Comments on: Poll Position: Character issues

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:49:20 +0000

@Kalkin– I apologize for misunderstanding you, so now the question is: how do you figure his genetics alter the way he responds to a moral dilemma? The reason we have to over-rule Pre-Crisis is because Kal-L is a different variation from Kal-El. Their history, their story, even their powers. And if you wish to use Pre-Crisis as your sole argument then which version: Golden Age or Silver Age? Mr. Peterson was right, Golden Age Superman responded to the common criminal much differently than Silver Age or Post Crisis. In fact, both Silver and Post would be dismayed on how Golden handled them. Believe me, I find your theory interesting…but to a point. You have a task ahead of you to prove your assertion that Superman is incapable of moral choice.

By: Kalkin

Kalkin — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:04:09 +0000

No, no, no, Joshua, I didn’t say that Superman’s morality was genetic based. I said that genetics produces his single-mindedness with which he practises it. You totally misunderstood me. And what is this crap about pre-crisis not counting? Everything counts, man.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:42:48 +0000

First…a PSA from yours truly: Microsoft Windows, from coast-to-coast, you blaze across screens providing PC users with a supposed easy-to-use operating system. Operative word: easy. You are on notice for failing to comply. I leave that notice here because I had written an extensive post and you, Microsoft, decided to reboot the system for a Windows update. That post was erased from existence. It felt what Marty McFly felt at the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. Microsoft…you’ve been warned.

Now, let me make two brief points: 1). Jeff– You’re right, the whole Clark/Superman/Lois love triangle is mighty odd. Alias or not, had that been me I could NOT do that to the woman I love. And I’m married, so even with powers if I decided to keep that secret from my wife…she would enact the most dreaded vengeance known to married men: the Silent Treatment and No Sex. 2). Kalkin– Sir, I must ask you provide a source to back up your assertion that Superman has some genetic disposition to his morality. Pre-Crisis does NOT count. Elseworlds doesn’t count, because for every Superman raised evil but ends up good story out there, there is a counter to it, like Red Son for instance. The Kent’s deserve a lot of credit for ‘Clark Kent’. I await your reply, sir.

By: Kalkin

Kalkin — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:00:32 +0000

Oh, one more addition to the previous: It is my theory that Supermans single-mindedness is caused by exposure to the yellow sunlight. Just like his flesh becomes impervious to external hits under yellow sun, his mind becomes also impervious to external ideas and alternative paths of reasoning. Under red sun he might be more flexible in his choices like normal people.

By: Kalkin

Kalkin — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:48:19 +0000

The Kent family is being given far too much credit as super morality developers. The world is full of “good” families with human kids that still grow crooked despite straight backed background. It is Supermans genetic makeup that allows him to follow his “good” code with such single-mindedness. The Kent were just the ones to supply the code. If Superman had been adopted by the Manson family, he’d pursue “evil” code with similar vigour.

When Superman agonizes over moral choices he agonizes over difficulties caused by following his code. I don’t recall him ever considering just dropping the code and doing something else. It’s never an option – the only exception being #222 and that was under very, veeeery exceptional circumstances.

By: Jeff Hebert

Jeff Hebert — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:43:33 +0000

So would it make a difference to you all if they were just dating and not married? Or even, whatever it is they’re doing, since they’re not really “dating” in the comics — he just saves her life on a daily basis while she rejects his alter ego and he fools her about who he actually is.

You know, when you think about it, their relationship is a weird kind of chastity mixed with dishonesty …

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:06:03 +0000

Mr. Peterson, that’s what I’ve been trying to get across this whole time: Superman is not a perfect being and when he commits to doing what’s right it’s not because he’s forced to by some type of genetic predisposition, but because he chooses to do what’s right (…and you’re right: it IS because of the Kent’s). Am I wrong here? I believe the argument was that Superman never has a choice in these matters and will ALWAYS do the right thing. I disagreed and used Superman #222 to show that he will actually make the WRONG choice at times (…or wrong by his own standards). Oh, and Golden-Age Superman? He’d put the “god-damned Batman” to shame

By: knight1192

knight1192 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:51:08 +0000

William, I must disagree that there is a differnce. We hold celebrities to a different standard than we do normal folks, a higher standard. But nobody can possibly live up to such high standards, not even superheroes. We expect so much of celebrities and are ready to jump all over gossip, any kind whether it’s good or bad, that they can not live their lives in peace. And then when they are not what we expect or they do something we think they couldn’t possibly do because of this false image we have of them, we either rush to their defense shouting their being wrongfully maligned by the press or we’re disillusioned and quick to tear them down.

As for above the law, consider that there really are double standards for celebrities and normal people that essentially put them above the law too often. Crimes of lesser offense could land us in jail for six months to a year and we’ll have to serve out that time. The same exact crime commited by a celeb can land them with thirty days and their back out on the street after only serving ten. They are far more likely to get away with just a slap on the wrist. If they commit murder they may face the same treatment as we do or they may get off largely scott free just because of who they are.

By: William A. Peterson

William A. Peterson — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:57:04 +0000

Knight, there’s a difference between Tiger Woods, and Superman… in fact, there’s several!
First, Tiger is a celebrity, not a Superhero!
As Superman will point out, Superheroes MUST be held to a higher standard…
They ask to be held above the law, and they have powers and abilities that allow them to escape, or evade, the law, often with impugnity!
Tiger, if he should try to rob a bank with the aid of trick Golf Clubs, could still be shot to death while resisting arrest…

By: William A. Peterson

William A. Peterson — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:53:57 +0000

Joshua, Superman was never morally *perfect*!
Heck, in his early runs, he would beat people up for cutting in on Lois when CLARK was trying to dance with her!
He is, however, the best there is in that Universe, among the Supers, at least…
He may not be Human, but he is Mortal, and thus prone to the occasional mistake.
His morality derives from his upbringing, not his genetic code…
Notice, most other Kryptonians think he’s a bit flakey!
As for that ONE issue, the whole point of that issue was to break the general rule…
Blame the scriptwriters, if you must, but not the character!