What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Is it ever justified to act against people because of what they might do, rather than what they did do? If so, when, and when not?

In a superpowers universe such as the universe of X-Men, do you want all mutants collared, if collars exist that prevent them from using their powers? Why or why not? If, yes (in any circumstance) is this a concession of morality or is it still moral?

Would you wear a collar if you were a mutant yourself? In what situations would and wouldn't you?

Yes, this is an analogy for gun control, with the important distinction that peoples' mutant powers are part of them, so the act of restraint must be continuous. No mutant "cure" - just collars in this scenario, for that specific reason, though we will assume they work and it's not easy to get them off. We can't just do something (like grabbing the guns or injecting people with the cure against their will) and then pretend we didn't do it.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #21

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:22 amThere are lots of people who have been taught how to efficiently kill other people by a variety of means. They are the equivalent of that mutant. Other than the mythical "register your hands as lethal weapons", what do we do about them? Nothing, far as I can see. How would we?
Well that's kind of my point in talking about if you could. I think if there were enough rampaging tae bo practitioners, there might be serious talk about deliberately crippling people who had ever earned a black belt. Ironically what might stop this kind of talk is the existence of guns, which is why I want to up the ante to mutants. Take as many martial arts as you like, you're just not going to get that kind of firepower and any idiot with a gun can just blow you away. There's already very common firepower well above what anyone gets from martial arts. And even so if people were worried about it, they'd just ban teaching it and there wouldn't be any human-rights-violating cripplings of innocents.

If people are just born with it and they're on the top level of firepower or close to it, I think the talk of crippling people so they no longer had that firepower would be a lot more serious and it might go somewhere.

It also might result in a really fair and enlightened society where nobody throws the first punch because nobody wants a scrum that involves half a dozen high-level mutants, and even if you are the mutant, and you're punching on some normie, you risk somebody who can stepping in to defend him. The everyone-has-a-nuke-so-nobody-uses-them peace, right at the bottom level. To be completely honest I don't see that happening with the population we have, though. That's more of a fantasy than the superpowers.
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:22 amWe've already decided not to restrict people who are potentially lethal, unless they act on it.
We are also very lucky to live in a world where people going and doing that with a truck and some fertiliser is extremely rare. This is what I say to Nobspeople as well, I don't think Ben Franklin's choosing freedom over safety is correct. I think that the ability to have freedom, and the ability to fully respect the rights of people who have done nothing wrong, even if he could blow up two city blocks with a thought, is a luxury we can have only in a peaceful world.

Is there any world where you'd wear the collar? Or is the world not part of your consideration that it would be wrong to act against people who haven't done anything?
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:22 amAnyone who professes to be concerned about violent crime is not aware of the actual level of danger.
Well, unless you live in a really bad neighbourhood. This is sort of where I'm going with this. I was born in a very bad one, which may be why I'd wear the collar in the right situation even if it means bye-bye superintelligence. Or accept cameras in my house. Again, only in the right situation. Only if it helps. A lot of people have given me huge pushback for it, called me a coward, or accused me of not understanding rights. Rights are absolute, they say. You need respect of rights more in a violent world, not less, they say. Meanwhile I sort of internally roll my eyes, thinking it smacks of some sort of defence mechanism for something people don't want to think about. I'm the coward, for putting on the collar in that situation, when it's a huge personal sacrifice, because I'm submitting to tyranny? I don't think that quite adds up.

It wonder if a lot of the contention on the freedom versus safety issue is just people differing on how safe they think the world is because those that lived in areas that turned lawless, I have seen change their minds. And I rarely see anyone change their minds about anything.
nobspeople wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:04 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]
I agree with you that nobody needs a gun.
I never said nobody needs a gun. I said no one needs assault rifles, which is a type of 'gun'. I said I don't understand the fascination of guns of any type. I also said there are some people that should be prevented from doing certain things.
Well nobody needs a gun any more than they need an assault rifle. You will get people who will tell you that owning a gun is actually a right. Not just, our legal system treats it like one (and there may or may not be benefits to doing that) but it is actually a human right. I find that preposterous.

But the issue is firepower, and what people will do with it. The issue is not rights at all. That's why I want to talk about mutants, and what you'd have to do to them to get the firepower reduced or eliminated. That reasonably violates human rights. It was Ben Franklin who said that you'd be stupid to choose safety over liberty, but the way I look at it, liberty and full rights are luxuries bought by a safe society. If there are really hordes of rampaging mutants I don't think anyone's going to care about their human rights, or even the human rights of the peaceful ones who have the firepower but haven't done anything.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #22

Post by The Barbarian »

Franklin's point is that people who choose safety over liberty soon have neither.

Which is pretty much what history shows us. Granted, no one has complete freedom, because that would include freedom to harm others against their will.

Do what you want to; do what you will. Just don't mess with your neighbor's thrill. - Frank Zappa

So there's a balance. How do we know what that is? That's what elections are for.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #23

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pm Franklin's point is that people who choose safety over liberty soon have neither.
I think he's got it bass-ackwards. You actually can have safety without liberty. It sucks, but you can. What you can't have is liberty without safety. If there really are hordes of rampaging mutants and we don't collar them because half of them haven't individually done anything yet and because oh their precious, precious rights and freedoms, and it's to the point where you so much as walk outside and get your head split open by the crossfire, you ain't free when you're dead.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pmWhich is pretty much what history shows us.
History also shows us Somalia. It was not a nice place just because they had complete freedom. And anyone who died lost their freedom along with their lives. To me, it is he who sacrifices safety for liberty who loses both and deserves neither.

...Because he's dead.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pmDo what you want to; do what you will. Just don't mess with your neighbor's thrill. - Frank Zappa

So there's a balance. How do we know what that is? That's what elections are for.
That's something I agree with fundamentally. I do think there's a disconnect when you have people in areas that have gone lawless voting for the tyranny they actually need and people who haven't experienced that looking down on them, though.

I don't think it's about absolute rights, though this is what people will tell you. That guy who was born with the power to vaporise two city blocks just by thinking about it... I don't want to engage in preemption against him either. I want him to have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else and full use of his power, because he might need it. (It would really, really suck if we collar him, and he was never going to hurt anyone, and he dies in the woods of hypothermia because he couldn't make himself a fire.)

But I don't see collaring him as somehow fundamentally wrong. I see leaving him alone to do as he pleases as a luxury that's bought by enough safety that when someone does do something, it's a tragedy, but it's rare enough that people aren't living in fear of it and we can essentially ignore it.

I think there's also a danger when we actually have that safe society and we hyperfocus on one person who may be a misanthrope and ask, "Will he?" individually. I definitely don't agree with taking anything away from anyone in that safe society because they're not as popular or charismatic as their peers and it's easy to get people to gang up and call him crazy. Even if it's Mister Two-City-Blocks guy, if you're that concerned move away. Unless he's actually done it before in which case collar him, no guns for him, chop off his hands whatever.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #24

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pm Franklin's point is that people who choose safety over liberty soon have neither.
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:25 pmI think he's got it bass-ackwards. You actually can have safety without liberty.
I can't think of a real-life example.
What you can't have is liberty without safety.
That's what anarchy is.
If there really are hordes of rampaging mutants and we don't collar them because half of them haven't individually done anything yet and because oh their precious, precious rights and freedoms, and it's to the point where you so much as walk outside and get your head split open by the crossfire, you ain't free when you're dead.
We're all mutants, you know.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pmWhich is pretty much what history shows us.
History also shows us Somalia. It was not a nice place just because they had complete freedom.
Actually, it was divided up into territories by warlords who completely dominated everyone in their areas. No freedom there.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pmDo what you want to; do what you will. Just don't mess with your neighbor's thrill. - Frank Zappa

So there's a balance. How do we know what that is? That's what elections are for.
That's something I agree with fundamentally. I do think there's a disconnect when you have people in areas that have gone lawless voting for the tyranny they actually need and people who haven't experienced that looking down on them, though.
I don't think it's about absolute rights, though this is what people will tell you. That guy who was born with the power to vaporise two city blocks just by thinking about it... I don't want to engage in preemption against him either. I want him to have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else and full use of his power, because he might need it. (It would really, really suck if we collar him, and he was never going to hurt anyone, and he dies in the woods of hypothermia because he couldn't make himself a fire.)

But I don't see collaring him as somehow fundamentally wrong. I see leaving him alone to do as he pleases as a luxury that's bought by enough safety that when someone does do something, it's a tragedy, but it's rare enough that people aren't living in fear of it and we can essentially ignore it.

I think there's also a danger when we actually have that safe society and we hyperfocus on one person who may be a misanthrope and ask, "Will he?" individually. I definitely don't agree with taking anything away from anyone in that safe society because they're not as popular or charismatic as their peers and it's easy to get people to gang up and call him crazy. Even if it's Mister Two-City-Blocks guy, if you're that concerned move away. Unless he's actually done it before in which case collar him, no guns for him, chop off his hands whatever.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #25

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:08 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:00 pm Franklin's point is that people who choose safety over liberty soon have neither.
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:25 pmI think he's got it bass-ackwards. You actually can have safety without liberty.
I can't think of a real-life example.
I can: Solitary confinement. Maximum safety, near-zero liberty. Now, we probably shouldn't put everyone in his own little can because that would be awful. But if people are tearing each other limb from limb on a daily basis it's an option. If someone tears your arms off, you have lost the freedom you once had to do whatever it is you do with your arms every day.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:08 pm
What you can't have is liberty without safety.
That's what anarchy is.
This is what I'm getting at with Somalia when it was under anarchy. If your neighbour is absolutely free too there's a high chance he'll become a warlord and take away your freedom. And if he doesn't, someone else probably will. Anarchy is not very free, because it's not very safe. The reason you have the freedom to, for example, take your kids to the arcade, is because nobody is going to slaughter your family on the way there.

People seem to understand that government can reduce freedom. Government can make a law stopping you from going to the arcade. How horrible! What tyrants that they would do that! But what about losing the exact same freedom because some regular person is going to assault you on the way? Isn't that the same thing?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #26

Post by The Barbarian »

Who would consider solitary confinement to be "liberty?" It's the antithesis if liberty.

On the other hand, we have hunter-gatherer societies in which people can do pretty much anything they want, so long as the don't harm others. Which is as close to complete liberty as one can find outside of a totalitarian ruler. And yet, such societies are no more dangerous than our own.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #27

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]
Well nobody needs a gun any more than they need an assault rifle.
Hunters don't need guns? No one needs a gun when they go into the forest for protection? Law enforcement officers don't need guns? According to donny trumpy, teachers should have guns.
You will get people who will tell you that owning a gun is actually a right. Not just, our legal system treats it like one (and there may or may not be benefits to doing that) but it is actually a human right. I find that preposterous.
You have that right to feel that way! I don't find 'a right' and a 'human right' to be the same thing.
But the issue is firepower, and what people will do with it. The issue is not rights at all.
I guess that depends on who is being spoken to about such thing.
It was Ben Franklin who said that you'd be stupid to choose safety over liberty, but the way I look at it, liberty and full rights are luxuries bought by a safe society.
Interesting POV. What is a 'safe' society, exactly, as you're using it here? Perfect? Safer than what?
If there are really hordes of rampaging mutants I don't think anyone's going to care about their human rights, or even the human rights of the peaceful ones who have the firepower but haven't done anything.
Surely there are priorities. But someone, some where, will surely speak about human rights no matter the circumstance they find themselves within at the time.
For example: the Russia invasion of the Ukraine. People are dying, being displaced, and yet, there are people actively trying to save and rescue pets and animals in the zoo. Many would say 'There's an invasion going on! People are dying! Forget about the animals!' But others aren't agreeing and entering a potentially dangerous area to rescue 'things' they think important.
That seems to be the humane part of humanity: caring for things that the majority don't seem important.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #28

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:09 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]
Well nobody needs a gun any more than they need an assault rifle.
Hunters don't need guns? No one needs a gun when they go into the forest for protection? Law enforcement officers don't need guns? According to donny trumpy, teachers should have guns.
It really depends on valuations and nothing more. If you want to protect the teachers more securely, potentially at the expense of someone else, maybe even a student, then sure.

But the point stands, a gun is not a need. Food is a need, but you don't have to hunt to get it. And you don't even need a gun to hunt. You can hunt with a bow.

You might need a gun in order to do something, but I know of none of those things that will cause you to die if you don't do them. Maybe protect yourself, but this is really only in a bad world where you can expect to be assaulted by a criminal.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:09 amFor example: the Russia invasion of the Ukraine. People are dying, being displaced, and yet, there are people actively trying to save and rescue pets and animals in the zoo. Many would say 'There's an invasion going on! People are dying! Forget about the animals!' But others aren't agreeing and entering a potentially dangerous area to rescue 'things' they think important.
That seems to be the humane part of humanity: caring for things that the majority don't seem important.
It's all about valuations. With the right valuations, Trump is correct. With different ones, he's wrong. It's as simple as that.

It's why I tend to look at logic and ignore valuations. Does X follow from Y?

Half the time people calling other people stupid or illogical (like those in your example saying leave the zoo animals to starve) are really just stomping all over the other fellow's valuations and I think that's wrong. And it really burns my biscuits because it's so effective.

My valuation is the same as that of the people trying to save the animals. There are plenty of people imo.

During the corona lockdowns, the pets in petco and petsmart were left to starve. I don't know why I didn't break in to save them. I knew it was happening. It's probably because I'm a coward.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #29

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #28]
But the point stands, a gun is not a need. Food is a need, but you don't have to hunt to get it. And you don't even need a gun to hunt. You can hunt with a bow.

You can't hunt with a bow during gun season.
You have a lot less of a chance of protecting yourself with a bow in the woods than a gun (try shooting that and deterring that charging bear with a bow and see if you get home O:) )
So yes, indeed, at times, guns are needed.
I'm not pro-gun by any means - don't own one and don't intend to own one.
But saying there is never a need for a gun, anywhere, anytime, is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of the world, with its ever changing and uniqueness marked by individuals IMO.
You might need a gun in order to do something, but I know of none of those things that will cause you to die if you don't do them.
Well, you did say: "Well nobody needs a gun any more than they need an assault rifle." I didn't see a caveat in that sentence. Good to see you added one, in a way.
It's all about valuations. With the right valuations, Trump is correct. With different ones, he's wrong. It's as simple as that.
Trump being right aside ;) having valuations is a lot different stance than if one were to say 'no one needs a gun'.
It's why I tend to look at logic and ignore valuations.
Yet, a valuation is needed, as you said above. So, maybe, it's more right to say "I tend to not ignore valuations, but also use logic"? Or the like? :?
My valuation is the same as that of the people trying to save the animals. There are plenty of people imo.
Can you expound on this? (regardless, there are WAY enough people on the planet).
During the corona lockdowns, the pets in petco and petsmart were left to starve. I don't know why I didn't break in to save them. I knew it was happening. It's probably because I'm a coward.
I have friends on the animal rescue society and I never heard that. Where was this happening? Can you provide data to support this terribleness?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

Post #30

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:41 pm But saying there is never a need for a gun, anywhere, anytime, is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of the world, with its ever changing and uniqueness marked by individuals IMO.
I don't think it's foolish at all and I stand by what I said. A gun is not a need. Hunting in gun season is not a need, even if you can't hunt with a bow then which I think you actually can, though don't quote me on that; I haven't gotten a hunting license.

I don't have any serious naive misunderstandings about the world. I'm using need in a very strict way because that's the way the word ought to be used. You might want to go hunting and it might even be beneficial to go hunting but it is not a need.

Saying that nobody needs an assault rifle but that they might need a gun to hunt, while it is not a misunderstanding of the word need, because this is indeed how many people use it, uses a meaning that's not very conducive to understanding the issue because value judgments about wants are already baked in.

See, the chain is allowed to end with, "Well, because I just want to," and that's not a need. Billy-Bob wants to go hunting. He doesn't need to. So you're just evaluating whose wants are stupid now. If Billy-Bob's brother Willy-Bob needs an assault rifle to place on his mantle to have a mantle with an assault rifle, because he simply wanted to, that's not different than allowing Billy-Bob a hunting rifle because he just wants to go hunting. Billy-Bob just wants to go hunting and Willy-Bob just wants to have a mantle with an assault rifle displayed on it.
nobspeople wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:41 pmI have friends on the animal rescue society and I never heard that. Where was this happening? Can you provide data to support this terribleness?
The animals were in the shops and the people were not. At the end of the lockdowns, there were empty cages because they had all starved. You could see it through the windows if you looked, though nobody was supposed to see it as nobody was supposed to be out and about. I saw it happen.

Post Reply