Marvel Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
MysteryMan

In Reply To
Piotr W.

Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 02:28:45 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Seriously?
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:49:00 pm EDT

Previous Post

> 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.

> I ask you:
>
> - did Iron Man create Thor's clone?

He had a part in it yes...though its not really a clone but a Cyborg.

> - was Thor a sentient being with free will?

Sure

> - was *Clor* a sentient being with free will?

This part is up in the air actually.
It's not clear he was a sentient being...if anything he seems more like a Terminator...a robot with a flesh coating.
Free will...who knows, not clear he seems like a robot with programming and yet that programming seemed to have a glitch.

When Hercules obliterated Thors head...ALL we saw was machine.

> - did Thor give an actual permission to collect his DNA?

He probably didnt say here take this DNA...but the Hulk's DNA has been taken by others...like a certain Mr. Peter Parker and such just in case he went rogue. Heck JMS did a whole arc on Peter talking about how ALL the brainy hereos do this in some unwritten code so they can stop one of their own from going rogue. And yet all you heard from people about this was yeeeaahhh!!! Pete's sure using his brain here, yayyyy!!!! Someone else does it (Tony) and now it's EVIL!

Now I may not like this idea...but hey if it's an unwritten code they all live by, well the time to complain about it is not ONLY when it gets used against your side.

> - did Clor behave exactly the way Stark & Co thought he would?

Not at all...hene why the terrible accident happened. Then again there were many terrible accidents that lead to deaths on both sides. Hopefully both sides learn to not make thiese kind of mistakes again.

> 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.

Pointed out where some of those facts are "questionable" above.

> 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*.

"The creation of a mindless berserker clone." Is a very biased way of stating that(mindless and beserker are not usually positive words). Let me give you an example that can put it in a good light...

The glorious scientific creation of a being using the DNA of the Hero Thor. A cyborg created to better serve mankind and save countless lives in the future. Due to unfortunate circumstances something went wrong and when threatened for the first time with physical violence from a literal powerful giant of a man responded with greater force then required to subdue his opponent. We grieve for the ensuing loss but redoubled our efforts to see that such an event never again comes to pass.

> > 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.

Are you sure thats what they did? Thats what you "think" they did. Nowhere was it stated they fully cloned Thor's adult body and scooped his brain out. He looked VERY robotic after Herc's bashing. What if it is a Terminator like thing...i.e. the dna used to make a flesh sheathing to give the cyborg great strength.

> > 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?

Not in general...but you do realize that certain moral standards DO CHANGE in times of war. The geneva act is an example of trying to keep some morality even in times of war.

Killing in peacetime = jail time.
Killing in war time = unfortunate but neccesary act.

Using weapons in a Civil War = unfortunate but necessary act that BOTH..yes BOTH sides used throughout.

> > 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.

Biased words again...mindless killer clone...even if you were right, which is open to debate...unbiased words would be...A Cyborg created to fight for one side that mistakenly killed an opponent during a fight....thats UNBIASED.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software