My Hero Academia 3: Villainous Interlude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaZodiac

Also like, if I could blow up entire buildings with my bare hands I'd ABSOLUTELY want people to know that I legally cannot use that in public, and would not mind avoiding doing so, for the safety and wellbeing of others.

---

Well technically, even if there is no law specifically against that, you already aren't allowed to blow up entire buildings, simply because of how law is made in modern society.

how law is made, is that we have civil rights and liberties. and people are the right to not get killed and not have their stuff blown up. so, the laws we already have, already cover someone doing that to you, because no matter how the specific form of harm is, have a right to not BE harmed.

so, technically your example is already covered, its just that there are other uses of blowing things up in public that isn't against these civil rights because they don't infringe upon those rights. its general and all-covering in a way that protects, rather than specific and suppressing in a way that limits. the thing is, with your desire, it opens a lot of civil rights problems, because its like, if a guy can't use his blow up power in public, can we not use a knife in public because someone might use it to stab people? can we not use a car in public because we might intentionally run over people with it? things like that, and cars while they have licenses attached to it and are a privilege, are still something you can use in public despite the dangers of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Raziere

Well technically, even if there is no law specifically against that, you already aren't allowed to blow up entire buildings, simply because of how law is made in modern society.

how law is made, is that we have civil rights and liberties. and people are the right to not get killed and not have their stuff blown up. so, the laws we already have, already cover someone doing that to you, because no matter how the specific form of harm is, have a right to not BE harmed.

so, technically your example is already covered, its just that there are other uses of blowing things up in public that isn't against these civil rights because they don't infringe upon those rights. its general and all-covering in a way that protects, rather than specific and suppressing in a way that limits. the thing is, with your desire, it opens a lot of civil rights problems, because its like, if a guy can't use his blow up power in public, can we not use a knife in public because someone might use it to stab people? can we not use a car in public because we might intentionally run over people with it? things like that, and cars while they have licenses attached to it and are a privilege, are still something you can use in public despite the dangers of them.

---

And that's where this conversation ends since we can't discuss stuff like this on the forum.

I'm just saying, I'm writing a fanfic about a little Mutant Girl who admires Spider-Man getting transported from the Marvel universe to a separate superhero setting.

A brief conversation about what would happen if she ended up in MHA instead of Worm in led me to elaborate that she would probably end up in conflict with the Heroes and Government just as much as she ended up in conflict with villains and that I didn't nessesarily think she'd be wrong for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

I'm just saying, I'm writing a fanfic about a little Mutant Girl who admires Spider-Man getting transported from the Marvel universe to a separate superhero setting.

A brief conversation about what would happen if she ended up in MHA instead of Worm in led me to elaborate that she would probably end up in conflict with the Heroes and Government just as much as she ended up in conflict with villains and that I didn't nessesarily think she'd be wrong for doing so.

---

Given that I've roleplayed with you, and have seen how your characters tend to deal with problems like that, I get the impression that the reason why involves a lot of threats and little tolerance for anything you find stupid? though that might just be one character in particular...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Raziere

Given that I've roleplayed with you, and have seen how your characters tend to deal with problems like that, I get the impression that the reason why involves a lot of threats and little tolerance for anything you find stupid? though that might just be one character in particular...

---

The girl is closer to a significantly more sane Android 10 than to Oxyribo.

Actually, Android 10 could be considered the same concept applied to the Dragonball setting and then exaggerated to its logical extreme.

The reason is that I believe in the Way of Parker: With Great Power, there must also come a Great Responsibility.

I can understand wanting to keep things super crime-fighting regulated, but strictly speaking, I find any law that would make it illegal for someone with special skills that could help save a live or protect someone to use those skills in such a situation to be inherently immoral. Even if the laws aren't enforced as strictly as they're given on paper, that doesn't really change the principal of the matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

The girl is closer to a significantly more sane Android 10 than to Oxyribo.

Actually, Android 10 could be considered the same concept applied to the Dragonball setting and then exaggerated to its logical extreme.

The reason is that I believe in the Way of Parker: With Great Power, there must also come a Great Responsibility.

I can understand wanting to keep things super crime-fighting regulated, but strictly speaking, I find any law that would make it illegal for someone with special skills that could help save a live or protect someone to use those skills in such a situation to be inherently immoral. Even if the laws aren't enforced as strictly as they're given on paper, that doesn't really change the principal of the matter

---

oh I get it, like your reasoning for why an omnipotent deity should be the most responsible being ever because of their omniscience, I gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

The girl is closer to a significantly more sane Android 10 than to Oxyribo.

Actually, Android 10 could be considered the same concept applied to the Dragonball setting and then exaggerated to its logical extreme.

The reason is that I believe in the Way of Parker: With Great Power, there must also come a Great Responsibility.

I can understand wanting to keep things super crime-fighting regulated, but strictly speaking, I find any law that would make it illegal for someone with special skills that could help save a live or protect someone to use those skills in such a situation to be inherently immoral. Even if the laws aren't enforced as strictly as they're given on paper, that doesn't really change the principal of the matter

---

See, I disagree with that stance.

If only because the capacity to help does not mean the knowledge, experience, or knowledge of how to properly help and not make the problem worse. So the idea of regulating something like that so only people who are trained in how to use their abilities and their consequences can use them in a crisis makes perfect sense to me. Especially since, with that training and license comes the knowledge that you accept full responsibility for what might happen. Because yeah, that's pretty damn important as well.

As romantic the idea of just leaping at the call to action and saving the day is, the likelihood of that being the result is not great. Especially once you throw in super powers. So, especially with LaZodiac's example, I don't mind regulations like that. Especially if you have some ability like...Bakugo's. Would you want someone NOT Bakugo, who has put a surprisingly large amount of effort knowing how to use explosions, to try and stop a mugging? Hell no, they're just as likely to blow up the mugger or themselves trying to help.

Every human with enough strength can potentially perform CPR. Not every human knows how to perform CPR. People who haven't been trained to perform CPR should not be performing CPR. Responding to an emergency situation should be treated with the same... dont remember the word at the moment, but let's say "reverence."

We even see this in the series- Uraraka was just going to float a bunch of rubble from a collapsed building without thinking about how the weight may shift (even though her parents work construction and she should at least have some working knowledge of demolition site protocol or whatver). And Gentle tried to bounce someone who was falling, interfered with a hero doing work, and ended up fouling up the whole thing.

So yes, people who aren't trained to do a certain job shouldn't just be allowed to do that because their quirk can potentially be useful. That being said, they should be allowed to use quirks to do normal civilian things, or without fear of running afoul of law enforcement.

Counterpoint: If you perform CPR on a person and save their life, would you want to go to prison because you're not a trained paramedic? Yeah, the police probably aren't going to enforce that, but for all you know maybe officer Hardass is on duty and he's a real stickler for the rules, even the ones that everyone else thinks are stupid.

I get it, actually rushing out to save the day is reckless and dumb and there are hero licenses and schools for this kind of thing for a reason.

But the way the laws are written, even if they are not enforced as strictly as they are presented on paper, it's kind of ridiculous how heavily restricted power usage actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Cribati

Every human with enough strength can potentially perform CPR. Not every human knows how to perform CPR. People who haven't been trained to perform CPR should not be performing CPR. Responding to an emergency situation should be treated with the same... dont remember the word at the moment, but let's say "reverence."

We even see this in the series- Uraraka was just going to float a bunch of rubble from a collapsed building without thinking about how the weight may shift (even though her parents work construction and she should at least have some working knowledge of demolition site protocol or whatver). And Gentle tried to bounce someone who was falling, interfered with a hero doing work, and ended up fouling up the whole thing.

So yes, people who aren't trained to do a certain job shouldn't just be allowed to do that because their quirk can potentially be useful. That being said, they should be allowed to use quirks to do normal civilian things, or without fear of running afoul of law enforcement.

---

Uraraka is also currently working AT a construction zone, gravitying objects so they can be carried up easier, so she should really REALLY know better.

Which is The ****ing Point. Even professionals make mistakes sometimes, imagine what your uneducated ass will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

Counterpoint: If you perform CPR on a person and save their life, would you want to go to prison because you're not a trained paramedic? Yeah, the police probably aren't going to enforce that, but for all you know maybe officer Hardass is on duty and he's a real stickler for the rules, even the ones that everyone else thinks are stupid.

I get it, actually rushing out to save the day is reckless and dumb and there are hero licenses and schools for this kind of thing for a reason.

But the way the laws are written, even if they are not enforced as strictly as they are presented on paper, it's kind of ridiculous how heavily restricted power usage actually is.

---

CPR when performed PROPERLY can and will break cones. Improper, uneducated use of CPR can be rather life threatening and will get your ass sued in addition to jail time, even if you save their life.

The restrictions on powers make perfect sense. You're allowed to defend yourself within reason (we see someone put up a barrier when I think the Resevoir Dogs attack, they don't get in trouble) and you're allowed to exist in public even if you look like a bird, which the laws as written that we're aware of would consider that quirk usage in public. There are definitely edge cases like Koichi's scooting around that should probably be looked at more stringently, but on the whole if you have a quirk that can be used destructively (which is basically all of them) you should never have a reason TO use it in public anyway. The law is there for the troublemakers.

Now yes, we can look at how Deku and friends got in trouble for fighting Stain... but part of that is because they are training to be heroes! They should DEFINITELY know better than to be breaking the law, and the fact that the dog cop went SO easy on them is definitely A Thing. It's important to also note that any of the attacks our heroes sent at him during that fight could have seriously injured or killed him, if not for Stain's own skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callos_DeTerran

See, I disagree with that stance.

If only because the capacity to help does not mean the knowledge, experience, or knowledge of how to properly help and not make the problem worse. So the idea of regulating something like that so only people who are trained in how to use their abilities and their consequences can use them in a crisis makes perfect sense to me. Especially since, with that training and license comes the knowledge that you accept full responsibility for what might happen. Because yeah, that's pretty damn important as well.

As romantic the idea of just leaping at the call to action and saving the day is, the likelihood of that being the result is not great. Especially once you throw in super powers. So, especially with LaZodiac's example, I don't mind regulations like that. Especially if you have some ability like...Bakugo's. Would you want someone NOT Bakugo, who has put a surprisingly large amount of effort knowing how to use explosions, to try and stop a mugging? Hell no, they're just as likely to blow up the mugger or themselves trying to help.

---

Agreed but simultaneously there is a tension where people with they knowledge and expertise are afraid to act but they do not realize they are afraid. Simultaneously there is a tension where the people with the power to make the world better ignore or oblivious to the sufferings in the world, and the people without knowledge and expertises see the problems but they are prohibited from acting.

These tensions are two of the key events in the story with Izuku running to save Bakugou from the Sludge Monster, and the backstory of Tomura Shigaraki / Shimura Tenko.

Note I am not saying there is a magical always right or always wrong answer. I am saying that societies are made based on choices and values that we choose, and when we make these "impressions" onto society, impressions onto individuals that there are subsequent tensions. What happens with these tensions? Sometimes they are resolved and sometimes they are crushed by society not given the light to be nurtured, forgotten, for society is a story that is told and we remember the story the survivors-bias allow us to tell of this story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaZodiac

Now yes, we can look at how Deku and friends got in trouble for fighting Stain... but part of that is because they are training to be heroes! They should DEFINITELY know better than to be breaking the law, and the fact that the dog cop went SO easy on them is definitely A Thing. It's important to also note that any of the attacks our heroes sent at him during that fight could have seriously injured or killed him, if not for Stain's own skill.

---

*Nods* we have to remember the 3 who fight Stain were not civilians, and they were not heroes. They were effectively "police academy cadets" who had 3 months of training at the point of the story. They know the rules and regulations better than anyone, and thus an example would be made on them for breaking the rules for it weakens trust in civilian people and the heroes when cadets break the law.

You can call this "scapegoating" if you like, but the 3 very much broke the established rules and procedures of being heroes, and they were not civilians who are allowed to use their powers for self-defense. Heroes in this Japan MHA society are given some latitude on breaking the proper rules and procedures in a crisis situation, but the also can have their hero licenses revoked after being heroes if their judgement and actions are considered to be faulty, much like how a medical board can revoke a doctor's license, or a state bar's association can disbar an attorney and no longer allow that lawyer to practice law in the state.

We have to remember that the rules and regulations for Japan's MHA hero system is a mixture of government actors like Police and Fire, but also non-governmental actors such as Doctors and Lawyers where the Doctors and Lawyers do not work for the state, but they have an association that is not part of the state that sets up rules and regulations and the Government says if you do not follow the associations rules and regulations what you are doing is illegal.

Seems like there should be countries with more or less controls, and you can move if you have a preference. A wildwest country where powers are open would suit a lot of people, just like a country with tight controls would suit others.

It might bear mentioning as well that iirc, in the canon of MHA, Japan was on the brink of near total societal collapse because of Quirks. It was bad enough that it set back technological development by decades, if not a century. It caused enough anarchy that people like the OG Shigaraki (All-For-One) were able to step in and consolidate societal and political power.

In response to this, the Japanese government, such as it was, had to lay down the law to create order. In jus post bellum (Justice After War) theory, the re-establishment of order is the first priority over every other concern because you can only effectively guarantee an equal dispensation of liberty through a structured order. At the time, the strict control over Quirks and SuperHeroism was necessary for restoring order.

Now there's some potential moral iffiness that could be coming up here - could All-for-One have supported the establishment of Hero Society so that he could control it from the shadows using instruments of political power? Quite possibly. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the law, but could be an effective argument for mild relaxation of the law, especially now that his influence has been sharply reduced.

I know we're treading a very thin line here in terms of being moderated, but that's just my two cents.

That depends. My mother is a nurse, and she brough home a First Aid workbook one day and I read through it when I was in the single digits. I don't have an official certification, but I technically know (likely outdated 20-year-old) techniques for dealing with all sorts of injuries, and in a pinch, I'll have a fair idea of what I was doing, and what to expect, should some happenstance require I perform CPR on a random stranger.

That's different from, say, someone who sees CPR on TV all the time and figures that they know how it's done from that, who is highly unlikely to actually help in a situation where someone needs CPR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Cribati

That depends. My mother is a nurse, and she brough home a First Aid workbook one day and I read through it when I was in the single digits. I don't have an official certification, but I technically know (likely outdated 20-year-old techniques) techniques for dealing with all sorts of injuries, and in a pinch, I'll have a fair idea of what I was doing, and what to expect, should some happenstance require I perform CPR on a random stranger.

That's different from, say, someone who sees CPR on TV all the time and figures that they know how it's done from that is highly unlikely to actually help in a situation where someone needs CPR.

---

I should clarify that was a royal "your uneducated ass" there, not directed at you specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaZodiac

I should clarify that was a royal "your uneducated ass" there, not directed at you specifically.

---

Oh, it took a space of about 5 posts for me to write that, so it wasn't really directed at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaZodiac

CPR when performed PROPERLY can and will break cones. Improper, uneducated use of CPR can be rather life threatening and will get your ass sued in addition to jail time, even if you save their life.

---

Assume you know what you're doing.

I'm not talking about reckless people doing dumb things.

I'm saying that if you happen to stumble across a situation where skills or abillities you can possess can be used to save a life, it should not be illegal for you to save a life.

If I have psychokinetic powers and use them to disarm a mugger, I did not put anyone at risk save maybe drawing the mugger's attention from his or her victim to myself. It should not be illegal for me to do that, should I happen to have come across a mugging in process.

Also... Good Samaritan laws. In a lot of places, you cannot be sued or charged for damage you caused while saving someone's life in an emergency situation.

Beyond that, if I can fly and want to do that instead of walking or driving places, as long as I'm high up enough to not hit pedestrians on the ground or interfere with street traffic and low enough that I don't risk getting sucked into a plane engine, It should not be illegal for me to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

Assume you know what you're doing.

I'm not talking about reckless people doing dumb things.

I'm saying that if you happen to stumble across a situation where skills or abillities you can possess can be used to save a life, it should not be illegal for you to save a life.

If I have psychokinetic powers and use them to disarm a mugger, I did not put anyone at risk save maybe drawing the mugger's attention from his or her victim to myself. It should not be illegal for me to do that, should I happen to have come across a mugging in process.

Also... Good Samaritan laws. In a lot of places, you cannot be sued or charged for damage you caused while saving someone's life in an emergency situation.

Beyond that, if I can fly and want to do that instead of walking or driving places, as long as I'm high up enough to not hit pedestrians on the ground or interfere with street traffic and low enough that I don't risk getting sucked into a plane engine, It should not be illegal for me to do so.

---

True, and it's not.

That really depends on what he's using. If it's a gun that's like, super risky. And ultimately even if you're skilled and have an idea of what you're doing, not being reckless, you're still BEING RECKLESS because ultimately you are not trained for this. Sure, you might have taken martial arts lessons or whatever, or in the case of quirks you might have a psychokinesis. It's still super risky to intercede yourself like that, regardless of your own skill level.

Good Samaritan laws do exist, but they're SO dicy and finicky that I'm pretty sure we can't even do more than say the name in this forum.

THAT is illegal because society is meant to be equal, not because it's dangerous. And really "if I fly in the right place it's okay" is exactly like someone like Iida saying "if it's a long distance and I can tell no one is there it's fine" or Bakugo saying it's okay if no one is around and he controls his explosions to not cause property damage. While that's all technically true, you can't actually guarantee nothing bad won't happen, so the world errs on the side of caution.

If I can fly, if I am born with the power to fly, then a law saying I can't fly instead of walking is inherently discriminatory.

Everyone else can use the limbs and means of locomotion the're born with to get around, why can't I? As long as I'm careful not to risk hurting anyone else the same way that other people are expected not to run on a crowded sidewalk or jaywalk.

They're not enforcing equality, they're discriminating against people born with wings or the ability to levitate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

If I can fly, if I am born with the power to fly, then a law saying I can't fly instead of walking is inherently discriminatory.

Everyone else can use the limbs and means of locomotion the're born with to get around, why can't I? As long as I'm careful not to risk hurting anyone else the same way that other people are expected not to run on a crowded sidewalk or jaywalk.

They're not enforcing equality, they're discriminating against people born with wings or the ability to levitate.

---

Again, I think there is some room for flexibility. Rural areas would allow a lot more leeway then urban ones, because tripping over each other is so much less likely. Bakugo can destroy a building in a city, but in the country on his own property the chance of damage is a lot lower. Flying on your own property is likely legal, with the issue that in a city you own very little property while on a farm you own a lot.

The same is true with a lot of issues. Where there is a lot of space and few people we need less restrictions, and the expectation that a superhero is going to get to your farm to protect you is wrong. In a city you need a lot of restrictions, and the heroes can get everywhere quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

If I can fly, if I am born with the power to fly, then a law saying I can't fly instead of walking is inherently discriminatory.

Everyone else can use the limbs and means of locomotion the're born with to get around, why can't I? As long as I'm careful not to risk hurting anyone else the same way that other people are expected not to run on a crowded sidewalk or jaywalk.

They're not enforcing equality, they're discriminating against people born with wings or the ability to levitate.

---

Like TVTyrant said, there is some leeway. You can use your wings, but in a city it'd be far too crowded to fly. The wind from your wing beats would disrupt people, and there's no reason to assume you're actually GOOD at flying so you might run into something, thus falling on them, or knock something off a building and make it land on someone. You might also get tired and disrupt or otherwise bother people when you land. It is for your own safety and for those of others that we ask you to walk like the rest of everyone who can walk.

This is probably the only thing I'll say about this subject for a multitude of reasons, but; in this scenario your wings are not being bound or de-feathered or anything. You're allowed to show them off, as long as you don't hurt people. You're just not allowed to fly unless you're professionally trained. That's it.

That is not discrimination. The law is saying that your Advantage cannot be used to put you ahead of others without it. That is literally the opposite of discrimination. Discrimination would be like, say if you were Tokoyami or Spinner, people saying you have to wear face concealing clothing since you look in-human. When the fence is too high, the short person gets something to see over it, not the other way around. I realize this might be hard to grasp, but if you have a skill or talent that makes you Better in some way, and you're asked not to use it because it's unfair to those that don't have it... you're the one being discriminatory.

I'll put it another why; Why do YOU get to fly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaZodiac

Like TVTyrant said, there is some leeway. You can use your wings, but in a city it'd be far too crowded to fly. The wind from your wing beats would disrupt people, and there's no reason to assume you're actually GOOD at flying so you might run into something, thus falling on them, or knock something off a building and make it land on someone. You might also get tired and disrupt or otherwise bother people when you land. It is for your own safety and for those of others that we ask you to walk like the rest of everyone who can walk.

This is probably the only thing I'll say about this subject for a multitude of reasons, but; in this scenario your wings are not being bound or de-feathered or anything. You're allowed to show them off, as long as you don't hurt people. You're just not allowed to fly unless you're professionally trained. That's it.

That is not discrimination. The law is saying that your Advantage cannot be used to put you ahead of others without it. That is literally the opposite of discrimination. Discrimination would be like, say if you were Tokoyami or Spinner, people saying you have to wear face concealing clothing since you look in-human. When the fence is too high, the short person gets something to see over it, not the other way around. I realize this might be hard to grasp, but if you have a skill or talent that makes you Better in some way, and you're asked not to use it because it's unfair to those that don't have it... you're the one being discriminatory.

I'll put it another why; Why do YOU get to fly?

---

That is like a dystopian Kurt Vonnegut novel waiting to happen. People get offered advantages like free food and apartments to make up for societal and personal differences, we don't blind people or smash their knee caps to enforce an arbitrary level of equality. Blocking someone's use of flight because it could be dangerous is one thing (flying into power lines or each other, etc), but so they don't overshadow none-flyers? There is no moral system I would want to be part of that enforces that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaZodiac

I'll put it another why; Why do YOU get to fly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tvtyrant

That is like a dystopian Kurt Vonnegut novel waiting to happen. People get offered advantages like free food and apartments to make up for societal and personal differences, we don't blind people or smash their knee caps to enforce an arbitrary level of equality. Blocking someone's use of flight because it could be dangerous is one thing (flying into power lines or each other, etc), but so they don't overshadow none-flyers? There is no moral system I would want to be part of that enforces that.

---

[tries to be mindful of the rules about politics, so I will keep this brief]

Kurt Vonnegut? Maybe, but I also think of other Sci-Fi / Fantasy writers from the same time.

What is the line from the satire movie version of Starship Troopers, "Citizens vs Civilians" or something? Citizens having more rights than Civilians for they participate in society in ways that Civilians do not?

Man that was a creepy movie in a way a teen may not understand why it is creepy but an adult would.

-----

I honestly think this conversation topic is going way too close to the board's rules on some topics we can't talk about due to politics, history, and religion.

Why dod I need special training to fly when other people don't need special training to walk?

A quirk isn't something separate from you. It is an inherant part of your body that you are born with and that your biology and psychology are built around.

If I have a quirk that gives me wings, it should be assumed that I can fly at least as well as I can walk, since both are equally natural for me.

Discrimination goes both ways. It is entirely possible to discriminate against people who have advantages Requiring me to get a special license to do something that I was literally born being capable of doing, something that does not innately harm other people, when other people are not prohibited from unlicensed use of their natural limbs for purposes of locomotion is discrimination.

Forbidding a man with wings from flying isn't enforcing equality. If it was about equallity they'd be giving people who can't fly jetpacks or personal helicopters on the government's dime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramza00

[tries to be mindful of the rules about politics, so I will keep this brief]

Kurt Vonnegut? Maybe, but I also think of other Sci-Fi / Fantasy writers from the same time.

What is the line from the satire movie version of Starship Troopers, "Citizens vs Civilians" or something? Citizens having more rights than Civilians for they participate in society in ways that Civilians do not?

Man that was a creepy movie in a way a teen may not understand why it is creepy but an adult would.

-----

I honestly think this conversation topic is going way too close to the board's rules on some topics we can't talk about due to politics, history, and religion.

---

I'm really interested in where the Hawks storyline is going. Double agents always live the most dangerous lives, I'm not sure if they will kill him or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

A quirk isn't something separate from you. It is an inherant part of your body that you are born with and that your biology and psychology are built around.

---

It seems that certain types of people are more attracted to the Liberation Army philosophy. Ones that gain new senses, one that gain new ways to interact with the world, ones who quirk use is part of their personality as an animating force. Not all quirks are the same and what seems reasonable to one person may not seem reasonable to another for the quirk literally shapes one's perceptions and values some of the time, a quirk can literally shape how one moves through reality both material and social.

Lots of tension here, tension that is released but also tension that is build up and never gets a release if the status quo remains the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

Why dod I need special training to fly when other people don't need special training to walk?

A quirk isn't something separate from you. It is an inherant part of your body that you are born with and that your biology and psychology are built around.

If I have a quirk that gives me wings, it should be assumed that I can fly at least as well as I can walk, since both are equally natural for me.

Discrimination goes both ways. It is entirely possible to discriminate against people who have advantages Requiring me to get a special license to do something that I was literally born being capable of doing, something that does not innately harm other people, when other people are not prohibited from unlicensed use of their natural limbs for purposes of locomotion is discrimination.

Forbidding a man with wings from flying isn't enforcing equality. If it was about equallity they'd be giving people who can't fly jetpacks or personal helicopters on the government's dime.

---

But if you get to fly, why don't I get to rocket-jump?
Creating explosive blasts is just as natural to me.:smalltongue:

That's why just using your quirk is forbidden.
Some of them are dangerous.

I would guess those laws originated either when quirks first emerged or in the aftermath of the resulting dark age.
They just never were changed after.
Probably cause they work well enough and because changing stuff means work.

Basically, a blanket ban on using powers is easier than to determinate where the lines should be drawn.
Especially if such a ban already exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantaki

But if you get to fly, why don't I get to rocket-jump?
Creating explosive blasts is just as natural to me.:smalltongue:

---

Because unlike you, I don't actually need special training to avoid killing people or destroying property with my power?

Flying with wings is like walking. Natural. Instinctual.

Rocket jumping is an applied skill that needs to be learned.

It's the differance between walking down the street and cartwheeling down the street. The first one, you can genuinely assume he knows what he's doing. The second, if he doesn't have lots of training and practices the best-case scenario is he only hurts himself.

Quote:

---

Counterpoint: If you perform CPR on a person and save their life, would you want to go to prison because you're not a trained paramedic? Yeah, the police probably aren't going to enforce that, but for all you know maybe officer Hardass is on duty and he's a real stickler for the rules, even the ones that everyone else thinks are stupid.

---

Quote:

---

CPR when performed PROPERLY can and will break cones. Improper, uneducated use of CPR can be rather life threatening and will get your ass sued in addition to jail time, even if you save their life.

---

Oh god!
What sort of hellish dystopia do you live in, where you can get sued for performing CPR? :smallconfused:
I mean, when you need it, then you need it BADLY. And compared to the result of missing CPR, broken bones are a rather minor case.
Well.. im glad to live in a place where thats not the case. We straight up get first aid courses, to ensure everyone has a general idea of what to do.

Quote:

---

Why dod I need special training to fly when other people don't need special training to walk?

A quirk isn't something separate from you. It is an inherant part of your body that you are born with and that your biology and psychology are built around.

If I have a quirk that gives me wings, it should be assumed that I can fly at least as well as I can walk, since both are equally natural for me.

Discrimination goes both ways. It is entirely possible to discriminate against people who have advantages Requiring me to get a special license to do something that I was literally born being capable of doing, something that does not innately harm other people, when other people are not prohibited from unlicensed use of their natural limbs for purposes of locomotion is discrimination.

Forbidding a man with wings from flying isn't enforcing equality. If it was about equallity they'd be giving people who can't fly jetpacks or personal helicopters on the government's dime.

---

Why do you need special training to drive or ride a motorbike? Why are you not allowed to ride a bike on the sidewalk?
But your right its not about equality. Its about safety and order.
In part because we -cant- assume that just because you have wings, then you will be able to fly with flawless maneuverability.
I mean, we have people born with legs, who cant walk properly. And there are a lot more things who can go wrong while flying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tvtyrant

That is like a dystopian Kurt Vonnegut novel waiting to happen. People get offered advantages like free food and apartments to make up for societal and personal differences, we don't blind people or smash their knee caps to enforce an arbitrary level of equality. Blocking someone's use of flight because it could be dangerous is one thing (flying into power lines or each other, etc), but so they don't overshadow none-flyers? There is no moral system I would want to be part of that enforces that.

---

Eeh, fair. I was probably thinking a little extreme there.

Basically what I'm saying is that as someone who would probably not have wings, I'd feel kinda ****ty about the guy getting to fly around (and likely banging into **** if he's not properly trained on how to fly)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rater202

Why dod I need special training to fly when other people don't need special training to walk?

A quirk isn't something separate from you. It is an inherant part of your body that you are born with and that your biology and psychology are built around.

If I have a quirk that gives me wings, it should be assumed that I can fly at least as well as I can walk, since both are equally natural for me.

Discrimination goes both ways. It is entirely possible to discriminate against people who have advantages Requiring me to get a special license to do something that I was literally born being capable of doing, something that does not innately harm other people, when other people are not prohibited from unlicensed use of their natural limbs for purposes of locomotion is discrimination.

Forbidding a man with wings from flying isn't enforcing equality. If it was about equallity they'd be giving people who can't fly jetpacks or personal helicopters on the government's dime.

---

Because walking is a natural human skill. You're still human even if you have a quirk. Flying is WAY more complicated than you think, even if you can do it basically from birth, and I'd expect some level of personal responsibility to learn how to properly navigate in the air if you expect to fly around and risk hitting street lights and ****.

Flying is an inherently different thing from flying and unless your parents ALSO fly, I wouldn't assume you have the mastery of flight. Hell, even regular people walking tend to cause issues, flying would just be too much in my eyes.

Eh, that's fair. I'll admit, like above, that I was probably going a bit too hard on my counter to all this. I just think in a realistic scenario, banning flight unless you have a licences makes sense to me. Too many, for example, bicyclists, end up dead or worse because THAT doesn't require a licence, and I'd feel the same level of issues would happen.