New X-men #131, some thoughts
Shawn Hill
1) We still don't know if Emma is helping or playing (or if there's
anything resembling a difference to her) with Scott's mind. I remember
when Jean almost wiped her brain, though. I like the image of Jean, for
all her apparent normality, as being someone other mutants fear.
And Emma likes playing with fire.
2) I think one of the things Morrison is doing is investing us all in just
how weird mutant life would be. IE, treating them not as just humans with
powers, but as a real seperate species with its own inherent sociology and
behavioral norms. Charles leads the mourners to greive for Darkstar with a
telepathic connection; Archangel takes all the flying mutants on a field
trip to meet the alien, avian Shiar, their great allies due to Charles
being the consort of their Empress; Emma and Scott embark on one of Jean's
trademark astral illusion/excursions, to figure out why he's so troubled
of late. While he's flying a plane and talking to Wolverine, casually. The
extraordinary is struly commonplace to them.
And, in the midst of all this, Angel kisses Beak, yes, in part due to a
teenage bet, but also to a shared sense of their tribe of freaks.
3) This is definitley some of the best work I've ever seen from Leon. It
was clear and made sense for the most part, and wasn't dull. How cruel of
Emma to bond by reminding Scott of his worst childhood memory, falling
from the plane.
Shawn
xfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxf
"I'm fine, Agent Doggett."
-- dana
xfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxfxffxfx
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Bastard Fox
sounds somewhat interesting.
Kit
http://ExplosiveNstuff.keenspace.com
Last Updated 09/04/02 (Now made with 100% actual comic strip!)
James Moar
wild...@aol.comNYONYO (Bastard Fox) wrote:
> I have just one question, when did Morrisons run start on N-XM, it actually
> sounds somewhat interesting.
Issue 114. Pick up the collections E FOR EVOLUTION and IMPERIAL, and
you've got his run up to issue 126.
--
James Moar
Thom Heil
"Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:alakvs$hba$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Lots of history here, and lots of answers to questions, too:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) We still don't know if Emma is helping or playing (or if there's
> anything resembling a difference to her) with Scott's mind. I remember
> when Jean almost wiped her brain, though. I like the image of Jean, for
> all her apparent normality, as being someone other mutants fear.
>
> And Emma likes playing with fire.
She certainly does. For all her fear of Jean/Phoenix, Emma is definitely
doing her best to make her angry. Simple payback, or something more
far-reaching?
> 2) I think one of the things Morrison is doing is investing us all in just
> how weird mutant life would be. IE, treating them not as just humans with
> powers, but as a real seperate species with its own inherent sociology and
> behavioral norms.
What a great way to say that. This ties in really well with the new mutant
morality we've seen lately, too. Charles calling humans "chimpanzees," Jean
electing to let Fantomex escape rather than turn him over to human
authorities, Hank messing around with touchy topics like human sexuality.
Now that I think of it, I wonder what's up Hank's sleeve? That's one of the
best parts of Morrison's run - he's made everyone so weird and creepy, I
don't know who to trust anymore. I only know where one of the characters
stands, and that's Wolverine, the one character who's *supposed* to be a
lunatic. Ha!
thom
Neosaurus
>wild...@aol.comNYONYO (Bastard Fox) wrote:
>> I have just one question, when did Morrisons run start on N-XM, it actually
>> sounds somewhat interesting.
>
>Issue 114. Pick up the collections E FOR EVOLUTION and IMPERIAL, and
>you've got his run up to issue 126.
Actually, E4E only covers #114-117, and Imperial #122-126 (or 127?). The
upcoming hardcover has the contents of both trades, plus the issues in the gap
between the two (118-121 and the Annual).
--Sean Curtin
Brian Hance
>Actually, E4E only covers #114-117, and Imperial #122-126 (or 127?). The
>upcoming hardcover has the contents of both trades, plus the issues in the gap
>between the two (118-121 and the Annual).
Actually, no. According to my copy of IMPERIAL, which I have sitting
right in front of me, it covers issues #118 to #126.
--
Brian Hance
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself.
They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."
Humphrey Bogart from THE BIG SLEEP
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:alakvs$hba$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> Lots of history here, and lots of answers to questions, too:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
: Now that I think of it, I wonder what's up Hank's sleeve? That's one of the
: best parts of Morrison's run - he's made everyone so weird and creepy, I
: don't know who to trust anymore. I only know where one of the characters
: stands, and that's Wolverine, the one character who's *supposed* to be a
: lunatic. Ha!
He's pretty much become the "gruff old fogey" and voice of reason, hasn't he?
Shawn
Dan McEwen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) We still don't know if Emma is helping or playing (or if there's
> anything resembling a difference to her) with Scott's mind. I remember
> when Jean almost wiped her brain, though. I like the image of Jean, for
> all her apparent normality, as being someone other mutants fear.
>
> And Emma likes playing with fire.
And she is. It's funny the way Beast actually warned her.
> 2) I think one of the things Morrison is doing is investing us all in just
> how weird mutant life would be. IE, treating them not as just humans with
> powers, but as a real seperate species with its own inherent sociology and
> behavioral norms. Charles leads the mourners to greive for Darkstar with a
> telepathic connection; Archangel takes all the flying mutants on a field
> trip to meet the alien, avian Shiar, their great allies due to Charles
> being the consort of their Empress; Emma and Scott embark on one of Jean's
> trademark astral illusion/excursions, to figure out why he's so troubled
> of late. While he's flying a plane and talking to Wolverine, casually. The
> extraordinary is struly commonplace to them.
This is what I also find so cool about the X-Men. For decades we've been
hearing how they're supposed to be a separate species but act entirely like
normal humans. Now they're starting to act like a group of people who have
had powers nearly all their lives and spent much of it exclusively in the
presence of other people with such powers.
> And, in the midst of all this, Angel kisses Beak, yes, in part due to a
> teenage bet, but also to a shared sense of their tribe of freaks.
>
> 3) This is definitley some of the best work I've ever seen from Leon. It
> was clear and made sense for the most part, and wasn't dull. How cruel of
> Emma to bond by reminding Scott of his worst childhood memory, falling
> from the plane.
This is typical of Emma, though.
Terrafamilia
Thom Heil wrote:
This issue really pointed out the problem I've been having with Morrison's run.
I don't really *like* any of these people. Even Beak is more pathetic than
sympathetic. There is no character among the bunch I can really root for, even
the ever-reliable Beast.
Ciao,
Terrafamilia
Dan McEwen
news:3D7A2C6A...@irtc.net...
Is it really possible that I only know freaks? It just seems to me that the
X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus,
add into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively
with their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I
understand it, intentional.
Shawn Hill
:> > 2) I think one of the things Morrison is doing is investing us all in just
:> > how weird mutant life would be. IE, treating them not as just humans with
:> > powers, but as a real seperate species with its own inherent sociology and
:> > behavioral norms.
:>
:> Now that I think of it, I wonder what's up Hank's sleeve? That's one of the
:> best parts of Morrison's run - he's made everyone so weird and creepy, I
:> don't know who to trust anymore. I only know where one of the characters
:> stands, and that's Wolverine, the one character who's *supposed* to be a
:> lunatic. Ha!
: This issue really pointed out the problem I've been having with Morrison's run.
: I don't really *like* any of these people. Even Beak is more pathetic than
: sympathetic. There is no character among the bunch I can really root for, even
: the ever-reliable Beast.
Angel, fronting a bravado that doesn't really hide her need for the school?
Beast trying to deal with all his personal and physical changes? Jean and Scott
now unable to find their way back to each other?
Of course, I read comics for vicarious power trips, too, so Emma and Jean are
still cutting the mustard on that front just fine.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:alakvs$hba$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> Lots of history here, and lots of answers to questions, too:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> 1) We still don't know if Emma is helping or playing (or if there's
:> anything resembling a difference to her) with Scott's mind. I remember
:> when Jean almost wiped her brain, though. I like the image of Jean, for
:> all her apparent normality, as being someone other mutants fear.
:>
:> And Emma likes playing with fire.
: And she is. It's funny the way Beast actually warned her.
Cause he's smart enough (and concerned enough) to actually notice.
: This is what I also find so cool about the X-Men. For decades we've been
: hearing how they're supposed to be a separate species but act entirely like
: normal humans. Now they're starting to act like a group of people who have
: had powers nearly all their lives and spent much of it exclusively in the
: presence of other people with such powers.
It's interesting to me that some people find that alienating (they'd rather
read about characters with more human flaws), while I find it much more
satisfying ... Morrison setting up a world that immerses itself in its own,
mutant-based rules, and mixes the alien with the mundane, the extraordinary
with characters that still have legions of personality and other flaws.
In a way, it's sort of like what Claremont tried to do with the Neo, only
there's no need for them, because everyone's already become "Neo." The alien
having become "us," we see this band of outsiders from their perspective, not
from a distance. And no need to throw up an supremely weirder or more extreme
antagonists, because the X-men are already weird and extreme.
Most of their foes thus far seem to have been almost self-created, to come from
some aspect of themselves. Xavier's "mummudrai." Jean's re-burgeoning Phoenix
force. Scott's misery. The tight rope Emma walks. Beast's self-transformations,
taking on a life of their own, threatening to alienate even himself. The
U-Men, trying to be LIKE mutants, even if it means killing what they also love.
And other humans, threatened and scared by this ever-growing new race, lashing
out in fear. Even their Shiar allies, weirder than they could ever be as
literal aliens, turned against them.
:> 3) This is definitley some of the best work I've ever seen from Leon. It
:> was clear and made sense for the most part, and wasn't dull. How cruel of
:> Emma to bond by reminding Scott of his worst childhood memory, falling
:> from the plane.
: This is typical of Emma, though.
Grant certainly has her number. She's more fun when she DOESN'T have an evil
hidden agenda; in fact, she hides very little nowadays.
Shawn
Terrafamilia
Dan McEwen wrote:
> Is it really possible that I only know freaks? It just seems to me that the
> X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
> that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus,
> add into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively
> with their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I
> understand it, intentional.
The separate species bit is born of the propaganda of both Magneto and the
anti-mutant bigot crowd. One wonders why the X-Men are so eager to embrace it
now. Even Chuck seems to have thrown in with the separate and unequal camp. At
best, each mutant is the start of its own subspecies of humanity. I'd like to
think this plot development is going somewhere and will show the unintended
consequences of their buying into the propaganda.
Ciao,
Terramilia
Billy Bissette
news:3D7A7038...@irtc.net:
As I've brought up before, Morrison at one time apparently said he would
show what would happen to the X-Men with Magneto removed. Now they don't
have the constant reminder of Magneto's methods, and are starting to fall
into some of the same traps themselves. In cases, they are worse than
Magneto was. And they think themselves just as right as he did.
Presumably this would be working towards some big payoff before Morrison
ends his run, and would also explain why there haven't been real/strong
consequences yet for their actions. (And why the book is promoting the
new style of behavior over the old as well.)
But I wouldn't really say the X-Men act like actual people now instead
of caricatures. It is only that how they act has shifted. Now Jean acts
like someone the X-Men would have tried to stop 15 years ago, but not
really that much more a "real person" as much as a "different storybook
person".
Dan McEwen
Yes, but you have to realize exactly where they're coming from now. They
_know_ that Homo sapiens sapien is on the verge of complete extinction.
What is the point of trying to stick to a form of morality that is going to
vanish very shortly? Why not work out a new morality that works best for
mutants? This is what I see them doing.
CleV
<dm8...@acc.msmc.ed-you> wrote:
>Yes, but you have to realize exactly where they're coming from now. They
>_know_ that Homo sapiens sapien is on the verge of complete extinction.
>What is the point of trying to stick to a form of morality that is going to
>vanish very shortly? Why not work out a new morality that works best for
>mutants? This is what I see them doing.
You know, morality, whatever that may be, is completely independent of
species. What works for humans will work well for mutants and vice
versa ... What doesn't work well, ditto.
Shawn Hill
: Dan McEwen wrote:
The nature of the cover for the next issue of New X-men, showing the
construction of what looks like a memorial to the fallen Magneto, seems to
suggest a complete acceptance, on the part of mutants, of the homo-superior
concept. So did the findings in most of E is for Extinction.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:54:09 -0400, "Dan McEwen"
: <dm8...@acc.msmc.ed-you> wrote:
It reminds me of what happened at the end of Moore's Miracleman, when gods took
over the government and gave everyone (ultimately) access to god-like
attributes. Did his daughter Winter and her friends, whom even MM didn't
understand, follow anything resembling a mortal morality? Certainly, within the
world being depicted in the comic, there'd be a whole dialectic of "mutant
morality," theory after theory, a philosophy in need of construction. And it
wouldn't just be the "villains" constructing it.
Even prior to Morrison, the idea that Magneto was not entirely wrong was being
explored.
Dan McEwen
news:3d7abe28...@news.balcab.ch...
Not necessarily. There's a whole host of things directly related to some
super-powers that are completely absent from human morality.
CleV
<dm8...@acc.msmc.ed-you> wrote:
>"CleV" <CL...@balJUNKcab.ch> wrote in message
>news:3d7abe28...@news.balcab.ch...
>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:54:09 -0400, "Dan McEwen"
>> <dm8...@acc.msmc.ed-you> wrote:
>> >Yes, but you have to realize exactly where they're coming from now. They
>> >_know_ that Homo sapiens sapien is on the verge of complete extinction.
>> >What is the point of trying to stick to a form of morality that is going
>to
>> >vanish very shortly? Why not work out a new morality that works best for
>> >mutants? This is what I see them doing.
>> You know, morality, whatever that may be, is completely independent of
>> species. What works for humans will work well for mutants and vice
>> versa ... What doesn't work well, ditto.
>Not necessarily. There's a whole host of things directly related to some
>super-powers that are completely absent from human morality.
I know what you mean but am hard pressed for examples off the top of
my head. I was thinking of concepts such as: honouring a promise, or
not betraying a confidence, or thou shalt not kill, etc. Would these
be different in a mutant society?
Terrafamilia
CleV wrote:
Exactly. What does the idea that human rules don't apply to mutants mean in
actual practice? Other than the mutant proponents thinking this means they have
carte blanche to do as they please. What things would be considered okay for a
mutant to do that aren't okay for a human in the same situation and what would be
considered unethical or immoral for a mutant to do that would be okay for a human
to do in the same situation *that is due solely to their being a mutant*? That it
may involve action undertaken with the mutant ability itself doesn't quite cut it
since mutant abilities can be replicated by technological means as we have seen
with the Sentinel and Skrull copies of the X-Men and therefore such actions would
theoretically be within the scope of human behavior as well.
Ciao,
Terrafamilia
Laura M. Parkinson
Exactly. And this is part of my huge problem with the X-Men as they're
currently behaving. So since some of the X-Men are telepaths, and have
the capability to see into people's minds and rewrite them, this means
that it's "okay," and that they should have the moral backing to do
so, just because they're mutants? Um... no.
It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Shawn Hill
: Terrafamilia <terraf...@irtc.net> rhapsodized in blue:
: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
human, and should can the pretense.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Hi Shawn,
:>This is definitley some of the best work I've ever seen from Leon. It
:>was clear and made sense for the most part, and wasn't dull.
: I generally like John Paul Leon's work, so I wasn't surprised to like this
: issues. Of course, I consider both of his issues of New X-Men to be superior
: to most of the other work I've seen from him. I tend to credit one of the
: more obvious reasons: both were inked by Bill Sienkiewicz. However, I
: recognize that not everyone loves Bill Sienkiewicz's style, so I wonder: did
: you enjoy the lines and textures, or were you happier this work because it
: was so much brighter (fitting the content of the book: clear skies, etc.)
: than Leon's normal work.
Did Sienk---- do the previous issue, the focus on Zorn? I found that issue to
have all of Leon's "Universe X" faults: dark, muddy, stiff, emotionally muted.
Sort of like the things that some say about Mike Allred's work (not me, I think
he's great!).
But this issue, by contrast (and I loved the cover, too, really captured the
Emma we're dealing with these days, Evan's way better there than inside the
book to me), seemed exactly as you said. Open skies, sufficient detail to see
everything we're supposed to, good solid layout when navigating a difficult
illusory landscape. And, yes, I thought the inking was great ... while it's a
shame to me Bill is more an inker these days than a penciller, I always find
his distinctive inks liven up most artists. He's got a mastery of light and
shadow that somehow weds realism to expressionism.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>> You know, morality, whatever that may be, is completely independent of
:>> species. What works for humans will work well for mutants and vice
:>> versa ... What doesn't work well, ditto.
:>Not necessarily. There's a whole host of things directly related to some
:>super-powers that are completely absent from human morality.
: I know what you mean but am hard pressed for examples off the top of
: my head. I was thinking of concepts such as: honouring a promise, or
: not betraying a confidence, or thou shalt not kill, etc. Would these
: be different in a mutant society?
How much easier (or harder) is it to betray a confidence when telepathy is a
given? When is Jean prying, and when does she just "hear" something projected
at her?
Is killing Dead Girl from X-statics a crime? Howeso, if she can come back to
"life?"
When you start getting into sexual behaviour, I'm sure it gets even more ...
thorny.
Shawn
Thom Heil
Exactly. He still flies off into blind rages, but they seem much more
contained these days. Otherwise, he's the consummate professional.
thom
Thom Heil
Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3d7b9b1b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Who's to say that it isn't okay? If you had telepathic powers and you could
make the world a slightly more tolerant place by changing someone's mind,
would you want someone telling you that you couldn't do it? And why
wouldn't they want you to do it? Because they like the world the way it is?
Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons to not
rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and they're wrong?
> It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
> no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
I can think of a good reason: Charles has always been fighting Magneto
because he's afraid Magneto's right. He keeps Magneto from completing his
plans a) because Charles is high-minded and doesn't like the death of
"innocent" humans, but also b) because he's scared shitless that he'd like
Magneto's version of the world. If Charles wasn't so scared of Magneto and
his vision, if he thought Magneto's vision was wrong-headed and silly to
begin with, he wouldn't give a toss what Magneto did. All of Magneto's
schemes would fall apart of their own accord and Charles could get along
with his work. But instead he fights Magneto. Now that Magneto's gone,
there's no more fighting. And there's a thin line against not fighting
something and accepting it.
These are the themes of Morrison's whole run so far. They're not going to
be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
thom
Jay Babcock
Have you ever noticed, Laura, that your plot/theme objections to Morrison's New
X-Men are always answered/resolved in an issue down the line?
Take a look at your reviews from Morrison's run, and you will find this is the
case, with almost every arc. Which makes me suspect that your current
objection(s) will indeed be resolved by the time Morrison gets to #150.
Issue by issue, you might find things unsatisfying, but the truth is that
Morrison is writing arcs within arcs within an overarching arc. That is what he
does. He did it on Animal Man, he did it on JLA, he certainly did it on The
Invisibles. That's what he's said all along he was gonna do with New Xmen as
well. I think that what you're *really* objecting to in your reviews, time after
time, rather than particular plot and theme points, is the
arc/super-arc/meta-arc style of comic book writing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but please give this observation some consideration.
best,
Jay
Laura M. Parkinson
Except that they are in fact human, just with an extra gene, and with
powers.
To put it in perspective, what about other mutations? Should someone
with albinism be considered "no longer human," and thus outside the
laws of normal humanity? What about someone with dwarfism? Or someone
with the rare genes to make them have six fingers on each hand? Are
they no longer expected to adhere to normal human moral (or other)
codes?
Laura M. Parkinson
>
>Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3d7b9b1b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> Terrafamilia <terraf...@irtc.net> rhapsodized in blue:
>> >Exactly. What does the idea that human rules don't apply to mutants mean
Umm.. hell yes?
>And why
>wouldn't they want you to do it? Because they like the world the way it is?
>Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons to not
>rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and they're wrong?
So following these thoughts, if I'm physically stronger than someone
else (not likely to happen to those who know me, but run with me
here), that makes it "okay" for me to physically force them to do "the
right thing" 24/7, and make the world a slightly better place?
There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
some of us.
>> It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
>> no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
>
>I can think of a good reason: Charles has always been fighting Magneto
>because he's afraid Magneto's right. He keeps Magneto from completing his
>plans a) because Charles is high-minded and doesn't like the death of
>"innocent" humans, but also b) because he's scared shitless that he'd like
>Magneto's version of the world. If Charles wasn't so scared of Magneto and
>his vision, if he thought Magneto's vision was wrong-headed and silly to
>begin with, he wouldn't give a toss what Magneto did.
Well, except for all the innocent people being hurt by what Magneto
does, which someone with a conscience would find repulsive.
> All of Magneto's
>schemes would fall apart of their own accord and Charles could get along
>with his work.
And just how many of Magneto's schemes would have fallen apart without
the X-Men there to actually stop them?
> But instead he fights Magneto. Now that Magneto's gone,
>there's no more fighting. And there's a thin line against not fighting
>something and accepting it.
>
>These are the themes of Morrison's whole run so far. They're not going to
>be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
Worth wrecking the current X-Men to get it?
CleV
>CleV <CL...@baljunkcab.ch> wrote:
>:>> You know, morality, whatever that may be, is completely independent of
>:>> species. What works for humans will work well for mutants and vice
>:>> versa ... What doesn't work well, ditto.
>:>Not necessarily. There's a whole host of things directly related to some
>:>super-powers that are completely absent from human morality.
>: I know what you mean but am hard pressed for examples off the top of
>: my head. I was thinking of concepts such as: honouring a promise, or
>: not betraying a confidence, or thou shalt not kill, etc. Would these
>: be different in a mutant society?
>How much easier (or harder) is it to betray a confidence when telepathy is a
>given? When is Jean prying, and when does she just "hear" something projected
>at her?
"easier" = "it's okay for it to happen"?
>Is killing Dead Girl from X-statics a crime? Howeso, if she can come back to
>"life?"
Good point.
Shawn Hill
:>Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:>: Terrafamilia <terraf...@irtc.net> rhapsodized in blue:
:>
:>: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
:>: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
:>
:>Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
:>human, and should can the pretense.
: Except that they are in fact human, just with an extra gene, and with
: powers.
: To put it in perspective, what about other mutations? Should someone
: with albinism be considered "no longer human," and thus outside the
: laws of normal humanity? What about someone with dwarfism? Or someone
: with the rare genes to make them have six fingers on each hand? Are
: they no longer expected to adhere to normal human moral (or other)
: codes?
That's completely the wrong perspective. Comics are a fantasy medium, and the
fantasy in all super-heroes is the adolescent one: the weak and small becoming
big and strong. "Normal" mutations have never been what the X-men was about:
it's not the sort of comic to read about albinos, dwarves, or the
multi-fingered.
Instead, it's the sort of comic to read about albinos who can turn invisible,
dwarves with super-strength, people with normal fingers but stretchable skin,
etc., etc. IE, they have extraordinary abilities, not just abnormalities, and
they use those well or poorly, to help or to hurt. The mutant thing is a
metaphor for outsider-ship, not literal, and on one level just an excuse to
make colorful super-heroes.
That's why the few stories about mutants whose powers actually harm them, or
are uncontrollable, or simply not that useful (like Beak's) are always
tragedies.
But Jean and Emma, they're not tragedies, they're homo superior. Well, except
when Jean gets in way way over her head, and eats a planet.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On 8 Sep 2002 20:23:39 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>: I know what you mean but am hard pressed for examples off the top of
:>: my head. I was thinking of concepts such as: honouring a promise, or
:>: not betraying a confidence, or thou shalt not kill, etc. Would these
:>: be different in a mutant society?
:>How much easier (or harder) is it to betray a confidence when telepathy is a
:>given? When is Jean prying, and when does she just "hear" something projected
:>at her?
: "easier" = "it's okay for it to happen"?
Perhaps more like unavoidable.
:>Is killing Dead Girl from X-statics a crime? Howeso, if she can come back to
:>"life?"
: Good point.
I wish I could think of others. Like, are the flying mutants violating airspace
laws in Westchester County?
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: "Thom Heil" <th...@luc.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
:>And why
:>wouldn't they want you to do it? Because they like the world the way it is?
:>Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons to not
:>rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and they're wrong?
: So following these thoughts, if I'm physically stronger than someone
: else (not likely to happen to those who know me, but run with me
: here), that makes it "okay" for me to physically force them to do "the
: right thing" 24/7, and make the world a slightly better place?
: There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
: some of us.
Just watched Starship Troopers the other night, a text based on an
old-fashioned, celebrated sci-fi military classic. The philosophy in the movie
was that only citizens (ie the military), could vote, basically because might
makes right.
Not saying I agree, just that it is one interpretation of how things happen in
the world.
:> All of Magneto's
:>schemes would fall apart of their own accord and Charles could get along
:>with his work.
: And just how many of Magneto's schemes would have fallen apart without
: the X-Men there to actually stop them?
Because, I think he meant, they wouldn't have been good enough to work on
their own anyway.
:>These are the themes of Morrison's whole run so far. They're not going to
:>be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
: Worth wrecking the current X-Men to get it?
There wasn't anything to wreck. They'd already fired Kelley and Seagle, and
kept Davis under tight reign.
Shawn
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> This issue really pointed out the problem I've been having with
Morrison's run.
> I don't really *like* any of these people. Even Beak is more
pathetic than
> sympathetic. There is no character among the bunch I can really
root for, even
> the ever-reliable Beast.
I on the other hand like them substantially more than I have in
ages precisely because of their flaws, arrogance and everything
else.
Sure they aren't perfect.. I don't WANT them to be perfect, they
also aren't half as terrible as certain people seem to be making
them out to be in here.
Charles has always been an arrogant know it all. Scott has always
been plagued with self doubt and twice before has proved to be
less than faithful. Jean... well you do remember her actions as
Dark Phoenix don't you? That was HER actions.
There were some valid reasons for letting Fantomex go. It wasn't
like those human authorities were exactly the good guys in the
whole thing remember.
It strikes me that Morrison is painting a very grey story where
the villains and the heroes aren't as easily distinguished and
that isn't going to be to everyone's taste certainly. I don't
however see him flying in the face of whats gone before, and
accusations of him destroying the characters are in all honesty
silly.
Eoghann Irving
--
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy & Science Fiction
News, Reviews and Commentary
http://www.sflare.com
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :> 1) We still don't know if Emma is helping or playing (or if
there's
> :> anything resembling a difference to her) with Scott's mind.
I remember
> :> when Jean almost wiped her brain, though. I like the image
of Jean, for
> :> all her apparent normality, as being someone other mutants
fear.
> :>
> It's interesting to me that some people find that alienating
(they'd rather
> read about characters with more human flaws), while I find it
much more
> satisfying ... Morrison setting up a world that immerses itself
in its own,
> mutant-based rules, and mixes the alien with the mundane, the
extraordinary
> with characters that still have legions of personality and
other flaws.
Hmm odd. I'd say the flaws of these characters are all TOO human
(and thats why I like them). Pride, arrogance, lust, self
doubt.... how much more human can you get?
To me these are very human characters with unusual powers. Thats
what I like about what Morrison is doing. Instead of giving us
cliched angst or some sort of perfect role models, he's giving us
people.
These aren't aliens. They think like we do. They use our logic.
Thats WHY they're so fucking scary and screwed up.
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> The separate species bit is born of the propaganda of both
Magneto and the
> anti-mutant bigot crowd. One wonders why the X-Men are so eager
to embrace it
> now. Even Chuck seems to have thrown in with the separate and
unequal camp.
Arrogance. These characters have spent years "fixing" problems
for people. Plus they can do things that others can't. How could
the not end up with a shocking superiority complex.
Ideally, as you suggested, there will be a point when they get a
reality shock. But in the mean time I find their actions and
behavior entirely believeable.
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
>Now Jean acts
> like someone the X-Men would have tried to stop 15 years ago,
but not
> really that much more a "real person" as much as a "different
storybook
> person".
Hmm care to give an example or two? Jean and the others have done
some questionable things but there's a big jump from questionable
to evil. Magneto has performed some outright evil actions.
I can't think of anything any of them have done in Morrison's run
that is on that scale.
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> You know, morality, whatever that may be, is completely
independent of
> species.
I don't think it is actually. Morality is a human concept for a
start. Not only that but morality has differed not only
historically but also from society to society.
What is considered morally acceptable has changed and no doubt
will change again.
For example is there anyone in this group who thinks that slavery
is morally acceptable? I wouldn't imagine so There was a time
when it was considered quite acceptable though.
Morals are not a constant thing so it is at least arguable that a
new species might develop its own.
However on the whole I think that the X-Men largely follow human
morality.
Dan McEwen
They might. If you have mutants who can destroy planets and stars without
much effort you might feel justified in killing those mutants who fail to
obey the rules. It's too dangerous otherwise. And what if you make a
promise or are taken into confidence but then receive telepathic information
suggesting you break the promise or betray the confidence?
Dan McEwen
news:3d7b9b1b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> currently behaving. So since some of the X-Men are telepaths, and have
> the capability to see into people's minds and rewrite them, this means
> that it's "okay," and that they should have the moral backing to do
> so, just because they're mutants? Um... no.
Ability does not equate with morality but no one claimed that anyway. How
they react to knowledge gleaned from another's mind is where issues come up.
Just because someone thinks "I should kill that moron" doesn't mean that a
person is actually contemplating such a thing. Lots of random thoughts go
through people's minds that aren't indicative of behavior. So the telepath
is left trying to discern if this is a random thought or an actual threat.
Do you reveal someone's private thoughts? What if the person is genuinely
innocent but ends up being watched thereafter by police and government
agents because he's "dangerous"? Or what if the person _is_ dangerous but
you opt to do nothing because you're not sure. Does it make you partially
responsible for not stopping a threat when you had the opportunity?
Seriously, think through the possibilities. They're greater than you think.
> It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
> no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
Except that's not what happened.
Dan McEwen
news:3d7bc090...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
>
> >Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >: Terrafamilia <terraf...@irtc.net> rhapsodized in blue:
> >
> >: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
> >: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
> >
> >Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
> >human, and should can the pretense.
>
> Except that they are in fact human, just with an extra gene, and with
> powers.
I don't know about that. I'm starting to think that the "x-gene" is not the
gene that grants power so much as activates that which is present throughout
a mutant's genetic code. This would make a lot more sense. But...do you
consider all the hominids that are human-like to be humans? According to
the standards of science they aren't human and I would say that mutants are
to humans what humans are to those dead-ends. There's a common base, sure,
but ultimately only one is successful. If this weren't the case, why would
the human race be on the verge of extinction?
> To put it in perspective, what about other mutations? Should someone
> with albinism be considered "no longer human," and thus outside the
> laws of normal humanity? What about someone with dwarfism? Or someone
> with the rare genes to make them have six fingers on each hand? Are
> they no longer expected to adhere to normal human moral (or other)
> codes?
Those mutations fall within the normal human range.
Jim Cannon
masses...
The suggestion seems to be though -- and I'm not saying I agree here,
I just think it's a neat idea to explore -- that because you don't
have psionic mutant powers, you have no right to legislate against
those who do. In other words, because you can't fly, you aren't
invulnerable, you can't see into other people's minds, can't fold
space and time, can't alter the very weather with a thought, you don't
have the same frame of referance that people who are capable of such
things have. Again, not agreeing with that philosophy, and it's
certainly more in keeping with Magneto's way of thinking than
Xavier's, but it approaches the whole idea of species politics on a
much more science fictiony level, away from Claremont's thinly veiled
Civil Rights metaphor. I think it's pretty kewl.
And I know it isn't going to be permanent, so I'm enjoying it while I
can.
> >And why
> >wouldn't they want you to do it? Because they like the world the way it is?
> >Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons to not
> >rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and they're wrong?
>
> So following these thoughts, if I'm physically stronger than someone
> else (not likely to happen to those who know me, but run with me
> here), that makes it "okay" for me to physically force them to do "the
> right thing" 24/7, and make the world a slightly better place?
Why not? Superman does it.
You've just described every superhero on Earth, in fact. They're all
strong people who physically force other people to "do the right
thing." Over and over again.
Why is telepathy dirtier than a sock to the jaw?
... just to be Devil's Advocate.
> There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
> some of us.
> >These are the themes of Morrison's whole run so far. They're not going to
> >be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
>
> Worth wrecking the current X-Men to get it?
Yep.
Because it's a corporate book, and the toys will go back into the box
unharmed when Morrison is gone. Relax and enjoy the ride.
Jim Cannon
Dan McEwen
> Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : "Thom Heil" <th...@luc.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
> :>These are the themes of Morrison's whole run so far. They're not going
to
> :>be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
>
> : Worth wrecking the current X-Men to get it?
>
> There wasn't anything to wreck. They'd already fired Kelley and Seagle,
and
> kept Davis under tight reign.
Morrison is actually doing a hell of a salvage job on a book that was
"wrecked" over 10+ years ago.
Thom Heil
I don't think so, no. But I'm a human. I'm just saying, putting yourself
in a mutant's shoes for a minute, isn't that what you'd think? Especially
if you were a mutant who was hell-bent on making the world a better place?
Wouldn't there be some cracks in your logic?
I don't think we're supposed to be completely comfortable with the what the
X-Men are doing right now. In fact, most of them creep me out, including
the characters who I used to think were just cute and cuddly (i.e., Hank).
But they're that way to tell a story. Think of it as a "What If?" story:
What if the X-Men went bad?
> There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
> some of us.
It's important to a lot of "us." But, again, we're human. We don't think
like people who can rearrange atoms or eat stars. Maybe free will just
slipped Jean's mind while she was contemplating infinity or something.
The current X-Men get wrecked in all their adventures. They die, they lose
their powers, they turn evil. Morrison is just showing us that without all
the hoo-hah villainous explanations: "Apocolypse took over Scott's mind and
body - BWAH HA HA HA!" The X-Men are just becoming evil from within this
time. They'll bounce back. They always do.
thom
BlakGard
>X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
>that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus,
>add into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively
>with their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I
>understand it, intentional.
Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people would
stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>show what would happen to the X-Men with Magneto removed. Now they don't
>have the constant reminder of Magneto's methods, and are starting to fall
>into some of the same traps themselves. In cases, they are worse than
>Magneto was. And they think themselves just as right as he did.
If so, then I applaud the effort. However, I think it's happening at an
unbelievable pace. Magento's been out the picture for longer than this in the
past, and they've never acted like this. It's just now been a year (according
to the preview for the next issue). I had hoped that all of it would have been
blamed on Cassandra Nova, especially Charles' behaviour, but it's continuing,
and frankly, it's leaving me very discontented.
BlakGard
>: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
>
>Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
>human, and should can the pretense.
Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are not
some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans to
chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
BlakGard
>>currently behaving. So since some of the X-Men are telepaths, and have the
>>capability to see into people's minds and rewrite them, this means that it's
>>"okay," and that they should have the moral backing to do so, just because
>>they're mutants? Um... no.
>
>Who's to say that it isn't okay?
Society. I garauntee that even in a mutant-run society, this would be deemed a
serious offense, perhaps even moreso than in the present one.
>If you had telepathic powers and you could make the world a slightly more
>tolerant place by changing someone's mind, would you want someone telling you
>that you couldn't do it?
It's extremely hippocritical to espouse tolerance and then forcefully change
someone's mind. If you want to espouse tolerance, then you better damn well be
tolerant of intolerance. Otherwise, you sound very morally bankrupt.
>And why wouldn't they want you to do it?
Personally, I can think of any number of reasons.
>Because they like the world the way it is?
More precisely, because they like themselves the way they are.
>Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons to not
>rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and they're wrong?
Careful, now. Your logic is becoming cyclical. You open by stating "Who's to
say
that it isn't okay," which is opening the floodgates for extreme Macchiavellian
thought. If this does happen, then there can be no moral right and wrong... at
all. Power becomes the only deciding factor in what is right and wrong, and
ultimately, society pays the price for this. Fortunately, there is a universal
right and wrong that is apparent in every single culture.
BlakGard
>>independent of species.
>
>I don't think it is actually. Morality is a human concept for a
>start. Not only that but morality has differed not only
>historically but also from society to society.
Not really. Every society on the planet has had the same basic morality.
Killing: bad; lying: bad. Also, every society has believed in the concept of
free will.
There are, of course, grey areas within this moral code, but by and large, it
is a constant.
>For example is there anyone in this group who thinks that slavery
>is morally acceptable? I wouldn't imagine so There was a time
>when it was considered quite acceptable though.
You'll find no instances in history where slavery was consider an outright good
thing. It was never morally acceptable. It was just accepted.
>Morals are not a constant thing so it is at least arguable that a
>new species might develop its own.
Repeat after me:
Mutants are not a new species.
Mutants are not a different species.
BlakGard
>
>I don't know about that. I'm starting to think that the "x-gene" is not the
>gene that grants power so much as activates that which is present throughout
>a mutant's genetic code.
Actually, mutants were proven to be "human, just with an extra gene" long ago.
>do you consider all the hominids that are human-like to be humans? According
>to the standards of science they aren't human and I would say that mutants are
>to humans what humans are to those dead-ends.
Proven otherwise. Mutants:Humans is not comparable to Humans:Neanderthal.
Besides, there is evidence to suggest that Neanderthals had a very human-like
moral system.
>If this weren't the case, why would the human race be on the verge of
>extinction?
At this point, the whole "verge of extinction" angle is largely a theory. It
hasn't stood up to much of any evidence in the books.
BlakGard
>>>>to be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
>>
>>>Worth wrecking the current X-Men to get it?
>>
>>There wasn't anything to wreck. They'd already fired Kelley and Seagle,
>>and kept Davis under tight reign.
>
>Morrison is actually doing a hell of a salvage job on a book that was
>"wrecked" over 10+ years ago.
Yeah... he's managed to get a whole 4,000 more people to like the book than did
2 years ago.
Newsflash: Morrison isn't doing a god damned thing to salvage anything.
What he's doing is a hell of a job at keeping it afloat.
BlakGard
>>read about characters with more human flaws), while I find it much more
>>satisfying ... Morrison setting up a world that immerses itself in its own,
>>mutant-based rules, and mixes the alien with the mundane, the extraordinary
>>with characters that still have legions of personality and other flaws.
>
>Hmm odd. I'd say the flaws of these characters are all TOO human (and thats
why
>I like them). Pride, arrogance, lust, self doubt.... how much more human can
>you get?
>
>To me these are very human characters with unusual powers. Thats what I like
>about what Morrison is doing. Instead of giving us cliched angst or some sort
>of perfect role models, he's giving us people.
>
>These aren't aliens. They think like we do. They use our logic. Thats WHY
>they're so fucking scary and screwed up.
I see your point, but personally, I don't want to read about screwed up people
when I open a comic. At least not morally screwed up. Do I want perfection? No,
but I want role models. This is what the X-Men are supposed to be. This is what
made them so popular in the first place.
When I want to read about scary and screwed up people, I open a newspaper,
Time,
or Newsweek... or go to CNN.com. Scary and screwed up is what the people in
those publications are supposed to be.
Lia Brown
>Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3d7bc8c8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>I don't think we're supposed to be completely comfortable with the what the
>X-Men are doing right now. In fact, most of them creep me out, including
>the characters who I used to think were just cute and cuddly (i.e., Hank).
>But they're that way to tell a story. Think of it as a "What If?" story:
>What if the X-Men went bad?
But it isn't a What If?, it's the regular mainstream universe. That's
why some people feel disconcerted.
>> There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
>> some of us.
>
>It's important to a lot of "us." But, again, we're human. We don't think
>like people who can rearrange atoms or eat stars. Maybe free will just
>slipped Jean's mind while she was contemplating infinity or something.
Most of the current X-Men did grow up human, after all, raised in
human families. They may have had their opinions changed when they
developed powers, but 'human morality' is hardly alien to them.
I'm not saying that it's impossible or even unlikely that powerful
mutants would develop their own morality. But it doesn't make it
right.
Lia
"Drongo. You think having no face could stop the unimaginable
charm that is Allerdyce?"
Freedom Force: http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/bear/353/ffintro.html
Dan McEwen
news:3d7c3982...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 04:02:50 GMT, "Thom Heil" <th...@luc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3d7bc8c8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> >I don't think we're supposed to be completely comfortable with the what
the
> >X-Men are doing right now. In fact, most of them creep me out, including
> >the characters who I used to think were just cute and cuddly (i.e.,
Hank).
> >But they're that way to tell a story. Think of it as a "What If?" story:
> >What if the X-Men went bad?
>
> But it isn't a What If?, it's the regular mainstream universe. That's
> why some people feel disconcerted.
Whereas I see it as an interesting exploration of mutants as a separate
species.
> >> There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
> >> some of us.
> >
> >It's important to a lot of "us." But, again, we're human. We don't
think
> >like people who can rearrange atoms or eat stars. Maybe free will just
> >slipped Jean's mind while she was contemplating infinity or something.
>
> Most of the current X-Men did grow up human, after all, raised in
> human families. They may have had their opinions changed when they
> developed powers, but 'human morality' is hardly alien to them.
No, not alien. In one of my posts I was suggesting that by being in the
near-exclusive presence of other mutants over the years that they have begun
to develop a separate morality. And when you add in these secondary
mutations you have to wonder just how far-reaching the effects go. Have
people like Hank and Emma actually made the leap to a completely separate
level by getting these extra mutations? Has it altered their thought
patterns? I'd like to see these things explored. If I have to take a break
from the ho-hum angsty "Oh, Remy, ah can't touch you! Boo-hoo!" of the past
10-15 years I'll somehow manage to survive.
> I'm not saying that it's impossible or even unlikely that powerful
> mutants would develop their own morality. But it doesn't make it
> right.
No, and that's what makes for interesting storytelling.
Dan McEwen
news:20020909002750...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >Is it really possible that I only know freaks? It just seems to me that
the
> >X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
> >that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus,
> >add into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively
> >with their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I
> >understand it, intentional.
>
> Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people
would
> stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
I'm guessing that Morrison is going the route that they are.
Dan McEwen
> > As I've brought up before, Morrison at one time apparently said he
would
> >show what would happen to the X-Men with Magneto removed. Now they don't
> >have the constant reminder of Magneto's methods, and are starting to fall
> >into some of the same traps themselves. In cases, they are worse than
> >Magneto was. And they think themselves just as right as he did.
>
> If so, then I applaud the effort. However, I think it's happening at an
> unbelievable pace. Magento's been out the picture for longer than this in
the
> past, and they've never acted like this. It's just now been a year
(according
> to the preview for the next issue). I had hoped that all of it would have
been
> blamed on Cassandra Nova, especially Charles' behaviour, but it's
continuing,
> and frankly, it's leaving me very discontented.
If it's been a year and the entirety of the modern-day MU took place in 10
years then there's no way Magneto was ever gone for that long. Still...I
say the secondary mutations and the literal explosion of new mutants is
making a difference.
the question
>
> Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : "Thom Heil" <th...@luc.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
>
> :>And why
> :>wouldn't they want you to do it? Because they like the world the way it is?
> :>Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons to not
> :>rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and they're wrong?
>
> : So following these thoughts, if I'm physically stronger than someone
> : else (not likely to happen to those who know me, but run with me
> : here), that makes it "okay" for me to physically force them to do "the
> : right thing" 24/7, and make the world a slightly better place?
Welcome to the world of superheroic comics?
> : There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
> : some of us.
>
> Just watched Starship Troopers the other night, a text based on an
> old-fashioned, celebrated sci-fi military classic. The philosophy in the movie
> was that only citizens (ie the military), could vote, basically because might
> makes right.
Being in the military guarantees Citizenship status, but you still get your
vote once you demob. The idea being that only people willing to exercise
ultimate power and take the ultimate responsibility for that exercise
should have the right to exercise political power.
The book and the movie are very very different, but I don't think the movie
could reasonably have been made any other way short of a three or four hour
opus.
> Not saying I agree, just that it is one interpretation of how things happen in
> the world.
Got to say that every time I see an election in the Us or the UK, I'm glad
that Australia makes voting mandatory for all registered voters.
> :> All of Magneto's
> :>schemes would fall apart of their own accord and Charles could get along
> :>with his work.
>
> : And just how many of Magneto's schemes would have fallen apart without
> : the X-Men there to actually stop them?
>
> Because, I think he meant, they wouldn't have been good enough to work on
> their own anyway.
Have to disagree there - Magneto and his people have comprehensively
outclassed anything the flatscans could mount against them every single
time, and it's only been the timely intervention of the X-Men and their ilk
that have prevented those plans seeing fruition.
--
Jon
-----
We are the people our parents warned us about, and we're here to stay.
the question
> Most of the current X-Men did grow up human, after all, raised in
> human families. They may have had their opinions changed when they
> developed powers, but 'human morality' is hardly alien to them.
>
> I'm not saying that it's impossible or even unlikely that powerful
> mutants would develop their own morality. But it doesn't make it
> right.
Rubbish. Morality changes all the time, even among ordinary run of the mill
humans. Morality should never be constant, only relavent, otherwise we'd
still have slavery and us queers would be a hell of a lot worse off, and
women's equality would be a pipe dream.
the question
> Repeat after me:
> Mutants are not a new species.
> Mutants are not a different species.
I would but I'd be wrong.
the question
>
> >: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
> >: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
> >
> >Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
> >human, and should can the pretense.
>
> Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are not
> some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans to
> chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
Sorry, but I can't see how you can say something that has a different
genetic sequence from humans is itself completely human. If the X-factor
was inside the junk DNA code of all humans and merely active in some you'd
be right. But it's not.
Shawn Hill
:>: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
:>: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
:>
:>Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
:>human, and should can the pretense.
: Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are not
: some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans to
: chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
Proven where, when?
And even if the genetic differences aren't really different enough to
classify as a seperate species, that's never stopped humans from dividing
up into races. Mutants could easily, sociologically, be looked at as a
seperate race, one (at least in New X-men) fully engaged in the process of
building its own ethnicity.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>>>>These are the themes of Morrison's whole run so far. They're not going
:>>>>to be resolved until his run is over. That's the big payoff in the end.
:>>
:>>>Worth wrecking the current X-Men to get it?
:>>
:>>There wasn't anything to wreck. They'd already fired Kelley and Seagle,
:>>and kept Davis under tight reign.
:>
:>Morrison is actually doing a hell of a salvage job on a book that was
:>"wrecked" over 10+ years ago.
: Yeah... he's managed to get a whole 4,000 more people to like the book than did
: 2 years ago.
: Newsflash: Morrison isn't doing a god damned thing to salvage anything.
: What he's doing is a hell of a job at keeping it afloat.
We are talking about quality, not just quantity, aren't we?
Shawn
Laura M. Parkinson
>BlakGard wrote:
>>
>> >: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
>> >: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
>> >
>> >Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
>> >human, and should can the pretense.
>>
>> Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are not
>> some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans to
>> chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
>
>Sorry, but I can't see how you can say something that has a different
>genetic sequence from humans is itself completely human. If the X-factor
>was inside the junk DNA code of all humans and merely active in some you'd
>be right. But it's not.
Well for one thing, if they weren't human, they wouldn't be a) born of
humans, and b) be able to interbreed normally with humans.
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Laura M. Parkinson
>Lia Brown wrote:
>> Most of the current X-Men did grow up human, after all, raised in
>> human families. They may have had their opinions changed when they
>> developed powers, but 'human morality' is hardly alien to them.
>>
>> I'm not saying that it's impossible or even unlikely that powerful
>> mutants would develop their own morality. But it doesn't make it
>> right.
>
>Rubbish. Morality changes all the time, even among ordinary run of the mill
>humans. Morality should never be constant, only relavent, otherwise we'd
>still have slavery and us queers would be a hell of a lot worse off, and
>women's equality would be a pipe dream.
Of course, that depends on whether or not you think that there's a
type of overreaching morality that doesn't change. Ie: that morality
would dictate that slavery was wrong, even at the time of slaves in
America, and that it just took society a while to realize it.
I'd tend to be somewhat more along these lines, in that I don't think
that "by the law" and "moral" necessarily link up.
But that's opening up a whole other can of worms.
Regardless, morality could be changing for the mutants. And if the
X-Men are anything to go by at the moment, it's changing horribly for
the worse, to the point where they're "mutating" into people that I no
longer really care to read about. If I want to read about adulterers,
"racists," voyeurs, etc., I'll pick up the newspaper, thanks.
Shawn Hill
: The current X-Men get wrecked in all their adventures. They die, they lose
: their powers, they turn evil. Morrison is just showing us that without all
: the hoo-hah villainous explanations: "Apocolypse took over Scott's mind and
: body - BWAH HA HA HA!" The X-Men are just becoming evil from within this
: time. They'll bounce back. They always do.
I don't think they're becoming evil. But I do agree with the altered
perspective you say Morrison is providing. I think it's the most honest
the X-books have been in a long while (along with X-statix). He's showing
their actions, and the consequences of those actions. And, to this group,
more and more, it's humans who are the enemy.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>>You know, morality, whatever that may be, is completely
:>>independent of species.
:>
:>I don't think it is actually. Morality is a human concept for a
:>start. Not only that but morality has differed not only
:>historically but also from society to society.
: Not really. Every society on the planet has had the same basic morality.
: Killing: bad; lying: bad. Also, every society has believed in the concept of
: free will.
They have? That's not how some of the political experiments of the last
200 years have been portrayed. What's free will when your country is run
by an absolute dictator? What about when there's a party line that
everyone MUST tow, on threat of death or imprisonment? The "same basic
morality" is far too sweeping a term to really encompass the complexity of
human attitudes towards right and wrong.
: There are, of course, grey areas within this moral code, but by and large, it
: is a constant.
Having right and wrong is constant. Agreeing on what those are, not so
much.
:>For example is there anyone in this group who thinks that slavery
:>is morally acceptable? I wouldn't imagine so There was a time
:>when it was considered quite acceptable though.
: You'll find no instances in history where slavery was consider an outright good
: thing. It was never morally acceptable. It was just accepted.
You'll definitely find societies that considered it something having its
own moral codes, while practising it without guilt.
:>Morals are not a constant thing so it is at least arguable that a
:>new species might develop its own.
: Repeat after me:
: Mutants are not a new species.
: Mutants are not a different species.
Now sing this song:
Mutants are a new race of humans.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Hello, Terrafamilia !
: You wrote:
: Charles has always been an arrogant know it all. Scott has always
: been plagued with self doubt and twice before has proved to be
: less than faithful. Jean... well you do remember her actions as
: Dark Phoenix don't you? That was HER actions.
No! It was her insane clone! It was all Phoenix, not Jean!! It was ....
uhm. Yeah, it was Jean.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>These aren't aliens. They think like we do. They use our logic. Thats WHY
:>they're so fucking scary and screwed up.
: I see your point, but personally, I don't want to read about screwed up people
: when I open a comic. At least not morally screwed up. Do I want perfection? No,
: but I want role models. This is what the X-Men are supposed to be. This is what
: made them so popular in the first place.
Is it? I thought they were popular for the same reason Spiderman was,
because they were flawed but secretly had amazing powers.
: When I want to read about scary and screwed up people, I open a newspaper,
: Time,
: or Newsweek... or go to CNN.com. Scary and screwed up is what the people in
: those publications are supposed to be.
"supposed to be scary and screwed up?" I'd think we'd hope that's exactly
NOT what real people making political decisions are.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>Is it really possible that I only know freaks? It just seems to me that the
:>X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
:>that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus,
:>add into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively
:>with their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I
:>understand it, intentional.
: Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people would
: stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
you mean, like the ones writing the book and claiming that they are?
Shawn
Laura M. Parkinson
Then Morrison is going to need to rewrite and just completely alter a
lot more than the characters and their history. Not that that'll stop
him.
R. Tang
the question <ques...@spin.net.au> wrote:
>BlakGard wrote:
>>
>> >: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
>> >: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
>> >
>> >Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
>> >human, and should can the pretense.
>>
>> Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are not
>> some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans to
>> chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
>
>Sorry, but I can't see how you can say something that has a different
>genetic sequence from humans is itself completely human.
If they interbreed, they're part of the same species.
Now what we may see are speciation events, but I'm not sure how
you can tell; there's no genetic isolation and such....
If the X-factor
>was inside the junk DNA code of all humans and merely active in some you'd
>be right. But it's not.
>
>--
>Jon
>-----
>We are the people our parents warned us about, and we're here to stay.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Terrafamilia
Thom Heil wrote:
> I don't think so, no. But I'm a human. I'm just saying, putting yourself
> in a mutant's shoes for a minute, isn't that what you'd think? Especially
> if you were a mutant who was hell-bent on making the world a better place?
> Wouldn't there be some cracks in your logic?
Not in the logic. But being a superpowered mutant would make it easier to
rationalize violating others rights. Even the language the X-Men themselves have
adopted smacks of master-race connotations with their unthinking acceptance of
the derogatory term "flatscan."
> I don't think we're supposed to be completely comfortable with the what the
> X-Men are doing right now. In fact, most of them creep me out, including
> the characters who I used to think were just cute and cuddly (i.e., Hank).
> But they're that way to tell a story. Think of it as a "What If?" story:
> What if the X-Men went bad?
>
> > There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
> > some of us.
>
> It's important to a lot of "us." But, again, we're human. We don't think
> like people who can rearrange atoms or eat stars. Maybe free will just
> slipped Jean's mind while she was contemplating infinity or something.
If you go that route, you'd still have to say there is no distinct "mutant
morality" since mutants who can rearrange atoms and eat stars are few and far
between. And rearranging atoms is hardly the exclusive provence of mutants. You
are simply pointing out that mutants may be more apt to rationalize their
behavior, not that the logic of it is in any way compelling.
Ciao,
Terrafamilia
Terrafamilia
Dan McEwen wrote:
> "Laura M. Parkinson" <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3d7b9b1b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > Terrafamilia <terraf...@irtc.net> rhapsodized in blue:
> > Exactly. And this is part of my huge problem with the X-Men as they're
> > currently behaving. So since some of the X-Men are telepaths, and have
> > the capability to see into people's minds and rewrite them, this means
> > that it's "okay," and that they should have the moral backing to do
> > so, just because they're mutants? Um... no.
>
> Ability does not equate with morality but no one claimed that anyway. How
> they react to knowledge gleaned from another's mind is where issues come up.
> Just because someone thinks "I should kill that moron" doesn't mean that a
> person is actually contemplating such a thing. Lots of random thoughts go
> through people's minds that aren't indicative of behavior. So the telepath
> is left trying to discern if this is a random thought or an actual threat.
> Do you reveal someone's private thoughts? What if the person is genuinely
> innocent but ends up being watched thereafter by police and government
> agents because he's "dangerous"? Or what if the person _is_ dangerous but
> you opt to do nothing because you're not sure. Does it make you partially
> responsible for not stopping a threat when you had the opportunity?
> Seriously, think through the possibilities. They're greater than you think.
But how is this unique to mutants? Leaving the telepathy out of it the same sort
of situation could arise if you overheard someone talking to themselves while
they thought they were completely alone. And you'd have no more proof than if
you overheard their unspoken thought through telepathy. These are still the
sorts of situations that mere "human" morality would be applicable to.
Ciao,
Terrafamilia
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> >I don't think it is actually. Morality is a human concept for
a
> >start. Not only that but morality has differed not only
> >historically but also from society to society.
> Not really. Every society on the planet has had the same basic
morality.
> Killing: bad; lying: bad. Also, every society has believed in
the concept of
> free will.
Not true.There have been and I think are societies where lying is
considering not only acceptable but is actually expected, its not
considered inherently immoral.
As for the idea that every society has believed in the concept of
free-will thats clearly and demonstrably not true throughout
history. Free will is really a very modern thing. On the whole
historically people were expected to do what they were told
either by church or some other authority. Thinking and free-will
were discouraged.
Killing may be the only thing thats close to a moral absolute
throughout all societies, but even then there's a whole grey area
as to when kiling is okay. Provoked, unprovoked, self defense...
what is self defense. Abortion, some will telly you its morally
wrong, some will disagree. Captial punishment. Morally wrong? To
some, not to others.
> There are, of course, grey areas within this moral code, but by
and large, it
> is a constant.
Not really.
In fact its usually the people who think that morals are absolute
who turn out to be the most dangerous.
> >For example is there anyone in this group who thinks that
slavery
> >is morally acceptable? I wouldn't imagine so There was a time
> >when it was considered quite acceptable though.
> You'll find no instances in history where slavery was consider
an outright good
> thing. It was never morally acceptable. It was just accepted.
Good thing and morally acceptable are totally different things.
If you're seriously arguing tha the X-en should only do 100%
morally pure and good things then they couldn't possibly function
within the Marvel Universe.
They couldn't hit people, they couldn't interfer for free of
trampling on someone's free will. Life is about the grey areas.
> >Morals are not a constant thing so it is at least arguable
that a
> >new species might develop its own.
> Repeat after me:
> Mutants are not a new species.
> Mutants are not a different species.
Thatsz a matter of opinion. Strikes me that if they have a
different genetic code then they are a different species.
Eoghann Irving
--
Solar Flare - Everything Fantasy & Science Fiction
News, Reviews and Commentary
http://www.sflare.com
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
> >These aren't aliens. They think like we do. They use our
logic. Thats WHY
> >they're so fucking scary and screwed up.
> I see your point, but personally, I don't want to read about
screwed up people
> when I open a comic. At least not morally screwed up.
Well thats fair enough but I think you'd have to agree that its a
perfectly valid take on the characters. I'm mainly arguing
against people who seem to think this is simply bad writing.
> Do I want perfection? No,
> but I want role models. This is what the X-Men are supposed to
be. This is what
> made them so popular in the first place.
Hmm classic stories like Dark Phoenix made them popular in the
first place. Stories where a core member of the team destroyed a
planet. You don't think thats morally screwed up?
Or what about Logan. The most popuarl X-Man of them all. You
don't think he's morally compromised? He's a killer.
I'll probably never fully understand people's desperation to have
role models since its not something I've ever looked for. Thats a
job for parents if you ask me. I'd much rather read about people
I can relate to in some fashion.
Of course another thing I really don't understand is people who
persist in reading something they don't like. After a certain
point I figure you should just shrug your shoulders and buy
something else rather than expecting every writer to comprise to
suit your particular tastes
> When I want to read about scary and screwed up people, I open a
newspaper,
> Time,
> or Newsweek... or go to CNN.com. Scary and screwed up is what
the people in
> those publications are supposed to be.
Well thats not why I read news. I read the news to get facts.
Thats probably why I don't put much trust in CNN. ;)
> -=[ The BlakGard ]=-
> "Somewhere there's danger;
> somewhere there's injustice,
> and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: : Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people would
: : stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
:
: you mean, like the ones writing the book and claiming that they are?
In fairness, this seems to be a major part of the storyline: Do the same rules
which apply to "regular" humans apply to to superhumans as well?
That said, from a biological point of view, mutants in the general sense can't
be a different species by virtue of being mutants. In order for mutants to
become a different species, there would have to be multiple beings with
identical new, "non-human" features, who can multiply themselves;
If, for example, we had a bunch of people looking like Doop, and those people
could interbreed with each other and create new folks that look like Doop, then
these folks could be considered a different species. However, you can't just
lump together all the various mutations of the species homo sapiens sapiens,
which are obviously vastly different from each other, and refer to them as one
new species in the biological sense. That would be wrong, at least judging by
what we knew about Marvel's mutants until Morrison arrived.
I think NEW X-MEN #114 may have put a new deck of cards on the table, though:
It has been revealed that
(a) there is an "Extinction Gene" in humanity which will cause regular homo
sapiens sapiens to vanish from Earth within five generations,
(b) there is apparently one global reason for the mutations to occur
(accelerated mutant birth rate), as opposed to the previous notion that all
mutations in the Marvel Universe happen independently from each other, and
(c) the mutants continue to mutate (secondary mutations --> tertiary
mutations? --> etc.?).
For all we know, going by these new parameters, Marvel's mutants could be a new
species with the common feature of having features different from "regular
humans". Viewed from this angle, it would make sense to consider the mutants in
the Marvel Universe as a different species. What I'm not sure about is if the
occurrance of "regular" children being born from two mutant parents -- as it
happened with Graydon Creed, supposedly the son of Mystique and Sabretooth --
fits in with this theory.
--Marc
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Regardless, morality could be changing for the mutants. And if the
: X-Men are anything to go by at the moment, it's changing horribly for
: the worse, to the point where they're "mutating" into people that I no
: longer really care to read about. If I want to read about adulterers,
: "racists," voyeurs, etc., I'll pick up the newspaper, thanks.
Did you notice Jean's comment that Xavier is sounding like Cassandra Nova a few
issues ago? It's rather obvious to me that the developments you mention are an
underlying part of Morrison's storyline-- and a rather interesting one as well.
I think it would be a shame if Marvel continued to avoid addressing this obvious
question in favor of having soft and cuddly protagonists people would want their
sons and daughters to marry.
--Marc
Eoghann Irving
You wrote:
Yes it was. :)
And thats central to what I'm trying to say as my contribution to
this thread. These characters were never perfect. Wolverine is a
killer for example. These are not role models and they don't
live in a perfect world.
All thats really happened is that Morrison has chosen to tell a
story some people don't like. Thats it. Its not as though the
X-Men haven't done everything that they're currently being
accused of at some time in the past as well.
There's no ruining of characters going on. There's no warping of
the books core values or anything else. Its just an
interpretation that some people don't like.
Eoghann Irving
BlakGard
(not
>>likely to happen to those who know me, but run with me here), that makes it
>>"okay" for me to physically force them to do "the right thing" 24/7, and make
>>the world a slightly better place?
>
a
>mutant's shoes for a minute, isn't that what you'd think? Especially if you
>were a mutant who was hell-bent on making the world a better place?
No. For starters, mutants are human. To make them anything else is missing the
entire point of the X-Men. Second, to force my ideals upon anyone would be
being
a hippocrite to my very cause.
BlakGard
You might have a point, even though I think that "10 year" nonsense is complete
idiocy. However, one year is still a short period of time to completely abandon
your ideals and become your worst enemy.
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote:
: : : Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people would
: : : stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
: :
: : you mean, like the ones writing the book and claiming that they are?
: That said, from a biological point of view, mutants in the general sense can't
: be a different species by virtue of being mutants. In order for mutants to
: become a different species, there would have to be multiple beings with
: identical new, "non-human" features, who can multiply themselves;
And then they wouldn't, really, be "mutants" at all, would they? I've not
really ever understood how two mutant parents with powers could produce a
child with powers who is thus also a "mutant." The seperate race thing is,
even under Morrison, more a political and social division from humans than
a biological one.
: new species in the biological sense. That would be wrong, at least judging by
: what we knew about Marvel's mutants until Morrison arrived.
: I think NEW X-MEN #114 may have put a new deck of cards on the table, though:
: It has been revealed that
: (a) there is an "Extinction Gene" in humanity which will cause regular homo
: sapiens sapiens to vanish from Earth within five generations,
: (b) there is apparently one global reason for the mutations to occur
: (accelerated mutant birth rate), as opposed to the previous notion that all
: mutations in the Marvel Universe happen independently from each other, and
Or happened due to the proliferation of atomic experimentation, which
evolved into environmental concerns about pollution over time.
: (c) the mutants continue to mutate (secondary mutations --> tertiary
: mutations? --> etc.?).
: For all we know, going by these new parameters, Marvel's mutants could be a new
: species with the common feature of having features different from "regular
: humans". Viewed from this angle, it would make sense to consider the mutants in
: the Marvel Universe as a different species. What I'm not sure about is if the
: occurrance of "regular" children being born from two mutant parents -- as it
: happened with Graydon Creed, supposedly the son of Mystique and Sabretooth --
: fits in with this theory.
Me either. But, it's a comicbook, and in comicbook science, radioactive
spiders can give super-powers to normal humans.
IE, it's ultimately what they say it is, and mutants is still a metaphor
for "different."
Shawn
BlakGard
good
>>>>reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
>>>
>>>Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
>>>human, and should can the pretense.
>>
>>Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are
not
>>some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans
>>to chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
>
>Sorry, but I can't see how you can say something that has a different
>genetic sequence from humans is itself completely human.
Mutants don't have a different genetic sequence. There is an extremely small
difference. Nothing more. They still have the same number of chromosomes, the
same blood types, and basically the same brain.
>If the X-factor was inside the junk DNA code of all humans and merely active
>in some you'd be right. But it's not.
From everything that was stated before Morrison came aboard, it is. Sentinels
were already about to destroy the entire planet once because they could not
find
a significant genetic difference between mutants and humans.
Paul O'Brien
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> writes
>
>"supposed to be scary and screwed up?" I'd think we'd hope that's
>exactly NOT what real people making political decisions are.
That would take a tremendous effort of optimism, at least on my part.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
BlakGard
>> Mutants are not a new species.
>> Mutants are not a different species.
>
>I would but I'd be wrong.
Nope. You're wrong for thinking otherwise.
Are mutants new? No. They've existed for thousands of years. It's even been
suggested that mutants are as old as the homo sapiens species.
Are mutants a different species from humans? No. They can interbreed to produce
fertile offspring, which is the final arbiter for determining different
species.
BlakGard
>>>>species.
>>>
>>>I don't think it is actually. Morality is a human concept for a start. Not
>>>only that but morality has differed not only historically but also from
>>>society to society.
>
>>Not really. Every society on the planet has had the same basic morality.
>>Killing: bad; lying: bad. Also, every society has believed in the concept of
>>free will.
>
>They have? That's not how some of the political experiments of the last 200
>years have been portrayed.
Wrong. All political experiments in the history of mankind of proven this.
>What's free will when your country is run by an absolute dictator?
The one thing dictators have never been able to get rid of is the concept of
free will. People will always do what they want to do, and they will do it when
they want to do it. This is why all dictatorships eventually collapse.
>What about when there's a party line that everyone MUST tow, on threat of
death
>or imprisonment?
Without the concept of free will, there would be no need for the "threat of
death or punishment." Otherwise, everyone would automatically obey like
mindless
zombies.
>>There are, of course, grey areas within this moral code, but by and large, it
>>is a constant.
>
>Having right and wrong is constant. Agreeing on what those are, not so
>much.
Can you name one society that doesn't have the same basic ideals of right and
wrong? I bet you can't.
>>>For example is there anyone in this group who thinks that slavery is morally
>>>acceptable? I wouldn't imagine so There was a time when it was considered
>>>quite acceptable though.
>
>>You'll find no instances in history where slavery was consider an outright
>>good thing. It was never morally acceptable. It was just accepted.
>
>You'll definitely find societies that considered it something having its
>own moral codes, while practising it without guilt.
Guilt really isn't relevant when talking about the univeral right and wrong.
>>>Morals are not a constant thing so it is at least arguable that a
>>>new species might develop its own.
>
>>Repeat after me:
>>Mutants are not a new species.
>>Mutants are not a different species.
>
>Now sing this song:
>
>Mutants are a new race of humans.
I'd be happy to once mutants fulfill the requirements for being a race. At this
point, they don't, and never have.
BlakGard
>>>only that but morality has differed not only historically but also from
>>>society to society.
>
>>Not really. Every society on the planet has had the same basic morality.
>>Killing: bad; lying: bad. Also, every society has believed in the concept of
>>free will.
>
>Not true.There have been and I think are societies where lying is considering
>not only acceptable but is actually expected, its not considered inherently
>immoral.
You will not find any such society on this planet.
>As for the idea that every society has believed in the concept of free-will
>thats clearly and demonstrably not true throughout history. Free will is
>really a very modern thing. On the whole historically people were expected to
>do what they were told either by church or some other authority. Thinking and
>free-will were discouraged.
Humans, by their very instinct, think freely. They always have, and they always
will. Free will has been present in every recorded society in the history of
mankind. Without free will, there would be no need for laws. Everyone would
think the same way and automatically obey the same rules. There would be no
crime. Everyone would have the same skills. Everyone would have the same
religion. The only place you'll find a lack of free will is in a utopia, and we
all know what that word means ("no place").
BlakGard
>>>>kept Davis under tight reign.
>>>
>>>Morrison is actually doing a hell of a salvage job on a book that was
>>>"wrecked" over 10+ years ago.
>
>>Yeah... he's managed to get a whole 4,000 more people to like the book than
>>did 2 years ago.
>
>>Newsflash: Morrison isn't doing a god damned thing to salvage anything.
>
>>What he's doing is a hell of a job at keeping it afloat.
>
>We are talking about quality, not just quantity, aren't we?
Quality is too subjective. Personally, I don't see the quality in most of what
Morrison is doing.
BlakGard
>>>they're so fucking scary and screwed up.
>
>>I see your point, but personally, I don't want to read about screwed up
>>people when I open a comic. At least not morally screwed up. Do I want
>>perfection? No, but I want role models. This is what the X-Men are supposed
to
>>be. This is what made them so popular in the first place.
>
>Is it? I thought they were popular for the same reason Spiderman was, because
>they were flawed but secretly had amazing powers.
Describe "flawed." If you mean that they have problems, then yes. If you mean
that they solve their problem in a wrong manner, then no. Spider-Man is popular
because on top of his having real-life problems, he is a role model. Otherwise,
they wouldn't call these people superHEROES.
>>When I want to read about scary and screwed up people, I open a newspaper,
>>Time, or Newsweek... or go to CNN.com. Scary and screwed up is what the
people
>>in those publications are supposed to be.
>
>"supposed to be scary and screwed up?" I'd think we'd hope that's exactly
>NOT what real people making political decisions are.
Sure we hope they're not, but they prove how scary and screwed up they are all
the time.
Ryan
>
> >How much easier (or harder) is it to betray a confidence when telepathy is a
> >given? When is Jean prying, and when does she just "hear" something projected
> >at her?
> "easier" = "it's okay for it to happen"?
Perhaps not "okay" so much as "inevitable." Obviously, if I bug
your phone line, that's wrong. But if I pick up your cellphone
conversation on my baby monitor (does that still happen?), is that
wrong? What if I just hear a snippet of conversation and turn it off?
Or if I listen to the whole, sordid conversation?
--Ryan
Shawn Hill
: In message <alicaa$a6u$7...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
:>
:>"supposed to be scary and screwed up?" I'd think we'd hope that's
:>exactly NOT what real people making political decisions are.
: That would take a tremendous effort of optimism, at least on my part.
To even hope? I hope everyday that no one will set off an atomic bomb,
still. I hope that asteroids won't hit the earth. And I hope that the
scary and screwed up people make it better, not worse.
Shawn
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: : That said, from a biological point of view, mutants in the general sense
can't
: : be a different species by virtue of being mutants. In order for mutants to
: : become a different species, there would have to be multiple beings with
: : identical new, "non-human" features, who can multiply themselves;
:
: And then they wouldn't, really, be "mutants" at all, would they? I've not
: really ever understood how two mutant parents with powers could produce a
: child with powers who is thus also a "mutant."
I think mutated DNA can be inherited under certain circumstances, so that
wouldn't pose a problem.
: The seperate race thing is,
: even under Morrison, more a political and social division from humans than
: a biological one.
Generally, I agree, but, as stated earlier, the yet unspecified global event
which has supposedly triggered all the mutant births and secondary mutations
could be a sign that Morrison has done his homework before delving into the
"separate species" thing.
: : (b) there is apparently one global reason for the mutations to occur
: : (accelerated mutant birth rate), as opposed to the previous notion that all
: : mutations in the Marvel Universe happen independently from each other, and
:
: Or happened due to the proliferation of atomic experimentation, which
: evolved into environmental concerns about pollution over time.
Yes, that's often been given as a reason, but the notion, overall, was still
that all these various mutations happened randomly, with no direct connection to
one particular source. That may have changed now.
: IE, it's ultimately what they say it is, and mutants is still a metaphor
: for "different."
I would agree that this is the gist of it; It's fun speculating about this
thing, though, even if I only have limited knowledge of genetics. I'd really be
interested in how far Morrison could back up his direction and the terms he uses
with scientific facts.
--Marc
Jim Cannon
I don't have the right attribution for this, but it's whoever BlakGard
was responding to -- I'm killing two birds with one stone:
> >do you consider all the hominids that are human-like to be humans? According
> >to the standards of science they aren't human and I would say that mutants are
> >to humans what humans are to those dead-ends.
Humans are any homonid species with the designation *Homo*. Mutants,
sapiens, Neandertals, habilis, erectus, ergastor -- all human.
Australopithicines and Ardipithicus et al. -- not human.
Note that they are all different species, however. This is the
difference between genus and species; *Homo* = genus, *sapiens* =
species. (Or in our case, it's actually *Homo sapiens sapiens* because
Neandertals, being so damn similar physically, are *Homo sapiens
neandertalensis*.)
And mutants, being also so damn similar to us (we can cross-breed with
them, apparently, though no modern/Neandertal crossbreeds have been
proven to exist) are *Homo sapiens superioris*. They're still a
different species, though.
Man, science is fun.
> Proven otherwise. Mutants:Humans is not comparable to Humans:Neanderthal.
> Besides, there is evidence to suggest that Neanderthals had a very human-like
> moral system.
No. Sorry, but Neandertals are something I know more than a little bit
about. And divining their moral system from fossils and stone tools is
an impossibility.
Yes, they buried their dead. But no one knows why. And until we build
a time machine, no one will ever know why. You can't build a moral
system from the information we have; we can infer a lot about society,
but morality is a tricky thing. Particularly when it varies widely
throughout history from culture to culture. Trying to pindown
prehistoric morality is best left alone.
Also, ask Lew Binford about Neandertal social structures. According to
him, their society had more in common with elephants than modern
humans.
> >If this weren't the case, why would the human race be on the verge of
> >extinction?
>
> At this point, the whole "verge of extinction" angle is largely a theory. It
> hasn't stood up to much of any evidence in the books.
Hank found the gene, the extinction gene. It isn't a theory. It's a
scientific fact of the Marvel Universe that baseline (Anatomically
Modern Humans) will be extinct in four or five generations.
Jim Cannon
Billy Bissette
> Laura M. Parkinson <lpark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>: "Thom Heil" <th...@luc.edu> rhapsodized in blue:
>:>And why
>:>wouldn't they want you to do it? Because they like the world the way
>:>it is? Because they're afraid of you? Are those good enough reasons
>:>to not rearrange someone's mind when you know you're right and
>:>they're wrong?
Who's to say the person doing the rearranging is actually right?
Would you want a mutant Pat Buchannan or Al Sharpton going around
rearranging peoples' minds? Both apparently believe heavily in what
they say, even when what they say is innately flawed against their own
arguments, so they'd surely believe themselves right over others.
>: So following these thoughts, if I'm physically stronger than someone
>: else (not likely to happen to those who know me, but run with me
>: here), that makes it "okay" for me to physically force them to do
>: "the right thing" 24/7, and make the world a slightly better place?
>
>: There's a little thing called "free will" that's pretty important to
>: some of us.
>
> Just watched Starship Troopers the other night, a text based on an
> old-fashioned, celebrated sci-fi military classic. The philosophy in
> the movie was that only citizens (ie the military), could vote,
> basically because might makes right.
>
> Not saying I agree, just that it is one interpretation of how things
> happen in the world.
I never bothered to watch the movie Starship Troopers, but if that is
the logic they give behind the voting system, then it is yet another
thing the movie got wrong from the book.
The logic in the book is that only citizens (military or ex-military)
could vote because citizens were the only people who were willing to
sacrifice. The citizens pledged to be the defense, they risked their
lives in training and would risk their lives in war, and were the only
people willing to actually put their money where their mouth was when
it came to government.
In Starship Troopers, nearly anyone could join the military in some
fashion, so it wasn't a matter of a prospective citizen being rejected.
It was only a matter of a person actually bothering to enlist and
completing training.
It's not an issue of might makes right. Its an issue of having to
work and take responsibility in order to be worth listening to. The
book spends some time on this idea. The main change in being a citizen
is that you hopefully got some sort of education in regards to history
and responsibilities. And plenty of people were willing to sit back
on their rears in luxury sometimes complaining about the government, but
were never willing to take the action that would give their complaining
weight.
BlakGard
>>>they're so fucking scary and screwed up.
>
>>I see your point, but personally, I don't want to read about screwed up
people
>>when I open a comic. At least not morally screwed up.
>
>Well thats fair enough but I think you'd have to agree that its a
>perfectly valid take on the characters.
It's valid only so far as Morrison is the writer, and as the writer, he can do
whatever he wants, provided his bosses agree.
>I'm mainly arguing
>against people who seem to think this is simply bad writing.
In a technical sense, no, it's not bad writing. It's very good writing, in
fact.
However, the word "bad" is highly subjective. Do I like what Morrison is
writing so far? Emphatically, no. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that
he'll get around to showing the repercussions of the recent, drastic changes to
the characters' actions.
>>Do I want perfection? No, but I want role models. This is what the X-Men are
>>supposed to be. This is what made them so popular in the first place.
>
>Hmm classic stories like Dark Phoenix made them popular in the first place.
>Stories where a core member of the team destroyed a planet. You don't think
>thats morally screwed up?
The Dark Phoenix Saga wasn't popular because Phoenix destroyed a planet. What
made the Dark Phoenix storyline so great was the ending. In the end, the
Phoenix/Jean realized the error of her ways and allowed herself to be punished,
despite having the power to not only evade punishment but hurt countless more
lives. There is the role model factor.
>Or what about Logan. The most popuarl X-Man of them all. You
>don't think he's morally compromised? He's a killer.
He's not a cold blooded killer, though. He has a conscience. What makes him
such
a popular character is the fact he struggles with his animal side, as we all
do,
and only his role model nature keeps him in check.
>I'll probably never fully understand people's desperation to have role models
>since its not something I've ever looked for. Thats a job for parents if you
>ask me. I'd much rather read about people I can relate to in some fashion.
Sure, my biggest role model is my mother, who raised me (almost by herself) and
did a great job of it. But honestly, there are some situations that my mother
either handles horribly or doesn't handle, at all. Yes, I'm fully capable of
determining my own course of action, but it's interesting to see how other
people (real or imaginary) solve problems.
It's not a desperation. It's a desire. When I read a superhero comic, I want to
read about heroes -- people who are routinely faced with the same problems as I
am, but who live by a very strong code and usually strive for the more
constructive solution. When they don't, I expect some repercussions. Hopefully,
Morrison will get around to this in his book, and I'm giving him time to do it.
When I watch Buffy, I don't want to see her slaughtering innocents. When I
watch
Star Trek, I don't want to see Riker smacking Troi for no other reason than it
makes him feel good. However, when I open a newspaper or news magazine, I'm
opening them because want to read about real people who have real problems and
who don't always solve them constructively. All are excellent ways by which to
anticipate moral dilemmas and solve them before they happen.
Jim Cannon
masse...
> the question <ques...@spin.net.au> rhapsodized in blue:
>
> >BlakGard wrote:
> >>
> >> >: It's basically Magneto's stance, suddenly grafted onto the X-Men for
> >> >: no good reason that we've been shown, and it's very distasteful to me.
> >> >
> >> >Well, some part of it seems to be a realization that they aren't, really,
> >> >human, and should can the pretense.
> >>
> >> Except for the fact that mutants have been proven to be human. Mutants are not
> >> some alien species. Comparing mutants to humans is not like comparing humans to
> >> chimps. It's more like comparing New Yorkers to Californians.
> >
> >Sorry, but I can't see how you can say something that has a different
> >was inside the junk DNA code of all humans and merely active in some you'd
> >be right. But it's not.
>
> humans, and b) be able to interbreed normally with humans.
Of course they're human. They wouldn't be *Homo sapiens superioris* if
they weren't human. But I think you're missing the point.
Neandertals, Homo erectus, Australopithecus afarensis, and everything
else up and down the bushel of human evolution started somewhere.
That's the whole point of evolution after all; spontaneous generation
is frowned upon.
Here we are at the cusp of some grand evolutionary moment -- mutants
have been in existence for, what, three thousand years or so? At least
as far back as Apocalypse's birth in Egypt, right?. But the frequency
of mutant births is increasing. Mutants are having children with other
mutants. Secondary mutations are transforming large numbers of the
mutant populace. What we could be seeing here is that magical point --
rarely, if ever, preserved in the fossil evidence -- where two species
of humanity reach that breaking point and go their genetically
separate ways.
Happened in Africa 200,000 years ago. Now it's happening in
Westchester, New York.
Morrison has a very loose grasp of biology (the X-Office always has,
actually) but I applaud him for trying something different. In his
first three issues, he chucked Days of Future Past out the window and
cleaned the slate for new stories.
Jim Cannon
BlakGard
>>>the X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
>>>that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus, add
>>>into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively with
>>>their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I understand
>>>it, intentional.
>>
>>Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people would
>>stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
>
If so, then he seriously derailed the continuity from everything that was
established prior. Different species cannot interbreed and still produce
fertile
offspring. Yet, all of Marvel's human offshoots do so all the time.
For the moment, I'm guessing Morrison's story will culminate with the X-Men
discovering the error of their recent ways. This has been the only thing that's
kept me reading. If, come NXM #150, this hasn't happened, then I'll probably
drop the book from my pull list.
BlakGard
>>>X-Men finally act like actual people rather than caricatures. That means
>>>that some of the stuff they do makes sense and some of it doesn't. Plus,
>>>add into it that they're a separate species who deals almost exclusively
>>>with their own kind and you get some unusual behavior. That is, as I
>>>understand it, intentional.
>
>>Except they (mutants) are NOT a separate species. I really wish people would
>>stop referring to them and depicting them as if they were.
>
I mean, like the ones writing the book have always claimed they were not.
Morrison is the one derailing what was already accepted.
Shaun G.
Jim Cannon wrote:
>
> Hank found the gene, the extinction gene. It isn't a theory. It's a
> scientific fact of the Marvel Universe that baseline (Anatomically
> Modern Humans) will be extinct in four or five generations.
>
> Jim Cannon
>
Well considering all the changes going on with Beast, I think it's
not out of the question that he could be wrong. All scientists
aren't correct the first time they "discover" something.
Shaun G.
Shaun G.
the question wrote:
>
>
> Got to say that every time I see an election in the Us or the UK, I'm glad
> that Australia makes voting mandatory for all registered voters.
>
So are you under threat of fines or jail time or both if you don't vote?
Shaun G.