|
|
Post by charzhino on Apr 2, 2018 19:55:02 GMT
Watching this clip on youtube just adds another absurd reason to the conflict in Civil War alongside Starks contrived turn to be for government control.
So Visions reasoning extract:
''In the 8 years since Mr. Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate.
I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.''
And the Avengers seem to blindly accept this and not question it. So Vision is basically saying there is conflict because super powered individuals have been increasing in recent years. So how does he go from that premise, to stating that oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge would be ever present and that would lead to inevitable conflict. The only way to reduce catastrophe, is to actually reduce the number of super powered people themselves. Like gun control, less guns means less mass shooting, less catastrophe. And Visions whole ''equation'' is on the basis that causation is a result of the correlation, which is flawed in itself. A individual with a mind stone gem and super analytical ability can not even get that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Apr 2, 2018 21:35:50 GMT
And the Avengers seem to blindly accept this and not question it. So Vision is basically saying there is conflict because super powered individuals have been increasing in recent years. So how does he go from that premise, to stating that oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge would be ever present and that would lead to inevitable conflict. The only way to reduce catastrophe, is to actually reduce the number of super powered people themselves. Like gun control, less guns means less mass shooting, less catastrophe. And Visions whole ''equation'' is on the basis that causation is a result of the correlation, which is flawed in itself. A individual with a mind stone gem and super analytical ability can not even get that right. But they didn't...some of the Avengers did accept the idea of oversight. But it wasn't because of Vision's speach. That was his assessment. Tony had pretty much made up his mind because of the death of the civilian whose mother approached him. War Machine, is still likely affiliated to the military and Tony is his closest friend both of which may have an influence on him, Black Widow thinks it's the lesser of two evils - expelled from The Avengers, a be part of it with some influence despite the oversight. No one really agrees with oversight because of Vision's assessment |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 3, 2018 14:21:41 GMT
Watching this clip on youtube just adds another absurd reason to the conflict in Civil War alongside Starks contrived turn to be for government control. So Visions reasoning extract: ''In the 8 years since Mr. Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate.
I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.''And the Avengers seem to blindly accept this and not question it. So Vision is basically saying there is conflict because super powered individuals have been increasing in recent years. So how does he go from that premise, to stating that oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge would be ever present and that would lead to inevitable conflict. The only way to reduce catastrophe, is to actually reduce the number of super powered people themselves. Like gun control, less guns means less mass shooting, less catastrophe. And Visions whole ''equation'' is on the basis that causation is a result of the correlation, which is flawed in itself. A individual with a mind stone gem and super analytical ability can not even get that right. But Vision said there may be a causality, not that there is. Plus, his point about oversight is that is should not be dismissed outright without discussion. There's also a flaw in the gun analogy. Sure we can get rid of guns. But how do you get rid of people? A lot of those super powered people aren't relying on some tech like Ironman. Their powers are part of who they are. It's similar to the registration of mutants the X-Men have lobbied against for decades. How do you reduce the number of people? |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 3, 2018 15:30:13 GMT
The same argument comes up for Batman all the time. Ever since he showed up, more themed criminals popped up.
And in a way Vision is right. Think of it like this. A country starts raising an army. What would the neighboring country do? Wonder why for a few seconds then raise their own army and maybe attack the other country before they get too powerful.
But at the same time, Vision's reasoning has nothing to do with them. The Accords is about stopping an America based super powered team from going into any country they want and attempting to stop "bad guys" without the permission of that country. It's not about challenge and conflicts and catastrophe. His speech has the most to do with Wanda. Because he wants to keep her safe. A lot of what happened with the Avengers (and the individuals) wasn't a result of them being powerful and others challenging them. Most of it would have happened anyway. The hero just got involved to stop it. Others was personal to the character and not their hero identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Apr 3, 2018 15:39:10 GMT
But Vision said there may be a causality, not that there is. Plus, his point about oversight is that is should not be dismissed outright without discussion. There's also a flaw in the gun analogy. Sure we can get rid of guns. But how do you get rid of people? A lot of those super powered people aren't relying on some tech like Ironman. Their powers are part of who they are. It's similar to the registration of mutants the X-Men have lobbied against for decades. How do you reduce the number of people? He does say "may be a casuality" so il agree to that. With super powered beings, I think there is enough there to disarm them or prevent new ones being made. Scarlett Witch, Winter Soldier/s, Cap and Quicksilver were all a result of rogue experimentation. Cracking down on the set ups of these is essentially akin to stopping rogue nations like Iran from building Nukes. Stripping away Starks suits cuts him out along with War machine, Antman and Falcon. Leaving Banner in peace like he was in Avengers 1, prevents him becoming the Hulk. Doctor Strange and are difficult ones though and would fall in similar breath to mutants. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 3, 2018 16:23:51 GMT
But Vision said there may be a causality, not that there is. Plus, his point about oversight is that is should not be dismissed outright without discussion. There's also a flaw in the gun analogy. Sure we can get rid of guns. But how do you get rid of people? A lot of those super powered people aren't relying on some tech like Ironman. Their powers are part of who they are. It's similar to the registration of mutants the X-Men have lobbied against for decades. How do you reduce the number of people? He does say "may be a casuality" so il agree to that. With super powered beings, I think there is enough there to disarm them or prevent new ones being made. Scarlett Witch, Winter Soldier/s, Cap and Quicksilver were all a result of rogue experimentation. Cracking down on the set ups of these is essentially akin to stopping rogue nations like Iran from building Nukes. Stripping away Starks suits cuts him out along with War machine, Antman and Falcon. Leaving Banner in peace like he was in Avengers 1, prevents him becoming the Hulk. Doctor Strange and are difficult ones though and would fall in similar breath to mutants. Sure, absolutely. But then what do you do about the ones who already exist? |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Apr 3, 2018 16:38:04 GMT
Watching this clip on youtube just adds another absurd reason to the conflict in Civil War alongside Starks contrived turn to be for government control. So Visions reasoning extract: ''In the 8 years since Mr. Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate. I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.'' And the Avengers seem to blindly accept this and not question it. So Vision is basically saying there is conflict because super powered individuals have been increasing in recent years. So how does he go from that premise, to stating that oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge would be ever present and that would lead to inevitable conflict. The only way to reduce catastrophe, is to actually reduce the number of super powered people themselves. Like gun control, less guns means less mass shooting, less catastrophe. And Visions whole ''equation'' is on the basis that causation is a result of the correlation, which is flawed in itself. A individual with a mind stone gem and super analytical ability can not even get that right. You mean like cops, military, members of the intelligence community, firefighters, emergency workers,, and every other position in public service? |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Apr 4, 2018 18:30:10 GMT
Watching this clip on youtube just adds another absurd reason to the conflict in Civil War alongside Starks contrived turn to be for government control. So Visions reasoning extract: ''In the 8 years since Mr. Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate.
I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.''And the Avengers seem to blindly accept this and not question it. So Vision is basically saying there is conflict because super powered individuals have been increasing in recent years. So how does he go from that premise, to stating that oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge would be ever present and that would lead to inevitable conflict. The only way to reduce catastrophe, is to actually reduce the number of super powered people themselves. Like gun control, less guns means less mass shooting, less catastrophe. And Visions whole ''equation'' is on the basis that causation is a result of the correlation, which is flawed in itself. A individual with a mind stone gem and super analytical ability can not even get that right. First of all, great thread. Food for thought throughout by everyone. I would first say that the characters in Civil War express several different viewpoints on each side and the audience is encouraged to agree/disagree with all of them. I think most of them made some good points and some not so good points. There is a way to fall on either side and feel justified. That's what made the movie great imo. Vision might be suffering from being too mechanical about it. He sees what looks like a correlation and just runs with it. His "power invites challenge" is a good point. The nuclear arms race was an example of that. PEDs in sports is another example. It's like how some see a correlation with "more guns = more school shootings". But they are forcing a correlation. Decades ago it was easier to get a gun and bring it to school and the shootings didn't happen. The gun laws were more lax in the past. More guns laws have been passed and it hasn't stopped the shootings. So if you looked for a correlation there it would be "more gun laws = more shootings". So obviously there is a flaw in that thinking. The real correlation there is "more media coverage and fame for shooters = more shootings". The Columbine kids that got famous really started the whole thing. Every time they make a new shooter famous and broadcast all the details of their "plight" in becoming killers, they are creating the next shooter in my mind. That's a powerful lure for a disturbed individual who thinks "I don't matter". The Vision is not that far off in comparison. He at least puts forth a possibility that follows the correlation. Oversight isn't the worst thing in the world to consider with something new like super powered people who are engaged in vigilante justice. But Cap of course is coming at it from the point of view that the government can be corrupt and will resist being under their control. He of course sees himself as pure in motivation. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Apr 5, 2018 2:11:39 GMT
Watching this clip on youtube just adds another absurd reason to the conflict in Civil War alongside Starks contrived turn to be for government control. So Visions reasoning extract: ''In the 8 years since Mr. Stark announced himself as Iron Man, the number of known enhanced persons has grown exponentially. And during the same period, a number of potentially world-ending events has risen at a commensurable rate.
I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe. Oversight... Oversight is not an idea that can be dismissed out of hand.''And the Avengers seem to blindly accept this and not question it. So Vision is basically saying there is conflict because super powered individuals have been increasing in recent years. So how does he go from that premise, to stating that oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge would be ever present and that would lead to inevitable conflict. The only way to reduce catastrophe, is to actually reduce the number of super powered people themselves. Like gun control, less guns means less mass shooting, less catastrophe. And Visions whole ''equation'' is on the basis that causation is a result of the correlation, which is flawed in itself. A individual with a mind stone gem and super analytical ability can not even get that right. First of all, great thread. Food for thought throughout by everyone. I would first say that the characters in Civil War express several different viewpoints on each side and the audience is encouraged to agree/disagree with all of them. I think most of them made some good points and some not so good points. There is a way to fall on either side and feel justified. That's what made the movie great imo. Civil War is an awful movie because there's just no way for any sensible or reasonable person to support Cap's side. Cap is saying that, despite killing many innocent civilians, the Avengers should not be subject to any government oversight because "the safest hands are our own." 1st, it would be like the cops or the FBI saying after a shootout with armed bank robbers in which several innocent bystanders are killed by police gunfire saying "Well, we killed some innocent bystanders, but that's collateral damage. We stopped the bad guys so the deaths of those innocent bystanders were for the greater good. And we should not be subjected to any oversight or disciplinary actions." 2nd, the safest hands are not their own. The Avengers just killed many innocent civilians. How was that safe for those innocent civilians killed by the Avengers? It was so clear that the Avengers fucked up and needed some kind of oversight, but Cap didn't want oversight because Cap wants to be a tyrant and rule over the people instead of answering to the people because Cap feels that the Avengers are more powerful than ordinary people and should be rulers over ordinary people rather than have to answer to ordinary people. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 5, 2018 2:28:59 GMT
Civil War is an awful movie On Bizarro world. It is if you don't want to surrender your freedom to the corrupt. The Avengers shouldn't be slaves. They're safer than the Governments'. Leave it to them EVERYONE would have died. The Avengers made the best of a bad situation. As opposed to someone like Superman, who feels he has the right to run roughshod over Planet Earth and tell the US Military they're no danger to him and he'll destroy their property if they try anything. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Apr 5, 2018 2:35:51 GMT
It is if you don't want to surrender your freedom to the corrupt. The Avengers shouldn't be slaves. The Avengers weren't being forced to give up their freedom or be slaves. If the Avengers didn't want to sign the Accords, then they were free to just retire and walk away. That doesn't sound like any form of slavery and that isn't any surrendering of freedom. Bottom line: Cap didn't want to sign the Accords because Cap is a tyrant who believes that since the Avengers are more powerful than the rest of the people, the Avengers should rule over the people like Kings instead of having to answer to the people for their reckless actions that directly killed many innocent civilians. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 5, 2018 2:44:35 GMT
It is if you don't want to surrender your freedom to the corrupt. The Avengers shouldn't be slaves. The Avengers weren't being forced to give up their freedom or be slaves. If the Avengers didn't want to sign the Accords, then they were free to just retire and walk away. "Retire" = Go under house arrest, most likely. At the very least, be under heavy observation for the rest of their lives. Doesn't want to be a slave, nor sell the other Avengers out either. You want tyranny, go to DC. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 5, 2018 16:52:35 GMT
...Oversight might reduce catastrophe? It wouldn't, because the current rate of super powered persons would STILL be present and still increasing, leading to more conflict. Simply controlling them as the Accords would dictate, would not reduce conflict because the challenge is ALREADY there.
So... we agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 5, 2018 16:56:47 GMT
The Avengers weren't being forced to give up their freedom or be slaves. If the Avengers didn't want to sign the Accords, then they were free to just retire and walk away. "Retire" = Go under house arrest, most likely. At the very least, be under heavy observation for the rest of their lives. Doesn't want to be a slave, nor sell the other Avengers out either. You want tyranny, go to DC.whoa, WHOA, WHOOOOOOOAAA! What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? WTF is there tyranny in DC? I gotta hear this... |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Apr 5, 2018 17:00:12 GMT
Watching this clip on youtube just adds another absurd reason to the conflict in Civil War alongside Starks contrived turn to be for government control. Your claim that Tony Starks disposition toward accountability came out of no-where in Civil War, is wrong. That seed was planted in the very first Iron Man movie when Stark held the sit-down press conference after his return from captivity. The conflict between accountability to a higher authority (government) and the inclination to believe that one's own judgement is best has been a running theme throughout a number of the MCU movies, culminating in Civil War. There is no right answer to all this. Both sides of the argument have merit. Even Captain America was almost ready to sign away his autonomy ... until he found out that the government had imprisoned a teenage girl because they thought she was dangerous. The only really wrong answer is to say definitively that one side is the correct side. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Apr 5, 2018 18:03:44 GMT
"Retire" = Go under house arrest, most likely. At the very least, be under heavy observation for the rest of their lives. Doesn't want to be a slave, nor sell the other Avengers out either. You want tyranny, go to DC.whoa, WHOA, WHOOOOOOOAAA! What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? WTF is there tyranny in DC? I gotta hear this... I'm just messing with him, but you can exaggerate this from how Superman keeps thumbing his nose at the Military in MOS. First he "surrenders" to him but later shows he was toying with them and just did it to get to the General. Then he destroys the Drone, millions of taxpayers dollars, and basically says "You'll never control me, I'll never let you know a thing and this is what happens if you try." |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Apr 5, 2018 19:25:34 GMT
First of all, great thread. Food for thought throughout by everyone. I would first say that the characters in Civil War express several different viewpoints on each side and the audience is encouraged to agree/disagree with all of them. I think most of them made some good points and some not so good points. There is a way to fall on either side and feel justified. That's what made the movie great imo. Civil War is an awful movie because there's just no way for any sensible or reasonable person to support Cap's side. Cap is saying that, despite killing many innocent civilians, the Avengers should not be subject to any government oversight because "the safest hands are our own." 1st, it would be like the cops or the FBI saying after a shootout with armed bank robbers in which several innocent bystanders are killed by police gunfire saying "Well, we killed some innocent bystanders, but that's collateral damage. We stopped the bad guys so the deaths of those innocent bystanders were for the greater good. And we should not be subjected to any oversight or disciplinary actions." 2nd, the safest hands are not their own. The Avengers just killed many innocent civilians. How was that safe for those innocent civilians killed by the Avengers? It was so clear that the Avengers fucked up and needed some kind of oversight, but Cap didn't want oversight because Cap wants to be a tyrant and rule over the people instead of answering to the people because Cap feels that the Avengers are more powerful than ordinary people and should be rulers over ordinary people rather than have to answer to ordinary people. I don't think it's hard at all to take Cap's side. You of course will look for a flaw...."because Marvel" You left out the part where Cap explains, "We save who we can...sometimes that doesn't mean everyone". There is no such thing as a perfect way to deal with threats like that. Sometimes you have to drop a bomb on Hiroshima to save lives. Many more people would have died had they not dropped those bombs and averted a land war in Japan. They even went out of their way to warn people to leave. Cap would never say "but that's collateral damage" as if those people didn't matter obviously so you mis-characterize him with that. Of course it bothers the cops when someone dies during a chase. But if they just let the bad guys go a lot more people would be hurt ultimately. Just like how a lot more people would have been hurt had the Avengers not acted. We make trade offs. We could reduce traffic deaths to near zero if we wanted to. ...Just reduce the speed limit to 10 mph. But we won't do that because we are willing to tolerate some deaths to go faster. And Cap certainly knows how it can go wrong if the government is in charge of him. He was used by Hydra by the government. His stance is the one I would expect from him. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Apr 5, 2018 19:28:43 GMT
It is if you don't want to surrender your freedom to the corrupt. The Avengers shouldn't be slaves. The Avengers weren't being forced to give up their freedom or be slaves. If the Avengers didn't want to sign the Accords, then they were free to just retire and walk away. That doesn't sound like any form of slavery and that isn't any surrendering of freedom. Bottom line: Cap didn't want to sign the Accords because Cap is a tyrant who believes that since the Avengers are more powerful than the rest of the people, the Avengers should rule over the people like Kings instead of having to answer to the people for their reckless actions that directly killed many innocent civilians.Going off into bizarro world is not going to help your claims. Cap is a tyrant who believes the Avengers should rule like kings? Why not just claim he likes to eat babies for breakfast while you're at it. That would make just as much sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 21:13:20 GMT
Leave it to DC-fan to reduce a great thread to bickering because of his usual BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Apr 5, 2018 21:55:41 GMT
It is if you don't want to surrender your freedom to the corrupt. The Avengers shouldn't be slaves. You saw The Winter Soldier, right? Cap's trust in oversight was shaken by HYDRA's infiltration and decimation of S.H.I.E.L.D. They took a S.H.I.E.L.D. project, Insight, and tried to use it to kill thousands of innocent people just because they were potential threats to HYDRA. Additionally, Tony Stark: When I realized what my weapons were capable of in the wrong hands, I shut it down. Stopped manufacturing. Steve Rogers: Tony, you *chose* to do that. If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose. What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go? What if there's somewhere we need to go and they don't let us? We may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own. Imagine this... Gamora: A god-like being named Thanos plans to wipe out half the universe using Infinity Stones. We need you to help stop him! Tony: Let's wait for the U.N. panel's decision. Gamora: We don't have time to wait! Tony: I signed a piece of paper saying I would wait! You go stop Thanos, I'll catch up with you... maybe, if I'm allowed.  |
|
