|Marvel Universe >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:49:00 pm CDT
Reply Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 12:09:17 pm CDT
> Almost everything you originally said was completely biased...so I felt free to use the same such bias from the other side of the equation.
Would you care then to point out exactly where my bias is visible?
Stating that Iron Man created mindless berserker clone from DNA taken without Thor's consent, is describing objectively what happened. There's no bias here - all of this are *facts*. Stating that, I claim that such behaviour is immoral. You believe otherwise? Fine, but put some actual arguments defending Iron Man's actions - not start using imprecisely language to dilute the meaning of facts.
I ask you:
- did Iron Man create Thor's clone?
- was Thor a sentient being with free will?
- was *Clor* a sentient being with free will?
- did Thor give an actual permission to collect his DNA?
- did Clor behave exactly the way Stark & Co thought he would?
My answers fot this questions are: yes, yes, no, no, no. And I'm still only describing facts without judging them. If you think that I got the facts wrong, then please - point out where I got things wrong.
And if I got things right, please tell: how do you justify creating a mindless berserker clone of Thor from DNA taken from Thor without his consent?
> As opposed to you putting those actions into overly bad light?
See above. Exactly where did I put Stark's actions into overly bad light? I just described them *precisely*.
> How do you know he took it without Thors permission...
I know it because *Hank Pym* said it explicitily in Civil War #4. Should I provide an actual quote?
> you know the guy that was injured multiple times while working for the govt. Who was patched up more then once after fights...dont you think they had some medical records on him so as to better treat him?
Stark didn't have Thor's DNA from government medical records. He got it from Thor's hair he collected possibly during "*the first Avengers meeting*!
> This clone used as a weapon argument is a tired...Cap was created to defends democracy...oh wait under your definition Cap was created to be a weapon...
Actually yes, Captain America *was* created as a weapon. The difference is, Steve Rogers subjected himself to Super-Soldier Serum voluntarly. And he wasn't *lobotomized* after the fact.
> Sure they do...Cap's actions started a WAR...
I repeat: it has *nothing* to do with Cap's actions! Actually, I believe that Cap acted in increasingly retarded way during the crossover. And I'm really more of Iron Man fan.
But this has no bearing that I see no justification for what Stark did.
> in WAR you fight a WAR...it's no longer just a brawl in the ring...it's a WAR. You use weapons in a WAR...both sides use WEAPONS...BOTH, because you know it's a WAR.
So, you're basically saying that putting a "war" label on some incidents actually releases all participants from basic standards of morality?
> See there you go again...Tony's actions are NOT the same as Doom's or Magneto's.
They *are*. Should we debate point by point all the similarities?
Please tell: if Doom did exactly what Stark did, would you still claim it was moral?
> You dont debate you just say I dont like it so thats EVIL!
Actually, my point of view is clear: I see no moral justification for creating a mindless killer clone out of DNA taken without person's permission. If you think it is justifiable, please present your arguments.
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|