My Hero Academia 3: Villainous Interlude

[Alabenson]

Regarding police and quirks;
As I understand it, what happened was when quirks first started appearing the police weren't allowed to use them because pre-quirk law didn't account for people having superpowers. Then, before the laws could be changed you started having vigilantes show up to deal with superpowered criminals. As a result, instead of updating the law to allow police to use their quirks the focus was put on regulating heroes, gradually creating a system where you have traditional police who aren't allowed to use quirks focusing on investigative work, and heroes trained to use their quirks for actually fighting criminals.

Basically, society and the role of police changed faster than laws could be updated and the current situation is the result.

[John Cribati]

The quirk regulation laws include a social contract where everyone agrees in general not to use their quirks in public. That includes the cops.

It's implied by Uraraka that you can get licensed to use your quirk in specific situations related to your occupation, and the Pro-Hero license is basically that but moreso- Gran Torino said as much at one point. This, by the way, is why there literally can't be a quirkless Pro-Hero. The Hero License is basically "you're allowed to use your quirk without restriction" so there is no point in giving one to a quirkless person. All Might could have led with that when Deku asked...

[LaZodiac]

The quirk regulation laws include a social contract where everyone agrees in general not to use their quirks in public. That includes the cops.

It's implied by Uraraka that you can get licensed to use your quirk in specific situations related to your occupation, and the Pro-Hero license is basically that but moreso- Gran Torino said as much at one point. This, by the way, is why there literally can't be a quirkless Pro-Hero. The Hero License is basically "you're allowed to use your quirk without restriction" so there is no point in giving one to a quirkless person. All Might could have led with that when Deku asked...

It'd be more that the Hero License gives you free reign to do vigilante work, which just happens to ALSO let you use your quirk. So bringing that up wouldn't matter, and wouldn't be a good way to start that conversation.

Also let's be fair people. Just because they can't legally do it doesn't mean they actually... follow that. Some cops definitely use their quirks in secret.

[Lemmy]

Also let's be fair people. Just because they can't legally do it doesn't mean they actually... follow that. Some cops definitely use their quirks in secret.

It does indeed look like there's a lot of leniency to people using their quirks... Unless you use them for crime, of course.

[Rater202]

Ok and I can get that this might be a rule but.... why? Why is it a rule that police, who have to be trained to do their job anyway, cant also be trained to use their quirk in a responsible manner while doing their job? Thats just freaking bizarre. Is it some hold over from the previous generations when quirks were still new and not everywhere and the laws havent changed to match the times there yet? Or is it just that if cops could use their quirks it would kinda obviate the need for hero agencies and thus shut down the entire freaking point of the show? That citizens cant use their quirks to harm others makes sense, that you need extensive training to be allowed to use it as a hero makes sense. That cops cant use them? No sense. There is literally zero reason why cops cant be trained to use their powers. There are already who knows how many schools dedicated to teaching people how to use their quirks to be heroes, setting up one to teach cops to use their quirks should be no different. Its honestly a bit of a plot hole. Yeah you can try to paper over it with justifications but its still a plot hole.

The laws in MHA are designed to restrict quirk-use in order to maintain the current societal status quo and "stability" at the expense of people's rights to use their natural inborn abilities.

We've previously had an argument where I pointed out that someone who can fly as well as he can walk and doesn't put the people around him in danger when he's flying any more than someone who is walking does need a license to fly becuase "he might fly in front of a helicopter" even though everyone else is told "don't run into traffic" as is trusted not to run into traffic.

If you don't need a license to walk, you shouldn't need a license to fly, but in MHA it doesn't matter that this is a natural ability that you've had all your life and is as natural as breathing, you don't get to fly unless you're a professional hero. You're not allowed to fly to the office to save money on gas.

The Meta Liberation Army got its members from somewhere. They can't all have started out as power supremacists.

[John Cribati]

We've previously had an argument where I pointed out that someone who can fly as well as he can walk and doesn't put the people around him in danger when he's flying any more than someone who is walking does need a license to fly becuase "he might fly in front of a helicopter" even though everyone else is told "don't run into traffic" as is trusted not to run into traffic.

One thing: a driver's license isn't only proof of ability; It's proof of responsibility. As in "the government acknowledges that you 1) are capable of operating a vehicle of a certain class without posing a threat to pedestrians or other drivers, and 2) understand the general rules of traffic.

So yes, people with mobility-based quirks, within reason, should be allowed to use them to make themselves mobile, but only when the general public can be assured that the above two conditions are met. Ergo, licenses.

[Rater202]

One thing: a driver's license isn't only proof of ability; It's proof of responsibility. As in "the government acknowledges that you 1) are capable of operating a vehicle of a certain class without posing a threat to pedestrians or other drivers, and 2) understand the general rules of traffic.

So yes, people with mobility-based quirks, within reason, should be allowed to use them to make themselves mobile, but only when the general public can be assured that the above two conditions are met. Ergo, licenses.

Flying under your own power is not the same as flying an airplane any more than walking under your own power is the same as driving a car.

If I can fly as well as I can walk and was born with that power I should be trusted to fly to the same extent that I am trusted to walk. I don't needs license to walk, ergo it is unfair and unjust to require me to get a license to fly.

We're not talking about jetpacks or hoverboards or anything like that. We're talking about people's natural abilities. Restricting what people can and can't do without their bodies and natural talents beyond the bare minimum common sense of "don't commit crimes or hurt people" is excessive and unjust.

It's very clear that it's meant to maintain the status quo at the expense of the rights of the individual.

[John Cribati]

If I can fly as well as I can walk and was born with that power I should be trusted to fly to the same extent that I am trusted to walk.

... But why? What reason does any random other person have to trust in your ability?

"You can trust me to fly because I'm already flying" is not going to go over well.

[Lemmy]

A less cynical view is that it's meant to give society time to adapt and stay somewhat egalitarian.

After all, quirks come in all varieties. It's impossible to make any legislation, guidelines or even infrastructure that accounts for all they can do. So in order to keep things functional while simultaneously not allowing some people to have a strong advantage over others (because they have "acceptable" quirks, while others have troublesome ones - e.g.: flight x telepathy), society decided to just "balance" things out on the lower end.

If no one can use their quirks, then genetics ins't that much of an unfair advantage, except in very specific fields. Besides, from things like Uraraka's flashback, we can see that the world is slowly but steadily coming to allow freer use of quirks).

I think "you can use your super-power, but only in these specific conditions" is a reasonable compromise for a society dealing with increasingly high number of individuals with completely unpredictable abilities. Specially if the phenomenon only occurred (or became widespread) relatively recently.

[Traab]

There is also the complicated nature of quirks to consider. While some dude who can fly at a standard jog at best isnt a big danger to those around him, that guy who can fly supersonic IS. And there is also the fact that there are dozens of flight methods in mha with varying levels of danger, control, and potential damage. As soon as they write a law around one specific quirk, here comes some 6 year old with a new version that doesnt adhere to the same standards that needs his own judgement on what is safe for him to do. So in general, at least for now, at the start of things, an over broad "no quirk use without a license" law is the best way to get a handle on things until studies, experience, and growing knowledge of how quirks are developing and what they mean allow for more precise and nuanced laws.

[Lord Raziere]

I think "you can use your super-power, but only in these specific conditions" is a reasonable compromise for a society dealing with increasingly high number of individuals with completely unpredictable abilities. Specially if the phenomenon only occurred (or became widespread) relatively recently.

I mean I'm pretty sure the Quirks have been occurring and widespread for centuries or generations. thats not exactly recent, because there have been eight users of One For All. which means eight generations of heroes since that one defeated One For All the first time and before then One For All reigned. I mean this a chaos-filled time so these generations are shorter than usual and such, but still thats a lot of time and isn't really recent at all- All-Might once even said technological progress stopped as a result of the Quirks appearing, it was that bad.

[Lemmy]

I mean I'm pretty sure the Quirks have been occurring and widespread for centuries or generations. thats not exactly recent, because there have been eight users of One For All. which means eight generations of heroes since that one defeated One For All the first time and before then One For All reigned. I mean this a chaos-filled time so these generations are shorter than usual and such, but still thats a lot of time and isn't really recent at all- All-Might once even said technological progress stopped as a result of the Quirks appearing, it was that bad.

Well... For one, there's some overlap there (as seem by All Might and Deku existing at the same time) and it seems users of One For All die somewhat young (you know... With All For One hunting them down and all that).

More importantly... 8 generations can be as little as 160 years... Which is pretty much nothing from a historical PoV (from what we've been shown and told about the history of MHA's world, Id say quirks first appeared less than 200 years ago and probably took about another 50~100 years to be fully widespread).

Besides... We don't know how widespread the phenomenon was at first. We know that nowadays about 80% of people have quirks, and that that number was significantly lower during All Might's youth (although quirks were already the majority). 100 years ago, it could have been 10%, 5% or even just 1% of the population. It's a very different situation to have 5% of population with unpredictable abilities and having 80% of them with such powers.

But again, the main factor seems to be just the sheer variety and unpredictability of quirks around. There's no way to make rules, legislation and infrastructures that takes all of them into account.

[lord_khaine]

Well... For one, there's some overlap there (as seem by All Might and Deku existing at the same time) and it seems users of One For All die somewhat young (you know... With All For One hunting them down and all that).

Yeah this. We cant use them to measure time because its hero generations. Not biological ones.
All Might could easily have had One for All in as short a period of time as 12-14 years?
And by all acount his generation is one of the longer ones since he defeated All for One.

There is also the complicated nature of quirks to consider. While some dude who can fly at a standard jog at best isnt a big danger to those around him, that guy who can fly supersonic IS. And there is also the fact that there are dozens of flight methods in mha with varying levels of danger, control, and potential damage. As soon as they write a law around one specific quirk, here comes some 6 year old with a new version that doesnt adhere to the same standards that needs his own judgement on what is safe for him to do. So in general, at least for now, at the start of things, an over broad "no quirk use without a license" law is the best way to get a handle on things until studies, experience, and growing knowledge of how quirks are developing and what they mean allow for more precise and nuanced laws.

That, and also there are an exponentially higher degree of damage you can do while flying 10 meter of the ground, compared to walking on it. Even at walking pace.
If you drop your lunchbox while walking. You might lose your lunch. But if you drop it while flying, you might break someone's skull.
So asking for licence to fly inside a town seems very reasonable. I assume your allowed to if you go out into the forest.

But i can also see how this frustrates people who can fly. Or something else they are not allowed to.

[John Cribati]

The first documented quirk was the Glowing Baby, who was born roughly 200 years before episode/chapter 1

[Traab]

On a related note, watching the video clips of bakugo and crew doing their remedial training or whatever it was, where they had to watch the class of little kids, wasnt it brought up that their quirks were more advanced than the current casts due to even greater amounts of quirk mixing between parents and such? So we went from a baby whose entire quirk is "it glows" to kids who can create actual freaking GLACIERS instantly in 200 years, as well as going from exceptionally rare mutation to "you are a freak if you DONT have one" in 2 short centuries. The status quo is in flux and its one thats been changing rapidly generation by generation. We are going from quirks on par with midoriyas mom floating toys with her telekinesis quirk to the next generation being tatsumaki from one punch. Its kinda hard to get laws in place around all the endless changing going on. So I guess with all that said I can withdraw my plot hole claim. I still think its beyond silly that cops dont get both heavy quirk training and permission to use them, but its at least somewhat excusable.

[John Cribati]

I said first documented quirk for a reason- we don't know how many people had quirks like Mild Super Strength or Can See a Tiny Bit into the Ultraviolet Spectrum

[Rater202]

... But why? What reason does any random other person have to trust in your ability?

By this logic, Bakugo should be in prison becuase we can't trust him not to blow up random babies.

"What reason does anyone have to trust you not to use your natural abilities irresponsibly" is not a good reason to take away someone's rights.

If you can' trust me not to run into traffic or deliberately run into people when walking, you can trust me not to fly into air traffic or fly in a way that puts people on the ground at risk. Trusting people not to run into traffic or knock people over when walking is the default.

A less cynical view is that it's meant to give society time to adapt and stay somewhat egalitarian.

It's not egalitarian though.

egalitarian means that the law changes to ensure that all individuals have the same rights. Restricting ow people due their natural abilities to keep everyone on an equal playing field d isn't ensuring equality, it's discriminating against certain people.

If I can fly to the same extent I can walk under my own power and this is a natural ability, saying I can't fly without going through a bunch of hoops while the guy with a bicycle for legs doesn't have to go through a bunch of hoops to bike everywhere is discriminatory becuase I'm being made to go through hoops just to use my natural means of locomotion when other quirk users arne't so regulated.

And if Bike Guy is being made to get a license to bike, then he's the victim of discrimination becuase biking is literally the only thing he can do.

Furthermore: In terms of business, restricting how people can use their powers as it relates to business ventures only serves to beniet people who are already in business but aren't the people who have powers that are beneficial to their business.

It's the Government giving an unfair advantage to businesses that don't have quirks and preventing people from using their quits from acquiring the wealth(and therefore economic and thus political power) under the guise of keeping the market fair. It's a blatant lie and anyone whose studied sociology or economics knows it.

And then there's Toga, whose Quirk comes with a side order of mental illness that got permanently worse when she went ten years without using it or satisfying the compulsions that come with it. Her very existence is proof that there are some people who have to use their quirks in order to maintain their mental health but the way she was treated indicates that exceptions are not made for these individuals, at least if their quirks are "scary" or "gross."

So, it's very clearly not about equality. It is quite blatantly about maintaining a certain status quo

[Kantaki]

Bakugo should be in prison becuase we can't trust him not to blow up random babies.

That is certainly true.
Altough I doubt he would do it without being provoked.
The baby making noises for example.

No seriously, with how explosive his temper and power are and how liberally he uses the latter I'm surprised he never got into actual trouble.
Everyone gushing about your awesome quirk and how it makes you top-hero material probably helps.

[lord_khaine]

By this logic, Bakugo should be in prison becuase we can't trust him not to blow up random babies.

No thats setting up a strawman. And you know it.
Fly Guy isnt put in prison for being able to fly. And Bakugo isnt set in prison for being able to blow stuff up.

"What reason does anyone have to trust you not to use your natural abilities irresponsibly" is not a good reason to take away someone's rights.

You dont have a right to walk on the road despite being able to do so.
You dont have a right to climp up random buildings despite being able to.
So i dont see why you suddenly have a right to fly in public airspace. If you want to fly you can do so in your own home.

If you can' trust me not to run into traffic or deliberately run into people when walking, you can trust me not to fly into air traffic or fly in a way that puts people on the ground at risk. Trusting people not to run into traffic or knock people over when walking is the default.

Except we are not talking about walking here. We are talking about flying.
Despite repeatedly claiming its the same. Then its really not the case. And you so far seems to be ignoring the majority of the arguments for it.

Like the one Trab made about how different Quirks in reality are. And how unreliable some of them are.
Or about just how bigger the potential for inflicting damage is when your suddenly loaded with potential energy from being 10 meter up into the air.
At that height a dropped phone might kill someone.

And then there's Toga, whose Quirk comes with a side order of mental illness that got permanently worse when she went ten years without using it or satisfying the compulsions that come with it. Her very existence is proof that there are some people who have to use their quirks in order to maintain their mental health but the way she was treated indicates that exceptions are not made for these individuals, at least if their quirks are "scary" or "gross."

No it isnt. Since she hasnt shown to be any more stable after using her quirk freely.
Evidence then points to her being mentally unstable to start with.

[Rater202]

No thats setting up a strawman. And you know it.

A strawman is a false argument that only has a superficial resemblance to the point being debated.

I wans't using a straw man, I was using ad absurdum to point out the flaw in your argument: You are claiming hat it is okay to arbitrarily restrict someone's rights in regards to their natural abilities based on what they might do, rather than what they have done. I believe that this is a poor argument.

You dont have a right to walk on the road despite being able to do so.

Actually, that's only becuase the automotive industries lobyiests used to their influence to get foot traffic on roads banned. It used to be that Roads were built for human foot traffic and that the people in automobiles were expected to drive carefully and keep eyes out to avoid hitting people using the road, then special interests groups conspired to get the laws changed to punish people who chose to use the roads for their intended purposes in order to get more people to buy cars.

So uh, yeah. Bad example. That was the law being hanged to unfairly restrict people's rights in the aim of increasing profit to a certain group of people.

So i dont see why you suddenly have a right to fly in public airspace. If you want to fly you can do so in your own home.

If itspublic airspace, then nobody owns it and anyone can use it as long as they do so respectfully to the people who also occupy it and will do so afterward. If you're not allowed to fly there then it is not public space.

so unless you're arguing that twenty feet above public roads and side-walks isn't public space then there's no reason why someone who can fly itouht putting people art risk shouldn't be allowed to fly there.

Except we are not talking about walking here. We are talking about flying.
Despite repeatedly claiming its the same. Then its really not the case. And you so far seems to be ignoring the majority of the arguments for it.

We're talking about natural, inborn forms of location.

In that capacity, they are the same. If I can fly as well as I can walk and my flight is just as safe for the people around me as walking is, I should be trusted to use mu judgement for flying just as much as I am for walking becuase it is my natural talents and my body, not yours, not the Governments, mine, and nobody has the right to say what I can or can't do with it as long as I'm not hurting anyone.

No it isnt. Since she hasnt shown to be any more stable after using her quirk freely.
Evidence then points to her being mentally unstable to start with.

Tha'ts not how mental health works. The damage is done, removing the stressor doesn't magically fix it.

[Lemmy]

egalitarian just means people have the same rights... Everyone being forbidden to do the same thing (use quirks) is still egalitarian. Whether that's a good thing or not is a separate issue.

In any case, the society and legislation in the world of MHA is never portrayed as perfect (or even super good), but it definitely has more to it than "maintain the status quo, keep the little guy down".

We have plenty of laws that stop people from doing something something they are able to do to maintain fairness, society integrity and the safety of others and themselves. And all of those reasons apply to quirks (even more so).

- You are not allowed to drive without a safety belt.
- You are not allowed to use (or sell) certain substances.
- You are not allowed to carry certain objects (even if you can't actually use them).
- You are not allowed to use classified information on the stock market.
- You are not allowed to walk around naked.

And so on... The compromise of "you need a licence to use your quirk in public" isn't perfect, but it is reasonable and generally fair. It's good to know that (at least in theory) you can walk around without fear of having your mind read or controlled, being seen naked by x-ray vision or incinerated by an angsty teenager. Quirks are too common, varied, unpredictable and powerful for laws to effectively rule all uses that are (or should be) illegal on a case-by-case basis.

(Also,as someone who works with Occupational Safety and Health, I can definitely tell you that people moving by floating 10 ft above ground would definitely not be nearly as safe as they walking normally... To themselves or others).

[Rater202]

"You can't use your natural abilities in a way that doesn't harm anyone without permission becuase you might hurt people and other people have hurt people" isn't right or fair.

Your rights should only be restricted if you did something wrong. Not becuase of what you might do in the future or what someone else had done.

Restricting my ability to fly becuase someone might read someone's mind without permission is like taking away my driver's license becuase a guy on the other side of town got a DUI.

If I'm flying around and not hurting anyone, the police and pro heroes should leave me the hell alone and go bother someone who actually hurting people. But the way the law is written, they're obligated to waste there's and my time making sure I'm licensed instead of doing something productive with their duty hours.

That is a problem with the society that can only be justified if the laws are written that way as a form of societal control that is merely masquerading as being for the common good.

[Ramza00]

My wealth should never be restricted at all, nor punitively tax, for it is my god given inheritance plus my god given rewards for my labor.

Or something like that.

-----

There is an inherent subjectivity here in these arguments, and that is okay. We then build moral frameworks on top of this subjectivity. And people have the right to disagree and their opinions are equally valid. *shrug*

[John Cribati]

If you can' trust me not to run into traffic or deliberately run into people when walking, you can trust me not to fly into air traffic or fly in a way that puts people on the ground at risk. Trusting people not to run into traffic or knock people over when walking is the default.

I'm gonna chalk this one up to "Your experiences are not universal" because, as a resident of a rather populous urban area, I see both of those things happen near-constantly.

I'm also going to ignore how you equated "trust that you can do a (presumably, in this scenario) legal but potentially dangerous thing with enough proficiency that as few people will be in danger as possible" with "trust that you won't decide to perform this highly dangerous and also illegal action that will definitely put at least one person in danger" and ask again: How exactly are complete strangers supposed to know so much about your flight proficiency?

[Rater202]

I'm gonna chalk this one up to "Your experiences are not universal" because, as a resident of a rather populous urban area, I see both of those things happen near-constantly.

I'm also going to ignore how you equated "trust that you can do a (presumably, in this scenario) legal but potentially dangerous thing with enough proficiency that as few people will be in danger as possible" with "trust that you won't decide to perform this highly dangerous and also illegal action that will definitely put at least one person in danger" and ask again: How exactly are complete strangers supposed to know so much about your flight proficiency?

How are they supposed to know about my walking proficiency?

[Lemmy]

Not to mention that flight is only one of many possible quirks... And it's completely impractical, if not downright impossible, to make laws on case-by-case basis.

Why is that guy allowed to fly and risk dropping things on people if I can't use my x-ray vision to see naked people? I'm not harming them. They don't even know I can see them... So what's the problem?

This is not say that the law is perfect, completely fair or even altruistic... But it doesn't seem to be the super evil oppressive regime you're portraying it as.

And please, stop equating flight with walking. They are not the same the same thing. One carries much more risk (to self and others) than the other. Falling from as little as 3~4 feet is enough to cause serious and irreparable damage to someone. Imagine flying at higher than that at gods know what speed.

[Rater202]

Why is that guy allowed to fly and risk dropping things on people if I can't use my x-ray vision to see naked people? I'm not harming them. They don't even know I can see them... So what's the problem?

See, this is a strawman, because flying doesn't;'t hurt people but using X-ray vision violates people's right o privacy: You're not allowed to use X-Ray vision for the same reason you're not allowed to peep through the hole in the locker room or install spy cameras in a stranger's bathroom.

If people use their powers to do something immoral or unethical, you punish them the same way you would if they did something comparable without powers.

On the other hand, if you're a certified electircian, you shouldn't need to take an additional certification course just to be able to use your X-Ray vision to see what's wrong with the wiring before you open it up.

If I've been able to fly either since the day I was born or since I was four years old, the closet comparison to restricting my right to fly in public is restricting my right to walk or run in public. My right to use my natural, inborn forms of locomotion should not be any more restricted than anyone else's.

[John Cribati]

How are they supposed to know about my walking proficiency?

That doesn't matter, because the vast majority of people who are locomoting themselves are walking as well. And yeah, maybe the guy with a snake lower half is slithering and the lady with wheel feet is wheeling herself along at a reasonable speed or whatever, but the point is that everyone who is on the ground is moving from the same vantage point and putting the general public around them at the same general kind of risk (being bumped into or tripped over or what have you)

By deciding to fly, you are purposely doing something different, and therefore putting the general public at a different kind of risk- the issue has nothing exactly to do with whether flying is more or less dangerous than walking. People will be concerned simply because you're doing something different.

[Rater202]

That doesn't matter, because the vast majority of people who are locomoting themselves are walking as well. And yeah, maybe the guy with a snake lower half is slithering and the lady with wheel feet is wheeling herself along at a reasonable speed or whatever, but the point is that everyone who is on the ground is moving from the same vantage point and putting the general public around them at the same general kind of risk (being bumped into or tripped over or what have you)

By deciding to fly, you are purposely doing something different, and therefore putting the general public at a different kind of risk- the issue has nothing exactly to do with whether flying is more or less dangerous than walking. People will be concerned simply because you're doing something different.

If it has nothing to do with relative safety, then the other people judging me can just freaking deal with me being different becuase as long as I'm not putting them in danger, what I do is none of their business.

[Lemmy]

If it has nothing to do with relative safety, then the other people judging me can just freaking deal with me being different becuase as long as I'm not putting them in danger, what I do is none of their business.

This discussion really is going nowhere...

I think the legislation is a reasonable compromise. It's not perfect, it's not 100% fair or altruistic, but is probably better than just letting people do whatever they want just because they can, whether or not society has the infrastructure and know-how to deal with it.