Mr_Grey

Alright... I will accept this explanation... Though I recommend you reevaluate your methods.

Fascism is military control to promote order. It has been most often employed through methods that infringe upon the freedom of the people. However, it was also used in the novel Starship Troopers as the government of the world, a military government that enforced the simple law of "All is legal, so long as nobody is harmed."

Social Darwinism is its own philosophy, free of political constraint. It's about the changes and evolution of a society, not about how that change is controlled. While it can certainly be utilized in the control of social change, it encompasses so much more than that and is utilized by far more than just a number of fascist movements. It's been utilized by Democratic and economic powers just as easily.

Also, I don't feel my opinion is elitist at all. The evidence exists that there is no good associated with incest, and the overwhelming public opinion is that it is wrong, across races and genders. In fact, it's the elite who are typically renowned for practicing the behavior due to ludicrous notions of purity...

Then you failed considerably through the utility of a Strawman argument. My opinion in this matter does not dictate my opinion any further than in this matter. It may have influential repercussions with other notions in my life, and is itself influenced by other notions in my life, but such is true of any matter of philosophy.

Also, just because my opinion was utilized by fascists is no reason for me to reconsider it. If anything, it's proof that I need to be careful with the application of my philosophy.

I can voice my displeasure of behavior as much as I like. I never said I would start shooting people in the streets for doing behavior I feel is questionable.

Marcian Tobay mentioned this as well, and it is a VERY good point.

We don't really know what "...in all capacities..." means. It is generally assumed, however, given the name "Dominatrix" and the peculiar appearance of her minions (for now, anyway), that the relationship is much more than professional. It is generally assumed that it's a perverse sexual relationship.

Other players have brought up the "Do we really know if she's Tyrant's granddaughter?" argument. Considering the fact that pretty much every other Praetorian is a direct analogue, I don't see it as too far-fetched that Dominatrix is a direct analogue to Ms. Liberty, complete with all the familial associations.

I'm thinking it was started as a bit of a joke... As I said before, it was supposed to be a vaguely worded example of how depraved they are, and a final testament to how much of a lost cause Tyrant is...

However... It seems that with City of Villains, a lot of the roles the Praetorians played have been reappropriated. Sure, Dominatrix has the fetish minions, leather outfit and her bull whip, but Silver Mantis is the one people think of when it comes to fetish behavior. Compared to how over-the-top Silver Mantis is, Dominatrix is a kitten.

And the worst thing Tyrant directly does is capture Statesman in Hero's Hero. He fights you a little, shouts about how you "stand before a king" or some other clap-trap, then runs from the fight before you can really beat him. This is not the behavior of a brutal man... At least Lord Recluse stands and fights to the bitter end, even if he calls in his own brainwashed horde to cut you down when he feels threatened. And Recluse has actually constructed and/or implemented his schemes to conquer the world. Tyrant... Tyrant captured Statesman, went "Who the Devil are you?" when you showed up, then seems to have sequestered himself in his world so he could repair it from whatever cataclysm happened in his world.

This issue we've been discussing, the question of whether or not he sleeps with his own granddaughter, is the only sticking point for me. It would be the sticking point for a lot of people. If we have to work for these two maniacs, there are probably going to be a lot of people who look at the relationship and go "Oh... Hell no!"

Well, I don't see why we would have to divorce it from superheroes... I think the only meta humans we've mentioned connected to the situation thus far have been Tyrant and Dominatrix, but otherwise the conversation has been in the abstract for the most part... Still, I digress...

Now THIS is a conundrum!

I can be pretty sure that most people would look askance at a situation like this... Most would think the two young men are sick in the head...

Me, I'd say they're being lazy... They'll probably make local headlines, but they won't get much further than that. If their family doesn't have one or both committed, they're just going to fade into obscurity, anyway.

As for my opinion, I remain against it. I can't abide other forms of incest, I wouldn't feel comfortable if I supported this kind. However... It is a better illustration of "consensual and not hurting anybody..."

Oog... Just imagine that coming out scenario... I figure their mother would be VERY upset.

My annoyance ebbs and flows in this discussion. Sometimes, it feels like my conviction is being prodded. Other times, I'm getting stones thrown at me, like "You disagree with incest!? DICTATOR! TYRANT! MONSTER!" to which I can only arch my eyebrow at the post and say "Where the Hell is all of this coming from?"

Now, I'm having trouble determining the academic importance of the debate, but I'm certain that's because I'm emotionally involved. I'm strongly opposed to incestuous relationships, of all kinds, and for the basic reason of "historically, it has led to extremely damaged families." The idea of somebody defending it strikes me as unsettling and, quite frankly, disgusting.

However... As the debate does further the interest of a person making up their own mind on the situation, I have very little against it (even if there are portions which are clearly attacking my character and not actually engaged in debate). It has been informative, clarifying, and involved.

If I were truly upset by what I thought was an argument that would go round-and-round in circles with a group of mindless blowhards, I would simply wander away and find something more engaging.

Funny. My assumption is that Tyrant abused or manipulated her into her current demented and depraved state.

Of course, it's not like we really do have a lot of story to work with on that one. I'm going by the fact that, up until now, he was an evil *******, the opposite of his fine, upstanding alternate in Prime Earth, and that his relationship with Dominatrix was supposed to be the final nail in the coffin to show how far gone he was. I'm assuming that Dominatrix is downright warped and insane, leaping into a situation like this because, frankly, her moral compass is smashed to crap.

But then, they're supposed to be "rebooted..." So maybe this won't even be an issue later...

Of course, if that's the case, I still demand the current Praetorian missions and arcs be changed to reflect the change... But I'm pretty certain that's not going to happen.

Funny, Golden.

I'm not laughing, but it's funny.

Hey, I have astigmatism, and a lazy eye. What am I to base my rejection of this ludicrous juxtaposition? Are you going to assume I'm biased because of this?

So, I'm to be faced with more absolutism? I can't be inconsistent if I'm absolute, but I'm being told that there are no absolutes.

I abhor a behavior has led to offspring who are insane or are so deformed they can't even chew food. What is so difficult about this?

Must I apply an exacting standard across the board? Why would you try to paint me as a tyrant because I would exact punishing retribution on a man who abuses his offspring?

Frankly, I'm starting to think this "debate" has run its course.

All you've really gleaned out of it is that I abhor incest, and I've had to defend myself from people I am surprised take issue with that.

EDIT: And NO! They are NOT similar acts. They have similar risks, but are not similar acts. One of them has a crucial detail missing, in that they're not relatives! You have seen my reactions thus far, and I have given my answers.

...

*shudder*

That makes a sick amount of sense...

You have to remember something, though...

Our Hamidon got the way it did by tricking the Woodsman, tearing him apart and using his power to augment itself.

In Praetorian Earth, Shadowhunter wasn't nearly so naive.

Their Hamidon might be an entirely different "animal," and their "Big Raid" threat could be something entirely different from the normal tack.

I've used it before in other arguments only to find I felt unsatisfied with the end result.

Then I realized I normally argued semantics simply because I couldn't find a logical retort. I'm not saying that's the idea here ("nerds" are wont to argue semantics and specification, largely because they're trying to be sure of exactly what they're talking about), but the focus on semantics still draws away from the topic at hand.

A little of both, really. The behavior has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to human progress, indeed to the progress of many creatures (animal breeders don't like to breed relative animals because of this risk; purebred Dalmations are a good example, as it is getting increasingly rare to acquire one that is free of maladies), so I have trouble understanding how anybody can see it as proper behavior.

As for referring to it as a sin, I personally see the behavior as an affront to humanity and society. It is the pinnacle of isolationism and ignorance, as the family is hoarded to itself in the interest of some unsettling ideal of "purity." I may be using an overly too serious word, but I can only think of saying aberrant, abhorrent and reprehensible (oh wait, I haven't used that one, yet) so often.

You know, now that I'm forced to the point, yes, I have trouble with parents who are clearly diseased creating children. It strikes me as torturous to the child and extremely irresponsible. Roughly the same chance exists between the scenarios that the child will come out perfectly alright, and that's not a very high chance at all.

However... As the gene pool of a line is further diversified, the congenital defects and disorders stand a better chance of fading from the line. Such chances for improvement don't occur with an incestuous family line.

So, I still have less of a problem with genetically hindered parents having children than I do with an incestuous relationship. Both are a gamble, but at least the generally traditional relationship is still working toward improvement, while the other is a stagnating gene pool.

I'll forgive the assumption, for I am not a Christian. You made an astute educated guess there, but I do not practice any denominational faith.

The closest faith I could be associated with would probably be Buddhism, but I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist because I don't follow any of the ritual or specific teachings. I really am a "live and let live" sort of person, but there are a few things that I simply cannot abide. Children and family are sacred to me, and it bothers me to see either abused.

Just because I shirk some teachings does not mean I have learned nothing from life. If I had to take an "all or nothing" approach to my education, I would have had to learn about the Moon Landing while at the same time internalizing the conspiracy theories that the Moon Landing was faked. I would have had to learn about the Holocaust while reading up on racist theories that it never happened. Barring all of this, I would sit in my house and stare at a blank wall until I forgot how to breathe.

There are practical reasons why I shirk the precedents and philosophies of the past while embracing more modern ones. We learned over time that those concepts proved themselves false as they devastated the people practicing them. Others were proven monstrous by their sheer audacity and lack of respect for their fellow human beings.

I like to think I adhere to the progressive lines of thinking, and anytime I hear about incestuous behavior it only strikes me as holding back progress (evolutionary or otherwise). It also strikes me as deeply manipulative and reeks of greed. As I said before, parents are supposed to be educating their children to survive in the world, not abusing their authority over them for their own gratification. Characters who embody this as one of their defining qualities are lost causes to me, for they are given wholly over to depravity in my eyes.

You are refuting my method, not my concept or opinion. I'm certainly feeling assaulted as a result. A debate is between concepts and ideas. You simply provided me with the opposing logical infallibility of "Oh yeah, well maybe some people DO think it's alright."

Well of course some people think it's alright! That doesn't change my opinion of them, either.

My method may be flawed, but that doesn't do anything to change my argument.


I'm told not to deal in absolutes, and am now presented with an absolute: That if I can't accept some social precedents I can't accept any.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What I'm seeing in this "debate" is a bunch of people poking fun at a few words because they don't encompass EVERY eventuality. When that's not the case, I get this kind of stretching, as if it changes anything. You're arguing semantics while you understand the message. Don't like that the wording is exactly right? Tough. An opposing opinion isn't always going to measure up to exacting standards.

What aggravates me is that we're not discussing the opinions, but the exact wording, and I feel we're missing the point when it comes to that. It's wasting time and it's not dealing with the issue...

Plus, it tells me you can't come up with a proper way to defend your opposing point of view. You provide examples of it happening throughout history (which illustrated the fallibility of my absolute on its own, but you kept hamming on that like it was important), but the examples are shot down by the weight of their own end results. They illustrate my point just as readily.

The other argument I was given was one of "Well, he did this nice stuff for us, so we should allow him his depravity..."

That's like letting a serial child killer off the hook because he helped build a hospital. Yeah, he helped build the hospital, but he'll still be killing kids... And we could have still built the hospital without him.

You do not redeem yourself just to keep doing the horrible things you do. This is why I don't understand Confession. You are what you do, and if you're sleeping with your offspring, and you're increasing the propensity for recessive traits and follow-up defects, you're just spreading what's wrong in you.

Well, that's reassuring... Be wary that the people around you don't take advantage of your trusting nature. Your attitude is a good one to have when heads are getting hot.

There are worse things in the world than murder. I always thought it strange that maiming isn't regarded as serious a crime. If anything it's worse, you have deformed or crippled somebody for life, but "hey, at least you didn't kill him..."

Except the Hebrews and anybody with an ounce of sense who realized "Hey, Pharaohs DIE!" But hey, let's gloss over that fact...

Since none of us are perfect, those recessive traits are going to wind up pretty damn prevalent, and they have. Lo and behold, defects followed.

"If only I had the guns, I'd shoot them all myself."

I'll claim ethnocentrism in this issue proudly if this is the only concept with which to judge me. I'll spit in God's eye and march proudly into Hell to stab the Devil I find there if this is what I am to be condemned for.

You're not debating with me. You're trying to make me feel bad because "Oh no! I insulted somebody who sleeps with their grandchild!" It's not even a real person.

You haven't given me a proper argument, either. You demand that I shouldn't deal in absolutes... Yes, I know that.

"All generalizations are false, including this sentence."

Good phrase. It illustrates that I was wrong for saying "nobody ever supported incest." Of course, at the same time, that doesn't mean it's been universally accepted, either, and those that accept it remain in the severe minority.

It's essentially all I've been given. Even when "Well, royalty did it..." was brought up, it was also pointed out that they wound up with defective offspring down the line, which I feel negates the argument.


Some sins are unforgivable. This is one of my few lines in the stone that I feel is absolute. I will not support a monster just because he provides a convenience.

Your disagreeing with me does not make me condemn you. I can't judge you by what you say, but what you do, and I don't know you or your works.

I guess I'll just have to live with the knowledge that you think I'm a terrible person.

And I can guarantee you that the people of Egypt were laughing behind their backs all the while.

The Egyptian pharaohs may have demanded worship, but I'm certain the people were wondering just what the Hell was wrong with their leadership when they were out of sight.

By "Give the 'Okay...'" I mean that they would shrug their shoulders when the U.S. nuked the bejaybus out of the Isles. Only the Villains know it's not a complete wasteland. The rest of the world looks at the Etoiles as a hive of scum and villainy.

SPOILER... They're human, too. I have severe doubts that their whole civilization had spent their generations sleeping with their children and grandchildren, nor do I believe that their civilization currently does.

Again, the genetic defect problem arises in such an instance. The deformities that would arise in a society where such a thing is acceptable could bring ruin to a nation.

I stand by my conviction. Parents and grandparents shouldn't be trying to abuse their children and grandchildren. They should be educating them and guiding them so they may make proper decisions in their futures.

Asexuality doesn't explain your playing Devil's Advocate in this instance. Even if it were just for pleasure, there are others they can turn to for such gratification. Also, pleasure intercourse still runs the risk of pregnancy and infection, so defects remain relevant (Tyrant strikes me as the sort to vehemently demand the keeping of a child; at least, on some whims...).

And it DOES harm people. LOOK at Dominatrix's minions. They are a byproduct of her depraved mental state, which is likely a result-in-part of her implied activity with Tyrant. Considering what those people have to go through to become that way, and the likelihood that they are NOT all volunteers, you cannot tell me with any solid percentage of certainty that nobody is being harmed.


Challenging a social and physical taboo, but supporting a piece of propaganda...

People never believe they're the bad guys. They NEVER believe they're in the wrong. Convincing them of the notion is one of the most difficult tasks on the planet.

Stalin sincerely believed that what he was doing was in the best interests for his nation... Not his people, not his regime, but his nation. He wholly believed that what he was doing was the right thing to do, otherwise he wouldn't have done it.

But you're challenging an example. The main argument was that no one person can maintain "control and order" on a world where free will is ALWAYS a factor. Don't confuse having to weight the consequences of your actions with a lack of free will. You can always decide to do what you know will cause problems in the immediate and even far future.

I have received little reassurance that he's not the monster as depicted in the "previous incarnation" of the Praetorians. Frankly, I was hoping for the simple words "Hero's Hero will be updated accordingly to reflect these changes" or other phrases to that effect, and have been met with shrugs.

Only if they're removed or updated to reflect the changes. Otherwise, their "previous behavior" remains a mark upon their history, and they should be held accountable for their actions.

If the Praetorians in Hero's Hero (and the preceding arc) were to be updated and changed, then I would have less of a problem with "Tyrant and Company." A retcon is supposed to encompass the WHOLE history of the character, not just what the writer wants changed at that moment. If this is the true history of the Praetorians, then we need the previous incarnation changed to reflect that.

And I defy you to provide me an example where incest wasn't considered wrong by the populace.

Most plants can reproduce with themselves, but they do their damnedest to avoid it. I would think animals with cognition would have at least as much sense.

Yes. Yes I would.

I don't do that. Just about every civilization throughout history has abhorred that. Instances of it happening throughout history are always instances of deviance committed by the insane, those abusing their power, or a combination of the two. The examples would not pose as positive depictions of your argument.

One would need to be completely morally void to entertain your notion with any seriousness. Even with a passing understanding of biology, one would know the propensity for defects in such a pairing.

Stalin wanted peace and stability. Does that mean we can excuse him for the mass executions and the gulags?

It's not what a man intends. It's what he does. That goes for women, too.

Want to see a world without war? Aim a telescope at Venus or Mars. Mercury, too. Pluto, Neptune, Uranus... There's one thing each of these worlds has in common... They are devoid of sentient life.

To accomplish the same thing on Praetorian Earth, a planet that essentially had the same history as Prime Earth until Marcus Cole gained his powers, and keep sentient life going, Tyrant would have had to do some drastic things (hence the assumption that all potential usurpers have been eliminated, if not reindoctrinated). We have the "Hamidon story" to explain how he was able to come to power, but it's a story that seems fishy (especially since their Hamidon doesn't have the power of the Huntsman to back itself up).

When one is accused with the notion that "the ends justify the means," it is NOT a positive accusation. It's a phrase that questions the price paid for a product that could easily not be what it appears to be.

In the current incarnations of the Praetorians, we've been shown depraved individuals who have done terrible, terrible things. They have laid waste to their world(s), and have shown not only a lack of remorse, but glee and satisfaction with their actions and behavior. They abuse their power and their positions of authority.

Nineteen Eighty-Four taught us to look for these signs. I believe George Orwell would be disturbed by how quickly people are willing to bow down to it all.

I really hate to disagree with you, Abrahms, but considering the implication of the relationship between Tyrant and Dominatrix (as evidenced by her description), I'm more inclined to believe he truly is a Complete Monster and that this whole whitewashed world really is only a few years old...

They do have a psychic network led by Mayhem to police the thoughts of the populace, after all. Perhaps this whole background is a lie cooked up by Tyrant and his cronies in the past year or so to solidify their rule.

But then, we haven't had a chance to see it in person yet. Speculation may be fun, but it's ultimately pointless.

Wouldn't Praetorian Fusionette be evil?

That would make her there to KILL YOU, and she'd be coldly efficient about it, too.