| Previous Post
>
> >
> > And given the plethora of knuckledragging meatheads in the superhuman community, deferring to the geniuses isn't a bad idea.
> >
> So those knuckledragging meatheads should defer to the likes of Dr. Doom an the Mad Thinker simply because they are geniuses?
If one's chosen career-path involves being a criminal, then yes, one probably should defer to the Mad Thinker, because he's a supergenius. In any matters not relating to his petty vendetta against Reed Richards, deferring to Doom is pretty much always a good idea, since he's one of the two smartest men on the planet, and chances are he'll be right.
> > > > With regards to "he might object", it really is relevant, in that he can't object.
> > > He didn't have the chance. Meaning it was wrong to do it.
> >
> > Cloning is beyond any such limited notions of "right" and "wrong", it is a necessary development in human evolution.
> >
> It is not beyond right and wrong. Few things if any thing are. So, you are saying a person can use cloning to test viruses to serve as biological weapons to wipe you millions of people merely because they are different? Would that not be wrong?
Well, that entirely depends on who those people are, doesn't it? You could probably justify the expense of researching a virus to kill all boy-bands or something.
But the desired goal of cloning is not to experiment on clones, but to be the new means by which people are brought into being. Clones are people too. Well, maybe not X-23. But most of them are.
> > > > Science says that's not true. Cloning is both right and necessary, and doesn't need permission. If cloning required things like "permission", brave men like Ben Reilly and Stryfe would never have lived.
> > >
> So, without asking your permission I can clone you, use that clone to murder, destroy your reputation, and you would have no problems with it because it is my right and necessity? Thanks
As I said to Somebody, so long as some insane Russian in a loincloth doesn't bury me alive, so I'll actually have an alibi, go to it! My full permission is given for cloning of me.
> > > And as far as Ben Reilly goes, he knew that Peter Parker would never have given permission if it had been asked.
> >
> > And if you were to ask Peter now, he'd be glad he had his 'brother', even for the short time he knew him. You'd think the notion that one day we could all have a brother like Ben Reilly would be enough to make us all pro-cloning.
> >
> Parker was lucky that Riley turned good. The problems with cloning were highlighted with Kaine when Parker's life was nearly destroyed because the Jackal decided to clone Parker. The Jackal destroyed multiple lives, but according to you nothing the Jackal did was wrong. Am I understanding you correctly?
If Ben Reilly had never lived, he'd never have lived to save Peter's life on a number of occasions. He is a good person because Peter was too. The Jackal didn't make Kaine evil, cloning didn't make Kaine evil, society didn't make Kaine evil. Kaine is responsible for Kaine's actions. Like any other group of people, there are both good clones, and bad clones, and you shouldn't judge all clones by Kaine.
> > > Just as Thor was by Tony Stark and Co.
> >
> > No, Tony, Reed and Hank have at no point raped Thor. Yet strangely he seems angrier with Tony than with Moondragon, who actually HAS raped him.
> >
> The violated Thor's trust and abused their friendship and framed Thor for the death of Bill Foster. It is true the act is different than rape, but it is still a great breach of trust.
Standoff sundered the Stark/Thor friendship FOREVERMORE. With nothing but a lifetime of bitter enmity/rivalry/hatred ahead of them from then on, Thor has no reason to consider any "breach of trust". And given that the superhuman community were all pretty clear on the fact that it wasn't the real Thor, we have no reason to believe the media or public were fooled into thinking that either.
> > > > > If I rob you, do I get to say it's OK because you never told me that you didn't want to be robbed?
> > > >
> > > > Cloning and robbing are two completely different things! Robbing takes from you, cloning GIVES! Another you, a brother born of science!
> > > But it should be my choice as to if I want the gift. If you ever clone me, I will see you procecuted to the full extent of the law!
> >
> Yes, cloning Thor gave Thor an incentive and justification to beat the crap out of Stark.
No, it gave him incentive and justification to thank them for something awesome.
> And no, the two things are not always different. Stark had no right to clone Thor and turn that clone into his own private weapon. He stole from Thor not only his look, but his reputation. Stark himself hates it when people do that. Why should Thor be any different?
Because
a) he's a mythological being with no legal rights?
b) he was dead, and so far as anyone knew, not coming back.
c) everyone knew it wasn't the real Thor, so his reputation? Not harmed. And even for people who were fooled, Thor's the guy who has a reputation from myth and legend of killing giants. The Cyborg Thor Clone lived up to Thor's reputation.
> > I'd say "bring it!", but the world needs to concentrate on cloning people of significance/importance/historical-relevance before it starts cloning some guy I met online.
> >
> > But once you're dead, you're fair game for cloning.
> >
> One, some guy online might be a person of significance.
How many "people of significance" besides myself have the time to argue the ethics of cloning Thor online?
> Two, once you are dead you are not fair game.
If you can't stand, you can't stand in the way of science.
> Most people do not want to be remembered as monsters, but according to you if I clone you and turn that being into a monster it is okay.
We're all monsters already. Some of us are just better at hiding it than others. But a Thor Clone using lethal force in self-defence does not "a monster" make.
|
> >
>
> If one's chosen career-path involves being a criminal, then yes, one probably should defer to the Mad Thinker, because he's a supergenius. In any matters not relating to his petty vendetta against Reed Richards, deferring to Doom is pretty much always a good idea, since he's one of the two smartest men on the planet, and chances are he'll be right.
>
But it has also been shown (at least in the comic world) that those supergenisues are bound by certain human limitations. They may be able to do all the math correct, but there are other elements they miss or just may not be good at. So to just assume they are always correct is foolish.
>
> Well, that entirely depends on who those people are, doesn't it? You could probably justify the expense of researching a virus to kill all boy-bands or something.
>
In my experience people can find justification for anything, but just because you can justify something does not make it right or equal to something else.
>
> As I said to Somebody, so long as some insane Russian in a loincloth doesn't bury me alive, so I'll actually have an alibi, go to it! My full permission is given for cloning of me.
>
You have given your permission, so I guess it would be okay for it to happen to you. As for me, I would rather not go through the hassle or pain of having to sort through such a mess.
>
> If Ben Reilly had never lived, he'd never have lived to save Peter's life on a number of occasions. He is a good person because Peter was too. The Jackal didn't make Kaine evil, cloning didn't make Kaine evil, society didn't make Kaine evil. Kaine is responsible for Kaine's actions. Like any other group of people, there are both good clones, and bad clones, and you shouldn't judge all clones by Kaine.
>
I'm not judging all clones by Kaine, but Kaine merely highlights a significant problem. Kaine was an exact copy of Peter down to his fingerprints. Kaine murdered several people and framed Parker for those deaths. Parker would have gone to jail if Kaine had not been brought forth. Just because all clones are not evil does not excuse what the key problem. That being if a clone is mistaken for the real person that person's life can easily be destroyed.
>
> Standoff sundered the Stark/Thor friendship FOREVERMORE. With nothing but a lifetime of bitter enmity/rivalry/hatred ahead of them from then on, Thor has no reason to consider any "breach of trust". And given that the superhuman community were all pretty clear on the fact that it wasn't the real Thor, we have no reason to believe the media or public were fooled into thinking that either.
>
One, just because Thor and Stark were no longer friends (a fact debatable) does not change what Stark did. Not too long before this storyline one of Stark's enemies got a hold of a suit of Iron Man armor and used it to frame Stark for a series of crimes. Stark's reputation was nearly ruined before the real perpetrator was caught. The same with Armor Wars. Stark went rogue to prevent other people from abusing his technoloy. What Stark did to Thor is the very same thing Stark himself has tried to prevent.
Two, Stark created Clor to play off Thor's reputation. That is why all of the anti-registration forces thought it was Thor. It was only after it was obvious that it was not Thor that any of the anti-registration forces knew it was an imposter.
Three, the Marvel media and public thinks the Thunderbolts are perfectly under control and reformed. I think that alone shows that you are giving them too much credit.
> > >
> > Yes, cloning Thor gave Thor an incentive and justification to beat the crap out of Stark.
>
> No, it gave him incentive and justification to thank them for something awesome.
>
So, if Thor cloned Stark and that clone than destroyed Stark's reputation all for the sake of "making a better world and Thor accidentally messed up" Stark should be thanking him? Cause you know Thor is a god which outranks a futurist.
> > And no, the two things are not always different. Stark had no right to clone Thor and turn that clone into his own private weapon. He stole from Thor not only his look, but his reputation. Stark himself hates it when people do that. Why should Thor be any different?
>
> Because
>
> a) he's a mythological being with no legal rights?
So, Thor being a god could technically be considered a higher form of life? Why than should Thor, Hercules, Ares, or any god respect humans at all and not treat them all like trash?
> b) he was dead, and so far as anyone knew, not coming back.
So? If people think Stark is dead they have the right to clone him and use that clone to destroy his reputation?
> c) everyone knew it wasn't the real Thor, so his reputation? Not harmed. And even for people who were fooled, Thor's the guy who has a reputation from myth and legend of
killing giants. The Cyborg Thor Clone lived up to Thor's reputation.
>
No, Clor did not live up to the real Thor's reputation. True, Thor kills giants, but in his entire comic history he has always shown restraint against mortals. The real Thor could have easily disabled Bill Foster in about a dozen ways without killing him. The moment Thor starts killing when he could easily use other methods is when people start being scared of him.
> > >
> > One, some guy online might be a person of significance.
>
> How many "people of significance" besides myself have the time to argue the ethics of cloning Thor online?
>
Me.
>
> > Most people do not want to be remembered as monsters, but according to you if I clone you and turn that being into a monster it is okay.
>
> We're all monsters already. Some of us are just better at hiding it than others. But a Thor Clone using lethal force in self-defence does not "a monster" make.
I have to disagree with this sentiment. While humans are not perfect we have our good as well as our bad.
