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.
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.
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.
Even if you weren’t any good at it?
You guys took what I posted, and you really ran with it. It makes me feel good. However, I see an irritating pattern.
[ol]
[li]Someone posts why this registration would be a bad thing[/li][li]Rick posts why it would be justified.[/li][li]Someone posts why it would not in fact be justified.[/li][li]Rick comes up with a new reason why he can justify it to himself, and possibly hand-waves away a very real danger.[/li][li]Rinse brain, and repeat.[/li][/ol] 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?
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).
The conclusion I draw is that you are unaware of the logical fallacy 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.”
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
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.)
Not unless you’re Green Lantern.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.