There is no such act. There are no real mutants with superpowers. That thread belongs either in Cafe Soceity or IMHO.
“But they are having fun!”- Sure, and they can have fun in those forums too.
“But they are taking it seriously!”- Sure, mostly- but serious matters are discussed in those forums also. It’s “less than cosmic” (it’s comic, not cosmic ) and thus it’s more of a IMHO.
“But it’s a “what if”!” Yes, but it’s a fantasy “what-if” and one from a comic book.
Here’s another reason why it doesn’t belong in GD- no cites. Cites are impoassible, so anyone can make up any source they want to. I asked for “Cite?” around page 3, and was more or less ignore- not suprising. But that’s the point- in such a thread, you have to ignore anyone who asks for a cite- but we really are supposed to give cites in GD.
Why did the infamous scalar weapons thread go on for so long in GQ? Fake cites and all?
IANAM, but I think that every once in a while it’s kind of fun to “break” the rules for a forum in a way that appears to be very much in the spirit of the forum.
I am not sure, but I think I recall agree with you on some past posts, (Or was that someone else?) So, out of assuming you actual deserve an answer, then here. You asked:
Cite?
Cite?
3 Cite?
Can Batman beat Superman? I will assume that went to the following:
The filmed documentary.
This is what can be expected to be said on the issue. If a reasonable person would say it, they will.
No cite needed for plausible scenarios.
Can Batman beat Superman? No, but Captain Marvel can beat Superman.
Also, others have already pointed out why it is ok to be in GD.
:rolleyes: You are welcome. And yes, it is possible that a girl, under emotional stress, might manifest her mutant powers against her will, in public, causing harm to other.
Now, I know what you mean, that the idea of mutants is not plausible, but if you think that scenarios have no place in GD, then I feel… Well, fill in the blank what name I should call you.
You took it seriously, realized you made an ass of yourself in doing so, and out of spite started a petulant rant hoping to get the thread closed down. Hah!
Of course, in and of itself, it isn’t a real issue- but there are enough plenty of parallels with real issues (that I’m sure the writers/artists were thinking of when they first came up with the MRA). Discussions about personal privacy, allowable and desirable levels of state intrusion onto a person, acceptable government data collections, definitions of protected class, discrimination against non-protected, but stigmatized classes, crime-prevention, and public health policies all belong in GD.
Being a non realistic scenario that parallels realistic scenarios, it is possible to explore the issues of privacy vs’ public safety without risking the backlash or moral questions that would be associated with a more realistic OP.
What is it with people who make a dick of themselves in a thread, and then start a pit thread to point out the fact to anyone who might have missed it?
Snarky answer: God doesn’t exsist, either, but he gets debated plenty in GD.
Serious answer: It’s a hypothetical situation that uses a comic book setup to discuss pertinent moral and legal issues as regards how our society balances the rights of the individual versus the safety of the public. The scenario is Cafe Society, but the discussion itself is pure GD.
I just thought I’d point out that I opened that thread on day one and went “meh - not interested” before immediately closing it. But now I’m going to read the whole thing to find out how many people were taken in by it.
(Well, I don’t know how much use I’d be to you. I’m halfway through, and at every **Bricker **post I’m nodding and at every **andros *post, I’m nodding more. Damn, ambivalence sucks.)
*In the literal, strong-feelings-on-both-sides sense, not the apathetic sense, of course.
Personally, I think it’s a very, very interesting way to debate legal and social philosophies, from a macro point of view, without getting sidetracked into the irritating minutiae that always accompany similar debates on actual real-world issues (e.g. yes, but did Newt Gingrich actually present his divorce decree to his wife in the hospital? ad nauseum). In a weird sort of way, stepping to the side and looking at ourselves through an oblique metaphor is even more clarifying than trying to do so directly. I for one am glad the mods have elected to leave the thread right where it is. It’s silly, but at the same time it’s deadly serious.
) and thus it’s more of a IMHO.