What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

[Purple Knight]

Is it ever justified to act against people because of what they might do, rather than what they did do? If so, when, and when not?

In a superpowers universe such as the universe of X-Men, do you want all mutants collared, if collars exist that prevent them from using their powers? Why or why not? If, yes (in any circumstance) is this a concession of morality or is it still moral?

Would you wear a collar if you were a mutant yourself? In what situations would and wouldn't you?

Yes, this is an analogy for gun control, with the important distinction that peoples' mutant powers are part of them, so the act of restraint must be continuous. No mutant "cure" - just collars in this scenario, for that specific reason, though we will assume they work and it's not easy to get them off. We can't just do something (like grabbing the guns or injecting people with the cure against their will) and then pretend we didn't do it.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #30]

I don't think it's foolish at all and I stand by what I said. A gun is not a need. Hunting in gun season is not a need, even if you can't hunt with a bow then which I think you actually can, though don't quote me on that; I haven't gotten a hunting license.

Then you lack simple understanding of hunting laws. You can't legally hunt with a bow during gun season and vice versa in many areas with certain game (some animals there is no bow season). So, if one wants to hunt an animal during gun season, you have to have a gun.
Is hunting a need?
Not for most. Neither is fishing. Or driving a car (which is dangerous). Or having a computer at home (which can be dangerous).

don't have any serious naive misunderstandings about the world. I'm using need in a very strict way because that's the way the word ought to be used.

Yes you do if you're trying to use something in a way YOU think it OUGHT to be used. There are a lot of OUGHTS in the world, but that's not the world humans live in. You might live in your own world (many do) but it's not the reality most humans share.

You might want to go hunting and it might even be beneficial to go hunting but it is not a need.

As I agreed to above. But if you want to go hunting during gun season a gun IS a must.
Not to mention protection for those in the wild.
And law enforcement officers.
Neither of which I saw you touch upon (unless I missed it somewhere).

Saying that nobody needs an assault rifle but that they might need a gun to hunt, while it is not a misunderstanding of the word need, because this is indeed how many people use it, uses a meaning that's not very conducive to understanding the issue because value judgments about wants are already baked in.

Much like your judgements on how the world or word OUGHT to be.

See, the chain is allowed to end with, "Well, because I just want to," and that's not a need. Billy-Bob wants to go hunting.

Using the term Billy-Bob is derogatory and insulting, purposefully. This shows you know nothing about the subject and are hostile to it.
Bottom line:
If you want to hunt during gun season you MUST hunt with a gun. Period. No OUGHTS or the like. I know you don't agree with that, and it's fine for you to be wrong. But no need to insult a community of people who, by in large, aren't the gun slinging, murderers people think they are.
Because of your purposeful insulting of an entire sect of the population, there's nothing left for us to discuss, Billy Bob.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #30]

I don't think it's foolish at all and I stand by what I said. A gun is not a need. Hunting in gun season is not a need, even if you can't hunt with a bow then which I think you actually can, though don't quote me on that; I haven't gotten a hunting license.

Then you lack simple understanding of hunting laws. You can't legally hunt with a bow during gun season and vice versa in many areas with certain game (some animals there is no bow season). So, if one wants to hunt an animal during gun season, you have to have a gun.

Actually it seems I don't.

https://www.mdwfp.com/media/253620/21-2 ... _final.pdf
Gun: There are no caliber or magazine capacity restrictions on firearms. Primitive weapons (as defined above) and archery equipment
may be used during gun seasons.

Is hunting a need?
Not for most. Neither is fishing. Or driving a car (which is dangerous). Or having a computer at home (which can be dangerous).

This is my point. A gun is not a need because even if you did need it to go hunting, you don't need to go hunting. In modern society there is a larger case for needing a computer (as some application processes are either monumentally more difficult if you can't get online, though you can always go to the library) or a car (you might need one to get to work, and you might need to work to live) than a gun. But ultimately I agree you probably don't need any of these things. Will you die without them? The answer is overwhelmingly no.

don't have any serious naive misunderstandings about the world. I'm using need in a very strict way because that's the way the word ought to be used.

Yes you do if you're trying to use something in a way YOU think it OUGHT to be used. There are a lot of OUGHTS in the world, but that's not the world humans live in. You might live in your own world (many do) but it's not the reality most humans share.

I made my case for why I think need ought to be used in a simpler, clearer way I outlined. It's a good one. And yes, most people do in fact use words in their own way. The fact that I think about it before I define my way does not make me a cut below the rest.

You might want to go hunting and it might even be beneficial to go hunting but it is not a need.

As I agreed to above. But if you want to go hunting during gun season a gun IS a must.
Not to mention protection for those in the wild.
And law enforcement officers.
Neither of which I saw you touch upon (unless I missed it somewhere).

Nobody needs to be a law-enforcement officer. Deciding that whoever works in law enforcement need guns is different than deciding that any particular person needs a gun. Nobody does even if that's true because no individual person needs to be a policeman. Do we need at least some police and might they need to be armed? I don't think so but even if so that isn't within the scope of what I said. Nobody needs a gun means you cannot point to a person who needs a gun. If you point to a policeman I will say he doesn't need to be a policeman.

There are even countries where police aren't generally armed with guns because the population is disarmed, so I dispute even that statement.

Saying that nobody needs an assault rifle but that they might need a gun to hunt, while it is not a misunderstanding of the word need, because this is indeed how many people use it, uses a meaning that's not very conducive to understanding the issue because value judgments about wants are already baked in.

Much like your judgements on how the world or word OUGHT to be.

If you want to hunt during gun season you MUST hunt with a gun. Period. No OUGHTS or the like. I know you don't agree with that, and it's fine for you to be wrong. But no need to insult a community of people who, by in large, aren't the gun slinging, murderers people think they are.
Because of your purposeful insulting of an entire sect of the population, there's nothing left for us to discuss, Billy Bob.

False. But again, irrelevant because you don't need to go hunting. People want to go hunting. People who want to go hunting don't have any special rights to a gun as means to their wants over someone who just wants a gun and it is the want. Neither you nor I get to judge one mere want as more deserving than another.

This thread is a question of ought. Ought is always up for discussion. I think the word need ought to be clear and simple and consistent with what I was taught about it in kindergarten. You may disagree.

[Tcg]

False. But again, irrelevant because you don't need to go hunting.

You're overlooking the fact that for some hunting is indeed a need. At least if one considers eating a need. Not everyone can pick up a phone and order Domino's pie.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

False. But again, irrelevant because you don't need to go hunting.

You're overlooking the fact that for some hunting is indeed a need. At least if one considers eating a need. Not everyone can pick up a phone and order Domino's pie.

I'm not overlooking it. It's an extreme outlier case and it's not really relevant to the discussion which is about an organised society and what the laws should be. It's about whether people should be restricted because of the firepower they have and what they might do with it, when we reasonably can restrict them. If it's just one mutant in the woods or in a tribal system, that's outside the scope of the discussion because there really isn't the infrastructure or legal system to restrict him, and if he decides he wants to blow everyone to heck, he will. You can't restrict him. You can either kill him in his sleep or not. The name of the game in a tribe with like 20 people is probably be nice to him. And everybody else. Because they can all come and get you in your sleep so you need to just trust each other.

And even if some hunting is a need, you don't need a gun to hunt. The people who really don't have access to food are usually the ones that hunt with bows and spears. It's not ideal but it does keep them alive.

[Tcg]

False. But again, irrelevant because you don't need to go hunting.

You're overlooking the fact that for some hunting is indeed a need. At least if one considers eating a need. Not everyone can pick up a phone and order Domino's pie.

I'm not overlooking it.

Then the fact that some humans do indeed need to hunt to survive should be included in this consideration.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

Then the fact that some humans do indeed need to hunt to survive should be included in this consideration.

Do you think they're relevant at all to a discussion about laws in a highly organised society? If so, how?

I said nobody needs a gun and that's true. Humans hunted in prehistory without guns.

In some cases guns make things a lot better for a lot of people, but nobody really needs one and they can also kill. Nobspeople pointed out that the same is true of cars, and he's right. There are clearly times when a society puts the convenience of many ahead of the lives of the few.

Other times, the lives of one or a few are considered incomparably more valuable than any amount of convenience for any amount of people.

I'm trying to sort out how people make the distinction of when to go for convenience and when to go for life because I didn't get the script. To me, if you're against mutant collars, you're going for convenience (that of all the mutants who have innumerable uses for their various powers) over life (those who will be killed by uncollared mutants). And everyone who watches X-Men is supposed to understand this innately, in a situation that's new to all of them because it's fantasy.

Mutant collars are bad because freedom. Everyone understands this except me, the first time they are exposed to the scenario. Then, I wonder, why are laws restricting drunk driving not simply bad because freedom?

I didn't get the memo.

When should "because freedom" mean people are allowed to do things that have the consequence that a few people will die if the action is allowed, when should "if it saves even one life" be the guiding principle, and how do you decide?

[The Barbarian]

So the question is, "should those among us with more capacity to do harm to others, be somehow restrained, even if they show no inclination to use whatever means they have to do so?"

Say, if someone is really smart and good at contracts, should we limit his or her behaviors so that someone less astute does not get taken on a deal? If a person is massively wealthy, should we limit what that person can do with wealth to abuse people who don't have that kind of money? Should we limit a person's ability to collect weapons so that they don't abuse people who don't have powerful weapons?

We already do that. Maybe not enough; people with power, often manage to rig the system to let them take advantage of having power. Still, how much is enough?