Superman V.S The Elite

[CrypticMirror]

still, if it's society's responsibility to put supervillains to death, why don't they? I refuse to believe it is because they don't like the idea of the death penalty, the only reason people in real life are generally against it is because crime rates are at an all time low and they were never as bad as they were in comic book universes anyway.

And because killing people, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. That is why people are against death penalties. Because murder is morally wrong, even if the murderer is sanctioned by the government.

Oh yeah then how do you weigh that against the 10s of people that the supervillain kills? Makes ya think.

You don't weigh it. You take each crime at a time, that means it is still murder even if you kill the clown. Going murderhappy on supervillains is how you end up with half the midwest irradiated.

We're not talking a killing spree. It's just one super villain, how bad can it be?

It never stops at one. Once you do it once, you'll find a reason to make an exception for the next hard case. There is a reason that the axiom is that hard cases make for bad laws. If you do a bad thing, like murder, for a "good" reason, then you open the door for doing it for bad reasons.

[Robovski]

Banishment is the old solution when killing wasn't considered a solution. So the answer here is to banish the supervillains from Earth. Send them to low earth orbit with nothing (usual banishment) and they can try to fend for themselves in space with nothing but the capsule they've been launched in. If they can't live and survive to get another world then I guess they weren't that super then.

[Darth Wedgius]

There is a reason slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies. Saying that it won't stop at one supervillain killed is as logical as saying it won't stop at one supervillain imprisoned or banished into the phantom zone.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

still, if it's society's responsibility to put supervillains to death, why don't they? I refuse to believe it is because they don't like the idea of the death penalty, the only reason people in real life are generally against it is because crime rates are at an all time low and they were never as bad as they were in comic book universes anyway.

And because killing people, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. That is why people are against death penalties. Because murder is morally wrong, even if the murderer is sanctioned by the government.

so, if a serial killer was stabbing you to death, you'd rather let him kill you then defend yourself?

also, if I forfeit any argument on the other thread by using Godwin's Law, you also forfeit any argument by using the slippery slope fallacy.

[TrueMetis]

still, if it's society's responsibility to put supervillains to death, why don't they? I refuse to believe it is because they don't like the idea of the death penalty, the only reason people in real life are generally against it is because crime rates are at an all time low and they were never as bad as they were in comic book universes anyway.

And because killing people, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. That is why people are against death penalties. Because murder is morally wrong, even if the murderer is sanctioned by the government.

Really? Because almost no one I've ever actually talked to has been against the death penalty because killing is wrong no matter the reason. Everyone's reason has had more to do with how flawed the justice system is and it's not worth the chance of accidentally (or "accidentally") killing an innocent person.

If people were against the death penalty because killing is wrong no matter the reason, then people would also be again self defence laws. IE if you killed someone while defending yourself you'd be guilty of murder, and I've heard no one ever argue that.

I don't know why the people in comic universes aren't okay with the death penalty, outside of the meta reason that stories need villains. At a guess I can only assume that the existence of superheros has caused people to shirk their civil responsibilities in this case.

[CrypticMirror]

still, if it's society's responsibility to put supervillains to death, why don't they? I refuse to believe it is because they don't like the idea of the death penalty, the only reason people in real life are generally against it is because crime rates are at an all time low and they were never as bad as they were in comic book universes anyway.

And because killing people, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. That is why people are against death penalties. Because murder is morally wrong, even if the murderer is sanctioned by the government.

so, if a serial killer was stabbing you to death, you'd rather let him kill you then defend yourself?

Since in that scenario I would apparently be made of straw, then I don't think I'd be in much danger.

It is not a slippery slope fallacy when it actually has been the historical case that the death penalty has been indiscriminately deployed.

The fallacies here are all yours.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

a

still, if it's society's responsibility to put supervillains to death, why don't they? I refuse to believe it is because they don't like the idea of the death penalty, the only reason people in real life are generally against it is because crime rates are at an all time low and they were never as bad as they were in comic book universes anyway.

And because killing people, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. That is why people are against death penalties. Because murder is morally wrong, even if the murderer is sanctioned by the government.

so, if a serial killer was stabbing you to death, you'd rather let him kill you then defend yourself?

Since in that scenario I would apparently be made of straw, then I don't think I'd be in much danger.

It is not a slippery slope fallacy when it actually has been the historical case that the death penalty has been indiscriminately deployed.

The fallacies here are all yours.

no, it is till a logical fallacy. it is called the Slippery Slope Fallacy after all.

and are you really saying that you can't kill even if it is to defend yourself or another? what about all the times in real life when people had absolutely no other choice but to kill someone else to defend themselves or a third party? there is such a thing as justified homicide.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Banishment is the old solution when killing wasn't considered a solution. So the answer here is to banish the supervillains from Earth. Send them to low earth orbit with nothing (usual banishment) and they can try to fend for themselves in space with nothing but the capsule they've been launched in. If they can't live and survive to get another world then I guess they weren't that super then.

Kinda like the phantom zone. Why didn't I think of htat?

[Darth Wedgius]

It is still a slippery slope fallacy. The idea that killing inevitably leads for indiscriminate killing is simply not supported by facts, any more than the idea that efforts to help reduce economic disparity inevitably lead to mass starvation or execution. Yes, both happen, but not all the time.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Plus if anybody could hold his word then it's Superman.