Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

Why is Poison Ivy into petty crime when she can SELL her powers?

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Why is Poison Ivy into petty crime when she can SELL her powers?

Think: she has control over plants. She could grown entire farm fields from seed to harvest in just an hour.
Poison Ivy could grow industrial chemicals in plants that would eliminate the toxic waste produced in normal chemical factories.
She could grow algae in dead seas to bring them back to life...and these would be immune to pollutants!

If Poison Ivy sold her powers she could be richer than Bruce Wayne!
So why is she slumming with Harley committing bank robberies?

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
This seems relevant:

This seems relevant:

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Think: she has control over plants. She could grown entire farm fields from seed to harvest in just an hour.
Poison Ivy could grow industrial chemicals in plants that would eliminate the toxic waste produced in normal chemical factories.
She could grow algae in dead seas to bring them back to life...and these would be immune to pollutants!

If Poison Ivy sold her powers she could be richer than Bruce Wayne!
So why is she slumming with Harley committing bank robberies?

Because she wants to. Oh, and also she likes to kill people? I think she sometimes has an overarching goal of eliminating all non-plantlife in the world?

She doesn't do any of the things you mentioned because, you know, she's a villain.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Halae wrote:
Halae wrote:

This seems relevant:

This image is always relevant.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 16 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Not everybody is motivated by

Not everybody is motivated by wealth and fame.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Not to mention, it'd make for

Not to mention, it'd make for a much more boring and uninteresting story :p

TheInternetJanitor
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 05/11/2018 - 06:00
This is true for basically

This is true for basically every superpower. Why does batman spend a fortune putting on tights and punching hoodlums when he could have a vastly increased effect on crime rate by spending money improving education and literally cleaning up gotham? Why does superman fly around punching individual bad guys when he could basically generate an absurd amount of free power by cranking a large manual generator?

Use of superpowers in ways such as this don't make for exciting stories. Superhero stories (even before comics, the oldest myths and legends are pretty much superhero stories) are popular because they involve someone miraculously overcoming odds that are not only seemingly insurmountable but assumed to be inevitable. If it isn't a surprise that the hero wins then there isn't much of a story, it becomes mundane. The fantastic becomes banal.

Ivy becoming Monsanto is pretty close to the definition of the fantastic becoming banal, at least to the average reader.

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
I thought Poison Ivy was just

I thought Poison Ivy was just crazy. Just like most all Batman villains. That’s why they’re tossed in an asylum when Batman busts them.

If you wonder why she doesn’t do things rationally it’s because she’s in irrational person. I have no idea what her background is in whatever the latest retcon happens to be, but I believe her powers came to her after being exposed to various botanical poisons that warped her mind. She also had emotional trauma on top of that. So yeah, she’s cuckoo.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
In the comic Invincible one

In the comic Invincible one of the characters get's disillusioned with the Superhero gig and goes to Africa to help out people there with her powers.

She can manipulate matter at the sub-atomic level by sheer will power. Organic (not animal life, however) and inorganic matter can be changed into anything she desires. So she goes over there to like, build homes, and feed the starving, and such.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

I thought Poison Ivy was just crazy. Just like most all Batman villains. That’s why they’re tossed in an asylum when Batman busts them.

If you wonder why she doesn’t do things rationally it’s because she’s in irrational person. I have no idea what her background is in whatever the latest retcon happens to be, but I believe her powers came to her after being exposed to various botanical poisons that warped her mind. She also had emotional trauma on top of that. So yeah, she’s cuckoo.

It's a good thing they have Arkham cause he really drives them bats.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

ThatWeirdo
ThatWeirdo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/07/2018 - 22:05
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Think: she has control over plants. She could grown entire farm fields from seed to harvest in just an hour.
Poison Ivy could grow industrial chemicals in plants that would eliminate the toxic waste produced in normal chemical factories.
She could grow algae in dead seas to bring them back to life...and these would be immune to pollutants!

If Poison Ivy sold her powers she could be richer than Bruce Wayne!
So why is she slumming with Harley committing bank robberies?

I do not think she really can in such a magnitude or if it usually come with some lethal side effect (which she might not much bothered of but brings Bats to the table). She does not do what she does because she hate humans period; she does it because she hates humans harming plants of which she is linked to share the pain in some form. She wants humans to stop doing ecological harm; if she could archive that by saying pretty please once without anyone being harmed I'd guess she would gladly do it.

Robbing banks with Harley might be for 2 reasons: Shes a scientist herself and sometimes needs money for equip which is easier bought than stolen. Also she and Harley like each other. A lot. So in some cases it could just be a favor or much more likely girls having fun. Maybe because Harley shows a similar empathy towards animals (no matter which planet :P ) as Ivy does to plants. Although its not her main agenda.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Harley and Ivy like eachother

Harley and Ivy like eachother a lot? That's an understatement.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
TheInternetJanitor wrote:
TheInternetJanitor wrote:

This is true for basically every superpower. Why does batman spend a fortune putting on tights and punching hoodlums when he could have a vastly increased effect on crime rate by spending money improving education and literally cleaning up gotham? Why does superman fly around punching individual bad guys when he could basically generate an absurd amount of free power by cranking a large manual generator?

Use of superpowers in ways such as this don't make for exciting stories. Superhero stories (even before comics, the oldest myths and legends are pretty much superhero stories) are popular because they involve someone miraculously overcoming odds that are not only seemingly insurmountable but assumed to be inevitable. If it isn't a surprise that the hero wins then there isn't much of a story, it becomes mundane. The fantastic becomes banal.

Ivy becoming Monsanto is pretty close to the definition of the fantastic becoming banal, at least to the average reader.

I feel Batman Begins showed just how that wasn't case, and I believe many comics have even brought up the subject of with heroes who are nothing but "Have lots of money."

Giving stuff away doesn't get rid of crime.

I'm curious about the Invincible comic though. What did they say happened after a woman basically made everything they need for them, without them working for it. Just more time for fun and getting revenge on people who wronged them?

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I think she just made their

I think she just made their lives better.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I feel Batman Begins showed just how that wasn't case, and I believe many comics have even brought up the subject of with heroes who are nothing but "Have lots of money."

Giving stuff away doesn't get rid of crime.

Giving the wrong stuff away doesn't get rid of crime but giving the right stuff does.
Education, food stamps, healthcare, rehabilitation programs and so forth all have dramatic impacts on crime, poverty, and economic growth. With proper oversight, giving these things away for free would far outweigh the benefits of stopping bank robberies or muggings.
Please excuse the minor soapbox standing I did here, its just my SJW coming out.
That being said, common crime isn't the norm for a Batman or Ironman type character. They face challenges that the real world just doesn't face. When Mr Freeze casts Gotham into eternal winter it requires something beyond educational programs or healthcare to combat. Its those crimes and criminals that show how rich heroes using their money to fight crime far outweighs the benefits of social programs or infrastructure improvements. Comic book reality is vastly different than real world reality so trying to apply real world solutions to comic book concepts is problematic at best.

To the OP's question. Ivy doesn't really rob banks often anymore. When she does its like others have pointed out, its to secure quick finances for her experiments or as a girls night out with her old flame Quinn. When she is written to be a villain she tends to be more of an extreme eco-terrorist than a common thug.

Also, I think you are over estimating her affinity with plants. I don't think (but could be wrong) she can just grow anything within hours. The plants she grows either require her to nurture them over time or are specifically designed to be fast growing as part of her experiments.
Regardless, even if she could stimulate plant growth in that manner she is unlikely to do so if the end result is for them to be harvested in any manner because she treats the plants she grows as her children.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I was thinking more along the

I was thinking more along the lines that it showed that Thomas Wayne was basically giving money away, as he mentioned on the rail way he built for the city and as was mentioned by Rhas. He spent money to make life better. There was still crime.

Why?

Because there will always be people who want more. People who want to rule others. People, as mention in The Dark Knight, who just want to watch the world burn.

That's why giving money away, without letting them work for it, just doesn't work. You can make them thankful for awhile for sure. However, give them money so they never have to work and they won't work. Majority of people will always take the path of least resistance.

This is explained in comics on why they can't just give it away.

Then there will just be politicians who want the power/money all for themselves, which is common in comics and life really...we couldn't even pass Bernie's drug bill because to many in the pocket of big pharm (to bad to, I saw it as a bill that really worked on both sides of the party lines), and even in my local government I've seen it (as I've even worked in it). :p

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I was thinking more along the lines that it showed that Thomas Wayne was basically giving money away, as he mentioned on the rail way he built for the city and as was mentioned by Rhas. He spent money to make life better. There was still crime.

Why?

Because there will always be people who want more. People who want to rule others. People, as mention in The Dark Knight, who just want to watch the world burn.

That's why giving money away, without letting them work for it, just doesn't work. You can make them thankful for awhile for sure. However, give them money so they never have to work and they won't work. Majority of people will always take the path of least resistance.

This is explained in comics on why they can't just give it away.

Then there will just be politicians who want the power/money all for themselves, which is common in comics and life really...we couldn't even pass Bernie's drug bill because to many in the pocket of big pharm (to bad to, I saw it as a bill that really worked on both sides of the party lines), and even in my local government I've seen it (as I've even worked in it). :p

Ah the old "it won't fix -all- the problems so we shouldn't do anything!" Approach.

Crime is most often linked to poverty, remove poverty and you remove a large amount of crime. Sure it won't remove all the crime but it'll remove crimes of necessity. Giving people better access to better education would mean they are more likely to be able to get a job and support themselves. Decriminalization of drug use would also reduce crimes as those who are using drugs and want to stop doing that will be able to go to rehab instead of jail. There's a long list of ways to reduce crime, it just takes time and money.

With Bruce's cash and influence he could have made sure there was no/less corruption in the government of Gotham, funded GCPD, got them better training and equipment, worked with them to help root out the crooked cops.

Punching a crime boss and bringing him to jail doesn't work on it's own. Especially if the hero doesn't gather any evidence to help put/keep the badguys behind bars.

Anyway Batman doesn't do any of those things because he's a comic book character and it's more interesting to watch him punching the badguys. Also punching the badguys makes him feel good after his parents bought it.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
With Bruce's cash, they've

With Bruce's cash, they've had him (and his parents) do that. It didn't work. :p

See, you can't get rid of poverty, when there's going to be someone who wants to be rich and powerful, and there will ALWAYS be someone who wants to be rich and powerful. Just look at all those socialist/communist societies. All have the ideal of "everyone is equally poor" yet that's never the case.

Canada, ranked one of the top socialist countries in the world, has multiple billionairs. Not to mention it takes a lot of the governments (non existent) money to make it work. So that means it'll only work for so long.

Belgium, one of the most socialist countries in the world, still has plenty of thefts (murder too, but I'm not sure how bad one would say their murder rate is, when all murder is bad).

The Wayans just giving it away (which I personally believe all who believe in such a goverment should do before the government becomes such a government, just to prove that's what they want :p) didn't work.

Wolfgang8565
Wolfgang8565's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Developer
Joined: 10/31/2014 - 14:51
Same could be asked about

Same could be asked about many other characters. Even heroes such as Storm from the X-Men. Why is she not working for the government stopping natural disasters?

Another wildfire is spreading? She could call down rain and snuff it out in a few seconds.

Hurricane season? She could tame the winds in a moment.

And she's a hero so you would think she would want to save lives but you know...I guess the threat of a villain is more important.

-----------

Graphic Designer

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
With Storm, it could be that,

With Storm, it could be that, if she effects such things, she may be causing damage somewhere else.

Help the eco system in area 1 and it ruins the eco system in area 2. Put out this fire by herself and those seasonal fire fighters lose their jobs.

Grrl Power talked of a guy who could basically snatch up the gold and/or diamonds from deeper within the earth (so not to have anyone able to claim it as their companies), and could ruin the economy of the world, but how he doesn't because he wants to live the rich lifestyle himself, so he doesn't want to ruin it and I'm pretty sure, the idea is, "If he tried, we'd kill him, because we're government agents more than willing to kill." or the very least put him in prison forever (that Grrl Power world is cruel!).

Also, just because I found it funny, my daughter said she to prefers Sauron's thinking :p

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

With Bruce's cash, they've had him (and his parents) do that. It didn't work. :p

See, you can't get rid of poverty, when there's going to be someone who wants to be rich and powerful, and there will ALWAYS be someone who wants to be rich and powerful. Just look at all those socialist/communist societies. All have the ideal of "everyone is equally poor" yet that's never the case.

Canada, ranked one of the top socialist countries in the world, has multiple billionairs. Not to mention it takes a lot of the governments (non existent) money to make it work. So that means it'll only work for so long.

Belgium, one of the most socialist countries in the world, still has plenty of thefts (murder too, but I'm not sure how bad one would say their murder rate is, when all murder is bad).

The Wayans just giving it away (which I personally believe all who believe in such a goverment should do before the government becomes such a government, just to prove that's what they want :p) didn't work.

It doesn't work in a comic book because then there'd be no Batman.

Sure you can get rid of poverty. You give people the things they need to survive; food, water, shelter, health care, etc. People will still want things, but no one would need to steal to survive, thus lowering crime.

Getting rid of poverty doesn't mean there won't be rich people. Like, you do know what poverty is right? Cause it doesn't seem like you do.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Basically being the poorest.

Basically being the poorest. You know, stuff they still have in the socialist countries and such.

You know, which happens in Russia, Japan, Canada, Belgium and even Norway. Sure, Norway may give you a home, just because (if you're a resident of Norway anyways), but you can still be the poorest of the poor. Which is poverty in that country.

If there's a top and a bottom, and your the bottom, that is still poverty when compared to the rest of the society. Which would still have you looked down upon as being the lowest of lowest. "Yay! All my needs are met!" "HA! But nothing but your basic needs to survive in modern times!" "Ahhhh..."

Want to get rid of poverty, you need everyone at the same level and that will never happen any where.

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Poison Ivy places the lives

Poison Ivy places the lives of plants far above the lives of humans. She doesn't want money, she wants to kill as many humans as possible to save the environment. She's an eco-terrorist, she isn't really doing it for the money.

not my video just one I lke ===> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-SdIN0hsM

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Brand X wrote:

STOP BEFORE YOU READ-This is a long winded and self indulgent post that I doubt many will find overly interesting. It deals specifically with what I personally perceive to be misunderstanding or uninformed opinions about the nature of crime, types of government and what constitutes poverty. Do not read it if you are not interested in my opinion.

Poverty has a pretty specific definition. When dealing with it as an economic status (as we are here) there are two types of poverty. Absolute and relative.
Absolute poverty is an economic status where one cannot meet the basic needs of survival (food/water, shelter and clothing).
Relative poverty is an economic status in which one is below the standard of living set by the current government (this includes luxury, entertainment, vacation days, life expectancy and so forth).
Neither has anything to do with wealth comparisons.

The ten (well 11 because 2 were tied) nations with the highest standard of living as of 2017 in ascending order are New Zealand, Iceland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Denmark, Canada and Finland.
It isn't surprising that each of these countries have the lowest crime rates which is generally attributed to their respective government and privately led progressive social programs, emphasis on developmental / continued education, healthcare and regulatory practices (which is the limit of their 'socialist' endeavors). Calling these countries 'socialist' is ridiculous propaganda that can be easily be refuted.
The core principle of socialism is public (or social if you will) ownership and democratic control of the means of production. These countries all have private ownership and control of production. Coincidentally, the same is true of America.

What Brand X is describing is economic inequality (division of wealth) and studies are pretty clear that this type of inequality is only a minor contributing factor to crime. To be clear, having less money than someone else does not inspire widespread criminal behavior.

What this all boils down to is a country that invests in its social issues has lower crime rates.

If anyone wants they can check out this interesting article about ways Bruce Wayne could use his wealth to fight crime other than being Batman from an economic standpoint. The author, Ben Adams, is a Jag Officer who used to practice law and Matt Crespi is (was?) a PhD candidate whose education includes public policy and management, social network analysis and public finances (basically he has a fairly high understanding of how economics and society interact). Both of them are much smarter than me and the article is an easy and fun read.
https://www.overthinkingit.com/2014/11/03/batman-return-on-investment/

Let me preface this next bit so there is no confusion. None of the following are to be considered evidence of inevitabile criminal behavior so there is no need to say 'I had that and I turned out good'. We should all understand that increases in probability do not equate absolute certainty. I myself dealt with 3 of these major contributions to crime and I have never committed a crime and am currently doing research analysis for cancer studies (which is a glorified way of saying I research and compose presentations to secure financing from investors and donators).

The major contributing factors to an individual first engaging in crime are:
1: Upbringing. Having a truly troubled childhood increases the chance an individual will engage in criminal activity. Again, having a bad childhood does not automatically make you a criminal but the vast majority of criminals have bad childhoods.

2: Lack of a Positive Educational Experience. Individuals who lack either positive social experiences in a schools settings or access to quality and (more importantly) relevant education have a higher probability of criminal activity. It's not a guarantee that the individual will break the law just that these things are found in high percentages of people who do so.

3: Little or Negative Community Support/Programs. The lack of (or poorly managed) social programs like rehabilitation, public transportation, outreach, infrastructure and so forth all contribute to a rise in crime rates which then feed upon themselves. This includes things like prejudicial, draconian or inequality in law enforcement. For clarity, not everyone (or even a majority) who lives in these conditions are criminals but the lack of or negative experience cause a rise in crime.

4: Unemployment. It does not matter the circumstance for the unemployment (self inflicted or not), high unemployment results in higher instances of crime. Not all unemployed people are criminals but many many many individuals who commit their first crime were unemployed at the time.

5: Opportunity. This is by far and wide the largest contributing factor to crime. It can be any kind of opportunity from easy access to your companies office supplies to seeing an unlocked door on a car to learning that a armored car is unguarded to being the sole person in charge of a multi-billion dollar slush fund. Not everyone acts on these temptations of course but as much as 80% of criminal activity can be contributed to opportunity. This other 20% is divided between criminal compulsion (the need to commit a crime), impaiment (inability to prevent yourself from committing a crime either due to psychological or chemical factors), deliberate (conscious and intentional criminal activity) and ignorance (not knowing the act was criminal in nature).

These are all about first time offenders. When dealing with recidivism many of these factors remain the same but some start to have a greater impact and other factors begin to take hold as well. Unemployment (mostly because many opportunities are now completely cut off) and inaccessibility to social programs like rehabilitation, re-education or positive law enforcement experiences greatly increase the chance an individual will re-offend. New factors like criminal peers, criminal education, isolation and the like all contribute to the act of recidivism.
I have been unable to find a single credible study or paper which refutes the widespread consensus that minimizing the effects of all these factors through careful oversight and properly managed social programs and assistance would result in a drastic reduction in crime.

In short, the benefits of combating the contributing factors of crime far outweighs the benefits of combating criminals.

If you want, you can go to the following page and read someone who has more knowledge of the subject than me and is in a much better position to explain why Batman can't simply use his wealth to fix Gotham (and get a pretty obvious but no less true reason why he can't simply kill his rogues gallery as a bonus). The author of the page is Chris Sims (one 'm') a comic writer/historian who has a regular blog that I personally find entertaining and interesting (ymmv).
http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-250-misinformation-about-batman/

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 16 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
I wonder if Cyclops knew

I wonder if Cyclops knew before asking just how much mileage he would get from this question.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Basically being the poorest. You know, stuff they still have in the socialist countries and such.

You know, which happens in Russia, Japan, Canada, Belgium and even Norway. Sure, Norway may give you a home, just because (if you're a resident of Norway anyways), but you can still be the poorest of the poor. Which is poverty in that country.

If there's a top and a bottom, and your the bottom, that is still poverty when compared to the rest of the society. Which would still have you looked down upon as being the lowest of lowest. "Yay! All my needs are met!" "HA! But nothing but your basic needs to survive in modern times!" "Ahhhh..."

Want to get rid of poverty, you need everyone at the same level and that will never happen any where.

As someone else pointed out, none of those countries are socialist. They have many socialist programs, but they aren't socialist.

And no, to get rid of poverty you don't need everyone on the same level. You just need a floor that people can't sink below.

Same as you can split a pizza so everyone has a slice, but that doesn't mean that some people can't still get two slices if the pizza is large enough.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 16 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
“Fear is the path to the dark

“Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.” Yoda...

Poison Ivy fears for the future of all plant life. Poverty has nothing to do with her motivations. Though I agree with pretty much everything Brainbot has posted in the matter.

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
rookslide wrote:
rookslide wrote:

I wonder if Cyclops knew before asking just how much mileage he would get from this question.

This community has a track record of sidebar conversations. It kinda goes with the territory.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

As someone else pointed out, none of those countries are socialist. They have many socialist programs, but they aren't socialist.

Project, I am not trying to argue with you but if I may I would like to just correct something here. You probably already know this and just made a typo but I think it is important to set it straight if not for you then for others who are reading this.

The countries that Brand X are calling socialist do not have socialist programs, they have social programs.

To explain the difference I am going to quote from this article by Joshua Engel. If people want context or just to understand more on the topic please read the article in full, it's informative and pretty easy to understand.
For the sake of transparency, Joshua Engel does not have any formal political science education that I know of.

Joshua Engel wrote:

"Socialism" is public ownership or control of the means of production. "Means of production" refers primarily to tools: factories, machines, perhaps large plots of land... anything that is too large to be controlled by a single individual except in the case of vast wealth disparity, and where that wealth disparity would be used under a capitalist economy to ensure that the workers who operate the means of production receive only minimal compensation for it. Under a socialist economy, public control of the means of production means that profits from the means of production are shared with the workers rather than with the owners (since the workers are the owners).

This where the belief that under a Socialist Government everyone owns and is responsible for everything and that wealth is divided equally among the populous comes from. This commonly held and grossly over simplified definition leads to a complete misunderstanding and confusion about Socialism.
There is no such thing as a 'Socialist' program because Socialism refers only to an economic system in which wealth/production is owned and regulated communally.

Joshua Engel wrote:

"Social programs" are a collective action by the government to ensure that certain basic needs are met. It's widely thought that the existence of an underclass leads to general social unrest, and from there to a bad economy. They thus benefit everybody, perhaps especially those with the most wealth, since they have the most to lose from a government that falters under public unrest.

To expand on this, social programs are anything that benefits that nation as a whole. It includes things like healthcare and welfare but also law enforcement and the prison system. A government, any government, cannot exist without social programs. Their primary purpose is to ensure the continuation of the government through the prosperity of its populous.

The reason it is important to know the difference is because it has become alarmingly common for the term 'Socialism' to be used as shorthand for governmental interference.
When people confuse/conflate Socialist government with Social programs they are very poorly informed. Joshua says it best here:

Joshua Engel wrote:

the two have practically nothing to do with one another, and people who scream about the former whenever they see the latter have nothing to contribute.

The countries that Brand X is describing as the 'most Socialist countries in the world' simply have more/larger social programs than America. He drew an arbitrary line and said 'having this amount of social programs is OK but having any more makes you Socialist'.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I wasn't sure of the correct

I wasn't sure of the correct terminology. I didn't think it sounded right.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
I figured you knew the

I figured you knew the difference by the context of your post. It's just one of those things where the use of one term in place of another results in widely different messages. Similar to the way flammable and inflammable are commonly confused but have separate meanings.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I just went by countries

I just went by countries listed as the top socialist countries :p

And truthfully, I just can't agree with "Hey. You didn't work for anything, but here have all this stuff!" and then those who work get "What? Give you stuff, but you work for what you have!"

The low crime rates also don't take into account the people. Americans aren't the same as those born in those European countries mentioned, for example. Also, as we can see in America, plenty of rich people keep doing crimes. They have everything and they want to take more. Truthfully, actually getting into politics was one of the most disheartening things I've ever done. :p Made worse when you realize, they're not better than other people, they're the same dumb people, but they obtained some clout!

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Give everyone a loaf of bread

Give everyone a loaf of bread a day and somebody is going to want two. And that person will take it however they can. It’s inevitable.

BUT...

You’d still have less crime than if only some people were given a loaf of bread. That would then force desperate people to steal for necessity rather than greed.

You’re not going to eliminate crime or (relative) poverty. What you can do is reduce crimes to a point where they are rare enough that they invoke the outrage and attention they deserve.

Where I work, we routinely have violent crimes (sometimes homicides) just outside our front door. It’s no longer shocking to hear of another killing, and that’s not right. People should never become that jaded about such things.

Luckily my office will be closing within a year and I’ll soon be based out of a place less murdery (though property crimes are high there, it’s actually one of the worst in the entire US per capita, but I’ll take a car break-in over death thanks).

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
STOP-I am again getting on a

STOP-I am again getting on a soapbox so unless you want to read a long winded and possibly pedantic post then you should avoid this.

Brand X wrote:

I just went by countries listed as the top socialist countries :p

Yeah, I have read some of those types of articles and lists. Sometimes it's good to get a better understanding of what is written in them by either looking up who did it or delving into some past writings they or the site has done. It why I was so specific about those I referenced here.
You say you work in politics so you know all to well how easy it is to have a slant that is technically true but completely misleading. You know all this already so I am more talking to others who are reading this than you Brand X.

As an example of misleading or slanted information, this is the first result you get on google when searching for 'socialist countries'.
http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

This is a small company blog post that doesn't name it's author. The company is Peerform, an internet money lending institute targeting low credit customers which is not BBB accredited. As far as I can tell it has only a few low scoring customer reviews on independent sites but this isn't all that revealing because if it had an actual bad reputation there would be many more negative reviews. Most of their blog posts relate in some fashion to finance as one might expect from a money lending institute and it has very few posts that directly involve politics. Most of the writing on the site uses subtle bias to present its opinion but this is not unusual for blog posts.

Just this little bit of information makes me want to check their facts before treating them as a trusted source of information. The warning flags for me are anonymous post, slight bias, little/no history of political topics and most importantly (to me at least) has a financial reason to disparage social programs.
Turns out most of what they claim about other countries finances are not exactly true. It's my strong opinion that today, more than ever, it is important to fact check what people with motivations try to tell you. That includes what I have been saying in this thread.

Brand X wrote:

And truthfully, I just can't agree with "Hey. You didn't work for anything, but here have all this stuff!" and then those who work get "What? Give you stuff, but you work for what you have!"

I couldn't agree more, except people don't just get 'all this stuff' from social programs.
Just going from the context of the above statement you seem to be talking about some form of unemployment assistance. Did you know right now there are approximately 8 million unemployed people in America. Of those 8 million only 2.4 million (notice the decimal point) get unemployment assistance.
Here is something else interesting. Right now there are over 40 million people who live below the poverty line in America. Compare those who are unemployed with those who live in poverty. That means over 30 million are gainfully employed and still live in poverty.

Earlier I spoke about absolute and relative poverty. These numbers are for relative poverty. so let me now tell you how many live in absolute.
Almost 19 million people live in absolute poverty (what America calls 'Deep poverty'). That's more than double those who are unemployed. The American government sets 'Deep poverty' at 50% below the poverty line.
Just to give you a better understanding, that's anyone who has $6000 dollars or less in income per year. If you break down the barest of needs a year it comes to $4800 rent a year ($400 a month), $1200 a year for food ($100 a month), $100 a year for clothing and depending on where you live about $1200 a year for just electricity ($100 a month). That comes to $7300 a year just to get the food shelter and clothing we need to survive, $1300 more than they make a year. I was very frugal in my cost analysis as well. $400 a month apartments are not common, $100 a month for food will leave most people malnourished and I didn't include utilities like gas or water. Whats more when I researched these costs I took the lowest from all of the country, there is no single place that you can find these low costs in a single place (rent was Rural Alabama and electricity was in South Louisiana for example).
Keep in mind this is a person who is employed.

Obviously there are those who abuse assistance programs but there are a great many people who simply cannot survive without them. Things look even worse when you when you consider other factors in addition to just the fact someone is living in poverty. Because they have no extra funds it is exceedingly difficult for this person to improve their situation. They cannot get educated or relocate. They are more likely to suffer from health and mental issues, substance abuse, or become criminals which jeopardizes what little income they do have.
With no viable avenues of prosperity these individuals end up becoming a larger drain on society because they require assistance for indefinite periods of time.

That's why I keep saying that giving the wrong stuff away isn't good but giving the right stuff is. Just giving someone money to survive does not fix the problem, you need to provide a way for these people to improve the situation. Job training, rehabilitation, healthcare, work placement and so on have a much greater return on investment than just handing a guy a check. Initially the costs are higher than just keeping these people fed but in the long run you save money because the time they spend needing help isn't indefinite it now has a predictable end date. The best part of doing this is you actually create an industry (the assistance industry) in which those who require help can also be hired to help others thus solving the problems faster.

If you want an example of this from America's history look at the 1930's Great Depression and how Roosevelt's New Deal combated their widespread economic issues. Please don't just read the wiki on it, that glosses over a lot of important aspects that can really mean something today. One interesting fact about the Great Depression, approximately 10% of Americans were in Absolute poverty conditions. Today it's about 6%.

Brand X wrote:

Also, as we can see in America, plenty of rich people keep doing crimes. They have everything and they want to take more. Truthfully, actually getting into politics was one of the most disheartening things I've ever done. :p Made worse when you realize, they're not better than other people, they're the same dumb people, but they obtained some clout!

I deal with politicians and wealthy people often in my work and I fully understand where you are coming from.
Its the reason why I bring up proper oversight when talking about social programs. It is very easy for these programs to be exploited or mismanaged (both by those who run the programs and those who benefit from them). You need independent commissions and strong regulation to ensure that abuse, corruption and incompetence do as little damage as possible.

Brand X wrote:

The low crime rates also don't take into account the people. Americans aren't the same as those born in those European countries mentioned, for example.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you are trying to say that Americans are more predisposed to be criminals. I don't think that is what you mean so could you please explain this better?

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Of course I know. I've lived

Of course I know. I've lived it a couple of times. :p And living that way sucks. So when I talk about it, it's not like I never lived it. It's times like that when you get hit with reality and you realize reality in the job market and life can really suck.

Also, no, I'm not saying Americans are more predisposed to being criminals (pretty sure that's Austrailians >_> I jest!) Americans just aren't as tightly knit (for good or bad) of a society as, let's say, Japan.

It's been awhile, Great Depression starts about a decade after the end of WW1. Ends about the time of WW2's beginning? Good period of war. So manufacturing and enlistment bonuses/gi bills. End prohibition. Which, we as a country may be doing something similar with legalizing pot. Like my state! Except for my city in my state! *facepalm* I want to slap every local politician for the loss of that money! We're a border town next to a state with no legalized pot!

Social Security! Great idea! Poor implementation! Though I'm never sure if that was a hind sight is 20/20 or a "They knew, but it looked better to do it that way"

And of course, this is all rambling at 1:30 when I should be getting to bed /o/

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Also, no, I'm not saying Americans are more predisposed to being criminals (pretty sure that's Austrailians >_> I jest!) Americans just aren't as tightly knit (for good or bad) of a society as, let's say, Japan.

Ok, I understand what you mean now, but I can't really see the connection to criminal behavior.
Also, Japan is a pretty divided nation due to it's unofficial class system. I think you might be confusing it with South Korea which does have a very tight community. South Korea has an overall lower violent crime rate than America but it does have significantly higher instances of non-violent crime like illegal prostitution, human trafficking (its heartbreaking this isn't considered a violent crime), pirating and fraud/embezzlement. This may be due to the extremely strict gun laws in South Korea (there are severe punishments for even owning a toy gun that does not have an orange cap on the barrel). I say 'may be' because I can't find any crime statistics from before South Korea's gun legislation.

Brand X wrote:

It's been awhile, Great Depression starts about a decade after the end of WW1. Ends about the time of WW2's beginning? Good period of war. So manufacturing and enlistment bonuses/gi bills. End prohibition. Which, we as a country may be doing something similar with legalizing pot. Like my state! Except for my city in my state! *facepalm* I want to slap every local politician for the loss of that money! We're a border town next to a state with no legalized pot!

Your timeline is right and they did end prohibition party because of taxation but America did not use war mobilization to help with the depression until the country had all but recovered. By all accounts America had managed to turn things around completely by 1937 (years before the second world war) with the exception of unemployment which took much longer to recover.
The New Deal (and Second New Deal) was about three things, relief, reform and recovery.
Relief took the form of massive government assistance programs, everything from helping poor/unemployed to huge agricultural aid. This is almost universally credited for keeping America afloat.
Recovery was done by spreading the wealth a bit more. Minimum wages, housing projects and other legislation that took a bit more from the rich to give to the poor. Unionization also had a major impact on the nations recovery.
Reform was done through huge sweeping banking, trade and tax laws. These effectively prepared America to deal with a world that was changing due to globalized industrialization and ensured that the country wouldn't face another depression in the foreseeable future. Because of this preparedness America had a long period of positive growth.
To put it even shorter, Roosevelt spent a craptonne of money on making sure the countries most desperate people suffered as little as possible, and ensured they would be protected in the future. As a result America became the world leader it is today.

This is just a very quick and dirty summary. Really learning about Roosevelt's New Deals has immeasurable relevance to todays global society and I suggest anyone who only has a passing knowledge of the Great Depression era to learn more about it. Learn from the past for a better tomorrow (as cheesy as that is).

Brand X wrote:

Social Security! Great idea! Poor implementation! Though I'm never sure if that was a hind sight is 20/20 or a "They knew, but it looked better to do it that way"

Actually many of the things Roosevelt did to help the country are, in hindsight, considered to not go far enough. It's believed that with stronger policies and laws the depression might have had a smaller impact. Even with Roosevelt's popularity along both sides of the aisle he had hard fights just to get what he did so it's unlikely they could have done more at that time.

TheInternetJanitor
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 05/11/2018 - 06:00
I did not expect this thread

I did not expect this thread to go in this direction.

I am impressed with the level of knowledge on display in a forum about a superhero video game.

Levar Burton would be proud.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
TheInternetJanitor wrote:
TheInternetJanitor wrote:

Levar Burton would be proud.

Did you know that Reading Rainbow was cancelled after 23 years because it wasn't educational enough? How crazy is that?
PBS had made the decision to focus on early development educational programing and since Reading Rainbow was directed at those who already knew how to read it was cancelled.

The story continues with Burton's Reading Rainbow kickstarter in 2014 that got it's 1 million goal in half a day, 2 million in 2 days and 6 and a half million when the dust cleared.
But a lawsuit from the WNED (the original Reading Rainbow license owner) took control of the website, among other things (including the 'But you don't have to take my word for it' catchphrase) and now the Reading Rainbow brand is back in limbo.
To be clear WNED did have legitimate licensing issues which required legal intervention, they are not some 'evil company' only interested in money.

The pot of gold at the end of that rainbow (uggh hate myself for that) is Burton now owns and operates 'LeVar Burton Kids' and will continue to promote literacy and reading for some time yet.
He even managed to get his catchphrase back.

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
So... getting back on topic..

So... getting back on topic... (because if I get involved in the wealth distribution debate it'll get flamey and go on for a year)

Halae wrote:

This seems relevant:

This image displays one of the biggest lazy plot points in all of comics. It's a thread used over and over again, and it makes no sense.

Mad scientist wants to do wierd experiments on people that give them powers or change them physically... more often, the latter, because it's seen as more shocking... and they do so by mass kidnapping people and experimenting on them against their will.

The reason why this is utter nonsense, is that in a world of well over 7 billion, there would be plenty, plenty, plenty of volunteers. Want to turn people into dinosaur people? Or even straightup regular dinosaurs? Yeah, there would probably be volunteers for that. Don't believe me, look into internet subcultures for five seconds. Pretty much any kind of weird experiment would have loads of happy, willing, unpaid volunteers.

The volunteers wouldn't need bomb collars or cages. In fact, they would help defend against threats freely because they're there by their own free will.

No kidnappings means no apparent crimes. Got all those volunteers, you also got their money, so you don't need to steal anything. You could make whatever you need on the spot, because some of the volunteers would probably have engineering or scientific training just by random chance (if it's a large enough number of people). And you could then live with your freak dino (or whatever) colony in the middle of nowhere and no one would likely even know about it for decades because you aren't stealing from or attacking the outside world at all.

Of course, the hero wouldn't have anything to do in this case. I mean, if people own their physical selves, as I believe they do, then they can make that choice, even if it's freaky and we don't understand why. So long as nothing's being done to anyone against their will, there's nothing to avenge, no justice to mote out. It's just a group of weird-looking freaks living an their own in the middle of nowhere. Frankly, if you went to attack them unprovoked, that'd kinda make you the villain.

Which is why:
"Mwahahaha! I'm gonna use kidnap victims and not even look for volunteers!"
"Why? It'd be so much easier and more lucrative to use willing test subjects."
"...because the good guy needs a reason to fight me. Why else?"
...is what we get.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Looking for willing

Looking for willing volunteers for your illegal and possibly fatal experiments? I'm sure putting up an ad in the local paper will get you tons of volunteers.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Looking for willing volunteers for your illegal and possibly fatal experiments? I'm sure putting up an ad in the local paper will get you tons of volunteers.

Yeah this. Even with willing volunteers most any government is not going to let you do whatever experiments you want. They’d shut that down hard and fast. Now, maybe there’s some place that’ll let you get away with it. I could see North Korea being okay with you making volunteers into dinosaur people, if they get at least some of them to put into a dino-military. You’d have poor, starving people willing to volunteer and the government wouldn’t be above making sure that you had enough, forcing more people to “volunteer”.

The downside, of course, is that you have an unstable megalomaniacal regime to deal with, and that might not be pleasant. Especially since most mad scientists are similarly unstable and megalomaniacal themselves, you could have an epic clash of egos. Pretty much any government that’s going to be okay with what you’re doing is probably not going to be one you want to work with.

So then you’re left with doing your stuff in secret. Advertising for volunteers is counterproductive when you’re trying to be secret, because the word will get out. So the next logical step is kidnapping people. Your best bet is grabbing the cast-offs, those without anyone who will miss them, or at least nobody who’d go to the authorities. The homeless, prostitutes, junkies, anonymous street people that won’t be missed.

Anyway, when you think this through you pretty much have to do things the way Sauron did.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

The reason why this is utter nonsense, is that in a world of well over 7 billion, there would be plenty, plenty, plenty of volunteers. Want to turn people into dinosaur people? Or even straightup regular dinosaurs? Yeah, there would probably be volunteers for that. Don't believe me, look into internet subcultures for five seconds. Pretty much any kind of weird experiment would have loads of happy, willing, unpaid volunteers.

Just because someone wants something or agrees to it does not make it legal.
There are a whole lot of laws about human experimentation precisely because there are people who would volunteer for almost anything and there are people who would take advantage of that.
Considering that full gender reassignment surgery involves some lengthy legal considerations, it would be unlikely that species reassignment experiments would be a simple 'informed consent' situation.
Drug trials require extensive and intensive scrutiny before it even gets to the 'informed consent' part. Using certain people (children, mentally handicapped and prisoners for example) as test subject have a lot more restrictions when it comes to informed consent. Those with psychological issues relating to the experiment cannot legally give consent without a therapists approval (Species dysphoria is the psychological term for those who want to be or identify as a different species).
Even the act of stem cell research and cloning is still highly regulated in pretty much every corner of the world.

Comics use the 'mad scientist' trope because it is valid. History is littered with incidents of unethical and evil human experimentation that includes consent. While the Spiderman/Sauron is one of the more simplistic examples, there are many that actually go much deeper into the legalities, motives and psychology of 'mad science' in comics.

TheInternetJanitor
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 05/11/2018 - 06:00
To follow up on that great

To follow up on that great bit by brainbot, think of it in less villainous terms. You can have research with very noble goals (or at least the volunteers and researchers think they are noble..). Sometimes the dangers of a new frontier of knowledge are poorly understood. Every major scientific advancement was basically wizardry at the time, see electricity, radiation, genetics, etc.

Experiments and research by default are going to delve into the unknown, and in a comic book setting that unknown and the results are going to be cranked up to 11.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 16 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Despite my vast wealth and

Despite my vast wealth and resources I have rarely managed to find volunteers without also drawing various law enforcement agents which quite frankly are neither volunteering nor cooperative in my experience. In truth they tend to rain on my parade.

No it’s far better to find a good and ruthless dictator to align my goals with as they are far less particular of my research methods. And I can usually recoup my losses and costs for simply supplying them with the resultant creations and devices I develop. As a bonus the noble heroes tend to perceive my accomplices as the real villains and suppose I’m one of their “volunteers” being forced to do their bidding.

Recruit my own volunteers? Nope, not me I’ll keep to my own methods thanks! Call me mad if you like but I’m in it for the science, I’ll swear to it!

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Sure, it'd take a lot of time

Sure, it'd take a lot of time to find volunteers, because you can't put up a billboard, but that's classic reduction to the extreme argument on your part.

I'd wager it'd still take way less time and resources out of your operation to recruit covertly than the time it'd take to constantly monitor and imprison of all the kidnap victims who are constantly trying to escape. It's a question of taking a bit longer to get started, or being bogged down constantly after you do. The first is almost always the better option, especially if you're doing something illegal. The latter method would also constantly send off alarm bells to anyone listening, because you do have to attack or steal from the outside world constantly instead of utilizing the money and resources of all the volunteers (who pay to join, rather than getting paid). A true un-coerced, un-paid volunteer can help fake their own death, even. A kidnapping victim meanwhile, even a homeless one, probably is known by someone who'll notice they're gone and may start looking into it.

And of course it isn't legal, but Sauron was doing it in a hidden tropical land in the antarctic that no world government even knew existed. I implied the "hidden mecca" thing when I said "wouldn't be discovered by the outside world for decades if they weren't attacking or stealing from it."

As for it being unethical to use volunteers... um... as opposed to kidnapping victims? What?

I'd argue that if someone fully knows what they're getting into, is fully aware of their own mental state, and the risks, and isn't being paid or coerced, that it's perfectly ethical.
Not legal, mind you, but that's a complicated issue. Most bioethics laws are based on morals, not ethics. Morals are the norms of a society, nothing more. Cultures have considered it moral to throw any child born different off a cliff, or to stone a six year old to death by the entire village if she disobeyed her father. Yes, those are both real examples, not hyperbole.

I won't get further into the subject here, except to say this: When you base laws on morals instead of ethics, you force people to do extremely unethical things to get what they need.

And yes, there have been innumerable people abused, coerced, paid, etc. into horrible experiments throughout history. However, taking someone's ownership of the very skin on their body and marrow of their bones away from them and giving said bodily ownership to the government as the "solution" never really sat right with me... even though doing so is often backed by both (or all) major parties. Heck, just make it illegal to pay the volunteer, and you'd solve 90% of the problem.

But back to my first point, what do you really think takes more time: Putting out covert feelers to find true volunteers, or the constant raiding of the outside world coupled with constant escape attempts from kidnap victims? And which of the two would be more likely to get you noticed?

((edit: I realize my use of the word ethics and the word morals isn't exactly correct, but I couldn't figure out the right way to say what I meant. Any linguists who can help there, would be appreciated))

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

But back to my first point, what do you really think takes more time: Putting out covert feelers to find true volunteers, or the constant raiding of the outside world coupled with constant escape attempts from kidnap victims? And which of the two would be more likely to get you noticed?

Step 1: find a bus/ship with people on it.
Step 2: steal said laden vehicle
Step 3: contain said people long enough to do experiments
Step 4: eliminate any do-gooders who try to take your guinea pigs away

Repeat as necessary

This ensures a large amount of test subjects in a very short time frame. Taking a long ass time to try to get volunteers would likely end up with your plans being discovered long before you could actually experiment.

Also I feel you're forgetting a key component in all this. The 'Mad' part of Mad Scientist. He doesn't want to cure cancer. He wants to turn people into dinosaurs. He doesn't want volunteers. He wants to cause suffering. He doesn't want to take ages trying to get volunteers. He wants to kidnap people.

It's more or less the first thing I wrote on this thread concerning Ivy. She wants to do the bad things, that's what makes her a Villain.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

Sure, it'd take a lot of time to find volunteers, because you can't put up a billboard, but that's classic reduction to the extreme argument on your part.

No one made any arguments about how long it would take.

BiotopeZ wrote:

I'd wager it'd still take way less time and resources out of your operation to recruit covertly than the time it'd take to constantly monitor and imprison of all the kidnap victims who are constantly trying to escape. It's a question of taking a bit longer to get started, or being bogged down constantly after you do. The first is almost always the better option, especially if you're doing something illegal. The latter method would also constantly send off alarm bells to anyone listening, because you do have to attack or steal from the outside world constantly instead of utilizing the money and resources of all the volunteers (who pay to join, rather than getting paid). A true un-coerced, un-paid volunteer can help fake their own death, even. A kidnapping victim meanwhile, even a homeless one, probably is known by someone who'll notice they're gone and may start looking into it.

Going missing is going missing. Someone doesn't need to be kidnapped for others to notice their absence. What you are describing here is more akin to the behavior of cults and those gain notice fairly quick, especially if the people who join them sign over their money/property or apparently die (fake death) after joining them.
This would pretty much nullify the 'flying under the radar' aspect you expect this methodology to provide.

BiotopeZ wrote:

And of course it isn't legal, but Sauron was doing it in a hidden tropical land in the antarctic that no world government even knew existed. I implied the "hidden mecca" thing when I said "wouldn't be discovered by the outside world for decades if they weren't attacking or stealing from it."

The character of Sauron is a classic Jekyll and Hyde type. When he is Karl Lykos he tries to control his urges to drain life force (the reason for his experiments, not just turning people into dinosaurs). When he is Sauron he wasn't in control of his urges (until he joined Weapon X) and is pretty much insane. The spiderman/sauron example page comes from a story where Sauron was doing his experiments on the willing inhabitants of the Savage Land. It was discovered because the character had a love interest who actively searched for him and brought her hero friends. He wasn't kidnapping anyone and had a decent group of volunteers and was still discovered.
The complaint of "Mad scientist wants to do wierd experiments on people that give them powers or change them physically... more often, the latter, because it's seen as more shocking... and they do so by mass kidnapping people and experimenting on them against their will. " isn't valid in this case so pointing out the fact that Sauron is in the Savage Lands is irrelevant. The majority of 'mad scientist' villains do not have access to a 'hidden mecca'. At best they have a lair that is much more accessible. In most cases they have a respectable public face while doing the unethical experiments in secret ala Project Cadmus.
Keeping this in the abstract as opposed to specific cases like the Sauron one stop the inevitable confusion that arises from talking about a complex subject with a limited example pool.

BiotopeZ wrote:

As for it being unethical to use volunteers... um... as opposed to kidnapping victims? What?

I'd argue that if someone fully knows what they're getting into, is fully aware of their own mental state, and the risks, and isn't being paid or coerced, that it's perfectly ethical.
Not legal, mind you, but that's a complicated issue. Most bioethics laws are based on morals, not ethics. Morals are the norms of a society, nothing more. Cultures have considered it moral to throw any child born different off a cliff, or to stone a six year old to death by the entire village if she disobeyed her father. Yes, those are both real examples, not hyperbole.

I won't get further into the subject here, except to say this: When you base laws on morals instead of ethics, you force people to do extremely unethical things to get what they need.

Actually your use of moral and ethics makes sense if not completely correct (morals are not societal in nature for example). And I agree with you (other than Bioethics laws are not moral based), except I don't see how this is applicable because laws are not based on morals. Can you give some examples of laws which are based on morals? Unless you are talking about laws made by a Theocratic government (like your examples of killing children) in which case we should just move on.
Also, for those who might be confused by the difference between morals, ethics and the law here is a good (but advanced) article on the subject. Written by Dr. Arturo Perez, a professor at Maryland University.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-vs-morals-law-dr-arturo-perez

if you just want a quick explanation then Morals are what an individual considers to be good/evil. Ethics are an agreed upon set of rules of conduct relating to what is good/evil. Laws are enforceable rules design to protect society.

BiotopeZ wrote:

And yes, there have been innumerable people abused, coerced, paid, etc. into horrible experiments throughout history. However, taking someone's ownership of the very skin on their body and marrow of their bones away from them and giving said bodily ownership to the government as the "solution" never really sat right with me... even though doing so is often backed by both (or all) major parties. Heck, just make it illegal to pay the volunteer, and you'd solve 90% of the problem.

Comparing the protective measures a government takes against unethical scientific/medical experiments with the government is taking ownership of your body is extreme fallacy. Laws not only protect us against the actions of others but our own actions as well. A few quick examples would be drug use, suicide and seat belt laws.

Also, being paid is not the only reason someone volunteers for something. Drugs or procedures that may save your life (like experimental cancer treatments) or offer a possible relief from chronic pain (like migraines and arthritis) have extreme competition for spots in those studies regardless of their possible side effects. Desperate people will agree to anything if they think it will help them. The benefit of the 'experiment' itself is the entirety of reason for a person to volunteer.
What's more, there is something I call Labcoat Trust syndrome. Many papers have been written about the fact that Doctors and Scientists garner an immediate trust with their patients. These studies show that patients will consider any benefits to be great while believing any drawbacks to be minimal. For example if a Doctor says 'this pill may help with the pain but it might thin your blood' (common aspects of pain relief medication) the patient will treat the pain relief as a certainty but the thin blood as a very unlikely result. It's why placebo's work.

BiotopeZ wrote:

But back to my first point, what do you really think takes more time: Putting out covert feelers to find true volunteers, or the constant raiding of the outside world coupled with constant escape attempts from kidnap victims? And which of the two would be more likely to get you noticed?

Covert takes more time. Brute force options are pretty much always faster. That's why most comic book villain use them. And both ways would get attention.

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
I can see your point on most

I can see your point on most of what you wrote. I was thinking of Sauron as wanting to be not the only one of his kind. If that was your primary motivation, you'd want your test subjects to be volunteers because you wouldn't want them to hate you afterwards. However, given that he is batshit crazy ("mad") then I guess that logic wouldn't apply.

Only thing I'd strongly disagree with is this:

Brainbot wrote:

Comparing the protective measures a government takes against unethical scientific/medical experiments with the government is taking ownership of your body is extreme fallacy. Laws not only protect us against the actions of others but our own actions as well. A few quick examples would be drug use, suicide and seat belt laws.

First of all, some experiments the government "protects" against are not unethical. Deliberate or not, you seem to be implying that any and all experiments should be presumed to be unethical. However, (and keeping with comic themes), even "super science" experiments could be entirely ethical. Does the person fully know what they're getting into? Do they understand the chances of success and what could result from failure? Is everything being done to ensure their safety and dignity? Can they change their mind? These are things that determine if something's ethical, not how normal or strange it is. Though in comics, often strange science is equated to evil, though that's to be expected from lazy pulpy writing.

Also, this:

"brainbot" wrote:

Desperate people will agree to anything if they think it will help them. The benefit of the 'experiment' itself is the entirety of reason for a person to volunteer.

Absolutely and they are quite right to. If I'm dying from something, I'd volunteer, because if the experiment kills me, well, I would have died anyway, so I didn't lose anything by trying. Even if it only has a 1% chance to save me, it'd still be the logical choice to make because there is possible reward but no real risk. But, if I don't legally own my biological self and thus can't make that decision, then you can bet I would not be thanking the people who made it illegal for me to volunteer. And before you say I only used the most extreme example, plenty of people suicide from conditions they can't live with, so you don't know what is actually "lethal" to them, and thus what would warrant this choice... only they do.

But going back to examples used in the first quote: Drugs are a great example of laws not being based on what protects people. If you look at a chart of how dangerous the drug is compared to how it's regulated, you'll see what I mean. It crisscrosses more than a word match test.

Suicide is not illegal. Assisted suicide is. I realize this doesn't help my case much given that self-testing has always been a legal scientific practice, and time-tested way around human experimentation laws, but still thought it was worth a mention.

As for seat belts, you're not legally required to ride in car, and they are not part of your body.

And yes, I stand by what I said about physical ownership, and I stand by the sentiment that it is entirely logical (no fallacy). It goes like this:

If I either must or can't do something to my own physical body that affects no one and nothing in any way but me, then I logically must not have full ownership my physical self. If I don't own my flesh and blood and bone, then logically, someone else must... whoever has taken that authority from me. In this case, it's the government, though it could be other entities in other cases. The only fallacy here is by perception. Our perspectives are skewed by decades of slow acclimation to increasing nanny-state systems (laws that protect you from you). As a result, most people don't think about the law in those terms, because they've gotten so used to it. But no, there's no logical way I can possibly claim full ownership of my physical body if someone else has authority over it and can say I must or can't do something, especially if that something affects no one and nothing else in any way.

Getting back on topic to weird super-science and the laws that might affect it in a place like Titans... consider this: when you make something illegal, you give up all control over it. If it's available, people will choose the legal route to get what they need, even for weird super-science stuff. They might only get 10% of what they wanted, but they'll take that route if it's available. If there is no legal route available, they'll go for the full 100% of what they wanted, because it's illegal either way, so why not? You make it outright illegal, you may as well throw open the floodgates and give up any attempt at controlling it.

You might not want freaks on your street, so you might make the tech completely illegal... but the result would be roughly the same number of freaks, only modified ten times more extremely... both because "why not, it's illegal anyway" and because they'd have to be modified much more extremely to survive if modification is illegal while vigilantism is effectively legal.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
BiotopeZ wrote:

Before I get into this I just want to say something because it's bugging me about the discussion.
The terms study, experiment, treatment and procedure all have pretty specific meanings in science/medicine. We are playing fast and loose with these terms in our posts because so far we have not had to concern ourselves with specificity in regards to those terms.
I bring this up because there may come a point that we will need to be specific in our terminology. As a personal note, while I know that the definition of these terms is not currently important to the discussion, the teacher/researcher in me is annoyed by the casual (and often improper) use of these terms and I struggle to not fully explain each in turn.

BiotopeZ wrote:

First of all, some experiments the government "protects" against are not unethical.

I was not making a value judgement of individual cases. We could both easily find cases of government interference in the scientific process that is flawed on some level. I was speaking directly about the comparison of protection laws and ownership of a persons body. These laws are not perfect and can be corrupted, just like any law, but their existence does not equate taking ownership of a persons body.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Deliberate or not, you seem to be implying that any and all experiments should be presumed to be unethical. However, (and keeping with comic themes), even "super science" experiments could be entirely ethical. Does the person fully know what they're getting into? Do they understand the chances of success and what could result from failure? Is everything being done to ensure their safety and dignity? Can they change their mind? These are things that determine if something's ethical, not how normal or strange it is. Though in comics, often strange science is equated to evil, though that's to be expected from lazy pulpy writing.

I agree that even super science experiments could be considered ethical. I can even think of real world examples such as the man who received a 3D printed face prosthesis.
Also, back in post #42 I explained some possible requirements for species reassignment (being turned into a dinosaur). I did so to show that I wasn't passing judgement on that (or any) experiment. I was just explaining the safeguards of an ethical experiment.

I am not sure how you drew the conclusion that I think all experiments should be considered unethical but to be clear now let me expand on my thoughts.
To ensure that the science is ethical there should be independent oversight. This oversight should include submitting details of the treatment/experiment for approval and continued evaluation as it progresses. Additional possible oversights could be psychological evaluation, societal impact estimates and other applicable considerations.
I am going to address some things further down in your post next because it directly relates to my quote the above is referencing.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Drugs are a great example of laws not being based on what protects people. If you look at a chart of how dangerous the drug is compared to how it's regulated, you'll see what I mean. It crisscrosses more than a word match test.

Proper application of the law is not the purpose of the example. It was simply an example of laws that are designed to protect people. I am not interested in discussing whether or not the law is justified because it isn't pertinent to the discussion of whether or not you have possession of your own body but for the record, I agree that drug laws (regarding both legal and illegal drug use) need some serious restructuring.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Suicide is not illegal. Assisted suicide is. I realize this doesn't help my case much given that self-testing has always been a legal scientific practice, and time-tested way around human experimentation laws, but still thought it was worth a mention.

First, I did not state that suicide is illegal. I stated that there are laws about it. For example, people who attempt suicide are, in most cases, legally required to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
Second the fact that there are no specific 'self-experimentation' laws is true but those who wish to engage in self-experimentation are still subject to the same human experimentation laws.

BiotopeZ wrote:

As for seat belts, you're not legally required to ride in car, and they are not part of your body.

And you are not legally required volunteer for a drug test. If you do either you are subject to the laws that govern the activity.
Which is the perfect segue into:

BiotopeZ wrote:

Absolutely and they are quite right to. If I'm dying from something, I'd volunteer, because if the experiment kills me, well, I would have died anyway, so I didn't lose anything by trying. Even if it only has a 1% chance to save me, it'd still be the logical choice to make because there is possible reward but no real risk. But, if I don't legally own my biological self and thus can't make that decision, then you can bet I would not be thanking the people who made it illegal for me to volunteer. And before you say I only used the most extreme example, plenty of people suicide from conditions they can't live with, so you don't know what is actually "lethal" to them, and thus what would warrant this choice... only they do.

I want to discuss the bold part because it is the heart of why I think your conclusion is wrong.
Just so we are clear, I am specifically talking about the conclusion that being denied to participate in a scientific/medical study, treatment or experiment equates the government taking ownership of your body.

You are not being told you can't volunteer. Volunteering isn't illegal. What stops you from being involved in an experiment, study or treatment is the legality of the study/treatment/experiment. Well actually you could also be refused participation based on the study's parameters (being too old or the wrong sex for example) but that isn't relevant.
The government does not take ownership of your body in this type of situation it protects you from harm with it's laws.
Furthermore, freedom is not absolute. In order to interact with society certain restriction are placed on individuals. This too is not the government taking ownership of your body.
Because I feel it is very important that you understand what I am saying I would like you to explain it back to me in your own words before we discuss it further. Mind you I am not asking you to agree with my position, you can still disagree with it. I just feel that in order to avoid confusion in moving forward on this subject we should understand each persons position. In that regard if you feel like I have mistaken your position feel free to clarify and ask the same understanding of me.

BiotopeZ wrote:

If I either must or can't do something to my own physical body that affects no one and nothing in any way but me, then I logically must not have full ownership my physical self. If I don't own my flesh and blood and bone, then logically, someone else must... whoever has taken that authority from me. In this case, it's the government, though it could be other entities in other cases. The only fallacy here is by perception. Our perspectives are skewed by decades of slow acclimation to increasing nanny-state systems (laws that protect you from you). As a result, most people don't think about the law in those terms, because they've gotten so used to it. But no, there's no logical way I can possibly claim full ownership of my physical body if someone else has authority over it and can say I must or can't do something, especially if that something affects no one and nothing else in any way.

This relates directly to what I just said but now you are taking the conclusion to a larger scope than was originally discussed. Instead of just focusing on being denied involvement in scientific/medical studies you are now including any and all instances when the government may place a restriction on what you do with your body.
This isn't exactly relevant to the overall discussion but it is interesting nonetheless.
I must admit I cannot think of any case where you are required or denied an action that only affects you and no one else. Can you provide examples for us to discuss?

BiotopeZ wrote:

Getting back on topic to weird super-science and the laws that might affect it in a place like Titans... consider this: when you make something illegal, you give up all control over it. If it's available, people will choose the legal route to get what they need, even for weird super-science stuff. They might only get 10% of what they wanted, but they'll take that route if it's available. If there is no legal route available, they'll go for the full 100% of what they wanted, because it's illegal either way, so why not? You make it outright illegal, you may as well throw open the floodgates and give up any attempt at controlling it.

You might not want freaks on your street, so you might make the tech completely illegal... but the result would be roughly the same number of freaks, only modified ten times more extremely... both because "why not, it's illegal anyway" and because they'd have to be modified much more extremely to survive if modification is illegal while vigilantism is effectively legal.

Alright this seems like a half thought to me. Almost like you have more to say than just the above quote. I think I understand what you are saying but I would like to be sure first.
It seems like you are saying that making something illegal will increase demand and thus will become more prevalent than if you made it legal and placed restrictions on it?
Am I correct?

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
brainbot wrote:
brainbot wrote:

You are not being told you can't volunteer. Volunteering isn't illegal. What stops you from being involved in an experiment, study or treatment is the legality of the study/treatment/experiment. Well actually you could also be refused participation based on the study's parameters (being too old or the wrong sex for example) but that isn't relevant.
The government does not take ownership of your body in this type of situation it protects you from harm with it's laws.
Furthermore, freedom is not absolute. In order to interact with society certain restriction are placed on individuals. This too is not the government taking ownership of your body.

I'll just have to disagree here and call it a difference of perspective. The government telling you not to do something that affects someone else is a necessary part of being part of a society. The government telling you you can't do something to yourself, or agree to something being done to yourself, is not required to be part of a society. It is overreach, in my opinion. Because the only person you'd be hurting if you made a dumb decision is you, this has no bearing on interacting with society. That's an excuse often used to give a blank check to allow any and all overreach.

Perfect example of a law I think they got right is smoking. You can't smoke in many public places because you'd be affecting other people, but it's perfectly legal to smoke twenty packs a day if you do so in private. I don't smoke, but this seems correct to me.

It doesn't protect anyone if I seek out someone who has an experimental treatment I want, and they get sent to jail for giving me exactly what I asked for because either they couldn't afford a legal team or because I needed it in too short a time frame (esp because anything less than a decade away would be "too short" with the way things are currently). It really comes down to what's more important, protecting people from their own decisions, or protecting basic freedoms and physical self-ownership. I put the second as priority, because I think Benjamin Franklin was 100% correct in saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

brainbot wrote:

This relates directly to what I just said but now you are taking the conclusion to a larger scope than was originally discussed. Instead of just focusing on being denied involvement in scientific/medical studies you are now including any and all instances when the government may place a restriction on what you do with your body.
This isn't exactly relevant to the overall discussion but it is interesting nonetheless.
I must admit I cannot think of any case where you are required or denied an action that only affects you and no one else. Can you provide examples for us to discuss?

A fairly recent example from my state, from the last decade: The law was amended to make eye tattoos illegal. It's only a decade old form of body mod, so long term (decades down the road) damage it could cause still hasn't been assessed. I have no intention of ever getting one. I don't even have a regular tattoo. I wouldn't want a stranger sticking a needle into the whites of my eyes just so I could make them blue or red. And I would willingly call anyone planning on doing so a dumbass. However, I would not physically impede them doing so by any means, because I don't own their eyeballs. From my perspective, the state now has partial ownership of the eyes in my skull, which is just plain wrong. Again, I don't care that it's something I would never do. That's completely irrelevant. It's still none of the government's business.

To illustrate how laws like this protect no one: Skin tattoos used to be illegal in my state a long time ago, yet everyone still had them. They just didn't get them from a professional. So the law meant to protect people actually made them less safe due to lack of sterile conditions, and anyone getting an eye tattoo is also doing so now through someone who has no certification or sterile studio... because of a law meant to protect people.

And the fact that it was so-called "small government" politicians who created and voted for said bill just proves how pervasive the idea has become that any overreach is fine so long as it prevents strangeness. Some people who supported the bill didn't want to be creeped out by someone with black eyes. But I don't care. Your aesthetic preferences should not dictate ownership of my body. Doesn't matter one bit that this is something I'd never do, the principle is the same.

brainbot wrote:

Alright this seems like a half thought to me. Almost like you have more to say than just the above quote. I think I understand what you are saying but I would like to be sure first.
It seems like you are saying that making something illegal will increase demand and thus will become more prevalent than if you made it legal and placed restrictions on it?
Am I correct?

Not exactly. I was saying that I think it's a general truth that if you make something illegal outright, then you give up any capacity to control it. I think I already accidentally clarified that point with the bit about tattoos.

However, the way you worded it is 100% correct when it comes to things like the war on drugs. Making things illegal absolutely increases demand and makes it more prevalent in that case. At first glance, it seems you're increasing the risk more than reward. Risk: Jail. Reward: No taxes and much higher sale prices. Already we see risk and reward are balanced. However, people at the top of the totem pole often take no risk because they have underlings to take the risks and fall for them. As a result, to people actually leading these operations, the illegality of it is pure incentivisation with close to zero measurable increase in risk.

But no, I wasn't being clever. I was in comic book land, thinking about odd procedures like body mods and augmentations. It wouldn't be more prevalent if illegal, roughly the same as if it were legal, given that the type of people who would want it would want it either way. However, if it's illegal, you have no control over the outcome, so should expect more extreme results. In the case of body modifications, if it's legal but regulated, a person could say... get cosmetic changes but not augmentations past a reasonable degree. People who wanted that would take that and be relatively satisfied. No point in risking the law if you already got basically what you wanted. However, if it's outright illegal, and they're going to get in trouble for it anyway, then why not also get all the augmentations they possibly can? The risk is the same as only getting cosmetic changes, but they would also now have the ability to defend themselves against enforcement.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I can totally understand if

I can totally understand if someone got arrested for participating voluntarily in an illegal experiment.

I mean you are literally aiding in a criminal act.

Be like if you willingly helped out bank robbers.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I can totally understand if someone got arrested for participating voluntarily in an illegal experiment.

I mean you are literally aiding in a criminal act.

Be like if you willingly helped out bank robbers.

Well, many people, like you, are fully willing to give ownership of their own physical selves over to the government and say "thank you for protecting me from my own self."

I'm not one of those people.

Edit: That came across as a bit mean on my part, so I'm adding to it.

It also comes down to perspective of "what is the law" and "why is it bad to break a law that is itself unjust?". If the purpose of the law is to protect people, and a particular law does not do that, then why is it wrong to break it?

This is a directly relevant question, because most bioethics laws, and what is considered legal or illegal experiments, are decided on by politicians who in many cases have absolutely no understanding of the science they're making laws about.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I can totally understand if someone got arrested for participating voluntarily in an illegal experiment.

I mean you are literally aiding in a criminal act.

Be like if you willingly helped out bank robbers.

Well, many people, like you, are fully willing to give ownership of their own physical selves over to the government and say "thank you for protecting me from my own self."

I'm not one of those people.

Edit: That came across as a bit mean on my part, so I'm adding to it.

It also comes down to perspective of "what is the law" and "why is it bad to break a law that is itself unjust?". If the purpose of the law is to protect people, and a particular law does not do that, then why is it wrong to break it?

This is a directly relevant question, because most bioethics laws, and what is considered legal or illegal experiments, are decided on by politicians who in many cases have absolutely no understanding of the science they're making laws about.

If you willingly cooperate in an illegal experiment you're aiding in a crime.

If the experiment should be legal or illegal is another matter entirely. But if it has been deemed an illegal act then willingly participating in said illegal act would be a crime.

Usually in comic books the experiments the mad scientists are trying to do have already been deemed unethical at best and illegal at worst.

Again, arguing if the experiments should be considered illegal or unethical to begin with is a completely separate matter.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

If you willingly cooperate in an illegal experiment you're aiding in a crime.

If the experiment should be legal or illegal is another matter entirely. But if it has been deemed an illegal act then willingly participating in said illegal act would be a crime.

Usually in comic books the experiments the mad scientists are trying to do have already been deemed unethical at best and illegal at worst.

Again, arguing if the experiments should be considered illegal or unethical to begin with is a completely separate matter.

You're basically saying it should be illegal for a person to try to save their own life. The illegal experiment could be their only hope.

And yes, experiments have been deemed unethical or illegal... by people with absolutely no knowledge of the science or ethics surrounding the experiments. Who's doing the "deeming" is important, here.

People will always willfully ignore a law that makes it illegal for them to try to save themselves. No amount of hand-wringing or thumping of law books will change this.

Which is why I believe the person who made a wrongful law in the first place is the one who is evil and did wrong, not the participant in the experiment.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
It would be illegal for

It would be illegal for someone to try to save their own life by doing an illegal action, yes.

Same as it's still illegal to steal food even if you're starving.

What is legal and what is moral aren't always aligned.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

I can totally understand if someone got arrested for participating voluntarily in an illegal experiment.

I mean you are literally aiding in a criminal act.

Be like if you willingly helped out bank robbers.

Well, many people, like you, are fully willing to give ownership of their own physical selves over to the government and say "thank you for protecting me from my own self."

I'm not one of those people.

Edit: That came across as a bit mean on my part, so I'm adding to it.

It also comes down to perspective of "what is the law" and "why is it bad to break a law that is itself unjust?". If the purpose of the law is to protect people, and a particular law does not do that, then why is it wrong to break it?

This is a directly relevant question, because most bioethics laws, and what is considered legal or illegal experiments, are decided on by politicians who in many cases have absolutely no understanding of the science they're making laws about.

If you willingly cooperate in an illegal experiment you're aiding in a crime.

If the experiment should be legal or illegal is another matter entirely. But if it has been deemed an illegal act then willingly participating in said illegal act would be a crime.

Usually in comic books the experiments the mad scientists are trying to do have already been deemed unethical at best and illegal at worst.

Again, arguing if the experiments should be considered illegal or unethical to begin with is a completely separate matter.

Agreed.

Doesn't matter if I thought pot should be made legal (and therefore taxed :p) all those years ago. It was illegal. You use it, knowing it's illegal, then you're committing a crime. Which is why no one should be set free from jails, just because, it's legal now! Unless the idea is, save money for the people, then kick them out...or don't. I wouldn't feel bad. The people knew the risks. Doesn't matter than it really isn't much different from getting drunk. :p

The reason such experiments are illegal, besides some possible religious outlook, is some people are just dumb. :p "What, sign here for a chance at all this fame and fortune if I survive this? YAY!" Nevermind the risk is way out of their favor.

Not to mention, what if someone is involuntarily signed up or coerced, how does the law prove a wrongful death, if they just fake the acceptance?

Complicated matters. There's steps in place to get things into human testing.

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
If it's illegal to do what's

If it's illegal to do what's right, and the person trying to save their own life gets thrown in prison...

Then the Hero is NOT the person throwing them in prison, but rather, the person breaking them out.

This is because the above describes a dystopia and in a dystopia, the rebels are the heroes.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

If it's illegal to do what's right, and the person trying to save their own life gets thrown in prison...

Then the Hero is NOT the person throwing them in prison, but rather, the person breaking them out.

This is because the above describes a dystopia and in a dystopia, the rebels are the heroes.

It's not a dystopia. It's real life.

Not all laws are fair or right and the law is often short on nuance.

Stealing is illegal.

Stealing to feed your starving child is still illegal.

Is it right to break the law for a good reason? Varies from case to case.

The goal of a good society should be making it so someone doesn't need to steal to feed their starving child because their child isn't starving to begin with.

Same as where someone has to do something illegal to save their own life, a society should try to ensure that they don't need to do that.

Least that's what I think.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Of course the goal of a good

Of course the goal of a good society is to make sure the law matches what's right, but that's not the way the world is and you seem to be applauding throwing people in prison who are not at fault for that.

The problem here is that you may well have to do something illegal to save your own life, and I do mean you, personally, because of the way the laws currently are. You could actually find yourself in that very situation in the future, as could I.

Times have changed since those laws were made. We now have cameras and computers that can store vast amounts of footage, which could be used to prove it wasn't coercion or trickery. All footage is admissible in court if the person is aware they're being recorded, after all. That, combined with simply making it illegal to pay people (aside from the treatment itself) would prevent people from doing it for the wrong reason.

Times have also changed in terms of where research happens. Grindhouses are now a thing (not nearly as bad as it sounds, just means cyber research using shared equipment and self-surgery). Biopunks are now a thing (biological research in a garage or attic). Neither is going away any time soon. Pure research that actually produces results is getting harder to come by in major institutions and becoming more common in small private operations. The research there is slower due to lack of funds, but more creative and so more likely to eventually produce results. I won't get into why this is happening here, because it would fill the entire forum to capacity. However, I will say that said small operations often lack a legal team to get approval for stuff, and so right now there could be a cure sitting on someone's shelf that future you needs, but the law simply won't let you have.

It's because the law is so far off from reality that people doing such research are starting to dump their info online. This is risky, because it means anyone anywhere can run with it, and twist it, but it's the only way to prevent it from getting shut down by someone who has no understanding of it and is only trying to appease a big campaign donor who also has no understanding of it. It's probably unethical to dump research like that and let the wind take it, but as I said multiple times, when the law is not based on what's right, you force people to do unethical things to get what they need.

As for why I'm so passionate about this... well, my single strongest belief is that a man who owns nothing but his own body is more free than one who owns an entire continent, but not their own body. Even if the first is an indentured servant to the second, the first is more free. The way the law is written now, it really doesn't seem like any of us have full ownership of our own bodies, and I see a lot of people here defending that. This is a belief of mine that's not going to change. It's not a line in the sand. It's a gorge carved in solid stone.

If I ever decide to get something biological done, and have the capacity to do it, I'll do it, and apologize to no one, because I own the flesh around my muscle and the marrow in my bones, no one else does.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
I'm not applauding anything.

I'm not applauding anything. Just stating how things are.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
BiotopeZ wrote:

EDIT-I was typing this when I got called away for a few hours and when I came back I finished this post. In that time the thread became active.
BiotopeZ, after reading your last post (#59) I have decided I am not going to respond to you anymore on this topic. Please do not ask me why.
I am leaving the following post up in case others are interested in reading it.

BiotopeZ wrote:

I'll just have to disagree here and call it a difference of perspective. The government telling you not to do something that affects someone else is a necessary part of being part of a society. The government telling you you can't do something to yourself, or agree to something being done to yourself, is not required to be part of a society. It is overreach, in my opinion. Because the only person you'd be hurting if you made a dumb decision is you, this has no bearing on interacting with society. That's an excuse often used to give a blank check to allow any and all overreach.

You have chosen not to grant me my request. This is not an accusation just a statement of fact. I fear we are going to head into troubled waters. But in the interest of trust I am going to carry on.
To that end I am going to try another tact.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Perfect example of a law I think they got right is smoking. You can't smoke in many public places because you'd be affecting other people, but it's perfectly legal to smoke twenty packs a day if you do so in private. I don't smoke, but this seems correct to me.

I'm glad you brought up smoking because I was going to.
Smoking has been around practically forever but it wasn't until the industrial revolution that it's popularity soared. This was obviously due to the ability to mass produce and distribute the most common type of tobacco use, the cigarette.
Flash forward to the last century, 1952 to be exact. This is when the testing as to the harmful effects of smoking began to produce results. What happened next we all know but to summarize, tobacco companies buried findings, falsified documents, influenced government, increased the addictive qualities of cigarettes and lied to the public about health concerns. All the while they actively promoted the use of tobacco, including targeting children as customers.
This is the horror story of improper or negligible oversight in drug use.

The common argument of 'cigarette smokers only hurt themselves' does not take into account all the other factors.
First, because of the health issues due to smoking, those who smoke require more medical attention. That increase in medical attention obviously includes the monetary cost of treatment but also includes overcrowding in hospitals, additional strain on medical personnel and shortages of medical supplies among other things. You might be tempted to point out that because 'it is the smokers fault' these things become their responsibility. To a degree that is correct but because there are social programs like Medicaid, the impact of a smokers failing health has a drain on society.

Second, because the behavior of those tobacco companies was undeniably criminal, there have been a lot of legal actions filed by individuals, the government and even the tobacco companies themselves. It's true that most civil or class action court cases require 'Court Fees' be paid but those are demanded of the losing side. If the government does not win the case they do not recoup the cost of the trial.
In addition to this financial cost to society there is also the fact that the court system is backlogged and the additional cases increase the time it takes to get a trial date. Keep in mind it doesn't just delay tobacco case but other cases like injury due to negligence.

Third, because nicotine is widely considered to be the one of the most addictive drugs a huge portion of autonomy is removed. Addiction isn't about blame, it is about the effect it has on an individual. In the case of nicotine it creates a chemical dependency which only increases over time. It's true the choice to start smoking is the individuals but the choice to quit isn't so clear cut. A common argument to this is 'the smoker chose to start'. This makes the assumption that the individual is adequately informed about their decision. Certainly those who started smoking during the time when tobacco companies were hiding and lying about the risks would not be considered informed. Neither can those children who the companies targeted be considered informed. Studies show that even today, with all the information readily available, those who begin smoking are ill informed about the risks.
When you consider the above also consider that cigarettes have been designed to be as addictive as possible.

In short, there is a cost to society for an act you consider 'harms no one but the user' and the choice to smoke isn't as clear cut as it's made out to be.

BiotopeZ wrote:

It doesn't protect anyone if I seek out someone who has an experimental treatment I want, and they get sent to jail for giving me exactly what I asked for because either they couldn't afford a legal team or because I needed it in too short a time frame (esp because anything less than a decade away would be "too short" with the way things are currently). It really comes down to what's more important, protecting people from their own decisions, or protecting basic freedoms and physical self-ownership. I put the second as priority, because I think Benjamin Franklin was 100% correct in saying "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It isn't relevant to the conversation but it is a personal pet peeve of mine when a historical quote is misinterpreted. Franklin wasn't talking about removing government control, he was talking about preserving the ability to govern. But it's current interpretation is exactly what BiotopeZ says it is. As I said, this isn't relevant, just a pet peeve of mine.

Moving on. You say that it doesn't protect anyone if you agree to a procedure and the guy goes to jail. Let me tell you about an experimental treatment.
In 1985 a man went to see a doctor at Sherman hospital complaining about blurry vision. The doctor suggested surgery to implant a corrective lens. He assured the patient that the process was common and perfectly safe. The truth was that procedure was experimental and it eventually resulted in permanent damage to the patients eye.
The guy sought out a doctor for help, agreed to the treatment and ended up with most of the sight in one eye gone. I think most people would agree that the Doctor should face repercussions for his actions. But you can pass that off as an example of an evil doctor doing illegal experiments and the guy didn't know what he was agreeing to so lets move on.
This is the case file: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2149788/kus-v-sherman-hosp/

Here is another. In 2006, eight men were participating in a drug trial for TGN1412, with six receiving the drug and 2 getting placebos. The drug was being tested as a treatment for leukemia. Very quickly all six men had to be rushed to hospital in extreme pain, organ failure and some with severely swelling craniums. Eventually they were all told they would likely suffer auto-immune disease or cancer because of their exposure to the drug. One man even lost parts of his fingers and all of his toes. Now Parexel, the company conducting the tests, claimed they followed all the rules and regulations but it turns out they did not properly determine the safe dosage for humans.
The six young men volunteered for the study and because of a mistake they suffered greatly.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/

These are just a couple examples. Others like insufficient testing for the drug Vioxx, undervalued side effects of the drug Seroquel, and too many to list cases of falsified findings, test subject coercion, unqualified medical practitioners and a multitude of other offenses.
The point is, you may not know what you are volunteering for. With oversight you could still be told that someone has the cure for cancer but all you get is the opportunity to be a part of a class action lawsuit in waiting. Imagine what it would be like if those people were not held accountable?
The great thing is you don't have to imagine. Go here and see just a few examples from history:
https://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com/10-dangerous-drugs-once-marketed-as-medicine/
If you think those are too old to be valid then look up some of the more dubious modern pseudoscientific alternative medicine such as crystal therapy, psychic surgery, ionized bracelets, Magnet therapy and so on.

The government now tries to have proper oversight when it comes to science and medicine because it is far too easy for abuse in a system without it. Those who do abuse the trust of those in their care should be charge with committing a crime such as medical malpractice, negligence, gross negligence manslaughter and a slew of other possible crimes.
The government isn't stopping you from being in these trials. The government is stopping those who run these trials from hurting you illegally. It's not a matter of 'perspective'. It's about specific criminal actions.
Let me be clear here. The government does not have any laws that state you cannot volunteer for a study, experiment, treatment or trial. The laws are designed to stop an unethical, dangerous or criminal study, experiment, treatment or trial.

One other thing I should mention. I have been relating horror stories about things like drug trials but these are the exception. Most are conducted with proper oversight by caring and professional people who take every precaution to ensure the safety of those in their charge.

BiotopeZ wrote:

A fairly recent example from my state, from the last decade: The law was amended to make eye tattoos illegal. It's only a decade old form of body mod, so long term (decades down the road) damage it could cause still hasn't been assessed. I have no intention of ever getting one. I don't even have a regular tattoo. I wouldn't want a stranger sticking a needle into the whites of my eyes just so I could make them blue or red. And I would willingly call anyone planning on doing so a dumbass. However, I would not physically impede them doing so by any means, because I don't own their eyeballs. From my perspective, the state now has partial ownership of the eyes in my skull, which is just plain wrong. Again, I don't care that it's something I would never do. That's completely irrelevant. It's still none of the government's business.

Ok, scleral tattooing is not illegal in Oklahoma, it is restricted. In order to perform scleral tattooing you need to have a medical license.
The reason they require this is because of how delicate the eye is and how easy it is to damage. Having people with no medical training tattoo other peoples eyes was resulting in injuries. What little studies that have been done on the process indicate loss of vision or other minor eye issues but as they are not complete they are not conclusive. The real issue that required legislation was that people were getting hurt now. It's not a hypothetical, down the road issue that may never happen. It's a here and now problem.
Your perspective is ill informed in this case. You can still get the eye tattoo if you wanted but you have to do so from a medical professional.
Here is the actual legislation about scleral tattooing.
https://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/CPD-OS%20Title%2021%20Section%20842.1%20et%20seq.pdf

BiotopeZ wrote:

To illustrate how laws like this protect no one: Skin tattoos used to be illegal in my state a long time ago, yet everyone still had them. They just didn't get them from a professional. So the law meant to protect people actually made them less safe due to lack of sterile conditions, and anyone getting an eye tattoo is also doing so now through someone who has no certification or sterile studio... because of a law meant to protect people.
And the fact that it was so-called "small government" politicians who created and voted for said bill just proves how pervasive the idea has become that any overreach is fine so long as it prevents strangeness. Some people who supported the bill didn't want to be creeped out by someone with black eyes. But I don't care. Your aesthetic preferences should not dictate ownership of my body. Doesn't matter one bit that this is something I'd never do, the principle is the same.

I am having a hard time with this part of your argument.
You start by condemning the governments choice to make tattoos illegal then you say they need to make sure only those qualified do them and that they are done in safety. As I showed before this is exactly what they did with the scleral tattooing.
What troubles me is that what you want in regards to eye tattooing is precisely what the laws about ethical experiments/treatments/trials/studies ensure for them.
Please tell me you see why I am confused.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Not exactly. I was saying that I think it's a general truth that if you make something illegal outright, then you give up any capacity to control it. I think I already accidentally clarified that point with the bit about tattoos.

Yes you did. But it was the point I was making all along about the legislation oversight of 'experiments' not being the same as taking possession of your body.

This is why I wanted to make sure we understood one another.

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
There are two logical reasons

There are two logical reasons for the government restricting what you voluntarily do to your own body. And by logical I mean they are reasons that have some plausible logic behind them rather than just tradition, emotion, or hysteria.

The first reason is that such a thing could indirectly harm others. Let’s say you inhale a drug that makes you psychotic, and in such a state you might perform property damage, or steal, or attack someone. A person should be restricted from using such a substance because they could harm someone. (I’m talking about a drug that actually does such a thing, like PCP, not “reefer madness”. And yes I know that PCP very rarely makes people homicidal and most media reports about it are exaggerated.) Going back to the “dino-mod” example, voluntarily allowing a villainous mad scientist to turn you into some hybrid dinosaur creature is probably putting the public at risk. I’d say that’s not an unlikely outcome.

The other logical reason is that a person signing up for such a procedure may not fully understand what they are getting into. It might be unreasonable to expect a lay person to grasp exactly what will happen to them in that situation; most people just don’t have the grounding in such subjects (especially cutting edge fringe science). They have to trust what the “doctor” is telling them. So, the government feels the need to intervene and declare the procedure illegal to prevent it from occurring. This is what many will protest, and I’m definitely not personally okay with a lawmaker making decisions on my behalf (how do I know Jim Bob Grisby, Representative from Arkansas knows what to make illegal?) but there is still some logic behind it. Even an educated adult of sound mind and healthy intelligence may not be able to make informed decisions that may change his or her life permanently about such a complex scientific subject.

Anyway that’s how I see such laws having some shred of credibility at the very least.

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
I don't care if they're

I don't care if they're credible. I own myself. If I wanted to be a dino person for some off the wall reason, and I could, I would. I think that'd be terrible, and inconvenient, and annoying, but I own me so I'd make that choice. That choice would be no, but even choosing no is having choice. If someone else wanted to do it, I'd tell them it's dumb, point out all the reasons, then promptly stand out of their way so they can make the choice. Nope, not hyperbole. I believe people own themselves physically even to this degree.

But back to the Brainbot thread.

I know why you won't respond. It's because on this issue I can be emotional, illogical, and hard-headed, responding with little motivation other than defense of core conviction, moreso than any other issue, all while keeping motivations under-hat. I'm honestly surprised you lasted this long.

As for the eye tattoo thing, that's my fault for not reading the the bill myself but only the interpretation of it on various news sites.

You're confused because if something's blanket legal there's no safety oversight, and I pointed out if something's completely illegal there's also no safety oversight, but with the added penalty of those trying to help getting into legal trouble. The answer to this confusion is two-fold. First: laws prohibiting entire branches of research, thereby preventing any safety. I am somewhat put at ease knowing that most bills meant to do this have failed, and continue to fail, but they also continue to be proposed. Maybe I'm being fatalistic, but it seems to be only a matter of time. Some states have already begun doing this on their own, so maybe there's a reason for my paranoia.

Second: all research is illegal for those without the money and resources to do everything required for a trial, despite the fact that these people might be the ones most suited if the current trend continues. I am increasingly convinced that the next great biological innovation is more likely to come from a shed on a rental property than a major institution. But the fact is, it takes significant money to get into this game legally, and I'm talking hundreds of millions of dollars for drugs and capping out at about 94 million for devices. This remains true even if the people with the money aren't the ones capable of producing results. Some companies claimed it took over a billion to get something to market, though I'm skeptical that all of that actually went to research.

In the end, people who can't afford to pay for the legal avenue often either do the test on themselves, or quit. Side-note: This is similar to why cyber fanatics test bizarre and pointless implants on themselves using self-surgery with shared equipment rather than going through any official channels, something that is done with no oversight because it's outside the system.

Then we have people who need something this year or they're toast. If said person had a problem that's super-rare and so not of interest to large institutions, or if the problem required a particularly new and radical method, it's likely it would only be investigated by a small group that couldn't yet afford to start phase 3. And so you can see why such a person would simply be SOL. Their only hope would be if they either had the training to do it themselves (and it were physically possible to), or if they could convince someone to risk breaking the law for them.

There is a possible solution to all this. Well, two. The first would be FDA having more adaptable standards to deal with rarer conditions and smaller, lengthier studies (takes a small team far longer to reach statistically significant numbers). The second would be crowd-funding. Crowd-funding has not yet reached levels that would allow for this solution, and is limited mostly to art projects right now, but it could be the future of research and solve some of these issues that smaller, independent teams that look into less common problems or use less standard methods have.

All said, I can see I was wrong about some things. However, I can also still clearly see a future where a new technology emerges, only to be quickly banned because it's a threat to large pharmaceutical companies, or allows what big political donors consider to be too much change.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
It was super amusing to read

It was super amusing to read that last post like you were super angry the whole time. I don't know why I read it that way possibly the large amount of The Amazing World of Gumball I was watching previously.

Or possibly the fact I'm tired.

Or both.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

I know why you won't respond. It's because on this issue I can be emotional, illogical, and hard-headed, responding with little motivation other than defense of core conviction, moreso than any other issue, all while keeping motivations under-hat. I'm honestly surprised you lasted this long.

I'm sorry you are wrong. My reasons are not what you post here. I would prefer you not post guesses.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

There are two logical reasons for the government restricting what you voluntarily do to your own body. And by logical I mean they are reasons that have some plausible logic behind them rather than just tradition, emotion, or hysteria.

The first reason is that such a thing could indirectly harm others. Let’s say you inhale a drug that makes you psychotic, and in such a state you might perform property damage, or steal, or attack someone. A person should be restricted from using such a substance because they could harm someone. (I’m talking about a drug that actually does such a thing, like PCP, not “reefer madness”. And yes I know that PCP very rarely makes people homicidal and most media reports about it are exaggerated.) Going back to the “dino-mod” example, voluntarily allowing a villainous mad scientist to turn you into some hybrid dinosaur creature is probably putting the public at risk. I’d say that’s not an unlikely outcome.

The other logical reason is that a person signing up for such a procedure may not fully understand what they are getting into. It might be unreasonable to expect a lay person to grasp exactly what will happen to them in that situation; most people just don’t have the grounding in such subjects (especially cutting edge fringe science). They have to trust what the “doctor” is telling them. So, the government feels the need to intervene and declare the procedure illegal to prevent it from occurring. This is what many will protest, and I’m definitely not personally okay with a lawmaker making decisions on my behalf (how do I know Jim Bob Grisby, Representative from Arkansas knows what to make illegal?) but there is still some logic behind it. Even an educated adult of sound mind and healthy intelligence may not be able to make informed decisions that may change his or her life permanently about such a complex scientific subject.

Anyway that’s how I see such laws having some shred of credibility at the very least.

Pffft. The government doesn't care.

They restrict what you can do, because it'll give them more money. Whether it be the government as a whole or just the politician herself. Or to give those in office more power over the people.

There is no logical reason to restrict smoking, for what it can do to your body, if they allow other bad things to happen to your body with no issue. Like drinking!

Smoking in public? Should've been up to the business. Not the government to restrict it. People don't like the smoking allowed at an establishment they had the option to not apply there or be a consumer of that business. The government got involved only to put their power over others. People fought for it, to put their own power over others, when they could've easily gone elsewhere.

Know what people can't do? Stay off the road with drunk drivers, because they can drive and never be known until it's to late. Yup. Make drinking and driving illegal, when they could've just as easily made drinking illegal and stopped what they were so worried about to begin with. Plus it helps with medical costs, because now people don't have messed up bodies from over drinking and even less obesity problems, because they're not drinking to unhealthy amounts.

The government does what it does, because of money and control. Think people who smoked thought "Gee. This is good for me."? No. They didn't :p

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
I gave logical justifications

I gave logical justifications (potentially logical), those aren’t necessarily the true motivations of course. :)

I’m pragmatic enough to believe that all government decisions are ultimately a balance between pleasing special interest groups (lobbyists, big campaign donors, friends, etc.) and the voting public. At some point the people’s welfare is hopefully improved, mostly by accident.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Brand, they tried to make

Brand, they tried to make drinking illegal once... Didn't turn out so well.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Sauron releases a sapient

Sauron releases a sapient dinosaur on the city to terrorize its citizens:

Well, it wasn't a total failure. I mean, prank calls can be mildly annoying.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Brand, they tried to make drinking illegal once... Didn't turn out so well.

I do know that :p

However, it is a new age!

After all, how many times do people say "Oh, we wouldn't fall into those old ways again, not in this day and age." so, why would banning alchohol be different? :p Or, how about, don't ban, tax it like they tax cigarettes. Tax it more!

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
My job title is 'Clinical

My job title is 'Clinical Research Analyst' for a pharmaceutical company, although I do very little clinical research and focus mostly on the analyst part.
Part of my work involves something called Complex adaptive systems (CAS), specifically the immune system in my case.
It is difficult to explain in simple terms but an inadequate definition would be 'a system in which many or varied components interact with and impact upon one another to produce an interconnected, emergent and/or reactive behavior. Understanding the behavior of the components does not convey the understanding of the system'.
To avoid confusion, it is important to know this is different than 'Chaos Theory'.
Here is a much better and more complete definition but it is also fairly technical.
http://www.trojanmice.com/articles/complexadaptivesystems.htm
In my work we use CAS examination to attempt an understanding of the system in order to influence the behavior. Specifically we design drugs to work in concert with or undeterred by the immune system. If we were to attempt influence over a single component without an understanding the system we would not be able to predict the behavior.

The reason I bring this up is because it is my greatest wish that governments and individuals understand that the world we live in is a CAS and use examination of that system to address the problems we face.
Trying to exert control over one component to correct or combat a problem in a complex adaptive system like society will never bring about the desired response.

In short, simple solutions do not work for complex problems.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Brand, they tried to make drinking illegal once... Didn't turn out so well.

I do know that :p

However, it is a new age!

After all, how many times do people say "Oh, we wouldn't fall into those old ways again, not in this day and age." so, why would banning alchohol be different? :p Or, how about, don't ban, tax it like they tax cigarettes. Tax it more!

If the government wants more cash they should just tax the rich, or at least close some of the loopholes in the tax systems that allow big companies to pay little or no taxes.

Dunno how bad upping the taxes on alcohol would go, probably badly.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Beamrider
Beamrider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 21:41
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

In short, simple solutions do not work for complex problems.

I think the proper quote for that is "For every complicated problem, there is a solution that is simple, straightforward, and wrong."

Composition Team

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Beamrider, I don't think you

Beamrider, I don't think you really wanna quote Mencken.

Beamrider
Beamrider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 21:41
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Beamrider, I don't think you really wanna quote Mencken.

I don't actually know who the quote is from, or who that is.

Composition Team

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Beamrider wrote:
Beamrider wrote:

I don't actually know who the quote is from, or who that is.

Henry Mencken was an old school newspaperman and gifted satirist with a fondness for literary giants. He was also a notorious racist and supremacist (he believed some people had the right to rule over 'lesser' men). He also believed strongly in a militarism government (creating and using a strong military to further national interests) and was an avid opponent of representative democracy.

While he did have some positive impact on the world (he played a substantial part in getting the laws against teaching evolution overturned), it does not excuse his efforts towards pushing a supremacist agenda.
The above quote is actually in reference towards using religious inspired morals as government policy.

He is, in my opinion, not someone to glorify. I believe it's best to leave his good works to be studied by academia and hold up the same type of good works by others as an example of note.
Like this quote from a speech Kennedy never got the chance to give:

Not only does this speak directly to what I was saying but it also has a relevance to current world issues.

TheInternetJanitor
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 05/11/2018 - 06:00
"Relevance to current world

"Relevance to current world issues" is a hilarious understatement.

Phoulmouth
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 11/09/2014 - 21:35
I'm going to get a lot of

I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but honestly, because nothing in DC comics ever actually makes sense. DC's writers are batshit insane.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Phoulmouth wrote:
Phoulmouth wrote:

I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but honestly, because nothing in DC comics ever actually makes sense. DC's writers are batshit insane.

Care to elaborate?

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

warlocc
warlocc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 14 min ago
Developerkickstarter
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 16:38
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Beamrider wrote:

I don't actually know who the quote is from, or who that is.

Henry Mencken was an old school newspaperman and gifted satirist with a fondness for literary giants. He was also a notorious racist and supremacist (he believed some people had the right to rule over 'lesser' men). He also believed strongly in a militarism government (creating and using a strong military to further national interests) and was an avid opponent of representative democracy.

While he did have some positive impact on the world (he played a substantial part in getting the laws against teaching evolution overturned), it does not excuse his efforts towards pushing a supremacist agenda.
The above quote is actually in reference towards using religious inspired morals as government policy.

If the quote applies, the source doesn't matter so much.
Besides, here's another one- even a broken clock is right twice a day.

PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
warlocc wrote:
warlocc wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Beamrider wrote:

I don't actually know who the quote is from, or who that is.

Henry Mencken was an old school newspaperman and gifted satirist with a fondness for literary giants. He was also a notorious racist and supremacist (he believed some people had the right to rule over 'lesser' men). He also believed strongly in a militarism government (creating and using a strong military to further national interests) and was an avid opponent of representative democracy.

While he did have some positive impact on the world (he played a substantial part in getting the laws against teaching evolution overturned), it does not excuse his efforts towards pushing a supremacist agenda.
The above quote is actually in reference towards using religious inspired morals as government policy.

If the quote applies, the source doesn't matter so much.
Besides, here's another one- even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Unfortunately equating somebody to being a proverbial "broken clock" is usually, at best, a backhanded compliment you reserve for otherwise horrible, bat-shit crazy type people. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
warlocc wrote:
warlocc wrote:

If the quote applies, the source doesn't matter so much.
Besides, here's another one- even a broken clock is right twice a day.

There is a reason why we cite the name of the person the quote is attributed to.
The source matters a lot. It speaks to character and motivations.

Atama
Atama's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 22:32
“Love your neighbor as you

“Love your neighbor as you love your children, and you will know eternal peace and harmony.”
-Adolph Hitler

(Probably not a real quote.)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Atama wrote:
Atama wrote:

“Love your neighbor as you love your children, and you will know eternal peace and harmony.”
-Adolph Hitler

(Probably not a real quote.)

But good ol' Adolph did manage to organize and implement the German Autobahn system which directly lead to the US borrowing the idea for our Interstate road network. This would be a classic example of one of the few good things the otherwise despicable dictator managed to do that had a positive impact on the modern world.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
Not relevant to the current

Not relevant to the current talk, but...

I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this example earlier.

Killian. From Iron Man 3. He only used volunteers. That's how he had a team of military war vets willing to kill, lie, and steal for him. Of course, he was a bad guy. Once he realized he could blame the explosions on a made-up terrorist he just stopped trying to stabilize them and still let ones that hadn't been proven stable yet follow him around in public.

However, if the research had been legal and thus could have been done above-board, it could have been done much more safely. Stark is not the main mind in genetics, by a long shot, but he figured it out (stabilized Pepper), so logically, there were plenty of others who could have if they had known about it. But also, if it were legal, the vets could have gone with another option than Killian. But no, the only options were signing up with Crazy McSplodeyPants or staying paralyzed and amputated until death. Given that they went along with the insane plan to kidnap the president, I think we can assume the president was partially responsible for making the tech illegal (possibly while he was a senator). This would also explain why the VP, who's daughter was crippled, was willing to go along with the scheme.

So... final verdicts:

Killian: Villain. He didn't need bodyguards. At all. Yet still had people follow him around, before determining if they were stable, and knowing they could explode especially in stressful situations. He just flat out didn't care about random bystanders dying, or his own subjects dying.

President: Villain. Needed some luddite votes, so he made it to where even researching treatment is illegal. Luckily this hasn't happened IRL ... yet, but it's only a matter of time. From how it was worded in the movie, it wasn't just Extremis, but anything unusual that was banned. It's a good thing Cho's research was in Seoul. She would have been thrown in jail if she did it in America. So now, if you lose limbs and are paralyzed, well... suck it. The president needed votes, and increasing his wealth by 0.1% is more important than your life.

War Vets (Killian's band): Victims. Good people put in an impossible situation by a legal system that forced them to turn to a madman for treatment. If I were paralyzed and missing half my body, and I was told any possible avenue to a cure for me was made illegal by the majority in the country, and the current president, I wouldn't give two shits about the country, either, at that point. It's very easy to radicalize desperate people when their options have been removed by a faceless state. Killian knew this fact, and took advantage of it. The vets never stood a chance. And Stark killed them.

Stark: Neutral. Intentions are good, but he didn't see the big picture and didn't have many options. If he had more time, maybe he could have come up with a non-lethal way to take down the vets, but we'll never know for certain if he would have bothered. Plus... dude, just give War Machine some Extremis, wait a couple days, then remove it if he doesn't want it anymore. Then he wouldn't need that lower body exosuit to walk. Like... seriously, WTF?

Comics Note: The comics were quite different. A known terrorist was deliberately augmented to go on a rampage to prove how useful the augments were. Stark couldn't beat him. He couldn't even come close. In the comics, Extremis was MUCH more powerful. In the end, Stark deliberately USED EXTREMIS ON HIMSELF. He modified the formula to make the sublayer of his suit produced by his own cellular tissue, augmenting his suit by making his body better for it. Only by taking Extremis himself, of his own free will, causing permanent changes to his cells, was Stark able to beat the terrorist. This was a much more well thought out story. Comics > Movies.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Going to have to disagree.

Going to have to disagree. War vets were not victims. Maybe some, in the fact they didn't know what they were getting into. However, after that, they knew what was going on and they kept doing it. That's not a victim. That's a villain.

As for the comic. Often times the written out aspect is better, because it's not limited to a 2 hour window to tell the story and able to explain things much better.

BiotopeZ
BiotopeZ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 03/04/2016 - 10:29
That's fair. I was just

That's fair. I was just trying to point out that they didn't have to turn into villains. If the law had been different, if the hadn't ended up backed into that corner, they could have been better. But, I see your point.

If one of the stable ones had broken ranks, brought the research (they are the research) to an outside researcher, that could have helped a lot of people.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
BiotopeZ wrote:
BiotopeZ wrote:

However, if the research had been legal and thus could have been done above-board, it could have been done much more safely. Stark is not the main mind in genetics, by a long shot, but he figured it out (stabilized Pepper), so logically, there were plenty of others who could have if they had known about it. But also, if it were legal, the vets could have gone with another option than Killian. But no, the only options were signing up with Crazy McSplodeyPants or staying paralyzed and amputated until death. Given that they went along with the insane plan to kidnap the president, I think we can assume the president was partially responsible for making the tech illegal (possibly while he was a senator). This would also explain why the VP, who's daughter was crippled, was willing to go along with the scheme.

Extremis was not illegal in Iron Man 3. You know this because at the beginning of the movie Maya Hansen had already begun research. And Extremis was not the only option open to those paralyzed or missing limbs. This is a world were perfect cybernetic integration is possible and there are machines that can regrow damaged tissue. There is even 'magic' which can allow the paralyzed to play basketball like Jordan.

Maya joined AIM when no one else would fund her research. AIM funded the research because it planned to use the desperate test subjects as assassins and terrorists in order to create a fake war that Killian and AIM could profit from. Killian coerced an already corrupt Vice President with promises of a cure for his daughter and the presidency.
Killian himself states the only reason he wants to kill President Ellis is because it will further his plans for profiting off a fake war.

The reason why no one knew about the project was because AIM was deliberately hiding the research in order to use it for their own ends.

These are not implied by the movies they are stated in various scenes.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Killian: Villain. He didn't need bodyguards. At all. Yet still had people follow him around, before determining if they were stable, and knowing they could explode especially in stressful situations. He just flat out didn't care about random bystanders dying, or his own subjects dying.

The movie shows everyone with Extremis will explode if they are over stressed. Those with Extremis can learn a measure of control over it but everyone who loses that control will explode. Killian used the others so he didn't run the chance of blowing himself up.

BiotopeZ wrote:

President: Villain. Needed some luddite votes, so he made it to where even researching treatment is illegal. Luckily this hasn't happened IRL ... yet, but it's only a matter of time. From how it was worded in the movie, it wasn't just Extremis, but anything unusual that was banned. It's a good thing Cho's research was in Seoul. She would have been thrown in jail if she did it in America. So now, if you lose limbs and are paralyzed, well... suck it. The president needed votes, and increasing his wealth by 0.1% is more important than your life.

This never happened. Your assumption that this type of research is illegal in the MCU has caused you to come to faulty conclusions.

BiotopeZ wrote:

War Vets (Killian's band): Victims. Good people put in an impossible situation by a legal system that forced them to turn to a madman for treatment. If I were paralyzed and missing half my body, and I was told any possible avenue to a cure for me was made illegal by the majority in the country, and the current president, I wouldn't give two shits about the country, either, at that point. It's very easy to radicalize desperate people when their options have been removed by a faceless state. Killian knew this fact, and took advantage of it. The vets never stood a chance. And Stark killed them.

It wasn't illegal. The people who agreed to the treatment also agreed to be assassins and terrorists. They are not victims and they are not radicalized.
Even if this process was illegal, which it wasn't, their options had not been removed. They in fact had more options than we do in the real world.

BiotopeZ wrote:

Stark: Neutral. Intentions are good, but he didn't see the big picture and didn't have many options. If he had more time, maybe he could have come up with a non-lethal way to take down the vets, but we'll never know for certain if he would have bothered. Plus... dude, just give War Machine some Extremis, wait a couple days, then remove it if he doesn't want it anymore. Then he wouldn't need that lower body exosuit to walk. Like... seriously, WTF?

There is no 'removing' Extremis. That's the whole point. It re-writes genetics. Tony doesn't give Rhode the virus because he cares about his friend and knows it is a death sentence.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
We know there's cybernetics,

We know there's cybernetics, but notice all of them are supplied by the very rich and not to the general public.

Magic, yes, but still very much nit believed and not easy to come by. The cripple playing basketball only went looking as he had no other option.

I don't recall everyone dying from Extremis at all. I recall him saying, not everyone can handle it, but I don't recall a reason other than, "Some can take it, some can't."

Agreed on not giving it to Rhodey. Stark may have cured Pepper (or she possibly still has the powers and we don't know it, she just won't explode O.O), but there's no promise he could cure everyone and as Stark said in Incredible Hulk, he always found tech to be much more reliable.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

We know there's cybernetics, but notice all of them are supplied by the very rich and not to the general public.

Yup, stuff costs money. Same with heart surgery and organ transplants. Not being able to afford something does not make it unavailable. It just makes it expensive.

Brand X wrote:

I don't recall everyone dying from Extremis at all. I recall him saying, not everyone can handle it, but I don't recall a reason other than, "Some can take it, some can't."

It was explained at the beginning of the movie when Maya calls the exploding plant a 'glitch'. It is again explained when Tony is captured and Maya tries to convince him to help fix Extremis (shortly before Killian kills her). Maya threatens to kill herself stating that if she is gone there is no one to stop Killian from going 'too hot'.

The 'Some can take it' refers to how some explode immediately after being injected. You see this when Tony hacks the AIM computers and is further elaborated on when Killian has Tony captured and explains that Pepper going through the early stages of the injection.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Yes, but I recall him giving

Yes, but I recall him giving a percent chance to them exploding or not.

I thought that was the reason Maya needed the help, to get the chances of a subject exploding, to 0%.

Guess I'll just have to rewatch it :) I actually liked IM3, so this is not a bad thing.

Pages