It takes effort, but it is utterly feasible, and there have many durable dictatorships treating its citizens like dirt (see feudalism). Frankly, keepign authority through cruelty and force has been the norm in governments, not the exceptions.

Actually, the argument is about whether or not HE has any rights – or whether he’s an awesome and useful set of powers that are inconveniently attached to someone who, for whatever reason, should be dismissed as a jerk and therefore completely undeserving of any rights or pity. No one here is denying that he could do great things… the question is whether or not it’s right to say “well, since what you can do is so wonderful, it’s only reasonable to take them by force and punish you for having these abilities in the first place.”

Granny wouldn’t have had to twist Max’s arm in the first place. Remember, Granny’s staunch belief is that when people know what the right thing is to do, “The trouble is, you see, that if you do know Right from Wrong, you can’t choose Wrong.”

So unless you believe that Max is literally on the same level as the Duchess, then I don’t see her having to do more than… do what the witches do best, which is to give him what he needs, and then let him do for others in turn.

(I can see Max’s MOTHER as being on the same level as the Duchess, though. The woman murdered teenagers because they could cure diseases and feed the hungry…)

Actually, Granny would have convinced him because Granny would not have thought of a person as a thing. Granny would have actually listened to him explaining his problems, and then offered a solution. And then found him far more ready to help others after being helped. So not only could Granny have convinced him, so could Nanny Ogg, or Magrat… or Agnes, or Tiffany… hell, even Annagramma could have convinced him.

About the only witch in the series who couldn’t have convinced Max is Granny’s sister Lilly.

I didn’t say that Granny wasn’t extremely skilled at persuasion and manipulation. I’m simply pointing out that anyone extending Max an iota of compassion and empathy would have been able to achieve results with him. This is not a sociopathically selfish character; he was not depicted as such at any time previously. The worst we’ve seen from him was when he quoted incredibly inane Objectivist nonsense to imply that Feral was somehow being “selfish” by her actions (Ayn Rand herself would have simply sneered and called Feral an idiot; I’ve seen “Objectivist Christians” claim that Jesus died on the cross for the selfish “joy” of saving others, but Rand claimed that Jesus was stupid for dying for the sake of inferior beings).

And yes, anyone could have done it. Anyone who didn’t immediately mock his situation with terms like “asspats for his sad story” because they’ve made up their mind not to like him – and more importantly, not to accept that maybe he has motivations more nuanced than “because evil is fun.” Alison’s archnemesis turned out to have more reasonable justifications than that – and he was sending giant robots into densely populated cities to spread death and destruction.

Maybe. Maybe he still would have said no.

But that’s kind of the point now, isn’t it? She didn’t give him the chance. She didn’t resort to violent felonies after all other possibilities had failed. She made it her first resort, after a perfunctory “attempt to be nice” that was openly antagonistic. You’re still jumping to assume the worst of him in order to justify what was done to him. Again, going back to Granny: even she tried to use peaceful measures before resorting to more violent methods. Nanny Ogg bashed the Duchess upside the head AFTER Granny’s attempts failed, not before.

And as I pointed out elsewhere, she was NOT motivated by those thousands of lives. She can claim to have been, but she wasn’t. She was motivated specifically by Feral, by the friend she knows and who therefore matters more to her than anyone else. She was ready to consign all those people to death rather than see Feral end up on that operating table. And after Feral made it clear she would only get off the table if Alison found a workable alternative, then Alison looked for a workable alternative. Saving everyone was always the condition necessary to save Feral.

And this would not be like scoring a 95 on an exam. This would be more like scoring a 62. I.e. a D-. That’s not something to be proud of unless your name is Bart Simpson.

Yes, Alison could have prevented Feral from donating by force – but that would have been denying Feral the right to make her own choices. Which would have upset Feral. And her feelings mattered to Alison. But yes, she could have physically stopped Feral from donating by repeatedly smashing the equipment until no doctor was willing to do the job. And… she was very tempted to do something along those lines, until Feral convinced her not to. As was shown in the comic during that particular story arc.

It’s called “the Monkeysphere.” People place greater importance on the lives of those they personally know rather than those they don’t. Alison valuing Feral’s life over that of countless others who are also faceless and nameless others is simply human of her. It doesn’t make her a bad person.

HOWEVER… claiming she did it for those countless others is a convenient rationalization. She did this for Feral. If she could have convinced Feral to get off the table without being enhanced, she would have done so. She was presented with a situation where the only solution was to provide limitless organs so Feral wouldn’t have to. Not to save those others, but to save Feral specifically.

Also, the 95 at a minimum… yeah, until you start marking off points for: serious multiple felonies not covered under “good samaritan” laws, legal authorization, or any other justification or waiver other than… blaming the victim and saying he deserved it. Alienating the person with the necessary powers (before confirming whether or not the augmentations are indeed permanent, and also whether or not there are any unpleasant side effects). Giving a member of the Harmony Council good reason to start giving Alison her full attention. Creating a secret that will likely enrage Feral when she finds out what was done for her benefit and without her consent. Creating a secret that will most certainly infuriate the physicians when they learn that they were tricked into violating their professional ethics. Creating a secret that will turn the public against her if they find out she resorted to torturing someone like a supervillain.

Of course you can (and have) dismiss all of those as irrelevant… but this is one of those tests that gets graded by a committee (i.e. all those people I just mentioned, from the doctors to the lady belonging to an organization that kills biodynamics for becoming a threat to them).

Much earlier on… you’d have to go through the entire archive because it’s kind of in pieces. We’ve seen Patrick revealing the folders containing information about the murdered biodynamics. Then we see him obtaining another folder from people with the Harmony Group. And we see the woman who is Patrick’s mother with them.

It makes sense, actually. Objectivism is a scummy enough pseudo-philosophy that “killing kids to protect the status quo” would be seen as permissible. Especially since “Atlas Shrugged” emphatically stated that the children who died of gas inhalation deserved their fate along with all the other people aboard the train, because they were “parasites” of the rich and powerful.

Ninja… 😀

I wasn’t pulling it out to win. I was pulling it out because Shia Lebeouf got arrested for assault literally yesterday after shoving a dude spouting Nazi propaganda to his face at his anti trump installation. Although as I am not Jewish, I’ll drop it in order to make you (and others) feel more comfortable.

Ah yes, Darl Davis. The man BLM and the NAACP have criticized harshly for spending him time going to white supremacists instead of using it to help his community directly. Don’t get me wrong – he did a great and brave thing. But changing the minds of a handful of people is not the way to end systemic racism, nor should it be considered the best way to handle it.

See, by holding him up as the ideal, you’re saying it’s up to members of a minority to put themselves in potentially mortal danger and explain to their enemies why they’re wrong. Thats not how it should be.

>a black man peacefully reforms 200 KKK members
>BLM and NAACP ciriticise him for doing that, and not doing something else
Weird, it makes me more inclined to like Davis, and dislike BLM and NAACP. Funny how that works!

Well…I don’t know about *all* methods. All methods that could be attempted within a few minutes, maybe. The clock was ticking. I don’t know what the figures are in the SFP-verse, but in our world, about 22 people a day die waiting for an organ transplant in the U.S. alone.

I’ve said before that I agree that her approach wasn’t great, and that she would have had a better chance of convincing him if she hadn’t immediately started insulting him. But I still don’t think it would have been right for her to decide, “It’s so important that I don’t hurt this man that I’ll let a bunch of people die while I try to convince him.”

I don’t think that justification can be made ad infinitum. The small risk that the one-person-a-year will die that day is an acceptable cost of spending that day trying to convince Max peacefully. The certainty that several people will die that day is not an acceptable cost. Saying that one cost is unacceptable doesn’t equate to saying that any cost, no matter how small, is unacceptable.

I actually wonder if more people would support Alison’s decision if it were only a single life at stake. Like, just one person, but they’re physically present in the scene.

I do think you’re right that Alison needs to approach these situations more thoughtfully and diplomatically in the future. I just think that her establishing “thousands of lives outweigh keeping my own hands squeaky clean” is the main event here; getting more adept at finding a “third option” is an important, but secondary, consideration.

The possibility of lives being lost that way is many times more nebulous than the immediate problem of a world full of people dying on transplant waiting lists.

A “strong argument” cannot be made that Alison has murdered people by coercing Max until we actually see people dying as a result of that decision in the comic. At this point, the only argument that can be made is that that might happen.

Also, I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that Max has feared a predatory biodynamic all his life. I don’t believe he ever expressed that sentiment in the comic. We know that he’s resentful about not having a DPS power and that he doesn’t like being told what to do. But there’s no indication I can recall that he’s been going about his life in the fear that a biodynamic will take advantage of his power.

That isn’t an indication that Max has feared being manipulated by a biodynamic for his whole life. He mentioned the fact that the reveal of his powers would generically expose him to risk–an excuse he brought up only after Alison wasn’t impressed by the reason he initially gave her, and which he quickly dropped in favor of “because fuck you”. There’s nothing in the comic to say he’s spent his whole life like “Oh no, what if a powerful biodynamic manipulates me?”

A very good point… the main reason for giving her a pass on that is that she was causing all that collateral damage while serving as a decidedly underaged emergency responder. She was fighting giant robots and the like, and doing so despite almost no proper training in how to avoid harming innocent bystanders. “Good Samaritan” laws, authorization by the Federal government, and the like give her a pass on a lot of that… however, there’s also the bit that (upon thinking about it, and thank you for making me realize this) she has been rather badly traumatized by her upbringing as… a child soldier.

She’s been conditioned now to love fighting, and hates that it doesn’t seem to help. As she said, “it’s the only thing I’ve ever been good at.” I mean… she was a KID, and going into battle. No wonder she’s having a hard time of it now.

Honestly, I think the reason it tends to be ignored in this debate (apart from people just not thinking of it) is that it is pretty much irrelevant. I mean, Al is attempting to do good; the past evil that she has done may affect her motivation, but it does not actually change her attempt.

I, on general principles, abhor the way that Alison extracted compliance from Max. The fact that I understand her reasoning doesn’t change that. The countless, countless lives do… but only if I accept the argument that Alison’s action did not, in fact, end up costing more than it gained (and I have not yet been convinced of that.)

Regardless of how I feel, though, I have to accept that:

1) Alison’s actions were objectively wrong in that violence against another human being except in defense of self or people in immediate danger is wrong. The exceptions to this rule are law enforcement and the military, and they both have codified rules governing when use of force is permissible.

2) Alison’s actions were objectively right in that they eliminated the suffering and death of many, many people; possibly countless, if this boost proves to be permanent, but certainly thousands, even if the boost is limited.

3) Alison’s actions may have resulted in a situation whereby many, many more people will not benefit from the advantages of a permanently (or effectively permanently) boosted Feral on call for organ transplants. This does not mean that the short-term benefit is cancelled, merely that there is less long-term benefit than I might like.

4) Alison had a number of options that (due to her fatigue, her youth, her upbringing, and likely a number of other factors that I’m not considering) she did not pursue. Those options may have resulted in even greater good, and her failure to consider them may yet result in unforseen harm. Despite that, her failure to effectively consider all of her options does not make her a bad person; it makes her a young and possibly foolish person.

5) Alison is now attempting (admittedly late, after the proverbial horses have left the barn, as it were) to figure out how to make rational, moral decisions. I suspect the question of ethical decisions has little meaning to her, since she is pretty much immune to prosecution, but (and this is a fortunate thing for the unpowered people in this universe) she has a strong moral center and is trying hard to figure out how to avoid making decisions that she feels compromise her morals.

My takeaway from all of this is relatively simple. I do not agree with what Alison did. If I found myself in a comparable situation, I would like to believe that I would be able to explore more options and come up with a different- hopefully better- solution. At the same time, I do not condemn Alison. She acted and, regardless of the outcomes of that action, she acted for what she perceived to be the greatest good. Hopefully, she will be able to learn from this experience and discover that the greatest good is often attained through careful deliberation rather than rash action.

…and I’m done rambling. My rum tells me that it’s past my bed time, anyways…

One can make a compelling argument that those that began the violence are responsible for its collateral damage, rather than those that attempted to end the violence. This is certainly the case regarding collateral damage during a car chase in most jurisdictions in the US (unless the chasing officers engage in egregiously reckless behavior – which most often they do not).

Murder involves pre-meditation, and I feel the narrative has made it plain that Alison’s previous exploits didn’t feature her looking for ways to raise the collateral body count in her battles.

Thoughtless or reckless behavior on Alison’s part? Yeah, she’s got that in spades – and that’s the crux of the narrative, IMO, and in large measure in the comments. How does Alison (and by extension, the reader) accurately assess the causality engendered by her (our) actions and made manifest in her (our) outcomes? Alison was made to confront her previous actions when she was made aware of an unintended consequence of one of her actions (the professor getting fired because of her complaint); this caused her to investigate and realize that this had happened before and led directly to her professor’s actions against her – in essence, she pushed the first domino (not strictly true, but this is from her point of view).

How do we know our intent in an action will be made manifest?
Can we hedge the odds in our favor to make that intent manifest?
If we gauge our action incorrectly to achieve the desired outcome, how should we respond to that?

I for one find the comments refreshingly nuanced and congenial for the most part, even between those who disagree strongly.

That said, your point about her reckless behavior as a teenage superhero is quite valid in terms of Alison’s patina, but I’m not sure it’s being so much ignored as being assumed as a given. A lot of the debate deals with Alison’s desire to change and her methods – we use her previous attitude as a baseline and we assess her changes in relationship to that.

Damn.
I hesitate between offering compassion, a glass of whiskey, or both.

So he basically a alt, and it’s moments like this I realize how good I have it… sorry. Anyways, I think he has a condition that many men (maybe some women) are going through. It’s hard to explain, but the United States (and extension the West) has been going through some sort of cultural social shift that tied to the politics, and economics of our time. I came to this conclusion when I started to think about my fellow millennials; how many when not drowning in student debt while working part-time jobs that don’t much are staying with there parents longer, having kids later in life, not owning land, etc. I came to realize that today America, at least socially has more in common with 90’s Japan then interwar Germany.

You work at a collage?

Let me guess: many of those who hold libertarians views were students?

I feel for him more because he was given a truly awesome power… but he’s being raised by people who don’t think it’s worth anything. Imagine a woman born with a dizzying intellect… in Pakistan, where Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head for the crime of being a girl attending school. Or a black musical prodigy… thrown onto a chain gang by a society that values black men solely for their ability to perform manual labor. He’s got an awesome ability… but he’s been told that it’s a useless power by the people who dominate his life.

Do we know that Max was told his power was useless? I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t remember him saying anything to suggest it. He framed his backstory as if “my power is garbage” were a conclusion he came to on his own.

Tbh if my hypothetical kid got that superpower I’d be like, “Fuck yes, Timmy, that power is so versatile! You lucky bastard, you better do something creative with that.”

Ok, but Max didn’t die or anything, so your comparison of killing a few orphans doesn’t hold water. This would be a completely different issue if Max died.

You know what the parallel is here? TAXES. The government takes money from people in order to fund everything they do (which includes funding schools and paying medical costs and simply helping people), and there’s not much you can do about it. Sure, you can elect people to change what gets funded and what doesn’t, so we do have some degree of choice that Max didn’t have, but at the end of the day, Max is like the wealthy entitled person who doesn’t want to pay taxes, because “I’ve got mine, fuck everyone else”. I would totally kidnap those people and fly them ghettos and hospitals full of sick people and show them the human faces of suffering that they’d be neglecting it they and everyone like them were allowed to opt-out.

And if he still didn’t care? Well, guess what, we send people to prison for tax evasion.

Putting that choice in the mouth of a caricature doesn’t change what the choice actually means. If someone could actually save billions of people by experimenting on two children, and chose to spare the children, the price would be the deaths of billions. If someone could save tens of thousands of people by swallowing his pride, and chose to wallow in spite instead, the price would be the deaths of tens of thousands.

Also, why does your cartoon scientist pointedly acknowledge the nameless billions as people, but refer to the toddlers only as “squiggles of carbon and oxygen”? Pretty inconsistent. I have never denied that Max is a human being, equally as valuable as any given one of the transplant recipients. He just isn’t worth more than thousands of human beings.

I’m primarily concerned with existing people, rather than future hypothetical people. I prioritize minimizing suffering and death over creating happiness and life.

Which in turn is based on an idea of Dostoevsky.

The issue with that analogy is that it’s just one child. If you had hundreds in the basement, your analogy would work better. I interpreted it as a utilitarian argument: if you could create a paradise, but one innocent had to suffer a fate worse than death, would you do it? I have to admit, I would embrace that lottery. If it turned out to be me that suffered, at least thousands of others would enjoy life.

That’s literally my utopia. I couldn’t possibly be more on board with that. It’s an elegant solution to the overpopulation problem that would otherwise come hand-in-hand with immortality. Obviously you give people the choice on an individual basis, though.

In what sense?

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. People change over time. My own views have changed dramatically even over the last five years. I can’t imagine that everyone would stay exactly same over, say, hundreds of years.

I’m not convinced by the argument “individual humans don’t change over hundreds of years,” given that we don’t have any examples of immortal humans to point to.

Hey! That’s the plot to Moonraker!

Do we have to have another reminder of what happens too often when science goes up against religion?

Because really, bad timing.

I don’t particularly care “why” either. I care about the tens of thousands of lives.

I don’t think forcing Max to do this one thing is going to kill tens of thousands of people, no.