Just like they never kill the Joker cause he’s too popular or don’t stop wars or real world social ills because it’s in bad taste, superheroes never really change the world because they want the comic world to reflect the real one. The “it would be too authoritarian” thing is just an excuse. There are ways to do it that aren’t slippery slope fallacies. Warren Ellis did it in the Stormwatch “Change or Die” arc, which basically had the military industrial complex murder a version of the JLA that decided to actually help people. Then of course the original Authority spun off from that, the one that wasn’t afraid to kill a dictator or two.
I got the two Injustice omnibuses in the mail right now! I’m pumped to dive in. I also have both games and haven’t played them (Because I wanted to read the comics first, and the games were on sale dirt cheap.) Do you happen to know where in the series each game falls? Like where should I read to before I play them?
I feel this has less to do with what they are talking about and more to do with how the person presenting a point they are confident in is less distracted then by the person taking it in.
Credit where credits due, I found this comment elsewhere.
To all who think it was a slippery slope kinda argument ????
He doesn’t start with the slippery slope fallacy. He works his way up to it.
He starts by saying that there is something that they can expend similar effort on that would save more lives: smoking. Surprisingly, this is *not* an example of the [fallacy of relative privation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Fallacy_of_relative_privation), because he’s suggesting that they devote the same resources (Superman and Flash) to solving the same ultimate problem (saving lives).
The interesting part is that his argument is layered: on the surface, the numbers bear out cigarettes. More people die preventable deaths due to smoking than from all forms of gun violence. Every year. If Superman’s goal is to prevent preventable deaths, stealing all the cigarettes will objectively accomplish that goal in more cases than stealing all the guns. This *immediately* and without fallacy defeats Superman’s proposal that the two of them could accomplish their goal of decreasing preventable deaths by stealing all the guns in the world. Stealing all the cigarettes in the world would objectively be a better use of the exact same resources.
The second layer is where things get murky. Shooting somebody else *seems* like a very different thing from deciding to take up a gross habit that will probably kill you. Clark, as a Kansas boy, probably knows a lot of smokers (believe me, it’s very common out here. Substantially more common than gun ownership). He likely grew up with the idea that smoking, while harmful, was a personal choice and none of anybody’s damn business but your own. This isn’t a logical argument; it’s purely based on emotion and tradition. The argument Barry is after isn’t “banning cigarettes is bad.” The argument he’s presenting is “it’s not our place to steal away people’s choices.”
And that’s not the same as gun control. Because Superman and Flash aren’t elected officials. We don’t vote on what they do. We don’t decide, as a nation or as a species, that Superman should steal guns or cigarettes. That’s the extra context that changes things:
Superman is talking about unilaterally taking choice away without asking anybody’s permission. A government is at least superficially acting at the behest of its people. Injustice!Superman is implementing his will without the slightest regard for what people want. He is stealing away everybody’s choices. He is doing *exactly* what Barry is accusing him of. He is a tyrant.
And tyrants aren’t good just because they do something you like. They’re still tyrants.
This isn’t about whether it’s right or wrong to dispose of guns. This is about whether it’s right or wrong to unilaterally impose your will on people without their consent. This is about whether one superpower can dictate to other populations that its way is law and its values are the only ones that matter.
This is much more relevant to US *foreign* policy than US *domestic* policy.
Great crop of a great scene! The only detail I would add is that the setup of the scene is that Supes asks Flash if he knows how to play chess, to which the answer is no.
Cigarettes (mostly) only kill the smoker. We already have laws to try to minimize second-hand smoke. We’ve had decades-long action, including laws, to try to minimize people smoking.
Speeding is already illegal. I’m pretty sure driving under the influence already comes with jail time.
I’m pretty sure an unleashed dog attacking someone will already have legal consequences for the dog’s owner.
Bringing up recycling is getting super indirect.
Guns kill people who don’t have guns. It’s pretty direct. Gun shoots bullet, bullet goes into person, person dies from their injuries.
Is the problem that Superman is proposing using force to do it? We don’t even have to ponder that with these two “using force”, literally no one will get hurt in the process. Laws are maintained by state force. That’s how the law works. Yes, Barry, we already “lock up” people for doing things we decided are bad.
Is the problem who gets to make the decision? Put it to a vote. If we can magically remove all guns, I don’t think the democratic outcome will be close.
I don’t support everything Superman did in Injustice and I think the systemic reasons behind gun violence should be the focus and not the tools themselves (poverty, war on drugs etc) but I don’t find Flash’s slippery slope argument to be very convincing. It’s a false dichotomy to think someone as powerful as Superman’s only choices would be to do nothing and let people die or create a tyrannical nanny state where no one can do anything remotely harmful of their free will.
Slippery slope doesn’t stop being a dumb argument just because you’ve got super powers, forcing tobacco businesses out of existence is a great idea actually
OK but anyone who leaves a dangerous dog unchained should actually go to jail (assuming dangerous means it’s attacked before or shown a willingness to attack)
It’s a questionable argument at best, definitely. Why *not* get rid of tobacco? And they already have punishments for speeding, leaving a dangerous dog unsecured *should* be a crime.
This is such a good panel for how it shows Superman. We often wonder why he doesn’t do x because he can just do it at the snap of him a finger and not really give a crap. I really like seeing him Russell with the morality of what he can do versus what he does do. This is totally different than Batman, where I prefer to see him not have the debate as much — The point of Batman is that he isn’t that super and is trying to help things along, the point of Superman is that he can do anything and so the restraint isn’t interesting thing for him to deal with.
I also generally like the point made. People have to want to make the change.
Kaasjekaascool
“You know what Barry? Yes, all of those things. Great ideas! Thanks!”
Don’t forget to scoop up all the nuclear weapons in a big net
Oboy, I can’t wait to see this scene in the movie. I especially look forward to see Flash in this scene.
You know this conversation doesn’t have a great effect if you live in a country that doesn’t have the US’ gun laws
I am still mad about the way they kill Guy
Just like they never kill the Joker cause he’s too popular or don’t stop wars or real world social ills because it’s in bad taste, superheroes never really change the world because they want the comic world to reflect the real one. The “it would be too authoritarian” thing is just an excuse. There are ways to do it that aren’t slippery slope fallacies. Warren Ellis did it in the Stormwatch “Change or Die” arc, which basically had the military industrial complex murder a version of the JLA that decided to actually help people. Then of course the original Authority spun off from that, the one that wasn’t afraid to kill a dictator or two.
I got the two Injustice omnibuses in the mail right now! I’m pumped to dive in. I also have both games and haven’t played them (Because I wanted to read the comics first, and the games were on sale dirt cheap.) Do you happen to know where in the series each game falls? Like where should I read to before I play them?
I feel this has less to do with what they are talking about and more to do with how the person presenting a point they are confident in is less distracted then by the person taking it in.
The single most American problem ever.
Credit where credits due, I found this comment elsewhere.
To all who think it was a slippery slope kinda argument ????
He doesn’t start with the slippery slope fallacy. He works his way up to it.
He starts by saying that there is something that they can expend similar effort on that would save more lives: smoking. Surprisingly, this is *not* an example of the [fallacy of relative privation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Fallacy_of_relative_privation), because he’s suggesting that they devote the same resources (Superman and Flash) to solving the same ultimate problem (saving lives).
The interesting part is that his argument is layered: on the surface, the numbers bear out cigarettes. More people die preventable deaths due to smoking than from all forms of gun violence. Every year. If Superman’s goal is to prevent preventable deaths, stealing all the cigarettes will objectively accomplish that goal in more cases than stealing all the guns. This *immediately* and without fallacy defeats Superman’s proposal that the two of them could accomplish their goal of decreasing preventable deaths by stealing all the guns in the world. Stealing all the cigarettes in the world would objectively be a better use of the exact same resources.
The second layer is where things get murky. Shooting somebody else *seems* like a very different thing from deciding to take up a gross habit that will probably kill you. Clark, as a Kansas boy, probably knows a lot of smokers (believe me, it’s very common out here. Substantially more common than gun ownership). He likely grew up with the idea that smoking, while harmful, was a personal choice and none of anybody’s damn business but your own. This isn’t a logical argument; it’s purely based on emotion and tradition. The argument Barry is after isn’t “banning cigarettes is bad.” The argument he’s presenting is “it’s not our place to steal away people’s choices.”
And that’s not the same as gun control. Because Superman and Flash aren’t elected officials. We don’t vote on what they do. We don’t decide, as a nation or as a species, that Superman should steal guns or cigarettes. That’s the extra context that changes things:
Superman is talking about unilaterally taking choice away without asking anybody’s permission. A government is at least superficially acting at the behest of its people. Injustice!Superman is implementing his will without the slightest regard for what people want. He is stealing away everybody’s choices. He is doing *exactly* what Barry is accusing him of. He is a tyrant.
And tyrants aren’t good just because they do something you like. They’re still tyrants.
This isn’t about whether it’s right or wrong to dispose of guns. This is about whether it’s right or wrong to unilaterally impose your will on people without their consent. This is about whether one superpower can dictate to other populations that its way is law and its values are the only ones that matter.
This is much more relevant to US *foreign* policy than US *domestic* policy.
Great crop of a great scene! The only detail I would add is that the setup of the scene is that Supes asks Flash if he knows how to play chess, to which the answer is no.
This is baby-brained.
Cigarettes (mostly) only kill the smoker. We already have laws to try to minimize second-hand smoke. We’ve had decades-long action, including laws, to try to minimize people smoking.
Speeding is already illegal. I’m pretty sure driving under the influence already comes with jail time.
I’m pretty sure an unleashed dog attacking someone will already have legal consequences for the dog’s owner.
Bringing up recycling is getting super indirect.
Guns kill people who don’t have guns. It’s pretty direct. Gun shoots bullet, bullet goes into person, person dies from their injuries.
Is the problem that Superman is proposing using force to do it? We don’t even have to ponder that with these two “using force”, literally no one will get hurt in the process. Laws are maintained by state force. That’s how the law works. Yes, Barry, we already “lock up” people for doing things we decided are bad.
Is the problem who gets to make the decision? Put it to a vote. If we can magically remove all guns, I don’t think the democratic outcome will be close.
I don’t support everything Superman did in Injustice and I think the systemic reasons behind gun violence should be the focus and not the tools themselves (poverty, war on drugs etc) but I don’t find Flash’s slippery slope argument to be very convincing. It’s a false dichotomy to think someone as powerful as Superman’s only choices would be to do nothing and let people die or create a tyrannical nanny state where no one can do anything remotely harmful of their free will.
Are they playing multiple games of chess, or do they fundamentally not understand how chess works?
Slippery slope doesn’t stop being a dumb argument just because you’ve got super powers, forcing tobacco businesses out of existence is a great idea actually
Still they should get rid of guns
So, we just don’t try?
This is very much in the spirit of yesterday’s post of “there is terrible power in a joke”.
If I recall correctly Mr.Terrific had the same exact conversation with Superman after he asked him for his spheres to make a surveillance state.
Holy… I need to read these comics idk how to start
OK but anyone who leaves a dangerous dog unchained should actually go to jail (assuming dangerous means it’s attacked before or shown a willingness to attack)
Call me a radical, but I absolutely think the JL should jail owners who leave dangerous dogs unchained.
It’s a questionable argument at best, definitely. Why *not* get rid of tobacco? And they already have punishments for speeding, leaving a dangerous dog unsecured *should* be a crime.
Just stop after the guns then.
This is such a good panel for how it shows Superman. We often wonder why he doesn’t do x because he can just do it at the snap of him a finger and not really give a crap. I really like seeing him Russell with the morality of what he can do versus what he does do. This is totally different than Batman, where I prefer to see him not have the debate as much — The point of Batman is that he isn’t that super and is trying to help things along, the point of Superman is that he can do anything and so the restraint isn’t interesting thing for him to deal with.
I also generally like the point made. People have to want to make the change.
This is just a great series that opens our eyes to the atrocities that an unhinged Superman can commit
Barry had some dumb rebuttals when you take half a second to think about it.