who can start fires by some well-meaning social services agency.

[Scott Plaid]

An argument remarkable for its cogency.

Where did you study debate?High school. But really, that is not the point. I don't see it as my job to convince you. I see all my posts, and those of others in this thread, showing how the case against such an act overwhelms any case you might have. True, this is Gd, but I am simply posting what seem to me to be convincing arguments, and I leave it to others to show examples, or to use to actual debate format.

[andros]

Re Testing

You'll hear about in a few months.

That is excellent news! I confess, I've not been keeping up with the science too well lately (although I'm one of those wierdo geeks who's actually read Science and Function as well as ABHoT).

My bigger question, however, is the status of research into the manifestation of X. That is, it's not enough to simply screen for it if we cannot also understand why some carriers apport, some are telempaths, or some grow toenails. Any ideas from Prof. X on the status of that end of things?

You say we should register mutants because they're a threat? Prove it.

Or at least prove that they're more of a threat than anyone else with a gamma emitter or adamantium prosthetics.

[Bricker]

... but I am simply posting what seem to me to be convincing arguments...

Keep trying.

Or, not.

[Steve MB]

When Magneto constructed a device concealed in the Statute of Liberty, the effect of the device was limited to non-mutant humans. This rather clearly suggests a specific genetic mutation that is testable, not a vague, useless model.
OK. Now, let's see some reproducible results, conducted under conditions that fall within accepted scientific and ethical guidelines for human testing.

(And if you were not aware that that the OP was discussing a fact pattern derived from a specific fictional source... now you are).
I read enough to be aware of that, and the fact that we're pretending the fourth wall is firmly in place. ;)

[andros]

Or at least prove that they're more of a threat than anyone else with a gamma emitter or adamantium prosthetics.

Sorry, didn't preview.


Bricker, why does the existence of a test support the need to perform it?


And, back to the law enforcement angle, what was your response to my suggestion that all human traits which would assist criminal activity be registered and used as a law enforcement tool?

[foolsguinea]

Until that time, you're asking to punish a segment of the population - and as high-minded as we would like to think people are, to be "known" as out of the norm is still a punishment - who have done nothing wrong and pose no greater threat to their neighborhood than a handgun in a properly locked gun safe.So, being black is a punishment?

I thought Sage Rat made a good case from a law-enforcement standpoint. And I like the direction some people seem to be thinking, less toward registration, & more toward intervention.I would only support registration, however, when passed with accompanying legal protections for mutants. This should, at the least, make them a protected class. In this way we could protect both society from mutants, and mutants from society.Fair enough. Except for two classes: the Amahl Farouk/Charles Xavier-level mentalists & certain high-end teleporters. Those guys should just hunted down & neutralized. Of course, first we need a device to screen out the telepathic illusion & control effects, to be able to take out Amahl Farouk, to stop him jumping brains, & to be sure we actually did it. Since Amahl Farouk will just program every brain on Earth to think we have a successful mind-screen device when we don't, & feed our delusions from there, um... delete this post.

[Mtgman]

And, back to the law enforcement angle, what was your response to my suggestion that all human traits which would assist criminal activity be registered and used as a law enforcement tool?Coming soon to a newsroom near you - criminal with photographic memory spies on ATM machines and steals thousands of dollars by using his perfect recall to reproduce PIN numbers!

In other news, guy with really skinny arms robs vending machine. Footage you'd have to see to believe at 11

Enjoy,
Steven

[Scott Plaid]

In other news, guy with really skinny arms robs vending machine. Footage you'd have to see to believe at 11 :dubious: That is in no way hard to believe. Why, in an artist's summer camp, in Salisbury, when I was a teen, I took all the Snickers from an old fashioned vending machine using this technique, and I am base-line human norm.

[SisterCoyote]

So, being black is a punishment?

Apologies; I didn't think that part of my post through thoroughly and am more than willing to retract that statement as being both inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

[holmes]

Bricker They weren't born mutants, but have suffered mutations...mutations that have created several other like beings, most of whom witht the exception of Doc Samson, are evil or insane; The Griffin, The Leader...etc. All humans who have become "mutants", most likely because they have a latent "X" gene or similar variant. Do we register them too?

How latent do I have to be before I have to register? What if ALL humans have the potential to mutate if the conditions are correct? Something to worry about?

[Bricker]

Sorry, didn't preview.


Bricker, why does the existence of a test support the need to perform it?


The existence of a test merely proves that we CAN perform it. The desirability of performing it mat be seen above in my posts concerning research, public safety, and law enforcement goals.



And, back to the law enforcement angle, what was your response to my suggestion that all human traits which would assist criminal activity be registered and used as a law enforcement tool?

Too ill-defined a standard. This is a standard we can easily adopt: presence of the X-factor.

[DocCathode]

Yes, and Ted Kazinski blew people up, and John Wayne Gacy killed dozens of chidlren, and Jeffrey Dahmer ate people. What of it? This isn't intended to stop all crime. You're offering the fallacy of false analogy.
Nope. You're putting words in my mouth. Read the last sentence of my post "You say mutants are a threat? Prove it." My point was not 'there will still be crime' but 'there is insufficient proof that mutants pose a threat and require the money and effort of setting up registration programs, when those resources are needed elsewhere'

Again, you advocate creating the registration program because mutants are a threat. I say there's exceedingly little evidence that they are a threat. If they are not a threat, why do we need the registration act?

Andros We chatted once or twice. I barely know the man.

[foolsguinea]

No. Law-enforcement only. At time of testing, individuals may be offered specific counseling and guidance. But I don't propose a follow-up visit to the home of a person who can start fires by some well-meaning social services agency.[real-world]Hm. In my hometown there was a recent to-do over a cop who used his badge to pull out of class & intimidate a schoolboy who was in some sort of conflict with the cop's kid.[/real-world]

The temptation to abuse police privilege is always there. Are mutants of lower power level (Thunderbird, Callisto, the Angel) safer with only cops knowing who they are? Depends on your locality, eh?

[Steve MB]

Guns - the sale of firearms to individuals must be registered. But that has been required for dozens of years without a further step to banning them being taken.... In fact, I cannot think of ANY activity that has started out with registration and ultimately been completely banned.
Some counterexamples (www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html) are listed here. (I'd quote them directly, but the thread-hijack risk is high enough as it is. Given that the gun issue presents the clearest case for the proposition that the slope is, in fact, slippery, that can't be helped. Just follow the link and page down to "Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies". Comment on the specific cases, if you must, on some more relevant thread.)

[Bricker]

Bricker They weren't born mutants, but have suffered mutations...mutations that have created several other like beings, most of whom witht the exception of Doc Samson, are evil or insane; The Griffin, The Leader...etc. All humans who have become "mutants", most likely because they have a latent "X" gene or similar variant. Do we register them too?

How latent do I have to be before I have to register? What if ALL humans have the potential to mutate if the conditions are correct? Something to worry about?

My entire support for this proposal is based on the assumption that:

There is a definable, quantifiable, measurable "X-factor,"
The presence of this "X-factor" reliably may be correlated to the presence of hitherto unknown powers and abilities, ranging from trivial to extraordinary,
This is well-known and accepted by the world's scientific community,
The Act proposed would merely register and offer assistance and counseling


If, as you suggest, mutancy is more ill-defined than that, then my position would change.

[DrDeth]

All ready passed in the congress, the Mutant Registration Act is now up for debate in the senate.

As many of you know the country is quite polarized on the issue with many leftist groups comparing it to the forced registration of Jews in Hitler’s Germany, while many on the right claiming it is necessary for our safety.

There was a story in the paper the other day of a girl in New Orleans that was randomly absorbing the "life force" of those around her. The poor thing did not even know what was going on herself, but in the end thirteen people are in the hospital, four in deep comas. Luckily the girl was safely apprehended and is now in a controlled safe environment.
.

1. Cite?

2. Cite?

3 Cite?

Can Batman beat Superman? :rolleyes:

[foolsguinea]

Well, you know, the question is whether you have an active metagene. ;)

The thing is, I think this debate is worthwhile without all the temporally specific limitations. So if I refer to something that hasn't happened yet, um, it's my mutant power?

[Steve MB]

1. It's a source available to law enforcement.
Under normal circumstances, if a bank opens its vault Monday morning and the contents are missing, with nothing but a slippery slime left behind, police would begin suspecting an inside job. If they have a database that notes that someone living in the area has the ability to move through walls holding objects, but he leaves behind a slippery slime when he does, that's at least a reason to talk to the guy. If a woman reports that she's been molested by a guy who vanished in a puff of purple smoke, police might be tempted to send her for a psych evaluation... but perhaps the database lists someone in the area that can apport, leaving behind a puff of purple smoke. These are valuable pieces of data for law enforcement to possess.
In order to give any advantage (over and above the basic knowledge that, yep, there are people out there who can do this sort of thing), a registry would require considerable detail about individual ability. How, exactly, do you get that from individuals who may be unable (especially if the registry is compiled from early-life genetic screens) or unwilling to provide it?

2. It's a source for research and data-gathering
While it seems clear that we are not able to pinpoint a specific reason for the presence of the "X-factor," research efforts might well be aided by showing regions that have higher orr lower concentrations of mutants, or specific powers/abilities that appear in certain regions. Like census data, the individual data will be kept private, but in the aggregate, it can be used by researchers to gain valuable insight into the phenomenon.
To all indications, the percentage of such individuals in the total population is too low to make such "aggregation" meaningful -- either the total number in a sample area is too small to really mask individual data, or the sample area is too large to be meaningful.

3. It provides an aid for public safety
Mutants with dangerous abilities can be offered counseling, training, and assistance to ensure that they do not inadvertantly injure or kill.
See comment on Item 1.

[andros]

1. Cite?

2. Cite?

3 Cite?

Can Batman beat Superman? :rolleyes:

You're cute. Can we keep you?

[Bricker]

In order to give any advantage (over and above the basic knowledge that, yep, there are people out there who can do this sort of thing), a registry would require considerable detail about individual ability. How, exactly, do you get that from individuals who may be unable (especially if the registry is compiled from early-life genetic screens) or unwilling to provide it?

What "considerable detail?" Three sentences describing the power is plenty.

You get the data by asking. If the individual is unwilling to provide it, then we don't include it. That's simple.

To all indications, the percentage of such individuals in the total population is too low to make such "aggregation" meaningful -- either the total number in a sample area is too small to really mask individual data, or the sample area is too large to be meaningful.


I don't know enough about the incidence of mutants to agree or disagree with this.

[andros]

You get the data by asking. If the individual is unwilling to provide it, then we don't include it. That's simple.

Whoa up there, Hoss.

Now we're talking about fully voluntary registration? That I'll get behind.

But that ain't what the good Senator wants.

[DocCathode]

My entire support for this proposal is based on the assumption that:
[list]
There is a definable, quantifiable, measurable "X-factor,"

Unquestionably true. Scientific fact.

The presence of this "X-factor" reliably may be correlated to the presence of hitherto unknown powers and abilities, ranging from trivial to extraordinary,
Every person born with the X factor will develop an ability beyond the norm for homo sapiens at some point in their lives. These abilities generally manifest during puberty.

But, not every person with extraordinary abilities was born with an X Factor. Dr Banner was caught at ground zero for a prototype gamma bomb. His change is unstable. The short version is-Rage changes him into a massive green man known as the Hulk. The Hulk is unbelievably strong (there is evidence he can lift over 100 tons), very dificult to injure, and heals at an incredibly accelerated rate. But no test of Dr Banner would reveal an X Factor.

Michael Morbius was a briliant researcher (came this close to a Nobel) specializing in diseases of the blood. He was also trying to find a cure for his own rare blood disease. He attempted to cure himself with an serum utilizing, among other things, genes from a vampire bat. The media called him "The Living Vampire" red eyes, chalk white skin, an emaciated body. superhuman strength, heightened senses, a telekinetic ability allowing him to fly. But the serum made UV rays deadly to him. It also took away his mind and replaced it with a hunger for human blood of his own rare type. Morbius was eventually cured. A jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. Michael Morbius has no X Factor.

Otto Octavius worked for the US government. His ideas and experiments in radioactivity were ahead of their time. He developed 4 mechanical arms to allow him to manipulate volatile substances at a distance. An experiment went wrong, and would have killed Octavius if not for a safety shield. Octavius had been a good man, working to aid his country and improve the lot of his fellow man. When he woke from the explosion, Octavius was insane (probably paranoid schizophrenia). He wanted his mechanical arms. They broke out of the lab and came to him. Octavius (often called Doctor Octopus) has a psychic link to the arms. He can sense them at a distance and control them with his mind alone. Octavius has no X Factor.

Seeing somebody exhibit a superhuman ability is not proof of an X Factor. The celebrity superhumans "The Fantastic Four" all have superhuman abilities, but none has an X Factor.

[VarlosZ]

Again, you advocate creating the registration program because mutants are a threat. I say there's exceedingly little evidence that they are a threat. If they are not a threat, why do we need the registration act?
I registered my disapproval of the MRA back on page two, but this, I think, is a weak argument. Little evidence? One mutant has been using her ability to impersonate anyone to infiltrate the highest levels of government. Another used his teleportation powers -- against which we have virtually no defence -- to gain entrance to the Oval Office and attack the President. Etc., etc.

Even absent any evidence, it is obvious on its face that mutant powers pose a threat (unless these powers are universally tied to a benevolence gene, which they clearly are not). Guns in homes and on the market, mixed with fallible and occasionally nefarious humans, pose an obvious threat, hence we have a real interest in registering and tracking them. The same can be said for mutant powers, in some cases many times over. The question of whether that interest is outweighed by other concerns is the real matter for debate.

[Scott Plaid]

I registered my disapproval of the MRA back on page two, but this, I think, is a weak argument. Little evidence? One mutant has been using her ability to impersonate anyone to infiltrate the highest levels of government. Another used his teleportation powers -- against which we have virtually no defence -- to gain entrance to the Oval Office and attack the President. Etc., etc.What! I have never heard of this in my entire life. Where did you hear such rot?

::Hippie Voice:: The general public would not know about these sort of thing. Don't kill the rhthum, dude.

[DocCathode]

What "considerable detail?" Three sentences describing the power is plenty.

As a scientist I disagree. Let's take as an example Charlie, from Stephen King's Firestarter.

We could just say "pyrokinesis". But, that is insufficient detail. What is the greatest distance at which she can mentally heat/ignite objects? What is the hottest she can make them? How fast can she heat them from room temperature to her maximum? How many fires can she control at once? She demonstrated some immunity to heat. How far does this go? From observed evidence, she would be unharmed by the heat inside a burning house. Could she swim in safety in magma?

We need details. Increased strength, senses etc must be tested. Limits must be known.

Re Incidence Of Mutants

I can't find my copy of X at the moment. But Xavier has said repeatedly in reports and in interviews that the incidence of mutants is increasing.

[Bricker]

Whoa up there, Hoss.

Now we're talking about fully voluntary registration? That I'll get behind.

But that ain't what the good Senator wants.

Registration is mandatory. Disclosure of details of personal abilities is voluntary.

(It would help to be able to see the actual bill to confirm that this is what's intended. For some reason, thomas.loc.gov doesn't bring it up).

[Harborwolf]

FYI, there is no way to detect a mutant gene technologically until it activates If I'm remembering correctly from my many years of reading comi......I mean research, nearly every human has some sort of latent mutational gene. Only a few of them ever activate, and even rarer are those with large scale destructive capabilities. For every Magneto, you will have many more Doug Ramseys, whose only ability is to speak and understand any language (he helped me get through spanish class in school ;) ).

Then, as has been pointed out, there are the garden variety super humans: Spider Man, the Fantastic Four, Doc Savage, the Hulk, even the famed Captain America. Their powers are as dangerous (except for stretchy boy) as most mutants. Would they have to register also? Would we need periodic checks for every lab accident or experiment to make sure that nothing bad happens.

I haven't even gotten into the magic users. Find a cane on the ground? Better turn it in to the government. Wouldn't want ya turning into some kind of norse god. Returning from a trip to the mystic east? Please step through the metal detector and sir, you will have to leave your Iron Fists on the tray.

Why single out mutants when there are so many other super beings out there?

[Bricker]

As a scientist I disagree. Let's take as an example Charlie, from Stephen King's Firestarter.

We could just say "pyrokinesis". But, that is insufficient detail. What is the greatest distance at which she can mentally heat/ignite objects? What is the hottest she can make them? How fast can she heat them from room temperature to her maximum? How many fires can she control at once? She demonstrated some immunity to heat. How far does this go? From observed evidence, she would be unharmed by the heat inside a burning house. Could she swim in safety in magma?

We need details. Increased strength, senses etc must be tested. Limits must be known.

Why?

Pyrokinesis is a perfectly apt description of her ability. (And I must disagree: she had no particular immunity to heat.) The details are interesting, but for purposes of the registry, the fact that she's a firestarter is sufficient information.

[Hamlet]

My understanding is that the MRA defines "mutant" on the basis of the existance of the so-named "X Chromosome". It is also my understanding that the MRA requires the testing of people for the presence of said chromosome. As such, I think the MRA should be found, not just unconscionable, but also unconsititutional.

As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Hewitt v. SAF: Like other state and federal courts, we agree that a classification is 'suspect' when it focuses on 'immutable' personal characteristics. It can be suspected of reflecting 'invidious' social or political premises, that is to say, prejudice or stereotyped prejudgments. Historically, the most obvious such classification, and the one recognized to be such within the special concerns that gave rise to the fourteenth amendment, was, of course, racial discrimination. Classifications [based on gender, like those based on race, alienage and nationality are] inherently suspect. The suspicion may be overcome if the reason for the classification reflects specific biological differences between men and women. It is not overcome when other personal characteristics or social roles are assigned to men or women because of their gender and for no other reason. That is exactly the kind of stereotyping which renders the classification suspect in the first place."

I think it is clear that requiring genetically-based "mutants" to register would result in discrimination on the basis of an "immutable personal characteristic." Although, given the complete lack of a history of discrimination against "mutants", whose identity has only recently come to the attention of Congress, and the world, it would be difficult to see mutants as the subject of invidious social discrimination. As such, the determination of whether the MRA would be subject to rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny is not an easy determination to make. My feeling is that since it is a immutable characteristic, like gender, genetic mutancy should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.

I think the proper determination would be that, since the MRA discriminates on the basis of an clearly immutable, clearly biological difference, that it should be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. Although Bricker offers some reasons for the MRA, I would have a difficult time finding that it is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

I cannot support the MRA, as it is, in my opinion, against not only the words, but also the spirit of our great Constitution.

[Harborwolf]

Why?

Pyrokinesis is a perfectly apt description of her ability. (And I must disagree: she had no particular immunity to heat.) The details are interesting, but for purposes of the registry, the fact that she's a firestarter is sufficient information.

Not necessarily. If you want to know the threat possessed and the destructive capabilites, you would have to have some sort of measure of her powers. There are those who can burn down buildings and those who strain to light a birthday candle. If you are looking to arrest a pyrokinetic, it would be more efficient to round up...oh let's call them the "alpha level" pyros than grabbing the whole lot.

[foolsguinea]

You know, in the interest of an informed debate, I don't think this bill can be properly considered without knowing all the stuff that's well in the future of Senator Kelly's proposal. Where's Dr. Manhattan? Or Kang, even? Really, that the timebound are allowed to make their own decisions is shocking to me.

[Scott Plaid]

my many years of reading comi......I mean research,I liked your post. However, this isn’t breaking any rules. Say all you want to about comics. It is canon that the lives of many vigilantes are published, save for the fact that the hero's identities are concealed, and sometimes, I hear they don't tell what really happened. In the She-Hulk series, it was told that they count in court, what with the government’s seal of approval on them, at least till recently.

[foolsguinea]

Hamlet, in your own quote you destroy your argument:The suspicion may be overcome if the reason for the classification reflects specific biological differences between men and women.The specific biological differences between the average schmoe & say, Jamie Madrox, are more significant than those "between men & women." By analogy, the suspicion may be even more easily overcome.

[DocCathode]

FYI, there is no way to detect a mutant gene technologically until it activates If I'm remembering correctly from my many years of reading comi......I mean research,

This may have been true at one time, but not any more.

nearly every human has some sort of latent mutational gene.

That is one of hypotheses. It does explain why the Fantastic Four, Bruce Banner etc didn't just get cancer.

Only a few of them ever activate, and even rarer are those with large scale destructive capabilities.

Again, this one of many credible hypothese. All have some evidence behind them. None has been conclusively proven however.

For every Magneto, you will have many more Doug Ramseys, whose only ability is to speak and understand any language (he helped me get through spanish class in school ;) ). ixnay on the amseyRay. We're trying to only use comic stuff the general public would know, or we could reasonably find out. Magneto, being publiclly known in the films and even more publiclly known in the comics is fine. But the general public has never heard of Doug Ramsey.

Then, as has been pointed out, there are the garden variety super humans: Spider Man, the Fantastic Four, Doc Savage, [/QUOTE]

Doc Samson. A psychiatrist who gave himself a blood transfusion from the Hulk. As a result he has abilities equal to 75% of the Hulk's. He also has green hair.

Doc Savage was the Man Of Bronze of pulp magazine fame.

the Hulk, even the famed Captain America. Their powers are as dangerous (except for stretchy boy) as most mutants. Would they have to register also? Would we need periodic checks for every lab accident or experiment to make sure that nothing bad happens.

I haven't even gotten into the magic users. Find a cane on the ground? Better turn it in to the government. Wouldn't want ya turning into some kind of norse god. Returning from a trip to the mystic east? Please step through the metal detector and sir, you will have to leave your Iron Fists on the tray.

Why single out mutants when there are so many other super beings out there?

[Harborwolf]

[QUOTE=DocCathode] ixnay on the amseyRay. We're trying to only use comic stuff the general public would know, or we could reasonably find out. Magneto, being publiclly known in the films and even more publiclly known in the comics is fine. But the general public has never heard of Doug Ramsey.

No risk there. He's been dead for years.

[Bricker]

Not necessarily. If you want to know the threat possessed and the destructive capabilites, you would have to have some sort of measure of her powers. There are those who can burn down buildings and those who strain to light a birthday candle. If you are looking to arrest a pyrokinetic, it would be more efficient to round up...oh let's call them the "alpha level" pyros than grabbing the whole lot.

You would never even round up "the whole lot" of alpha pyros. You would simply interview them and employ basic police work to see if you could establish a connection between any one of them and the place that burned. It's an investigatory tool, nothing more.

[Hamlet]

Hamlet, in your own quote you destroy your argument: The specific biological differences between the average schmoe & say, Jamie Madrox, are more significant than those "between men & women." By analogy, the suspicion may be even more easily overcome.Very good point. Although the mutant/non-mutant distinction would still be subject to intermediate scrutiny, the fact it is gentically based would seem to make the distinction more rational and the court would be more deferential to Congress. Now, if the MRA included, not a genetic basis, but rather a "power-based" (such as the prementioned Hulk, etc.) then there would be a less deference.

Seeing as how we're completely making stuff up, I still think there are arguments to be made that distinctions based on chromosomal makeup would count as distinctions based on "race" also, and thus subject to strict scrutiny.

As an aside: I can easily envision a future where, rather than legislation identifying people on the basis of race, alienage, or gender, they do so on the basis of genetic makeup. I think there'd be a good law review article concerning this. Too bad I don't have the time.

[Bricker]

As such, the determination of whether the MRA would be subject to rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny is not an easy determination to make. My feeling is that since it is a immutable characteristic, like gender, genetic mutancy should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.


That's defensible, I suppose, and in line to some degree with O'Connor's commentary on intermediate scrutiny. I think rational basis is the appropriate standard of review, simply because while the characteristic is immutable, the variance of possible significant and relevant differences is dramatic. But reasonable minds may differ.


I think the proper determination would be that, since the MRA discriminates on the basis of an clearly immutable, clearly biological difference, that it should be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. Although Bricker offers some reasons for the MRA, I would have a difficult time finding that it is substantially related to an important governmental interest.


If intermediate scrutiny is the test, how could you NOT find that registration is substantially related to an important government interest? I assume you don't reject the idea that the various powers manifested by person with the "X-factor" are serious and severe enough to warrant a legitimate governmental interest in tracking and control, for public safety purposes? So I imagine you reject the idea that registration is substantially related to that goal.

But as I've outlined registration, with voluntary reporting of powers and abilities, the impact on privacy seems minimal, and the potential for the government to identify individuals that would benefit from counselling and assistance in managing their unique powers seems high. How is it NOT substantially related to that goal?

I cannot support the MRA, as it is, in my opinion, against not only the words, but also the spirit of our great Constitution.

Well, as a voter, or a legislator, you are of course welcome to that determination. But suppose the law passed as I've outlined it. As a judge, would you invalidate based on an EP violation?

[Hamlet]

Thinking out loud about it some more, I'd also point out that the genetically based determination of the necessity to register would not be influenced by whether or not the mutant has powers, or whether or not those powers are dangerous. As such, the MRA may be subject to challenges as being overbroad and vague. Although I'd also note that, IIRC, the government would not be required to have a hearing on whether or not a mutant was a danger before legislating in this area.

Ahhh for a few extra months to really sink my teeth into this issue.

[Mtgman]

Although, given the complete lack of a history of discrimination against "mutants", whose identity has only recently come to the attention of Congress, and the world, it would be difficult to see mutants as the subject of invidious social discrimination.From Bobby Drake's bio (http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/i/iceman.htm)Bobby was walking with his date, Judy Harmon, one night after they saw a movie together, when they were attacked by a bully named Rocky Beasely and his friends. One of Beasely's allies held onto Drake while Beasely himself started to force Harmon to go with him. To save Harmon, Drake used his mutant power to temporarily encase Beasely in ice. Beasely was soon released unharmed, but Harmon was shocked, and the news of the incident swept through Drake's Long Island community, enraging local townspeople enough for them to form a lynch mob.

The mob broke into Drake's home, and he began using his powers to fight them off. But there were too many opponents for the young Drake, and the town's sheriff took him into custody for the youth's own protection.
...
Bobby Drake infiltrated the presidential campaign organization of Graydon Creed, the head of the anti-mutant organization Friends of Humanity. After Drake's father spoke out against Creed's bigotry, he was nearly killed by Creed's thugs. Distraught, Bobby Drake left the X-Men for a time to be with his mother and convalescing father."Olympian is shot and killed during a conflict with agents of the anti-mutant organization Genocide." (http://www.broadsword.com/hero/furies/timeline.shtml)

Birdy and Sabretooth (http://members.fortunecity.com/dm_bishop2/marvel/birdy.html)Later, for reasons as yet unrevealed,
Birdy revealed Sabretooth's whereabouts to the anti-mutant organization
known as the Tribune. Sabretooth made as if to kill Birdy for her betrayal,
but relented. The two confronted the Tribune, where Birdy used her telepathic
abilities to link the minds of Sabretooth and the head of the Tribune,
who was revealed to be Graydon Creed, Sabretooth's embittered son. Graydon
then killed Birdy in order to incite his father to madness before escaping.Another anti-mutant organization, called "The Right", apparently has weapons and anti-mutant technology and intends to kill at least some of them (http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/crossover/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=217) They also subsidize anti-mutant experiments.The mutants are not aware that they are being watched by the master of the island, the strange silent being calling himself the Ani-Mator who is responsible for the animal experiments.

Subsidized by the anti-mutant organization “the Right” he quickly learns who the New Mutants are and successfully has several of his Ani-Mates capture them and the rebelling Ani-Mates. The Ani-Mator intends to kill the rebels and use the mutants for experiments to create even more successful hybrid strains, however his search alerted his superior, “Right” leader Cameron Hodge. Suspicious of what the scientist is doing Hodge decides to pay him a visit.

The Ani-Mator intends to blow up his lab and most of the Ani-Mates and leave with the mutants as test specimens but Cypher convinces the creatures to free them. The mutants beat the other Ani-Mates and the Ani-Mator, but just as they are crowing about their victory the Right arrive, shoot them with Tranquillizer guns, and strap them with inhibitor helmets. Hodge’s people intend to kill all the Ani-Mates, but Bird-Brain and his followers manage to free the mutants."While in Berlin, the X-Corps also encountered the Acculturation Resistance Movement, a new anti-mutant organization." (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/archive/index.php/t-14487.html)

Enjoy,
Steven

[foolsguinea]

OK, here's the problem with the MRA: Senator Kelly is a hothead, & it's a badly worded law. The basic idea isn't the problem, but the details of its execution.

That said, Sen. Kelly is partly right. The world needs the Sentinels now more than ever. What it doesn't need is concentration camps & witch-hunts.

We exist at a point in time which can diverge into two very different realities. The passage or failure of the MRA will not in itself guarantee either one; instead the way the government, the media, & the culture deal with the paranormal is key.

In one reality, people with weird but benign powers are welcomed as part of the marvelous beauty of nature. People will ask "superheroes," many of them mutants, for their autographs. Parents will be proud of their extraordinary children. The world will marvel at the blessings of the X-gene, while seeking, rightly, to contain & counter the truly dangerous. Let's call this the World of Marvel.

In the other reality, the idea that the mutants are a race (which is demonstrably not true) & that they are not human (patently false) breeds a sort of contempt for "mutantkind"--by looking at powered mutants as a class instead of as individuals. Some of the powered will in turn become alienated from "mere humans" & a wholly unnecessary pseudo-racial division will develop, with all manner of bad nastiness breeding in the public consciousness. Terror will result. I call this the World of Mutant Ghettoization. And I have seen it, & good lord, it's drek. I mean, it's grim. It's bad.

Yes, we should oppose the MRA in favor of a better written law. There is too much anger & fear in Kelly's draft, as in his rhetoric, & that will breed more of the kind on all sides. We also should maintain vigilance against all Hulk-class threats to our welfare, whether spontaneously mutated terrorist or misconceived product of Advanced Idea Mechanics. A properly run Sentinel agency can be part of this, & groups like the Avengers can be consulted.

But mostly, we must understand, there is no mutant race as a single actor. We are all individuals. Jamie Madrox is only responsible for Jamie Madrox, not for Magneto.

[Scott Plaid]

I call this the World of Mutant Ghettoization. And I have seen it, & good lord, it's drek. I mean, it's grim. It's bad.This has already happened, in New York City. (http://www.marvel.com/catalog/listing.htm?title=district%20x) Unless, of course, I am being whooshed.

[foolsguinea]

Then again, as I explore in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322324), maybe the Sentinel program was doomed all along & the illusion of continued successful operation is being maintained by those trying to drive a wedge between the mutant-powered & the rest of us. But that's its own thread.

[foolsguinea]

This has already happened, in New York City. (http://www.marvel.com/catalog/listing.htm?title=district%20x) Unless, of course, I am being whooshed."Mutant Ghetto" has referred for years to the weird little subset of mutant titles Marvel publishes. They seem more pessimistic & single-concept than the mainline Marvel Universe.

[AndrewL]

It would seem to me that the basic idea of the registration act is contrary to the fundamental assumptions the constitution is based on. This country's founding fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence that they believed all men to be created equal. The MRA holds by its basic premise that all men are not created equal; that some have, through no fault of their own, a hidden quality that makes them deserving of differential treatment by the government. I just don't see any way to reconcile this with our constitution.

[The Weird One]

I only have a layman's understanding of the issue, but IIRC there is no way to test for what kind of powers a mutant has, correct? So we could require testing as a condition of, say, getting a Social Security number (another example, btw, of the government sucessfully keeping valuable private information private). But even if every mutant is registered as such at birth, the registry is useless if we don't know what powers each mutant posesses and to what degree. A registry that shows nothing but whether or not someone is a mutant would have no other function than perpetuating discrimination. There is no way to require detailed information about mutant powers - someone could claim not to know what their power is, or claim that they can only manifest it to a fraction of their actual ability. Asking for details on a voluntary basis might be useful for studying the phenomenon itself, but would be useless for the purposes of law enforcement and public safety. The percentage of mutants who followed up on their registration after they discovered their ability would probably be very low due to fear of persecution and plain old human laziness. Anyone contemplating criminal activity would obviously not volunteer information about their abilities.

Social services, such as training and counseling, should be available on an annonymous and voluntary basis (though court-ordered training might be appropriate in some cases). How to create such a system without exposing the participants to the kinds of people who monitor the comings and goings of patients and doctors at abortion clinics is another matter, which I do not feel prepared to tackle.

[MMI]

A lot of people are quite sure that the list will get out. Why should we assume the data will be significantly less secure than IRS or specific census data?

(What FOIA rules will apply - could you verify that someone else has a registry file under the MRA through FOIA?)

[WhyNot]

Pretty much everything worth saying has been said already, but I just wanted to say what a fascinating read it's been. At every post by Bricker AND andros I found myself agreeing.

In the end, I still agree, with both of you. And that in iteself tells me that registration is the Wrong Thing. In my moral universe, not doing something which might not be harmful is less harmful than doing something which may be harmful. That probably made no sense whatsoever.

Basically, it seems that some small good (crime solving, mostly) and great harm (slippery slopes galore) could come from the MRA.
It seems that some small harm (making it harder to solve crime - but no harder than it is today) and great good (faith in ourselves, our constitution and our country; less chance of civil uprising; better Mutant relations) could come from not enacting the MRA.

Furthermore, too many of the good possibilities Bricker brings up are dependent on the law being worded, interpreted and carried out in a very precise manner, and I'm too jaded and cynical to trust politicians, police officers and lawyers to have the mutant's best interests at heart. I suspect that there will indeed be violations that will get dragged through the courts for decades - no, not a slippery slope argument, simply a realization that the MRA, like communism, will work better on paper than in reality.

So, in the end, I'd have to come out against the MRA, even though it could provide some valuable benefits. The cost to ourselves as Americans just isn't worth it.

Offer a voluntary registry required to receive special Mutant counseling, training or social services if you like. It's only those potentially dangerous Mutants willing to undergo training that the registry will help anyway.

[andros]

Registration is mandatory. Disclosure of details of personal abilities is voluntary.

In that case, the Registry would be of almost no use to law enforcement, and limited use to research.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot see enough benefit here to justify logging all those carrying a genetic abnormality.

I am left with the feeling that any Registry would either be so intrusive as to declare a separate class of citizens or so gutted as to be useless except for nefarious purposes.

[Bricker]

It would seem to me that the basic idea of the registration act is contrary to the fundamental assumptions the constitution is based on. This country's founding fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence that they believed all men to be created equal. The MRA holds by its basic premise that all men are not created equal; that some have, through no fault of their own, a hidden quality that makes them deserving of differential treatment by the government. I just don't see any way to reconcile this with our constitution.

Well, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, and it's not the source of any substantive law.

[Scott Plaid]

Rick, have you heard of a little thing called intent?

[Bricker]

Rick, have you heard of a little thing called intent?

Sure.

For example, I'd say the intent of "...and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." expresses the intent that the government recognizes theism.

But it doesn't, because the Declaration is not a source of substantive law.

[Scott Plaid]

I pull out my Yu-Gi-Oh card T.J.-Oh card for thirty point off of your score. :D Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his G-d, that he owes account to none other for his faith, or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [emphasis added.I also gained another card in my last turn, and I use it now.No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Nic2004]

...annonymoniymonininity.

Man! Is that annoying!!!!

I want a Mutant with special mental powers for President!
No, wait...

[tomndebb]

Way to miss the point, Scott. Regardless of Mr. Jefferson's personal beliefs, he produced a document using the language of the period and endorsed by several dozen representatives of the North American British colonies to express a sentiment that was used as the basis to declare that those colonies had a legitimate right to form a separate nation. Therefore, when we look to the nation's spirit, it is entirely appropriate to include an acknowledgement that most of the founders looked to a divine being whom they felt created and ordered the world.

However, 11 years later, when they sat down to construct a document under which the laws of the nation would be created and executed, they quite deliberately excluded any mention of the divine.

Your points regarding the Declaration of Independence and Mr. Jefferson's personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

[Bricker]

I pull out my Yu-Gi-Oh card T.J.-Oh card for thirty point off of your score. :D I also gained another card in my last turn, and I use it now.

Wow.

Very off base.

However, tomndebb has made the same obersvation, and I cannot help but think that my attempt would compare unfavorably to his prose, so I'll just say, "Eh... what he said."

[Scott Plaid]

Way to miss the point, Tom. Really, they all signed, have known what his feelings were, and besides, the deist "endowed by their creator." is not the "endowed by the creator" is not the that would go towards Rick's point.

[Dunderman]

So for one person, a whole group should be persecuted?
Who said anything about persecution? I thought we were discussing registration.
And who will decide if a driver is dangerous, Microsoft?
In reality, drivers with patterns of dangerous driving are considered dangerous. As this pertains to the mutant issue, please see post 54.

Please, come on, people (not specifically the two I respond to here, but everybody). I thought this was one debate that wouldn't degenerate into insults and shit-slinging. It's not even for real. Can't we try to keep emotions out of it.

[Harborwolf]

Who said anything about persecution? I thought we were discussing registration.

In reality, drivers with patterns of dangerous driving are considered dangerous. As this pertains to the mutant issue, please see post 54.

Please, come on, people (not specifically the two I respond to here, but everybody). I thought this was one debate that wouldn't degenerate into insults and shit-slinging. It's not even for real. Can't we try to keep emotions out of it.

1) Having to register because you are considered dangerous simply because of the way you are born isn't persecution? That's right. It's for their own protection.

2)Right, drivers with a pattern of behavior are considered dangerous. People with a wonky gene should also be considered dangerous regardless of patterns of behavior.

3)Who's getting emotions into it? I'm just trying to stay (mostly) in the spirit of things. That's why I godwined this thing on page 1. Seemed appropriate at the time. :p

[Dunderman]

1) Having to register because you are considered dangerous simply because of the way you are born isn't persecution? That's right. It's for their own protection.
And ours. I'm registered as a lot of things I cannot help, and I fail to see how it is persecution.
2)Right, drivers with a pattern of behavior are considered dangerous. People with a wonky gene should also be considered dangerous regardless of patterns of behavior.
Yep, the same way we test babies for HIV if their mothers have it, and so forth.

[Harborwolf]

And ours. I'm registered as a lot of things I cannot help, and I fail to see how it is persecution.

"And ours" automatically assumes that they are a danger regardless of behavior. Not to mention laws motivated by fear are rarely good ones. A good example would be the patriot act.

Yep, the same way we test babies for HIV if their mothers have it, and so forth.
Because if the mother has HIV, there is a good chance the child will have it as well. We would essentially be testing every child because there is no way of knowing which child carries a mutant gene. It's pointless anyways. As far as I know, there is no test to detect the mutant gene before it activates and it becomes apparent that the person is a mutant.

[Dunderman]

"And ours" automatically assumes that they are a danger regardless of behavior.
No. It assumes that mutants pose a greater danger, on average, than nonmutants. It seems to me the evidence bears this out. Cyclops, the "thirteen-people-in-hospital" girl, and so forth.
Not to mention laws motivated by fear are rarely good ones. A good example would be the patriot act.
The Patriot Act actually does something. Registering is nothing. It harms nobody.
Because if the mother has HIV, there is a good chance the child will have it as well. We would essentially be testing every child because there is no way of knowing which child carries a mutant gene. It's pointless anyways. As far as I know, there is no test to detect the mutant gene before it activates and it becomes apparent that the person is a mutant.
If there is no such test, then of course I do not support administering it. But if one exists, then I certainly support it.

Either way, this is definitely an issue we should pour research into. Is it possible to predict the activation of the mutant gene and its effects?

[Scott Plaid]

Priceguy, you are arguing issues which have already been settled earlier in this thread.

[Dunderman]

Priceguy, you are arguing issues which have already been settled earlier in this thread.
Must have missed that. If it happened, it is a rare case of issues actually being "settled". Mind pointing it out?

[Scott Plaid]

No. It assumes that mutants pose a greater danger, on average, than nonmutants.There have been a few cases of dangerous mutations. All through this thread, examples of harmless mutations have been pointed out. So far, there is no reason to believe those who can grow their (otherwise ordinary) fingernails real long (Meg Griffin) and those who can change things from one color to another are dangerous, or a minority. The studies (http://www.marvel.com/catalog/listing.htm?title=district%20x) draw the opposite conclusion Registering is nothing. It harms nobody.All except the hardest of heads agree that Senator Kelly is hoping for a slippery slope to come into existence in regards to registration.If there is no such test, then of course I do not support administering it.Post 90:DocCathode revealed that there is such a test likely to come into the market soon. He also showed how such registration is insane, since there are many kinds of dangerous human beings, but the government is concentrating soley on mutants. But if one exists, then I certainly support it..Why do you support, in view of all the reasons against it?Is it possible to predict the activation of the mutant gene and its effects?No. According to paper on the subject, tests only show that the gene has a likelihood of existing, not the results of the existence.

Please, read a thread before responding to it.

[Harborwolf]

No. It assumes that mutants pose a greater danger, on average, than nonmutants. It seems to me the evidence bears this out. Cyclops, the "thirteen-people-in-hospital" girl, and so forth.

Maybe a greater unintentional risk, but certainly not a greater risk. Do we really want to bring crime statistics into this. IIRC, people closer to the poverty line are more likely to commit a crime. Should we start registering poor people?
Either way, this is definitely an issue we should pour research into. Is it possible to predict the activation of the mutant gene and its effects?

Nope. We don't know enough about genetics period much less mutant genetics. There is no way to actually know what will happen when. Best guess right now is that it happens during puberty. Most statistics bear this out. Of course, you can drag secondary mutations into it. Then you get adults suddenly developing new powers that can be completely unrelated to their first power set.

[Dunderman]

There have been a few cases of dangerous mutations. All through this thread, examples of harmless mutations have been pointed out. So far, there is no reason to believe those who can grow their (otherwise ordinary) fingernails real long (Meg Griffin) and those who can change things from one color to another are dangerous, or a minority. The studies (http://www.marvel.com/catalog/listing.htm?title=district%20x) draw the opposite conclusion
So? There are mutations that are dangerous no matter what their carriers do. How does registration harm the others?
All except the hardest of heads agree that Senator Kelly is hoping for a slippery slope to come into existence in regards to registration.
Senator Kelly is an asshole. I'm sure he wants to round up all mutants and shoot them. That doesn't mean it will happen, and I can still support registration. If Kelly wants to pass the Mutant Killing Act, I'll be against it. If he wants to pass the Mutant Internment Act, I'll be against it. If he wants to pass the Take All Rights Away From Mutants Act, I'll be against it.
Post 90:DocCathode revealed that there is such a test likely to come into the market soon. He also showed how such registration is insane, since there are many kinds of dangerous human beings, but the government is concentrating soley on mutants.
He did no such thing. Is it insane to stop one murderer because there is another one somewhere else? Is it insane to prevent HIV spreading in Europe just because HIV spreads in Africa? No? Why, then, is it insane to register one dangerous group but not another?
Why do you support, in view of all the reasons against it?
Name one. One that doesn't come down to simply calling it "persecution" or "insane". Tell me exactly who is directly harmed by registration.
No. According to paper on the subject, tests only show that the gene has a likelihood of existing, not the results of the existence.
We need more research. Something determines the results of the gene's existence, we only have to find it. If it turns out to be the circumstances of the activation of the gene, imagine the possibilities! The mutant could pick and choose what power he wanted. We could educate and train mutants and give them particular powers for particular purposes.
Maybe a greater unintentional risk, but certainly not a greater risk.
No? Any indication that mutants, but for their powers, pose a smaller risk than nonmutants? Since you agree that mutants pose a risk caused by their powers, you must either produce such indication or agree that mutants pose a greater risk.
Do we really want to bring crime statistics into this.
Maybe, 'cause while I haven't seen any hard studies, it seems to me that a disproportionate amount of mutants are criminals.
IIRC, people closer to the poverty line are more likely to commit a crime. Should we start registering poor people?
We kind of already are.

The one argument against registration that I can see is the fear that it will lead to something else, that persecution is facilitated by registration and so on.

[Harborwolf]

No? Any indication that mutants, but for their powers, pose a smaller risk than nonmutants? Since you agree that mutants pose a risk caused by their powers, you must either produce such indication or agree that mutants pose a greater risk.

Given the recent actions by Magneto, It'd be a little ridiculous to say that they aren't a threat. The issue is whether or not they are a potentially greater threat than a normal human. That has yet to be proven.

Maybe, 'cause while I haven't seen any hard studies, it seems to me that a disproportionate amount of mutants are criminals.

Not really. For the most part, it takes five "good" mutants to take out one mutant criminal. That means good outweighs bad five to one. That doesn't even factor in the mutants that don't get involved or that we don't even know about.

We kind of already are.
cite?

And the end result is that we are still forcing american citizens to register because of something that they cannot control.

[Bricker]

"And ours" automatically assumes that they are a danger regardless of behavior. Not to mention laws motivated by fear are rarely good ones. A good example would be the patriot act.

On the contrary, I think that the Patriot Act is on balance a good set of laws, and I have found that often, on these very boards devoted to fighting ignorance, "the Patriot Act" is a subject of much confusion, with people ascribing many provisions to it that it doesn't have.

[Bricker]

All except the hardest of heads agree that Senator Kelly is hoping for a slippery slope to come into existence in regards to registration.

I would as well say that all except the softest of heads believe any such agreement was reached. In fact, after repeated requests by me to get examples of slippery slopes that have actually HAPPENED from you, your most cogent response was - and I quote: " :rolleyes: "

Others have offered examples of guns in various societies, but have failed to address the propter hoc requirement necessary to address the slippery slope fallacy.

You have not even done that. So I'd certainly appreciate it if we have no more bland assertions from you concerning what agreements have or have not been reached.

Nothing like your opponent simply declaring victory after most recent attempt at cogent argument was a rolleyes smiley...

[Harborwolf]

On the contrary, I think that the Patriot Act is on balance a good set of laws, and I have found that often, on these very boards devoted to fighting ignorance, "the Patriot Act" is a subject of much confusion, with people ascribing many provisions to it that it doesn't have.
Personally, I find it to be too invasive but that's a horse so dead that PETA has become involved.

How about the relocation camps for asians back in the day. Another act motivated by fear. Gitmo could be another one.

I know, we haven't relocated them, but the point is that acting out of fear of a potential threat is not a good idea.

[BMalion]

Not to go off on a tangent but, let's say we can test someone and tell with certainty that he's a mutant. And let's say that this is one of those criminal mutants, is there some safe way to 'turn the power off' or 'inhibit' the mutant ability without harming the person?

I'm thinking along the lines of an idea i heard about how some sex offenders have to take drugs to curb their urges, under court order.

[dotchan]

Yeesh, if the subject of metahumans have y'all in such a twist, I shudder to think what'll happen when we start discussing extraterrestrials.

Er, um, I mean, please look at this cool shiny light pen I have in my hand.

*bright flash*

:D

[Scott Plaid]

I would as well say that all except the softest of heads believe any such agreement was reached. In fact, after repeated requests by me to get examples of slippery slopes that have actually HAPPENED from you, your most cogent response was - and I quote: " :rolleyes: "No, my response was to ask for good examples of cases where people who exhibit certain behaviors where put down into lists, and packed to change. (Post 74) Within the same post, I claimed I could think of one example, but that it would take this down a different road. Within my statement, I highlighted, and increased to font size three the letters "G o d w i n". Two posts later, Harborwolf responded to my request for a non-nazi related example, and posted the example of the WWII era detention camps for Japanese Americans. After that occurred, you paid not the least bit of attention to his post. I only posted a smiley after you ignored my implication, and Wolf’s post.

[Bricker]

Personally, I find it to be too invasive but that's a horse so dead that PETA has become involved.

How about the relocation camps for asians back in the day. Another act motivated by fear. Gitmo could be another one.

I know, we haven't relocated them, but the point is that acting out of fear of a potential threat is not a good idea.

On the contrary, acting out of fear of a potential threat is quite prudent... assuming you have accurately quantified the risk associated with the threat and are proposing countermeasures that are reasonably related to that risk.

Whether these countermeasures are reasonably related to the extant risk is what we're discussing.... but "acting out of fear" is not automatically wrong.

[Scott Plaid]

Not to go off on a tangent but, let's say we can test someone and tell with certainty that he's a mutant They already exist, and are used in prisons. They are called inhibitor collars, and are know for their distressing ability to break under physical strain, and under tampering. Rumor has it, this is due to substandard manufacture by companies associated with both the President, and the rumored social organization know only as "The Hellfire Club."

[Bricker]

No, my response was to ask for good examples of cases where people who exhibit certain behaviors where put down into lists, and packed to change. (Post 74) Within the same post, I claimed I could think of one example, but that it would take this down a different road. Within my statement, I highlighted, and increased to font size three the letters "G o d w i n". Two posts later, Harborwolf responded to my request for a non-nazi related example, and posted the example of the WWII era detention camps for Japanese Americans. After that occurred, you paid not the least bit of attention to his post. I only posted a smiley after you ignored my implication, and Wolf’s post.

Ahhh!

I must admit that I missed your subtle "Godwin." On my monitor, those letters look the same as your other letters. If I peer closely (middle-aged myopic eyes) I can perhaps see some difference, but it was too subtle for me on the first go-round.

So I guess I was whooshed.

Harborwolf's analogy suffered the flaw I mentioned above: his example suffers from the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. He has not shown any initial registration requirements that ballooned into more serious measures. The quarentining of American Nisei was reprehensible, but I don;t agree the analogy is sound... it was, so far as I'm aware, essentially the first step taken, not a culmination of lesser steps.

[BMalion]

They already exist, and are used in prisons. They are called inhibitor collars, and are know for their distressing ability to break under physical strain, and under tampering. Rumor has it, this is due to substandard manufacture by companies associated with both the President, and the rumored social organization know only as "The Hellfire Club."


Is this the best we can do? Can't we develope a more tamper-proof system?

[Scott Plaid]

Next election, vote for a man who isn't a former member of a secret society, or has strong ties to bussiness.

[andros]

Is this the best we can do? Can't we develope a more tamper-proof system?

Possibly. Eventually. And you're right--we can restrain mundane criminals by imprisoning them. With mutant criminals, we are forced to construct ability-specific prison facilities (Eric Magnus' cell comes to mind) at enormous expense. And even then, we cannot be absolutely certain they'll work. A cell which protects against a primary ability might be vulnerable to a secondary. I agree that a device to restrain the X-factor itself might well be beneficial to society and the prison system.

But I think the Mutant-American community has a valid concern here. An effective and simple restraint collar could be very dangerous to the law-abiding members of the mutant community if widely obtained.

[DocCathode]

I am NOT saying "We should ignore danger B, because I've proven the existence of danger A".

I am saying "Let's focus on A. We know A is a clear and present danger. There is little proof that B is a danger"

Magneto is known to have killed. However, he is not known to have killed any one who was not either a threat to him, or actively trying to kill him at the time. The well known 'flying cop car' incident involved over a hundred police officers. Magneto could have easily killed them all. Instead there were only the most minor injuries. This is the man people hold up as representative of the threat posed by mutants?

[Harborwolf]

On the contrary, acting out of fear of a potential threat is quite prudent... assuming you have accurately quantified the risk associated with the threat and are proposing countermeasures that are reasonably related to that risk.

Whether these countermeasures are reasonably related to the extant risk is what we're discussing.... but "acting out of fear" is not automatically wrong.

That's the thing though. Have we accurately quantified the risk? Have we proven that mutants pose more of a danger than non?

A good example would be muslim extremists. I think we're all aware of what they've done. Last I knew we haven't gone mosque to mosque asking all muslims to register in case they may be terrorists.

Flashing back a ways we have the Oklahoma City bombing. The two responsible had militia ties. We didn't go around registering militia members as a potential threat.

I can even go downright silly and say that we haven't asked that those that are bullied in high school or buy Marilyn Manson albums to register as potential school shooters.

Of course, Marilyn Manson listeners will be registered under the People Who Suck Registration Act, but that's another thread entirely.

What we still have yet to hash out is that mutants are more of a threat than non mutants.

[Steve MB]

Others have offered examples of guns in various societies, but have failed to address the propter hoc requirement necessary to address the slippery slope fallacy.
There is no such requirement. I don't have to prove that giving a machine gun to an idiot will absolutely and certainly cause unfortunate results -- only that it increases the risk of such an outcome to an unacceptable degree. My site qualifies rather nicely (so far as the gun issue is concerned), and thus refutes your claim that nobody can cite a real-world example of the phenomenon.

[DSeid]

That's the thing though. Have we accurately quantified the risk? Have we proven that mutants pose more of a danger than non? It would require more than proof that they pose more of a danger than not. It requires such a degree of general public benefit as to justify the imposition upon personal liberties. The American tradition, albeit inconsistently applied, is that the removal of personal rights requires a substantial societal benefit to justify it. How much benefit justifies how much imposition is the question. Plenty of historical precendences, but little consistency. Lots depends on the value one places on the degree of benefit and on the degree of imposition. That ancient New London property rights decision and The Patriot Act of the same era. The ability of motorcyclists to defend their right to crack their unhelmeted heads open and impose their rehab costs upon society. The 2013 Obesity Control Act forbidding all fast food sales and advertising to minors, mandating that all new city developments limit parking spaces in order to encourage walking to and from public transport, and requiring warning labels on TVs and game systems that use of more than one hour a day by minors is associated with obesity.

In this particular case it seems that the benefit garnered from registration is minimal, on the whole, but the potential for abuse of such registration is at least moderate. I'm against it.

BTW, on other boards discussion of this issue has frequently devolved into accusations that if you are not for this Act you must be a mutant in hiding. I am pleased that this discussion has not been so coarse. Although I did hear a rumour recently that the VP's daughter is a mutant. Anyone know if that is true?

[The Weird One]

Although I did hear a rumour recently that the VP's daughter is a mutant. Anyone know if that is true?
:dubious:

1. That's her business, and unless she decides to make her mutant/nonmutant state public, it's not our place to speculate.

2. This is a serious political discussion, not a place to engage in celebrity rumor-mongering.
[/junior mod]

[DSeid]

Well The Weird One, I think it is fair game in this context. What better way to point out the hypocrisy in the Kelly position then to point out that high ranking members of his own party are less than eager to have family members "outed" (if true)?

[Lemur866]

Wait, it isn't exactly "rumor-mongering" to report the truth. Look, I know it's never been confirmed publicly by the Vice-President's family, but it is an open secret that his daughter's secret identity is the mutant superhero "The Caped Avenger", even if the republican party wouldn't allow her to appear in costume on the podium at the convention.

I know that there are people in denial about her mutant status, but the inference is clear. She spent several years as liason for mutant affairs for several big businesses. Why would Coors beer hire a non-mutant for such a position? And of course, the VP's daughter's lesbian life-partner is the mutant known only as "The Destructress". How many mutant lesbians do you know who are involved with non-mutant lesbians? Mutants invariably form all-mutant groups, right? What are the odds that The Destructress would be having a lesbian affair with a non-mutant? You can deny it all you want, but mutants stick with mutants.

The Destructress's crimefighting partner is The Caped Avenger, her life-partner is the president's daughter. People, the two are one and the same. My mutantdar goes off like crazy. She's a mutant. Yeah, maybe she does dye her hair that shade of blue. Every day? Since she was 13? If you don't realize she's a mutant you've led a pretty sheltered life.

[DocCathode]

How many mutant lesbians do you know who are involved with non-mutant lesbians? Mutants invariably form all-mutant groups, right? What are the odds that The Destructress would be having a lesbian affair with a non-mutant? You can deny it all you want, but mutants stick with mutants.

Your bigotry sickens me.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Bricker, the most compelling argument I've read so far against your scheme is one which I don't believe you've so far addressed.

Namely, registration can take one of three forms:
1) Required registration with required description of powers. This is a form which is most useful to law enforcement, but which is also most intrusive into civil liberties, and is therefore a form which you (rightly, IMO) reject.
2) Required registration with voluntary description of powers. This form is only useful to law enforcement when the mutant volunteers a description of powers: the required aspect of it is virtually useless to law enforcement (and is far less useful than, say, a required registration of folks' hair colors, an aspect of a person which is more germane to solving more crimes than the mere presence of an X-factor). It has a much gentler intrusion into civil liberties, but carries a risk (by no means a certainty) that, with a change in government, a nasty tool could be put into the hands of an anti-mutant authority.
3) Voluntary registration with voluntary description of powers. This method seems to me to be almost precisely as useful to law enforcement as the previous method, with zero intrusion into civil liberties.

You gave some examples in which #1 would be more useful to law enforcement than #2 or #3--but you don't support #1. Can you give some examples in which #2 would be more useful to law enforcement than #3?

Daniel

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of DorknessYou gave some examples in which #1 would be more useful to law enforcement than #2 or #3--but you don't support #1. Can you give some examples in which #2 would be more useful to law enforcement than #3?
[/QUOTE]

It all depends on what happens. I think most people will voluntarily share the information about their power, especially if registration happens during adolescence. Few people at that age see themselves as "bad guys;" most will be willing to share information about themselves. They may regret that decision if they later turn to lives of crime, but I believe a voluntary system would be nearly as useful as a compelled one in collecting information on powers.

And, should it turn out not to be the case, I'd have no problem with repealing the law down the line. No law is carved in stone. If it didn't work, I'd support repeal.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

It all depends on what happens. I think most people will voluntarily share the information about their power, especially if registration happens during adolescence. Few people at that age see themselves as "bad guys;" most will be willing to share information about themselves. They may regret that decision if they later turn to lives of crime, but I believe a voluntary system would be nearly as useful as a compelled one in collecting information on powers.
Then again, why not make the whole system voluntary? Wouldn't that be precisely as useful, and risk no civil liberty infringements?

Daniel

[Bricker]

Then again, why not make the whole system voluntary? Wouldn't that be precisely as useful, and risk no civil liberty infringements?


No.

If the burden ia on people to voluntarily wander in off the street, many will regard it as on par with voting registration, the apathy for which is already self-evident.

To require testing forces the issue to the forefront, and impacts every person equally: everyone must be tested. The results of that testing include the registration of those with the X-factor and a voluntary interview to discern what powers or abilities may exist. That's a fair and reasonable balance of civil liberties and prudent protection of society.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

To require testing forces the issue to the forefront, and impacts every person equally: everyone must be tested. The results of that testing include the registration of those with the X-factor and a voluntary interview to discern what powers or abilities may exist. That's a fair and reasonable balance of civil liberties and prudent protection of society.
Are you proposing that the testing happens at adolescence, then, or at birth?

Daniel

[Bricker]

Are you proposing that the testing happens at adolescence, then, or at birth?


Adolescence. I picture a mechanism similar to the Selective Service registration.

[holmes]

Adolescence. I picture a mechanism similar to the Selective Service registration.

Hmm.... I'm against any medical treatment because of my religion, this includes any type of "test" that reguires blood being drawn or any type of material being removed from my or my families bodies.

Does the government force me and my children to be tested? If i refuse, am I arrested?

[Arwin]

Even if you weren't any good at it?

Yep, just like a gun that only actually fires a bullet every sixth time you pull the trigger, so to speak. Martial Arts are sometimes very, very martial indeed, so I thought it was a good idea. Interestingly enough, a lot of police was trained by this same teacher.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

No.

If the burden ia on people to voluntarily wander in off the street, many will regard it as on par with voting registration, the apathy for which is already self-evident.

To require testing forces the issue to the forefront, and impacts every person equally: everyone must be tested. The results of that testing include the registration of those with the X-factor and a voluntary interview to discern what powers or abilities may exist. That's a fair and reasonable balance of civil liberties and prudent protection of society.
Okay, I agree now that there is a value to mandatory testing, coupled with voluntary admission of ability.

Is there a value to mandatory testing, and mandatory collection of data linking positive tests to individuals, coupled with voluntary admission of ability?

Remember, I and others are afraid that given the cultural climate, this data, once collected, could be badly misused by a future administration. Unless there's a public interest in the involuntary collection of information about who has the X-factor (not linked to information about what abilities that individual has), we'd prefer to see it not happen.

If you modify your proposal slightly--if everyone must go in for testing in order to be able to use a federal service after the age of, say, 13, but the results of the test are simply revealed to the testee and then destroyed unless the testee agrees to the collection of further data--then I'll agree with it.

Daniel

[Bricker]

Hmm.... I'm against any medical treatment because of my religion, this includes any type of "test" that reguires blood being drawn or any type of material being removed from my or my families bodies.

Does the government force me and my children to be tested? If i refuse, am I arrested?

In this case, I don't know. It's unclear to me what the precise mechanism for testing for the X-factor is. If it is some sort of passive scan, then your concerns are groundless. But assuming it does involve blood or body sampling, then I would say that you should be required to submit to this minimal intrusion into your religious beliefs, just as people are today who have been arrested, or who must undergo DNA testing to settle a paternity claim, etc.

[Bricker]

Okay, I agree now that there is a value to mandatory testing, coupled with voluntary admission of ability.

Is there a value to mandatory testing, and mandatory collection of data linking positive tests to individuals, coupled with voluntary admission of ability?

Remember, I and others are afraid that given the cultural climate, this data, once collected, could be badly misused by a future administration. Unless there's a public interest in the involuntary collection of information about who has the X-factor (not linked to information about what abilities that individual has), we'd prefer to see it not happen.

If you modify your proposal slightly--if everyone must go in for testing in order to be able to use a federal service after the age of, say, 13, but the results of the test are simply revealed to the testee and then destroyed unless the testee agrees to the collection of further data--then I'll agree with it.

Daniel

Ah -- you're saying that a testee who does not admit to any particular power has no value in the database.

I agree with that. If the testee does voluntarily share his particular ability, then obviously a record is kept; that's the purpose of the test. But if the testee declines to share information about his personal ability, then of what value is merely recording the fact that he's X-positive?

I agree. No data gets permanantly collected unless the individual chooses to reveal his ability.

[WhyNot]

(Ohmigod. Did Great Debates actually work this time? It appears like both "sides" have moved to a more reasonable central compromise! Amazing!)

I like where we're at. Mandatory testing, recording of volunteered information, destruction of actual individual test results. Informs people of an X-factor they may have been previously unaware of, allows the government to track general X-factor trends, allows for government or private access to X-persons for a one time shot at offering social or training services (like handing them a brochure with their test results), doesn't create a registry of useless information, and doesn't create a registry of innocents. Cool.

Next question: If my teenager is found "X positive," will I be informed? Do I decide if his information is recorded, or does he?

[Steve MB]

That's a fair and reasonable balance of civil liberties and prudent protection of society.
It's already been noted that the "protection of society" element is fatally compromised unless the nature and extent of powers (in addition to the mere existence of mutant genes) are part of the mandatory registry. Thus, your argument for mandatory registry of the latter but not the former doesn't hold up.

[Steve MB]

Ah -- you're saying that a testee who does not admit to any particular power has no value in the database.

I agree with that. If the testee does voluntarily share his particular ability, then obviously a record is kept; that's the purpose of the test. But if the testee declines to share information about his personal ability, then of what value is merely recording the fact that he's X-positive?

I agree. No data gets permanantly collected unless the individual chooses to reveal his ability.

OK, that addresses the problem I noted in the previous message -- if the whole thing (including recordation of the mere existence of mutant genes) is voluntary, there's no problem.

[Bricker]

Next question: If my teenager is found "X positive," will I be informed? Do I decide if his information is recorded, or does he?

I think a minor's rights in this area must be subordinate to the parent's rights to know and decide what to do.

[furt]

In this case, I don't know. It's unclear to me what the precise mechanism for testing for the X-factor is. If it is some sort of passive scan, then your concerns are groundless.The authoritative texts have indicated that passive scans are all that is needed.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Another idea for the proposal:

Big Government Spending!

Specifically, I am less optimistic than Bricker is that people will voluntarily register their powers with the government; I suspect most people won't. However, there's a way to lure them into doing so, and at the same time make everyone's lives better.

When someone tests positive for the X factor, offer them government-subsidized care for this condition. At no charge, they may receive a full body of tests to determine the nature and extent of their power, and if necessary, they may receive therapy in how to control the power.

There would be one (or possibly two) catches. First, receiving this care is contingent on registering their power with the government. Second, if providing such care proves to be prohibitively expensive, there may end up being some rule that those who have undergone the care face higher tax-brackets once they become upper-middle-class or beyond; this way, those who benefit from the care the most end up repaying the cost.

Daniel

[Bricker]

Another idea for the proposal:

Big Government Spending!


This is a complex proposal.... and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Didn't want you to think it was ignored, but didn't want to post a substantive answer before I had one, either.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This is a complex proposal.... and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Didn't want you to think it was ignored, but didn't want to post a substantive answer before I had one, either.
No problem. I figured we couldn't just leave the thread with a simple agreement...

I think it pitsa few different interests against one another: social welfare and public safety against government frugality. Personally I think it falls on the right side of the line (I think the public safety benefits of teaching folks to control their powers would be pretty high), but I can see it going either way (especially the first time someone uses their government-subsidized training to go all supervillainy).

Daniel

[Scott Plaid]

"Register." Not "punish." With the lists kept private, no one is "known" as out of the norm, as you suggest, and not punished thereby.It seems that both you, and LHOD agree a list is a good thing. Do you see any scenarios where your proposed list could be used for persecution?

[Bricker]

It seems that both you, and LHOD agree a list is a good thing. Do you see any scenarios where your proposed list could be used for persecution?

It's possible. But for that to happen, massive changes in the legal and social structure would have to occur. The government would have to pass additional laws, laws that would go far beyond the mandatory test/voluntary disclosure contemplated here. For such laws to survive, antipathy towards the mutant population would have to grow dramatically, and the judicial system would have to be convinced of at least a rational basis for the laws. (As suggested above, it's likely that the standard would even be higher: intermediate scrutiny).

I view the cumulative likelihood of those events as slight.

[Fenris]

I like where we're at. Mandatory testing, recording of volunteered information, destruction of actual individual test results. Informs people of an X-factor they may have been previously unaware of, allows the government to track general X-factor trends, allows for government or private access to X-persons for a one time shot at offering social or training services (like handing them a brochure with their test results), doesn't create a registry of useless information, and doesn't create a registry of innocents. Cool.

I got a ton of problems with this.

1) The government's general curiosity (aka their right to "track general x-factor trends") does not outweigh my...er...any given mutant's right to privacy. AIDS is a communicable disease. Does/should the government have a right to require everyone to be tested for AIDS? Why or why not? You could offer people with AIDS a one-time shot at social services too. Ditto with women who get abortions. Should they be put on a registry somewhere? If there was an immediate, tangible benefit to law-enforcement/public safety, I might agree: but since we all seem to be in agreement that there's not (what would be the point without listing individual powers and creating a mutant 'registry'*)...well...why should the government get my demographics? In addition, since most mutants do NOT have combat-level super-powers (see Professor Xavier's comments regarding Doug Ramsey prior to his joining the New Mutants or the hordes of Morlocks/Genosha mutants who have very low level abilities...assuming that their mutation isn't simply a terrible deformity), testing them puts them at risk (by an anti-mutant mob. Or Sentinels. Or groups that exploit mutant 'brainwaves' (The Secret Empire, for example)) for no benefit to them (one doesn't need training to know how to best use the ability to change the color of one's urine) and no benefit to society.

2) Given the level of anti-mutant prejudice, why should we...er...they trust the government? Mutants get "mutant bashed" on a weekly basis. Hell, we had some visitors from another dimension here recently and the first thing they encountered (this was a Quicksilver type guy in a red costume) was a mutant bashing incident-it's that common. Granted, it's recently been reaffirmed that the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen, but still...there's clearly a huge danger to any mutant who's outed.

In addition, this is the same government which has, on (at minimum) three times allowed and (at least paritally) paid for the creation of giant anti-mutant robots charged with capturing ALL mutants. No search warrant needed. You're a mutant? A giant robot can destroy your house, grab you and put you in an over-sized test-tube inside some hidden facility somewhere. And if you resist? You get squished (Larry Trask, creator of the Sentinels Mark II got squished by his creations when they discovered he was a mutant. In several of these cases, the Sentinels were activated without authorization--but they were created with that programming.

This is also the same country in which the government ran ads in a number of major magazines saying "AMERICA: IT'S 1984(?). DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE?" with a photograph that outed a 5 year old child (Franklin Richards) as a mutant (the public didn't realize that Franklin had powers at that point). Why should the government be trusted, especially given their track record?

3) Why single out mutants and not others with super powers? Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four isn't a mutant and is far more dangerous than, say, Cannonball. Ditto Thor vs, say, Doug Ramsey. Or Hulk vs Shadowcat. This clearly violates the Constitution's Equal Protection amendment.

4) Earlier someone (Bricker, perhaps?) said that this wouldn't violate anti race-based laws. Um..in point of fact, it would. Unlike mere differences in skin pigment and eye shape, being a mutant really is being part of a separate race: normal people are Homo Sapiens, mutants are Homo Superior. This is literal racial (species?) profiling.

One more point to consider. Anyone remember their Aesop? Who bells the cat? Right now, we've got mutants who can casually turn off the sun (Phoenix--she's dead at the moment, but she'll be back), or destroy the climate (Storm) or affect every human brain on the planet (Professor Xavier-who was recently 'outed' as a mutant). They're currently on our side. It's a fait accompli that these mutants will refuse to be tested--everything we know about the X-Men points to this fact.

A) Are we prepared to criminalize a whole group of people who have stood for tolerance and understanding AND have protected us from the predations of the less law-abiding of their species?

B)And if we are prepared to criminalize them, what will be the penalty? A fine? Jail time? How are you going to capture them to use those inhibitor collars on them? To date, our method of dealing with super-powered criminals has been to allow volunteer or quasi-sanctioned super-volunteers. The Fantastic Four have said (and many of the Avengers have said similar) that they oppose this act and will not cooperate in forcing testing. We've tried using super-villians to enforce government edicts. Anyone remember the debacle that was Freedom Force? What's the next step? Reactivate the Sentinels? And if we do, aren't mutants correct to resist this and not trust us?

Fenris

*And if there was a mutant registry, assume a crime was committed and ice was left behind at the scene of the crime. You could look on this registry and get Iceman and Storm from the X-Men, but you wouldn't get, say, The Blizzard--a human who uses an ice-gun. Very few mutant powers can't be duplicated by technology. So the registry is idea is pointless from a profiling/law enforcement standpoint, even if it wasn't a gross invasion of privacy.

[Bricker]

....the New Mutants or the hordes of Morlocks/Genosha mutants who have very low level abilities....... Or Sentinels. Or groups that exploit mutant 'brainwaves' (The Secret Empire, for example)) .
.
.
.
Given the level of anti-mutant prejudice, why should we...er...they trust the government? Mutants get "mutant bashed" on a weekly basis. Hell, we had some visitors from another dimension here recently and the first thing they encountered (this was a Quicksilver type guy in a red costume) was a mutant bashing incident-it's that common. Granted, it's recently been reaffirmed that the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen, but still...there's clearly a huge danger to any mutant who's outed.
.
.
.
In addition, this is the same government which has, on (at minimum) three times allowed and (at least paritally) paid for the creation of giant anti-mutant robots charged with capturing ALL mutants. No search warrant needed. You're a mutant? A giant robot can destroy your house, grab you and put you in an over-sized test-tube inside some hidden facility somewhere. And if you resist? You get squished (Larry Trask, creator of the Sentinels Mark II got squished by his creations when they discovered he was a mutant. In several of these cases, the Sentinels were activated without authorization--but they were created with that programming.


I'm completely unaware of any of the people or incidents alluded to above. If this were a world in which the government had funded the creation of giant anti-mutant robots, I suspect I'd agree that the registration act was a bad idea. As I explained above, my only knowledge about this proposed legislation was watching two movies about the subject.

I have no way of knowing if your specific claims are correct, but if they are, I certainly revise my opinion.

However, if they are, I would also suggest that GD is not the place for this thread. The reason for this threa being in GD is - in my view, anyway - the application of the mutant registration act to today's real social, legal, and political structure. While it's absolutely valid to point out that the ...er.. source material for these suppositions is richer than a few movies, it's also true that not everyone is aware of that background, AND that if the goal is to discuss a completely fictional world informed by that material, CS is probably the right forum.

Just my view.

[Harborwolf]

Told ya there was more to the story Bricker :p

To get this thread back in to great debates territory, I'm still curious how you resolve the threat issue. It has yet to be proven that a mutant is inherently more dangerous than a human. Without them being more of a threat, the rationale of the MRA falls apart.

[Bricker]

Told ya there was more to the story Bricker :p

To get this thread back in to great debates territory, I'm still curious how you resolve the threat issue. It has yet to be proven that a mutant is inherently more dangerous than a human. Without them being more of a threat, the rationale of the MRA falls apart.

I'm willing to continue the discussion if we can set some ground rules about what is, and isn't.... er... true. It does me no good to confidently assert that A, B, and C have, historically, never happened, only to discover that not only HAVE they happened, but they were all implemented by government-funded, artificially-intelligent cyborg-driven flying devices.

[Fenris]

However, if they are, I would also suggest that GD is not the place for this thread. The reason for this threa being in GD is - in my view, anyway - the application of the mutant registration act to today's real social, legal, and political structure. While it's absolutely valid to point out that the ...er.. source material for these suppositions is richer than a few movies, it's also true that not everyone is aware of that background, AND that if the goal is to discuss a completely fictional world informed by that material, CS is probably the right forum.

Fair enough! I admit to being something of a geek on these issues ;) and I think that the thread is more interesting here, so allow me to withdraw the source material specific stuff.

However, I'd be interested in your take on the first part of point 1 (what real, tangible benefit does the government get via the "Just tracking for demographic purposes" version of registration and how does that outweigh a mutant's right to privacy.) and/or your take on the "racial profiling" point in #3 and the "equal protection in point #4.

[Harborwolf]

I'm willing to continue the discussion if we can set some ground rules about what is, and isn't.... er... true. It does me no good to confidently assert that A, B, and C have, historically, never happened, only to discover that not only HAVE they happened, but they were all implemented by government-funded, artificially-intelligent cyborg-driven flying devices.

I figure that for now we can leave out the giant flying robots, secret government organizations, and other things that have been left out of the two movies. Extradimensional stuff is also right out, as are aliens. Other heroes are as Marvel has cranked out a few more movies as are villains as long as they don't cross the giant flying robot and such line. Also, no Magneto having a space station asteroid or base in the prehistoric land hidden in antarctica.

Basically somewhat fictional with a heavy grounding in reality. We'll even keep the present republican administration.

Sound good to everyone involved?

[Fenris]

I'm willing to continue the discussion if we can set some ground rules about what is, and isn't.... er... true. It does me no good to confidently assert that A, B, and C have, historically, never happened, only to discover that not only HAVE they happened, but they were all implemented by government-funded, artificially-intelligent cyborg-driven flying devices.

:D

I'm comfortable sticking to the movies, as long as the general knowledge that the rest of the Marvel universe is there too since one of the interesting facets of the act is that it singles out mutants, regardless of super-power level but ignores anyone else with super powers.

(On preview, what Harborwolf said)

[Scott Plaid]

While this is not really a question, and thus against the dare I am participating in, I have to say it. I say thee nay.

In the movies, we see many, many cameos from know mutants. We can only know their background from the comic books. Thus, certain facts about them can only be know from the comics. Also, so far in this thread, there have been many references to the comics, with no problem. If someone makes a statement about something they claimed has happened in the comics, but they are lying, it should be quite obvious to many of the people here, and they will likely get called on it.

[Harborwolf]

While this is not really a question, and thus against the dare I am participating in, I have to say it. I say thee nay.

In the movies, we see many, many cameos from know mutants. We can only know their background from the comic books. Thus, certain facts about them can only be know from the comics. Also, so far in this thread, there have been many references to the comics, with no problem. If someone makes a statement about something they claimed has happened in the comics, but they are lying, it should be quite obvious to many of the people here, and they will likely get called on it.

Right, but for the sake of keeping this thread realistic, I think we should leave the governmental stuff right out and keep it within our real world governmental system.

Some comic book stuff is okay, but noone is going to debate that using three story tall robots armed with lasers and questionable programming in areas with a large civilian population is a good idea.

[Fenris]

This thread lured me back to the SDMB--I'd really rather it continue here in GD with the Harborwolf rule ;). Perhaps a parallel thread in CS could be opened where we can have a geek triviafest.

Bricker's point the impetus of this thread shouldn't be obscure comic knowledge was very well taken.

[Scott Plaid]

Well, yeah, but that goes without saying. In the canon marvel universe, George Bush is president, the previous president was Clinton, and there is not Gotham, or Metropolis, but New York and Chicago.

Also, no one here knows anything about sentinels. Some years ago, some crazy scientist declared that he invented giant robots. One of them supposedly kidnapped him, unless it was some kind of publicity stunt. Later, one of those giant robots attacked a bunch of costumed vigilantes. No one here in the thread knows that the government was behind any of this. To date, while sentinels exist, no one here has any ability to know this, except by quoting from some kinda tabloid (Quoting from a hobo) claiming the existence of a machine colony in caves and junkyards .

[Fenris]

If you're allowing the comics, why in the world wouldn't anyone here know about Sentinels? That "crazy scientist" debuted them on nationwide tv (X-Men #14) and they've been seen on TV most times that they've shown up since then (most recently, during the Onslaught thing). The comics don't back your statement, and you can't just make up arbitrary ground rules about what people know and don't as you go.

And this is exactly the reason we shouldn't allow the comics: this will degenerate into a trivia contest.

[Scott Plaid]

The basic idea is that people could point out that they are a government plot. However, while that would be a point for my side, no one here could really use that argument, since while they are known to exist, no one can tie them to the government.

This is because, in the concept of this discussion, all the comic books we own of from the marvel universe. Thus, they have been government censored to not show the guilty parties, real names of superheroes, or anything besides what a civilian would not know from reading a newspaper. No need for trivia, just basic outlines.

[Fenris]

The basic idea is that people could point out that they are a government plot. However, while that would be a point for my side, no one here could really use that argument, since while they are known to exist, no one can tie them to the government.
Based on the comics, you're wrong and I'll happily provide cites from comics in another thread if you're inclined to start one in CS.

[Scott Plaid]

You are free to start one if you want, since this is now a full fledges hijack. While there following is a statement, it is needed to close the hijack. Ok, harborwolf, lets stick to the movies, and a very broad defintion of the comic books, with facts modified to reflect reality. Whether I am right or not, on no one knowing about the sentinel/government connection, I agree that it is a good thing to dispose of them from this discussion.

[Bricker]

If we're using the Harborwolf rule, could someone please give me a broad sketch of the "Marvel universe" and how it differs from ours? Superheros / supervillans etc?

Truthfully, I may have to bow out even from that discussion because I simply don't know enough to meaningfully contribute. Fenris asks a good question: why should mutants be singled out when there are other people with superpowers? I didn't know there WERE other people with superpowers. How many? Who are they? What is the general record with respect to law-abiding or non-law-abiding? Can any conclusions be drawn? Are there any laws extant about the use of such abilities?

See what I mean? If we stick to the movies, period, I feel I have a sense of that -- it's THIS world, with a few mods. Anything beyond that, and I'm not an informed citizen, so I can hardly offer an informed opinion.

[Harborwolf]

A good example of the other heroes from movies would be the hulk, spider man, or the fantastic four. All are powered though none are mutants. Would they also have to register?

And we still need to establish that mutants as a whole pose more of a danger than regular humans before I'm sold on this whole registration bit.

P.S.: No bailing out on this one bricker. You're the only one keeping this from becoming a total nerdfest. :)

[Fenris]

I agree, Bricker--no bowing out! I rejoined specifically to join you and LHoD and several others in this discussion! If you're more comfortable limiting it to the movies and the movies only, I'm fine with that. Some of the underlying questions (right to privacy, government's right to know, 'gun' control) can still be addressed within that framework.

[Jayrot]

Hello, I've been enjoying this discussion and would like to jump in and move things along. (Full disclosure: I know nothing about the comic book world mutants, though I have seen the two movies. Perhaps we could proceed in this way?)

Bricker, please answer:

What, specifically, would be the use to society of a mandatory testing, voluntary disclosure system?

Could this not be compared to a system of gun registration where everyone who bought a gun legally were required to register that he/she owns one, but not required to give the details of said gun (make, model, serial number, etc)? Seems that puts the law enforcement angle right out.

[Mtgman]

I'm not sure the thread can succeed without some of the non-movie info. Part of the test for determining level of appropriate scrutiny is discrimination against the class. Without showing the anti-mutant aspect of the issue, which is a major theme all through the comics but a very minor one in the movies, I'm not sure the legal framework would apply the correct level of scrutiny. I'd say the laws would have to pass intermediate scrutiny at least(because being a mutant is an immutable characteristic) but the difference between intermediate and strict scrutiny is mainly how the group is treated by the rest of society. If the rest of society discriminates or badly treats the individuals of a class in everyday life then laws which disproportionately affect the class are subject to strict scrutiny. The rationale here is that a class of people who are routinely discriminated against are less likely to be able to wield their political power effectively to stand up for themselves.

So, as I argued back on page 3, I think mutants would quickly be recognized as a suspect class and therefore any laws disproportionately affecting them should be tailored to withstand strict scrutiny.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Fenris]

Could this not be compared to a system of gun registration where everyone who bought a gun legally were required to register that he/she owns one, but not required to give the details of said gun (make, model, serial number, etc)? Seems that puts the law enforcement angle right out.

Or a similar, but more invasive (and I'm an NRA member! ;) comparison: AIDS. Surely, given that AIDS is contagious, a justification could be cobbled together* that it would be easier to track new cases if we just had the list of everyone who suffered from it on file. Therefore, should every citizen be manditorily required to give blood and be tested for the disease?

*not one I think I'd support, mind you

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Let me see if I can sum up my stance effectively:

PROBLEM: There's a new set of abilities that people have. While not all members of this ability-set are dangerous, and while not all members of this ability-set are useful, some are dangerous, useful, or both.
PROBLEM: Due to humanity's innate fear of the unknown, and due to a number of tragic events, many people have become afraid of those people with abilities from this set. As a result, many people with these abilities are afraid to reveal them; this, in turn, can lead to trouble learning to control them.
OPPORTUNITY: Many of these abilities could, if the owners learn to control them, serve to improve humanity's lot. If these abilities become demystified and everyday, if they become mainstream, the fear and revulsion toward those folks with the abilities could diminish.

SOLUTION: Encourage everyone to be tested for this ability--for the X-factor. Don't strictly require it, but encourage it using means similar to those means used to encourage vaccinations. If you want to use various government services (e.g., public schools), you must both be vaccinated and be tested for the X-factor.

Someone who tests positive is eligible for government-supported training in the use and control of their ability, just like someone who tests positive for autism or for high math aptitude is eligible for government-supported training in the control of their disease or the use of their aptitude. This has four salubrious effects:
1) It improves the lot of the trained individual;
2) It improves the lot of society by minimizing the number of folks with dangerous uncontrolled abilities running around;
3) It improves the lot of society by encouraging folks to document their abilities, making detective work in the case of crimes easier; and
4) It demystifies and "mainstreams" mutants, making it clear that they're regular folk, not demons or angels.

POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS:
1) As written, a person gets on a list without their permission, a list which may later be used to round them up for nefarious purposes.

Since the only information which is recorded by default is whether a person got tested, almost everyone will be on the involuntary list (a few holdouts may choose not to get tested, just as today a few holdouts choose not to get vaccinated). This basic list will be useless in terms of rounding people up, since it doesn't record the results of the test.

The detailed list, with powers and everything, is completely voluntary: the only disadvantage to not appearing on that list is that choosing not to appear on it makes mutants ineligible for the government aid geared toward mutants. Since most folks aren't eligible for that aid anyway, the mutants who choose not to take advantage of it are hardly being oppressed.

2) Despite how it's written, it's possible that the gummint is secretly recording test results instead of recording just the fact of the test.

This can be worked around: for example, have a methodology similar to that for anonymous HIV testing. A person goes in for the test and gives their name and gets the card proving that they were tested. They then go to another waiting room where they're randomly assigned a number by a new staff person (the receptionist). Numbers are called over an intercom, and the person goes down a hallway to the lab, where they give the doctor their number and undergo the test. The test results are printed out and sealed by a machine and handed to the person with the number. Machines may be audited to make sure they're working as advertised.

3) Stupid liberals, always spendin my tax dollars on dang mutants!

Yeah, pretty much.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Or a similar, but more invasive (and I'm an NRA member! ;) comparison: AIDS. Surely, given that AIDS is contagious, a justification could be cobbled together* that it would be easier to track new cases if we just had the list of everyone who suffered from it on file. Therefore, should every citizen be manditorily required to give blood and be tested for the disease?
There are common-sense steps a person may take which drastically reduce the chances of contracting AIDS (especially in the United States and Europe; I'm aware that this is less true for many folks in Africa). As I understand it, there are not common-sense steps a person may take which drastically reduce the chances of being the victim of a mutant's uncontrolled (or maliciously controlled) power.

Therefore the public safety situation is more akin to a disease such as tuberculosis. If I recall correctly, there are rules limiting the behavior of tuberculosis victims, intended to protect other members of society from the perils of their disease. If tuberculosis ever experiences a serious outbreak again in our society, I would fully expect and support mandatory testing for the disease.

Daniel

[Bricker]

I endorse post #226 in its entirety, and a tip o' the chapeau to Daniel for neatly summarizing the results of our debate to date.

Dang, that boy's good.

[Jayrot]

RE: post #226

The solution set forth -- mandatory testing, voluntary disclosure (can we call this MT-VD?) -- does not appear to solve the problem set forth: "There's a new set of abilities that people have. While not all members of this ability-set are dangerous, and while not all members of this ability-set are useful, some are dangerous, useful, or both."

Based of problem #2, it seems fair to grant that there is or is likely to be (perceived?) public fear and/or a degree of descrimination with regard to mutants. Thus, it seems therefore likely that a majority of people would not volunteer any information whatsoever.

Please restate what is the social value (other than research) to simply counting mutants.

[Jayrot]

Seems to me that what we're debating now has drifted pretty far from the OP. Sounds like we're talking more about "Mutant Support Services" than what could be accurately called "Mutant Registration". No?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Based of problem #2, it seems fair to grant that there is or is likely to be (perceived?) public fear and/or a degree of descrimination with regard to mutants. Thus, it seems therefore likely that a majority of people would not volunteer any information whatsoever.

Except that if they don't volunteer information, they're not eligible for the aid which is specifically tailored toward their X-powers. This offer of aid serves both the straightforward purpose of helping the mutants control their powers, and of offering a carrot to mutants to get them to register their powers.

I suspect that, with the offer of that aid, a majority of mutants would register.

Please restate what is the social value (other than research) to simply counting mutants.

Again, two values:
1) First, it gets people in the door: people may be scared to find out whether they've got X-factor, but this makes it very difficult for an individual to remain ignorant about his/her status. (She may, of course, rip up her test results sight unseen, but reading test results will be a temptation that few folks will be able to resist). Once folks are in the door, they're much likelier to register for the aid package if they discover that they qualify.
2) The research value is not to be underestimated; certainly demographics about the spread of the X-factor will fascinate scientists and geneticists.

And thanks, Bricker--I appreciate the compliment!

Daniel

[Harborwolf]

This is an interesting idea. Seems nice and fuzzy like a hug from a sedated polar bear. Couple of problems though.

1)We still have not established that mutants are more dangerous than regular humans. Without that, there is no justification for any sort of registration program

2)Again, you can't test for the x-factor until it activates. This is usually during puberty, when a person is well entrenched in the public school system (and of course we wouldn't deny a public education to a person based on genetic reasons either).

3)Any future super villains are not likely to register if it's voluntary. They'll already have their powers by the time testing can detect anything. Of course, they wouldn't register if it was mandatory either. How many criminals register their handguns? A defanged registration act is of even less value than the mandatory version.

4)Genetic flukes are not equal to vaccinations. You would again be denying governmental programs to a person based on their birth/ their genetics. That's discrimination plain and simple.

That said, a governmental program to help train and promote positive mutant/human relations is just nifty. You would have a trained security force capable of handling any supervillains that pop up and you get a great pr force. It ain't a registration act though.

[Jayrot]

Indeed, what it seems we're talking about here are Social Services.
*If you want goverment aid for treating autism, generally you must show proof (through testing?) that you are autistic.
*If you want government help for poverty (welfare), you generally have to show proof/documentation of that status.
*If you want government support in dealing with your mutation, it seems quite reasonable assume that you'd need to prove you're a mutant.

Is this really what we're talking about?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

1)We still have not established that mutants are more dangerous than regular humans. Without that, there is no justification for any sort of registration program
I think we've established beyond doubt that some mutants are more dangerous than any non-mutant, especially if their power is uncontrolled. Absent a program that tests everyone around the age of activation (or, say, two standard deviations after the average activation age), there's going to be a fair number of folks with uncontrolled powers out there.

At any rate, all we need to establish is that mutants with uncontrolled powers are more dangerous than mutants with controlled powers in order for this to be a useful program. Do you dispute that?

2)Again, you can't test for the x-factor until it activates. This is usually during puberty, when a person is well entrenched in the public school system (and of course we wouldn't deny a public education to a person based on genetic reasons either).

The first part is a fair point. We could make undergoing the test be a prerequisite for obtaining a driver's license.

The second part is not valid, since this proposal would deny nothing to anyone based on genetics. Everyone, mutant and nonmutant, would have to undergo the test in order to receive their driver's license (or other privileges).

3)Any future super villains are not likely to register if it's voluntary. They'll already have their powers by the time testing can detect anything. Of course, they wouldn't register if it was mandatory either. How many criminals register their handguns? A defanged registration act is of even less value than the mandatory version.

How many supervillains both know at the age of fifteen that they're going to be supervillains, and have sufficient control of their parents at that age that they can defy their parents' wishes?

I suspect it's relatively few. Thus the advantage of testing early.

4)Genetic flukes are not equal to vaccinations. You would again be denying governmental programs to a person based on their birth/ their genetics. That's discrimination plain and simple.

Incorrect. Again, everyone would have to undergo testing, not just mutants; the sheer fact of undergoing the testing would be sufficient to gain the general rights (e.g., driver's license); and the additional programs granted to mutants would be granted based on a genetic difference, but there'd be a strong government interest in not allowing non-mutants to take advantage of these voluntary programs.

That said, a governmental program to help train and promote positive mutant/human relations is just nifty. You would have a trained security force capable of handling any supervillains that pop up and you get a great pr force. It ain't a registration act though.
It's an act that helps mutants and helps mutant/human relations; it's also got a registration act built into it, although admittedly a voluntary (and therefore weakened) registration act. The benefits of registering--additional training etc.--will hopefully be sufficient to persuade most mutants to register; but any mutant can choose not to register if they're willing to forego the training that goes along with registering.

Daniel

[Jayrot]

Absent a program that tests everyone around the age of activation (or, say, two standard deviations after the average activation age), there's going to be a fair number of folks with uncontrolled powers out there.

Again, it seems to me that all you're doing is counting mutants. Testing people does not equate to controlloing powers.

At any rate, all we need to establish is that mutants with uncontrolled powers are more dangerous than mutants with controlled powers in order for this to be a useful program. Do you dispute that?
Yes, I dispute that this is a useful program because I still fail to see the element of control.

YOU'RE GOING TO SAY: People will go in, get tested, find out they're positive, and then seek help in controlling their powers.
I'D SAY: This is indeed the crux of your argument and is based on a pretty big assumption. While you might say that people will take any and all help they can get, I'd say that people generally want to go it alone unless there is some life threatening reason. Even then...

(not exactly entirely relevant, but..) Only 56% of gun owners have received formal training (though I would discount nearly half of those since the training was military) * (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6339155)
I'd love to find a cite like that, except for something more relevant like a genetic disease.


How many supervillains both know at the age of fifteen that they're going to be supervillains, and have sufficient control of their parents at that age that they can defy their parents' wishes?

I suspect it's relatively few.
I agree with you on this. I think we're only talking about controlling uncontrolled powers here. Not dealing with criminals and sociopaths. Almost by very definition they fall through the cracks.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Again, it seems to me that all you're doing is counting mutants. Testing people does not equate to controlloing powers.
?? I think you may misunderstand what I'm saying. This proposal has two parts, and it's true that the first part (the mandatory testing) provides nothing more than an aggregate set of data about mutants. The second part--the training received in response to agreeing to register the power--is the part that helps control powers.

Yes, I dispute that this is a useful program because I still fail to see the element of control.

Let me rephrase my question: do you, or do you not, agree that a mutant with an uncontrolled power is on average more dangerous than a mutant with a controlled power?

If you agree with that, do you or do you not agree that a program that helps a mutant control her power leads to an overall reduction in danger?

If you agree with that, do you or do you not agree that leading to an overall reduction in danger is a legitimate government exercise?

YOU'RE GOING TO SAY: People will go in, get tested, find out they're positive, and then seek help in controlling their powers.
I'D SAY: This is indeed the crux of your argument and is based on a pretty big assumption. While you might say that people will take any and all help they can get, I'd say that people generally want to go it alone unless there is some life threatening reason. Even then...
You're right that it's the crux of my argument; you're wrong that it's a pretty big assumption. Keep in mind that at the age people are tested, it's their parents that will be making their decisions for them (for the most part). I believe that a significant majority of parents keep their kids up-to-date on vaccinations, encourage their kids to do well in school, and otherwise act in a way that ensures their safety and well-being.

Unless this program is horribly marketed or mismanaged, I believe a majority of parents of mutants will believe that undergoing the training will improve their kids' lives, and will register their kids in order to receive the training.

(not exactly entirely relevant, but..) Only 56% of gun owners have received formal training (though I would discount nearly half of those since the training was military) * (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6339155)
Sorry; I don't see it as remotely relevant. Folks who get guns do so for a variety of reasons, only 56% of which may be rational. However, they've all chosen to get guns; the choices they make from that point are based on the fact that they want to have a gun. Furthermore, most folks who buy guns know a gun's basic properties (put a bullet in it, point it at something, pull the trigger, blow away whatever you've pointed it at). Folks with mutations haven't chosen to do so; they know that they've got something that has the potential to be both immensely dangerous or immensely useful; and in many cases, they'll lack the most basic concept of how to control the power.

Even if we stipulate that only 56% of mutants will undergo the training, however, that's a great success in public safety.

I agree with you on this. I think we're only talking about controlling uncontrolled powers here. Not dealing with criminals and sociopaths. Almost by very definition they fall through the cracks.
Actually, you don't agree with me :). Again, most criminals develop their serious criminal careers post-adolescence, and not all psychopaths have such control over their parents during adolescence that they can persuade their parents not to register them.

Daniel

[Jayrot]

Let me rephrase my question: do you, or do you not, agree that a mutant with an uncontrolled power is on average more dangerous than a mutant with a controlled power?
Agree.

If you agree with that, do you or do you not agree that a program that helps a mutant control her power leads to an overall reduction in danger?
Agree.


If you agree with that, do you or do you not agree that leading to an overall reduction in danger is a legitimate government exercise?
Agree.

I conclude from your three points above that the best exercise for the government is to setup a program the "helps a mutant control her powers". Free classes. Free counseling. Free medication (if some exists). If you want to take advantage of these taxpayer-funded services, you must prove need/eligibility.

What I do not conclude is compulsory, invasion of my personal rights in form of drawing blood, visiting a doctor, whatever.

How about a TV campaign -- "You might be a mutant. Uncontrolled mutant powers can be dangerous. See your doctor today and find out! Help is available. /conforting voice"

This is how our society works at the moment.
*You don't need to get tested for AIDS to get a drivers licence.
*"Parents, talk to you children about drugs."
*"Teachers, do you know where little Jimmy got those bruises from? Get help with violence and domestic abuse".


LHOD, I wonder. Are we arguing for the same thing here? It's just so far from a Mutant Registration Act in the spirit of the movies that maybe I'm confused.

[Fenris]

First, good point about TB being a better example than AIDS.

Let me rephrase my question: do you, or do you not, agree that a mutant with an uncontrolled power is on average more dangerous than a mutant with a controlled power?
I'm not sure I do--a mutant with a telepathic power like Professor Xavier's or Jean Gray's might never know he or she even has a power--it's not like you can see it. By training them, you're suddenly making them dangerous. Imagine a normal human who's just naturally built and who has just the right potential skills to become the world's best martial artist--without training he or she is just a normal person with potential. WITH training, suddenly you have someone really deadly to deal with. Remember, "Being trained" =! "Being properly socialized".

You're right that it's the crux of my argument; you're wrong that it's a pretty big assumption. Keep in mind that at the age people are tested, it's their parents that will be making their decisions for them (for the most part). I believe that a significant majority of parents keep their kids up-to-date on vaccinations, encourage their kids to do well in school, and otherwise act in a way that ensures their safety and well-being.

But that decision will affect them for life, should parents have the right to out their kids? Once that kid goes to the training, all his teachers, all the administrators, all the classmates, and all the bureaucrats doing the administration will know that the kid is a mutant. There's no way to put the genie back into the bottle. And vaccinations are substantially different than mutations--for one, there's no social stigma to being vaccinated...quite the reverse, actually. There is a social stigma to being a mutant.

Per the movies, there's already a non-governmental solution, in place, effective and working, and better still costing the taxpayers nothing AND addressing privacy concerns: Professor Xavier's School For Gifted Youngsters. No governmental list, no invasion of privacy, no chance of someone being 'outed' or put in a databank somewhere for later round-up, etc. Professor X, using Cerebro is already able to find mutants world-wide, and if their power is such that it would benefit from training, he offers it to the parents and the kid in such a way as to allow them anonymity. Allowing Professor X to continue with his methods insures considerably more privacy for our minor (it's not perfect of course--but at least there won't be thousands of bureaucrats and administrators who know--and of the people who do know, all are mutants themselves) AND lets the minor make the choice of "outing" themselves when they turn 18 or remaining in hiding.

Professor X would, however, be more effective if the government would get out of his way! Give a quasi-governmental status to the X-Men allowing them to function like a hazmat team when dealing with a young mutant with out of control powers overriding local police.

Big-government liberals* have to realize that the government isn't the solution for every problem and that the private sector can, in some cases, accomplish a task better, more efficiently and cheaper than the government.

Down with the Mutant Registration Act, I say!

Fenris

*Said completely tongue-in-cheek! :)

[JThunder]

Look, wouldn't it be a lot simpler to design a bunch of mechanisms that would locate these mutants and round them up? No registration necessary, and so everyone's happy.

[Mtgman]

It should be noted that as soon as y'all come up with some sort of "mutant registration act" you can all agree on I stand ready to propose a constitutional challenge on equal protection grounds. Possibly on other grounds depending on the actual wording of the "act".

Sincerely,
Mtgman Esq.

Mutant Civil Liberties Association

[Fenris]

Ix-Nay on the Entinels-say!

:D

[Harborwolf]

Damn Fenris, it is really good to have you back. :D Took the words right off of my keyboard.

Of course, I'm referring to post #238.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

First off, Mtgman, please explain how a test which everyone must take to gain benefits would have any sort of equal protection violation going on. I simply don't see it.

I'm not sure I do--a mutant with a telepathic power like Professor Xavier's or Jean Gray's might never know he or she even has a power--it's not like you can see it. By training them, you're suddenly making them dangerous. Imagine a normal human who's just naturally built and who has just the right potential skills to become the world's best martial artist--without training he or she is just a normal person with potential. WITH training, suddenly you have someone really deadly to deal with. Remember, "Being trained" =! "Being properly socialized".
That's true, but I'd propose that part of the training would consist of monitoring, and that this monitoring could help catch the dangerous ones in advance. The supervillain types would get their own training anyhow--motivated evil mutants have, without access to the training, had no difficulty harnessing their powers for evil already. The unmotivated ones, sure, would learn to use their powers under this program; but the fact that they'd probably be obvious delinquents (IME, lots of folks are obvious delinquents, and I suspect mutants would be no exception) would make their regular contact with trained professionals fairly useful to law enforcement.

But that decision will affect them for life, should parents have the right to out their kids? Once that kid goes to the training, all his teachers, all the administrators, all the classmates, and all the bureaucrats doing the administration will know that the kid is a mutant. There's no way to put the genie back into the bottle. And vaccinations are substantially different than mutations--for one, there's no social stigma to being vaccinated...quite the reverse, actually. There is a social stigma to being a mutant.

THat's true, but that's also true for all sorts of stuff: kids with learning disabilities, kids with behavioral issues, kids with amputated legs, kids with perfect pitch (if they join orchestra), and the kid you mentioned above with the physique perfect for martial arts. There's nothing special about being a mutant in this regard. The only special aspect of being a mutant is that mutants are socially ostracized, and this proposal would help to diminish that effect.

At any rate, parents are responsible for their kids at that age, and that is (I think) the most dangerous age for a mutant with a strong power, inasmuch as it's the age at which the power is most likely to act uncontrolled and hurt the mutant or her family or neighbors. I see no special problem with giving the decisionmaking power to the child's guardian.

Per the movies, there's already a non-governmental solution, in place, effective and working, and better still costing the taxpayers nothing AND addressing privacy concerns: Professor Xavier's School For Gifted Youngsters.

This is actually a fairly strong argument, but I don't know the circumstances of the world well enough to judge it. Is Xavier's school sufficient for the US's needs for mutant kids? Does he reliably catch all kids who have mutations and ensure that their families know? Are his resources stretched?

If not, then I concede the point: this program has very little to offer to mutants, and you're probably right that few would take advantage of its benefits; given that, it would have few benefits above and beyond those offered by the private sector.

But I suspect that, as the number of mutants grows, they'll outstrip the resources that Xavier offers. And his model isn't exactly one that's easy to replicate, inasmuch as it depends on his very specific talent (the ability to identify all mutants). Unless we're set for the foreseeable future, I say we ought to start planning ahead.

To sum up:
1) No equal protection violation, since everyone needs to take the test, and there's a legitimate government interest in having everyone take the test.
2) The perils of training the next generation of villains is minimized, since the supervillains will probably acquire their own private training anyway, and the mookish villains will probably be more easily identified if they undergo a monitored, government-sponsored program.
3) The only aspect of mutancy that separates it from other disabilities or abilities is the social disdain toward it, and this program helps to eliminate that. As such, a parent's decision to obtain training for a mutant kid is comparable to a parent's decision to obtain orchestra lessons for a musically-brilliant kid.
4) If Professor X can truly handle all mutant training for the foreseeable future, this proposal is probably impractical. If not, though, we need to have some sort of plan to offer to those kids he can't help.
Professor X would, however, be more effec

Daniel

[Fenris]

That's true, but I'd propose that part of the training would consist of monitoring, and that this monitoring could help catch the dangerous ones in advance. The supervillain types would get their own training anyhow--motivated evil mutants have, without access to the training, had no difficulty harnessing their powers for evil already.
But you're proposing training everyone. Right now, only a small percentage of mutant kids are found by evil mutants, usually accidentally. Your proposal would be like laying out a buffet for evil mutants AND you're upping the number of trained mutants for them to choose from. And given that at least one known evil mutant is a shape shifter, 5 gets you 10 that your super-secret list of mutants is compromised 24 hours after going active.

And there's also the problem of what happens when you actually DO train that many mutants. Say you have someone who has very, very, VERY low level telekenisis--they can, with LOTS of effort, affect a dice roll. Untrained, they might not ever learn that they have this power. Trained, they can use it to be a near perfect assassin: pinch someone's coronary artery shut for 3 minutes and POOF. Instant heart-attack. You've used the 'gifted pianist" analogy elsewhere, but the worst case scenario with training a gifted piano player is that it increases the odds that we'll get another Liberace. Worst case with training (say) 10,000 mutants is that we'll have a greater number of trained assassins running around loose than we would otherwise.

The unmotivated ones, sure, would learn to use their powers under this program; but the fact that they'd probably be obvious delinquents (IME, lots of folks are obvious delinquents, and I suspect mutants would be no exception) would make their regular contact with trained professionals fairly useful to law enforcement.
It's not that they're unmotivated, it's that they're evil (to use the comic/movie term). And you're proposing teaching them how to be more effective and increasing the pool of people trained in these talents. To use an analogy, let's pretend that 10,000 kids (I just guessed at the number: I don't know how many mutants there are in that universe) across the country have guns hidden (unbeknownst to the kids) sewn into the lining of their backpacks. The guns are loaded, and the safeties in this magical model of gun are on, but on rare occasion it will break and allow the gun to go off accidentally.

Right now, a significant portion of kids don't discover that they have guns at all. They go through life and while the occasional weird thing happens (the metal detector at the school goes off when they're around or they notice their backpack is heavier) they simply don't realize that they've got a loaded gun hidden on them and live a normal, happy life.

Of the kids who discover their guns, a huge percent do so by accident but without incident. They bend over, and the gun falls out, or they bump into someone else who's found their gun and passes on the information by word of mouth, or they're idly tugging on a loose thread on their backpack and they discover the gun.

And there's the remaining few, a very small number, for whom the gun goes off accidentally (remember Rogue at the beginning of movie 1) causing property damage or worse, shooting someone.

Once they've discovered their guns, one group finds their guns are either water pistols or very, very small calibre BB guns--they're too wimpy to be used for defense, but they'll get the kid in a world of trouble if they're discovered with them. And there's an evil organizatin (led by Magneto) looking to exploit them (even 'useless' mutants can be used as living shields or cannon fodder).

Another group realizes that they have the gun, and just tuck it back into the backpack and ignore it, hoping no-one will notice.

And a very, very few actually take out their guns and use them either to police their schools OR to attack their schools.

Under your proposal, every single one of those kids would become a trained marksman. The ones with water-pistols would learn to use that water pistol as effectively as possible (fill it with pepper-spray or ink or acid, for example). The ones with better guns would learn to use those to their fullest capacity as well.

In addition, they'd all be known to the general public as someone who's packing a loaded gun. Goodbye to any chance to socialize normally. Would you want a kid who's carrying a pistol to go to on a date with your daughter? Especially if you didn't know if it's a water pistol or an Uzi? Remember your list only says "Joe Smith: Mutant". It doesn't say "Joe Smith-Mutant who can make his toenails grow 10% faster than normal". The "Put 'em on a list and isolate them" method just turned every single one of these kids into a outcast teenager with a loaded gun and training on how to use it.

THat's true, but that's also true for all sorts of stuff: kids with learning disabilities, kids with behavioral issues, kids with amputated legs, kids with perfect pitch (if they join orchestra), and the kid you mentioned above with the physique perfect for martial arts. There's nothing special about being a mutant in this regard. The only special aspect of being a mutant is that mutants are socially ostracized, and this proposal would help to diminish that effect.
I disagree: we know from the Jean Grey's testimony before congress (in the first movie) that humans resent mutants: your proposal would increase that resentment. In addition, I can hear the cries from the Heritage Foundation now: "You're taking OUR tax-dollars and using it for midnight basketball games for mutants?!" I can also hear the howls of outrage from the Teacher's Unions: since the only people qualified to teach mutants are other mutants: who but a teleporter can explain what mental muscle to flex to teleport.

At any rate, parents are responsible for their kids at that age, and that is (I think) the most dangerous age for a mutant with a strong power, inasmuch as it's the age at which the power is most likely to act uncontrolled and hurt the mutant or her family or neighbors. I see no special problem with giving the decisionmaking power to the child's guardian.
I do, when the choice will affect the rest of the child's life, irrevocably. We don't permit parents to give their kid an obscene word for a name. We also shouldn't allow a parent to put a child on a list that will stigmatize them for life.

This is actually a fairly strong argument, but I don't know the circumstances of the world well enough to judge it. Is Xavier's school sufficient for the US's needs for mutant kids? Does he reliably catch all kids who have mutations and ensure that their families know? Are his resources stretched?
I don't know the circumstances for the movie world either. Things are different in the comcs, but they're also self contradictory in many cases. Sticking with the movie as best I can though.

1) "Sufficient for mutant kids"? I dunno. We don't have enough data on it. It's certainly big enough to handle a couple of hundred kids without too much strain. And since many mutants seem to have 'useless' powers, that should be enough for the moment. Not every mutant needs training, only those who's powers are a potential danger to themselves or others.

2) "reliably catch all kids"? The movie cerebro seems extremely potent. I'd say yes, with the caveat that he doesn't bother with kids who are below a certain power level. Our hypothetical toe-nail growing mutant from above, for example.

3) "do their families know"? If we allow ourselves to be informed by the comic (and Professor X is very similar in both versions), then the answer is "sometimes." He's been know to intervene if the parents pose a serious risk to the child (including tampering with the parent's mind) to protect the child--in the comics, some parents have actually tried to kill their mutant children for the 'sin' of being born a mutant. Giving him a quasi-governmental status would remove that need. Usually though, yes the parents know.

4) "Resources stretched?" They never actually seem to be, but realistically and in the movies, probably. Perhaps we could funnel some black-budget dollars to him. A few hundred million off the books tax dollars (along with some surplus air-force equiptment) would certainly be sufficient and it would never be noticed..

And his model isn't exactly one that's easy to replicate, inasmuch as it depends on his very specific talent (the ability to identify all mutants). Unless we're set for the foreseeable future, I say we ought to start planning ahead.

But as we saw in movie 2 (I think), anyY telepathic mutant with sufficient training (there's the key though--only Jean Gray is anywhere close to that level of training and she's not there yet) has the potential to use Cerebro.

To sum up:
1) No equal protection violation, since everyone needs to take the test, and there's a legitimate government interest in having everyone take the test.
Everyone takes the test but only mutants are put on the list...and they're on it for something they are, not something they did? Imagine a test that everyone took that identified people with sickle cell anemia somehow. And all it did was put them on a list. Still think it there's not "equal protection" issues? How 'bout a test that could somehow relibly check to see if someone's gay...especially since anti-gay prejudice is very, VERY analogous to anti-mutant prejudice in the movie and comics..

2) The perils of training the next generation of villains is minimized, since the supervillains will probably acquire their own private training anyway, and the mookish villains will probably be more easily identified if they undergo a monitored, government-sponsored program.
Addressed above. You're increasing the population of trained mutants, thus you're increasing the number of potential mutant terrorists, plus you're creating a whole group of kids who will never be able to join society or socialize normally during the critical teen years. A group of trained super-powered disturbed loners isn't a happy recipe for human-mutant relations.

3) The only aspect of mutancy that separates it from other disabilities or abilities is the social disdain toward it, and this program helps to eliminate that. As such, a parent's decision to obtain training for a mutant kid is comparable to a parent's decision to obtain orchestra lessons for a musically-brilliant kid.
This is liberal social-engineering at it's worst. We're willing to sacrifice the kid's privacy for the rest of his life by bribing his parents with a free eduacation for the kid--and if the kid doesn't like it, tough--it's for 'tolerance' after all. And there's not a wide-spread social phenomena of kids getting bashed for using leg-braces. They do get attacked just for being mutants.*

4) If Professor X can truly handle all mutant training for the foreseeable future, this proposal is probably impractical. If not, though, we need to have some sort of plan to offer to those kids he can't help.
Given that we haven't even established that there is a problem yet, this sounds like a "We've got to do SOMETHING! ANYTHING!" statement. Look, in the course of two movies, we've seen 1 (one) kid who's power manifested accidentally and harmed another person (Rogue). I don't think this one incident justifies big government solutions and midnight basketball programs for disadvantaged mutants. I submit you've bought into Senator Kelly's scare-tactics. *

Fenris, Mutant Privacy Rights Advocate

*Tongue totally in cheek again. I'm really, really having fun with this discussion! :)

[Mtgman]

First off, Mtgman, please explain how a test which everyone must take to gain benefits would have any sort of equal protection violation going on. I simply don't see it.Can't get too specific because I don't have a real wording of the statute yet, but here's a first stab.

Equal protection: Because what you do with the results affects only one class of people. Their names go on the registry and everyone else's go in the trash. The only people kept on the list are the mutants. They are subject to being singled out as a class based on immutable characteristics they have no control over. The application of the test may be fair, but the use of the results is not. According to the US Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans (http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/Romer_Evans.htm) "the Constitution 'neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.' "

Plus if you're making it a requisite for public education, which is a right in the US, then you open yourself up to those who refuse to take the medical test on privacy grounds. The state can order you to vaccinate because of the overwhelmingly positive nature of vaccination on society. Still, even vaccination has limits. Religious objections and in some states even concientious objectors can recieve exemptions from vaccination requirements and still attend public school. If the state is going to deny access to public education(every citizens right) on basis of refusal to undergo a medical procedure(given that medical decisions are the inherant right of individuals, especially refusing treatment they don't want) then the state has to show a damn good reason for mandating this procedure. Even vaccination is subject to a slew of exceptions ranging from religious(in 48 states) to "moral or other objections"(18 states IIRC).

Enjoy,
Steven

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Equal protection: Because what you do with the results affects only one class of people. Their names go on the registry and everyone else's go in the trash.
No, no, no! The sequence is this:

1) Everyone who wants government benefits must take the test. Once you've taken the test, your name goes on the list of those who have taken the test. Results of the test are not recorded.
2) When you take the test, you're given sealed results. The machines that do the testing record the result unattached to your name (and independent programmers audit the machines to verify that there's no hanky-panky going on in them), but merely in your region--statewide, perhaps, the machine will add another tally to the list of mutants, without any indication of when that talley was made or more specifically where.
3) WHen you get results, IF the results are positive, then you have the option of revealing them to the government. IF you choose to reveal your positive result to the government, THEN:
3a) Your name is recorded, alongside whatever powers you eventually learn that you have; and
3b) You become eligible for government assistance in training and controlling this power.

At no point is anyone coerced into getting their name on a Mutant list.

Fenris, that's an excellent post; I don't have time to respond to it now, but I'll try to respond later today.

Daniel

[Mtgman]

1) Everyone who wants government benefits must take the test. Once you've taken the test, your name goes on the list of those who have taken the test. Results of the test are not recorded.
2) When you take the test, you're given sealed results. The machines that do the testing record the result unattached to your name (and independent programmers audit the machines to verify that there's no hanky-panky going on in them), but merely in your region--statewide, perhaps, the machine will add another tally to the list of mutants, without any indication of when that talley was made or more specifically where.
3) WHen you get results, IF the results are positive, then you have the option of revealing them to the government. IF you choose to reveal your positive result to the government, THEN:
3a) Your name is recorded, alongside whatever powers you eventually learn that you have; and
3b) You become eligible for government assistance in training and controlling this power.I refuse to take the test on grounds of personal autonomy and control over which medical procedures I have done to my person. Now you say I can't get access to the public education which is my due as a citizen. I file a suit based on having this right denied. Show that merely taking the test, with no results being accessible to the state at this point, is a substantial enough boon to the government to require a medical procedure before being able to recieve the rights of a citizen. This would actually be a due process challenge in this stage of the process.

I challenge the revocation of access to entitlements on basis of refusing a medical procedure. This challenge has been routinely defeated by vaccination statutes, but your list(with no guaranteed information on positive/negative results) is much less valuable than an immunized population.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Bricker]

I refuse to take the test on grounds of personal autonomy and control over which medical procedures I have done to my person. Now you say I can't get access to the public education which is my due as a citizen. I file a suit based on having this right denied. Show that merely taking the test, with no results being accessible to the state at this point, is a substantial enough boon to the government to require a medical procedure before being able to recieve the rights of a citizen. This would actually be a due process challenge in this stage of the process.


Vaccinations - required before a child can enter school. (As you acknowledge below). These is an excellent analogy. Now, you say that the benefit to the government is not great -- but the legislature says it is. The legislature advances rational arguments in support of its view. If you're advancing a procedural due process claim, the state has to show that it has provided a particular process, and said process is sufficient to meet the needs of the state, balanced against the rights of the individual, with sufficient deference given to the legislature's weighting of the priorities.

If you're arguing a substantive due process claim, you're breaking new ground. (No great shock there). Upon what authority do you rely for the proposition that refusing a miniammly-invasive medical procedure is sufficient to trigger your substantive due process rights?

I challenge the revocation of access to entitlements on basis of refusing a medical procedure. This challenge has been routinely defeated by vaccination statutes, but your list(with no guaranteed information on positive/negative results) is much less valuable than an immunized population.

Enjoy,
Steven[/QUOTE]

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Okay, Fenris. Some of your post is very persuasive after I've thought about it for awhile, and other parts make me say, "Hey......WAITaminute!" I'll deal with the latter parts first :).

First. I note that, in showing how deadly it could be to train mutants, you compare it to the worst-case scenario with training musical prodigies. Hmmm....I offered several different analogies, and I think you chose yours very carefully. How about comparing it to the worst-case scenario with training mathematical prodigies? Or science prodigies, or legal prodigies? Worst-case scenario here, we end up with a team of people who invent deadly weaponry and use lawyers to take over the country and start horrific wars--and that's worse than your worst-case scenario with the mutant-training. Yet we continue to train math whizzes, science nerds, and little lawyers.

Why? For several reasons:
1) As a society, we've decided it's good for our individual members to have the opportunity to explore their potential to the fullest, and we want to help them do that. The analogy with mutants holds.
2) As a society, we've decided that it's good for the rest of us for individuals to be performing at their highest level: more scientists (we've decided) create useful products than create deadly wars, and so on balance we all benefit from their trianing. The analogy with mutants probably holds, inasmuch as for most powers I know of mutants having, there's a socially beneficial use of that power.
3) As a society, we've decided that in public education we can include values lessons, as a way of inculcating the powerful with a sense of social obligation. (How successful we are at that is, of course, debatable; but as a society, we've decided that it's worth trying). The analogy with mutants holds.

And given that at least one known evil mutant is a shape shifter, 5 gets you 10 that your super-secret list of mutants is compromised 24 hours after going active.
So let's guard it. Has Magneto ever obtained the list of students for Professor X's school? If not, see below.


I disagree: we know from the Jean Grey's testimony before congress (in the first movie) that humans resent mutants: your proposal would increase that resentment. In addition, I can hear the cries from the Heritage Foundation now: "You're taking OUR tax-dollars and using it for midnight basketball games for mutants?!" I can also hear the howls of outrage from the Teacher's Unions: since the only people qualified to teach mutants are other mutants: who but a teleporter can explain what mental muscle to flex to teleport.

I am certain the Heritage Foundation will howl. I have a longstanding tradition of not giving a shit. I am not so certain the Teacher's Unions will howl: I've never heard them complaining that English majors aren't allowed to teach Calculus, for example, and this would be a similar situation.

I do, when the choice will affect the rest of the child's life, irrevocably. We don't permit parents to give their kid an obscene word for a name. We also shouldn't allow a parent to put a child on a list that will stigmatize them for life.

I think that's assuming the question.

One more "Hey, waitaminute!": if I understand your position, it's this:
1) Requiring every kid to take a simple scan test, whose results are unknown to anyone except the kid and his parents, is an unseemly violation of the kid's right to privacy. Bad!
2) Besides which, there's this telepath with a giant mindreading device that can look inside everyone's heads without their permission. He uses the device already to scan every child without their permission or even knowledge so he can know exactly who is and who isn't a mutant. When he finds mutants, he tries to spirit them away; and if their parents aren't raising them right in his opinion, he'll kidnap the children and alter the parents' memory (what does he do, trick them into thinking their child died? Destroy all their memories of the child?) and hides them out in his compound where he trains them in his theory. He defends this operation with superscience weaponry and a crack team of soldiers who are fanatically loyal to him. He's completely unanswerable to any democratic means. Good!

Way I see it, if you're going to oppose the test on privacy grounds, you REALLY need to oppose Professor X on similar grounds.

Sure, you might say, "Yeah, but Professor X is a good guy!" Unfortunately, that's not how democracy works: that's called a benevolent dictatorship. For all we know, Professor X is fantastically evil, and is just altering our memories to make us think he's a good guy. I say we open the process up, subject it to democratic processes. If he's the public face of the *good* mutants, it's no wonder that so many people fear and mistrust mutants!

And that brings us to the part of your post that is convincing. Despite the last three paragraphs, I *do* think Professor X is doing good work, and the last thing I want is to put an end to the single most positive organization helping out mutants.

So I wholeheartedly endorse your idea of funneling money to his school in order to increase its capacity, with a few modifications:
1) No Black Ops Cash. Make this an open, transparent process: let everyone know that he's a model of mutant training and should be supported as such.
2) No More Kidnappings or Other Vigilante Work. If he finds out that a kid's life or welfare is in danger, he needs to give his information to the police. At the very least, if he must act immediately to save the child's life, he needs to tell law enforcement what he's done. Nobody in a democracy may be above the law.
3) His scan may replace the required test. Since he's already doing it, it'd save a lot of money if he'd agree to make his aggregate data available to researchers.
4) He should cooperate fully with law-enforcement when a crime has been committed. If there's evidence that a mutant may be involved, his school records for that case need to be subject to subpoena, just like any other school's records. (I anticipate that the school will employ a team of crack lawyers to prevent abuse of this authority).

My modified proposal looks like this:
1) Professor X and the X-men go mainstream. From now on, they comply with, and are subject to, all the laws of their nation.
2) A new department (Department of Mutant Affairs, maybe?) is founded, with Professor X as its head (unless he doesn't want the job, in which case another qualified candidate is chosen).
3) Professor X continues scanning everyone for the mutant gene, and contacts those who have it with the government's offer of training. If they refuse, he leaves them be and destroys records of their possession of the gene. If he suspects current or potential child abuse, he notifies the authorities, including authorities trained in handling this specific type of situation.
4) Those who accept his author are welcomed into one of the academies he founds throughout the country, founded on the principles of his current school.
5) Records from these academies will not be public, but will be available to law enforcement when the law requires.

What do folks think?

Daniel

[Mtgman]

Vaccinations - required before a child can enter school. (As you acknowledge below). These is an excellent analogy. Now, you say that the benefit to the government is not great -- but the legislature says it is. The legislature advances rational arguments in support of its view. If you're advancing a procedural due process claim, the state has to show that it has provided a particular process, and said process is sufficient to meet the needs of the state, balanced against the rights of the individual, with sufficient deference given to the legislature's weighting of the priorities.I challenge the weighting of the priorities. The process, at the stage it is being challenged at, does not record test results. Thus the list of who has taken the test is indistinguishable from school enrollment records. There is already a process in place to gather this information. The state gains no benefit from the proposed process over and above what it already has access to but imposes a burden of submitting to a medical procedure on citizens attempting to access the educational entitlements they are due. I don't care how much deference is given to the legislature's weighting of the issues. The added benefit of this list is ZERO because it already exists in the form of enrollment records. No matter how lightly they weigh the citizens right of personal autonomy in medical decisions, it HAS to outweigh the big fat goose egg in the other column.

If "sufficient" deference is given to the legislature to set the priorities of a citizens liberty against the legislature's view of the needs of the state the entirely predictable result is onerous processes with virtually no tangible benefits. This certainly satisifes the "process" part of "due process" but the "due" part is sorely lacking. The creation of a list which is indistinguishable from the enrollment lists of public schools is insufficient basis for requiring citizens to choose between personal autonomy over medical decisions and their educational entitlements.

Enjoy,
Steven