If mutants became real, which side would you be on?

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
If I was a mutant then pro mutant. If I was not then anti-mutant. The reasoning is relatively simple: violence between the two sides is absolutely inevitable. If I am not a mutant then letting people walk around possessing weapons of mass destruction is against my best interests. If I am a mutant, then I'd probably not want to be subjugated by an inferior iteration of humanity on the basis that I might do something.

As a result neither side in the X-men seems like they can be called "right". To argue that a man like Charles Xavier ought to be allowed to act freely on the basis that he hasn't done anything wrong is folly because one cannot wager humanity itself on nothing more than the fact he hasn't done anything yet. Giving one man the literal power to enslave the world if he so chose (and he's just one mutant with the power to sweep aside all human achievements on a whim - there are others) is absolutely foolish if you have any stake in that world. By contrast, while pragmatic considerations would argue against such people, basic morality stand on their side. Given that I'd have to advocate what amounts to vast invasion of privacy and almost certainly genocide to protect humanity there is no way to argue that I've made the morally correct choice. Necessity and morality thus stand at intersection and the only deciding factor is who's corpses would be used to build the new world.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
chinangel said:
pro mutie. The last thing this world needs is even more descrimination and hate: god knows we have enough as is.
Hate based on slightly different looks or belief structures and hate because someone could, on a whim, kill everyone you know (and there is literally nothing you can do to stop them) are two entirely different things. One is basic tribal instinct and the other is merely self-preservation.
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
Pro registration but with a healthy level of government over site to make sure no employers can discriminate and no violent acts between human and mutant happen. Registration may seem like and bad thing but when dealing with people who will kill a dozen people and level a mountain because their glasses fell off I think it's necessary.
 

000Ronald

New member
Mar 7, 2008
2,167
0
0
generals3 said:
Those are tough questions indeed. And those are questions which cannot really be answered until confronted with the situation. Maybe i'd have the strength to turn them in maybe not.

I believe the end justify the means if the end if the end itself is sufficiently good. Wouldn't you kill someone if it would save the world? Two persons? Three? ...

I also think you fail to grasp the full of extent of how much damage these mutants could cause.(probably because in this type of stories they always want to portray the "mutants" as the poor victims of the needlessly cruel bad humans) (even the good ones, because if you think only bad people do things they regret...)

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." => I would become that monster so that others don't have to.
So you're going to hunt down and 'neutralize'[footnote]You have no idea how tempting it was to use 'retire'[/footnote] literally ANYONE with supernatural powers? Even if they don't know they have supernatural powers? Even if their powers functionally harmless? If there's someone who has a super-power that he can blow soap-bubles from his hand EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO SOAP AND WATER THERE, are you going to hunt down and 'neutralize' that person?
 

Quazimofo

New member
Aug 30, 2010
1,370
0
0
I'd support some sort of cataloging of the mutants so that those with great potential for destruction could be monitored, but I'd be against any sort of discrimination or regulation. Live and let live, but keep an eye on the dangerous ones in case they decide to start levitating bridges with people on them for funzies. Even if I somehow was made one of these dangerous mutants I'd support this for the same reason they don't just let anyone have access to our nuclear arsenal: nobody with that kind of power should be free of a similar level of scrutiny.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Fenrox Jackson said:
Yeah, I suppose if they were introduced in our society the two sides would be different though. Most would have the case-by-case attitude of yeah lock up that guy who sweats nukes and let the girl who talks to ferns go. SO it would probably split on the death penalty, kill the crazy dangerous ones or enslave them. Cuz like, guy who sweats out nukes has to be the worlds best person to not turn into a mass murdering monster, reform wouldn't really be much of an option cuz he may snap one day.

All moot though if we don't have magic tech that could allow regular humans to pose a choice at all.
I partially agree, but I still think we'd have people who simply hate mutants for being different. In various incarnations of the X-Men, we've had mutants attacked who don't have any powers, they just look....Weird. I mean, take Nightcrawler for example: his power is potentially deadly, but even if he had none, would he walk around in a society like ours unmolested? Probably not.

Worse, we use the worst examples of a group to attack the group itself: that transwoman who was accused of rape brought up the dangers of transsexuals, the occasional gay that actually likes little boys is proof to one "side" that homosexuals are kiddie fiddlers, and the Amazing Atheist and guys like him are held up as examples of how atheists are all abusive jerks. And I haven't even got to Muslims and the ties to terrorism, despite the fact that the guys they're hating on in the US probably have little to do with blowing up whatever you're mad about.

Nukesweatman would very likely be used in the same sense: we can't trust any muties because they're potential time bombs. They might even go so far as to demand they be hunted down in the name of national security. Again, we've seen attacks parallel to this on Muslims, and Muslims aren't born with an inherent ability to kill people in any way a non-Muslim would have access to, but they're dangerous so we need to track/watch/get rid of them to be safe.

I think the major difference is that we'd probably have more than two sides. Probably closer to a spectrum, which has never been represented in the X-Men comics I've read (though I haven't read them all, so maybe?).
 

William Ossiss

New member
Apr 8, 2010
551
0
0
Saucycarpdog said:
When I say mutants, I mean the ones from x-men. People with extraordinary powers.
So... Basically you're asking who'd be racist? Only it wouldn't be about race. It'd be about species. You know that many people see Xmen as an allegory for racial tolerance, right?


I'd be on the side of equality for all. Much like I am now.
I also want to BE a mutant.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,141
0
0
I'd be on the "pro-mutant side", though if I turned out to be a mutant, well I'd probably end up joining whatever Magneto-esque figure comes around...
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat šŸ
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,148
94
53
Country
šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§
Gender
ā™‚
Zachary Amaranth said:
JoJo said:
I'd judge each mutant by his or her actions, it's only fair that way and besides, trying to oppress a group of people who could hide effortlessly among the regular population and have great destructive potential if they use their powers for evil doesn't sound like a smart idea.
Isn't that pretty much just "pro mutant" then? I mean, criminal acts are still criminal acts whether they're human or metahuman.

I mean, the X-Men dichotomy tends to be "mutants are people, too" versus "die, mutie scum!"

Which is why I'd be on the "pro mutant" side.
If treating them like any other person is 'pro-mutant', I guess it is. I haven't read or watched much X-men, so I don't know the setting that well :-/
 

Sean Renaud

New member
Apr 12, 2011
120
0
0
It really depends a lot on the mutants and the levels of their powers. A lot of people talk about mutant registration as something similar to Hitler rounding up the Jews or blacks being separated in America but they really aren't the same. Jews were (if you believe the Nazi rhetoric which nobody does but this is a worst case scenario) stealing jobs and manipulating the banking system. Blacks were just inferior and whites didn't want to mix with them. It was that simple. Neither one of them could end the world or anything.

Which leads to my question about relative power levels. If by mutants we're meaning people on par with Wolverine, Beast, Angel, Spiderman (I know don't correct me), that's one thing. None of those people have the power to take over the world or a country, they'd have a hard time controlling a large city without help because even Wolverine as tough as he is can only be one place at once killing a few people at a time.

By contrast Magneto can fight off entire armies by himself and make it look easy. Jean Gray and by extension Pheonix can destroy planets/solar systems merely because they were between her and where she was going. Storm if she wanted to could end droughts around the world or cause them if she was so inclined. That's just off the top of my head and not going into the danger of telepaths who could potentially basically run the government. Can you imagine Jean Gray running for President? She could literally run both sides of the conversation!

In addition there are lots of mutants who are sufficiently powerful that the only thing you can send to fight them is another mutant. No amount of regular cops are going to take down Cyclops, Gambit or the Hulk (I know, but the basic point remains the same!)

So comparing them to real life minorities isn't entirely fair. They should be at minimum compared to cars, something that we all demand you have basic competency before you're allowed to operate one and another point that people don't often talk about is not all mutant powers are desirable or controllable. Cyclops losing his glasses at a sports event could kill tens of thousands in the literal blink of an eye. Rogue can't even control her power pretty much at all (which is why it was kind of jarring to see them give her shit for wanting a cure. She didn't win the super power lottery her power means she can never be intimate with people.) I wouldn't force cures or even try on all but the most powerful mutants but I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm uncomfortable with Storm, Magneto or Pheonix all being one bad day from wrecking everything within their sight.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
I'd support developing means to defend against renegade mutants without mutant powers, but I'd oppose anything that would give them cause to actually go renegade in the first place, like what most of the people on the anti-mutant front are doing. Of course, I've got no idea how do develop a one-size-fits-all strategy for defending yourself against people with a limitless variety of powers.
For now, I suppose, I'd support giving authorities more advanced restraint equipment, or perhaps a law that permanently nullifies the powers of mutants who use them for criminal activity (wasn't that researched in one of the movies?), but I'd still support giving mutants the same basic rights as non-mutants.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
000Ronald said:
generals3 said:
Those are tough questions indeed. And those are questions which cannot really be answered until confronted with the situation. Maybe i'd have the strength to turn them in maybe not.

I believe the end justify the means if the end if the end itself is sufficiently good. Wouldn't you kill someone if it would save the world? Two persons? Three? ...

I also think you fail to grasp the full of extent of how much damage these mutants could cause.(probably because in this type of stories they always want to portray the "mutants" as the poor victims of the needlessly cruel bad humans) (even the good ones, because if you think only bad people do things they regret...)

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." => I would become that monster so that others don't have to.
So you're going to hunt down and 'neutralize'[footnote]You have no idea how tempting it was to use 'retire'[/footnote] literally ANYONE with supernatural powers? Even if they don't know they have supernatural powers? Even if their powers functionally harmless? If there's someone who has a super-power that he can blow soap-bubles from his hand EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO SOAP AND WATER THERE, are you going to hunt down and 'neutralize' that person?
Depends on how this mutant thing works. For instance, is it hereditary? (as in, if a parent is a mutant the progeny will too) If yes than the least, for those with "harmless" powers, would be permanent castration. But I guess we could allow those with totally useless "mutations" to live on. Although i'd say "retiring" mutants would be the solution if a "cure" cannot be found. Preferably blood wouldn't be shed but if it's the only viable solution to get the world rid of ultra dangerous people than I wouldn't hesitate.
 

000Ronald

New member
Mar 7, 2008
2,167
0
0
generals3 said:
000Ronald said:
So you're going to hunt down and 'neutralize' literally ANYONE with supernatural powers? Even if they don't know they have supernatural powers? Even if their powers functionally harmless? If there's someone who has a super-power that he can blow soap-bubles from his hand EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO SOAP AND WATER THERE, are you going to hunt down and 'neutralize' that person?
Depends on how this mutant thing works. For instance, is it hereditary? (as in, if a parent is a mutant the progeny will too) If yes than the least, for those with "harmless" powers, would be permanent castration. But I guess we could allow those with totally useless "mutations" to live on. Although i'd say "retiring" mutants would be the solution if a "cure" cannot be found. Preferably blood wouldn't be shed but if it's the only viable solution to get the world rid of ultra dangerous people than I wouldn't hesitate.
Is that so? What if it's someone importiant, like a senator or a diplomat? Do they get the axe?
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
It is interesting the cognitive dissonance that arises from the question. I gave a throw-away answer before, but upon reading some of these responses I'd like to go more in-depth.

'Equality' is a word that's getting tossed around here a lot...and I wonder if it's not to our detriment. To be fair, no human is truly 'equal' to another, there shall always be disparities in mental acuity, physical ability, superficial appearances, education, and opportunities. All of that said, what we can expect from a given individual (i.e.: what they are practically able to do given 'X' amount of effort) is functionally the same (thus the moral obligation to treat all humans equally).

When it comes to X-Men universe mutants, however, they are NOT equal by any stretch of the imagination (not even amongst each other). I can never train myself to pluck bullets out of the air or level cities just by looking at them. I can never train myself to shapeshift or controls other people's minds via telepathy. It is for this reason that any arguments suggesting that there exists an obligation to treat individuals who can as 'equals' falls apart at the gate.

Let's take cyclops for instance. He developed his powers -what?- early adolescence. Now his eye beams blast through anything he's looking at. Which means he can *accidentally* slaughter dozens just by turning his head. Are we truly going to argue that deserves the same deference and understanding as someone who just happens to like the same sex and harms no one? That he should simply be allowed to go about his day unmolested and unchecked?

What we have in X-Men universe mutants are walking, talking nuclear bombs that are liable to go off at any second (regardless of whether they want to or not). At the very least there should be a categorization of who has what powers, and a system in place to ensure those powers are mitigated.

Is it discrimination? Absolutely! But let's not pretend that there isn't anything that sets them apart.
 

MiskWisk

New member
Mar 17, 2012
857
0
0
I would be pro-mutant or neutral. I see no good in being anti-mutant since I feel that it would be like trying to threaten Superman. There is no way in hell that would go down well and frankly, pissing off the guy who can shoot lasers from his eyes just doesn't seem conducive to my long term survival.

I would possibly support a training camp though, so long as it was for dealing with people who struggle with control.
 

rosac

New member
Sep 13, 2008
1,206
0
0
Not going to lie, having them watched would be useful. If I can be flayed alive by a dude waving his hand then I'd like to be sure he isn't going to go batshit.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
000Ronald said:
generals3 said:
000Ronald said:
So you're going to hunt down and 'neutralize' literally ANYONE with supernatural powers? Even if they don't know they have supernatural powers? Even if their powers functionally harmless? If there's someone who has a super-power that he can blow soap-bubles from his hand EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO SOAP AND WATER THERE, are you going to hunt down and 'neutralize' that person?
Depends on how this mutant thing works. For instance, is it hereditary? (as in, if a parent is a mutant the progeny will too) If yes than the least, for those with "harmless" powers, would be permanent castration. But I guess we could allow those with totally useless "mutations" to live on. Although i'd say "retiring" mutants would be the solution if a "cure" cannot be found. Preferably blood wouldn't be shed but if it's the only viable solution to get the world rid of ultra dangerous people than I wouldn't hesitate.
Is that so? What if it's someone importiant, like a senator or a diplomat? Do they get the axe?
Off course, why would they be spared? If anything i'd consider them even more dangerous. I don't care about positions. You may very well be the president for all i care.