Superheroes: A dilemma

[Ford Prefect]

If he doesn't know about the button, why would he talk to you at all? Just because he's not an asshole doesn't mean he won't refuse to talk to you.

Because I have the button. Make a big enough announcement - difficult, but not impossible - and he'll probably come looking eventually. Then we'll talk.

[Enigma]

If I can get to him, I'd let him know of the box and give it to him. I oppose taking another person's life for just about any reason other than self defense. We don't know if our next door neighbor will become a cannibalistic serial killer, doesn't mean we have the right to kill him\her just in case.

Might as well extinguish the human race for the off chance of preventing more evil people from existing. Really, this is a slippery slope scenario.

Can you not see the difference between your neighbor, a man of likely average strength and intelligence and thus bound by the social contract, and a what is for all intents and purposes a god? If your neighbor became a serial killer he'd have people with decades worth of info on the topic hunting him and he''d have all sorts of disadvantages and the damage he could do would be pretty small. If John Smith wanted to become a cannibal he'd have people farms.

It doesn't matter. We got at least one person here wanting to kill him off the very second he has the box, not caring whether the super is a good person or not. We can't just decide on our own whether a human being is deserving to die or not. That super might not remain a good person down the road or the opposite can be true. He may start out bad but then realize the error of his ways and does his best to be a good person and try to undo the damage he caused.

It does not matter if a person is average or above average. Killing of people because you believe he'll\she'll turn evil just makes you a murderer.

[Carinthium]

If he doesn't know about the button, why would he talk to you at all? Just because he's not an asshole doesn't mean he won't refuse to talk to you.

Because I have the button. Make a big enough announcement - difficult, but not impossible - and he'll probably come looking eventually. Then we'll talk.

He doesn't know you have the button- I checked that already.

[Enigma]

If he doesn't know about the button, why would he talk to you at all? Just because he's not an asshole doesn't mean he won't refuse to talk to you.

Because I have the button. Make a big enough announcement - difficult, but not impossible - and he'll probably come looking eventually. Then we'll talk.

He doesn't know you have the button- I checked that already.

But he will if you make a big announcement.

[Carinthium]

Why would he necessarily believe you? You could easily be a madman, after all.

[Scrib]

It doesn't matter. We got at least one person here wanting to kill him off the very second he has the box, not caring whether the super is a good person or not. We can't just decide on our own whether a human being is deserving to die or not. That super might not remain a good person down the road or the opposite can be true. He may start out bad but then realize the error of his ways and does his best to be a good person and try to undo the damage he caused.

It does not matter if a person is average or above average. Killing of people because you believe he'll\she'll turn evil just makes you a murderer.

This talk of good and bad obscures the point. He doesn't even have to be "bad" like Lex Luthor-bad, even a good person is a threat. Hell, a good person is just as much of a threat. He can, reasonably believe that it is his duty to take over and rule because humanity cannot do so adequately.

You assume that if he is good he'd be like us, with a deep , unshakable faith in democracy. Why? Never has a person had a better defense of monarchism and autocracy. He can be good and still want to get rid of all autonomy or sovereignty.

And that's the problem; it's too easy to conceive of a scenario where a person would do such things without being absolutely easy, and their position is strong enough that it's difficult to believe for certain that you can change their minds.

Or fuck, this could be the real life Red Son and he could be Putin's or Khomeini's lapdog.

If he's bad...The Plutonian, a character similar to this one -and part of the inspiration- burned his symbol across the entire North American content, he sunk all of Singapore as revenge for a perceived slight by their UN delegate. Technically speaking he can come back from this, but how will Singapore feel about that? Why should anyone take the risk? Some romantic belief in redemption?

Question: What does he do in these first four weeks?

I was deliberately trying to leave it vague but mostly confirming his powers and meeting with various countries as well as planning aid for the crisis of the month, whether he'd actually get to do something (would you trust some random super to produce food, water or supplies the first month he's arrived?) is another thing entirely.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm very disturbed by the "kill him, he's too powerful to live" faction.

I mean, if the problem here is that he has all this power but isn't accountable for his actions, isn't it hypocritical to respond to that by wielding the unaccountable power to kill him by pushing a button? If he can't be trusted despite the fact that he apparently does nothing but good, why can YOU be trusted with the power to decide whether or not he deserves to live?

[Scrib]

I'm very disturbed by the "kill him, he's too powerful to live" faction.

I mean, if the problem here is that he has all this power but isn't accountable for his actions, isn't it hypocritical to respond to that by wielding the unaccountable power to kill him by pushing a button? If he can't be trusted despite the fact that he apparently does nothing but good, why can YOU be trusted with the power to decide whether or not he deserves to live?

Well, so he promises.

As for why I get to make the choice regarding his life (I'm not sure that "deserve" has anything to do with it personally) : because I have the button and cannot be reasonably certain that anyone I involve won't just take it and make their own similarly unaccountable decision. The difference is that my threat, while great in a knock-on sort of way, ends with him.

[Raw Shark]

I'm very disturbed by the "kill him, he's too powerful to live" faction.

I mean, if the problem here is that he has all this power but isn't accountable for his actions, isn't it hypocritical to respond to that by wielding the unaccountable power to kill him by pushing a button? If he can't be trusted despite the fact that he apparently does nothing but good, why can YOU be trusted with the power to decide whether or not he deserves to live?

Authorial fiat, apparently. I admit openly that I feel weak and drink a lot as I snuff the poor fucker, but in my heart of hearts I'm pretty sure that's what happens. There is no option here that gives me his power if I kill him; my vote merely indicates, "nobody should have it," and if I am the only one voting that is what prevails.

[Spekio]

I'm very disturbed by the "kill him, he's too powerful to live" faction.

I mean, if the problem here is that he has all this power but isn't accountable for his actions, isn't it hypocritical to respond to that by wielding the unaccountable power to kill him by pushing a button? If he can't be trusted despite the fact that he apparently does nothing but good, why can YOU be trusted with the power to decide whether or not he deserves to live?

That's the point. No individual should have power over the entire world. I might fuck up the world trying to do what i think it´s good. But more so Super John Smith.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, so he promises.

Yes. What I'm saying is- if you cannot find any concrete evidence that someone's actions are or will become bad, how can it be justified to kill a person purely out of fear of what they might become? The only people who do that in real life are evil tyrants afraid of being overthrown by revolutionaries. And they wind up indiscriminately torturing and killing and oppressing huge numbers of people that way.

As for why I get to make the choice regarding his life (I'm not sure that "deserve" has anything to do with it personally) : because I have the button and cannot be reasonably certain that anyone I involve won't just take it and make their own similarly unaccountable decision. The difference is that my threat, while great in a knock-on sort of way, ends with him.

But you are taking it upon yourself to remove a huge force for potential good from the world, depriving anyone else of a vote in the matter.

And it seems nakedly obvious that this power is already corrupting you even to think about it, because you're basically saying "sure, I'd assassinate Superman if you gave me the chance."

Authorial fiat, apparently. I admit openly that I feel weak and drink a lot as I snuff the poor fucker, but in my heart of hearts I'm pretty sure that's what happens. There is no option here that gives me his power if I kill him; my vote merely indicates, "nobody should have it," and if I am the only one voting that is what prevails.

It's not a vote- it's just you arbitrarily deciding that someone should die because you're envious and afraid.

That's the point. No individual should have power over the entire world. I might fuck up the world trying to do what i think it´s good. But more so Super John Smith.

Does your conviction that no person should have worldwide power trump the convictions of all other people? Does it do so to the extent that you are justified in acting unilaterally, and removing any possibility of that power being used for good?

I can't imagine being arrogant enough to say something like that with a straight face.

[Spekio]

]Does your conviction that no person should have worldwide power trump the convictions of all other people? Does it do so to the extent that you are justified in acting unilaterally, and removing any possibility of that power being used for good?

I can't imagine being arrogant enough to say something like that with a straight face.

Okay, now look at John Smith. I think I'm doing good in killing him, yet you think my proposition is arrogant and idiotic. He could be aspiring for good - yet could produce results awful to mankind.

I would keep him alive, mind you, if we could somehow make the social contract matter to him.

[fgalkin]

Quick show of hands, how many people in this thread support pre-emptively bombing Iran? Why or why not? Because this is relevant to the discussion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Batman]

No, it's not, because the situations aren't even remotely comparable. Iran-a country that is hard-pressed to be a serious threat to anybody except its immediate neighbours and one we already have a million different ways to deal with.
John Smith-a massive potential threat to the entire fucking planet we can do exactly nothing about once the button is gone.

[Simon_Jester]

]Does your conviction that no person should have worldwide power trump the convictions of all other people? Does it do so to the extent that you are justified in acting unilaterally, and removing any possibility of that power being used for good?

I can't imagine being arrogant enough to say something like that with a straight face.

Okay, now look at John Smith. I think I'm doing good in killing him, yet you think my proposition is arrogant and idiotic. He could be aspiring for good - yet could produce results awful to mankind.

That line of argument would really require us to get a lot more detailed knowledge about the personality and beliefs of John Smith.

I don't think I have a right to kill someone because I think they might do more harm than good.

[Batman]

The problem isn't just that he might, the problem is the magnitude of harm he can do if he decides to and that if he decides to there's jack all we can do about it. No, killing him will never be the morally right thing to do, but given the little time we have to figure out what his intentions are it is the necessary one. We have exactly zero options for keeping this guy in check once the button is gone. Iran going rogue, North Korea actually thinking they're important, China trying something, assuming for the scenario they're actually stupid enough to do it? We can handle that. There's going to be casualties, and lots of them, but we can. We can do JACK ALL if John Smith doesn't like the way the world currently works.

[fgalkin]

The problem isn't just that he might, the problem is the magnitude of harm he can do if he decides to and that if he decides to there's jack all we can do about it. No, killing him will never be the morally right thing to do, but given the little time we have to figure out what his intentions are it is the necessary one. We have exactly zero options for keeping this guy in check once the button is gone. Iran going rogue, North Korea actually thinking they're important, China trying something, assuming for the scenario they're actually stupid enough to do it? We can handle that. There's going to be casualties, and lots of them, but we can. We can do JACK ALL if John Smith doesn't like the way the world currently works.

Wow, there's stupid, there's really stupid, and then there's you.

Everyone else, I would like to remind you all that you have a functioning brain and urge you to use it. Let us consider what we know about this scenario.

1. As Batman said, if John Smith decides to go "kneed before Zod" or proclaim himself Emperor of Mankind, or open cannibal camps or whatever, there is nothing we can do to stop him. We know this. He knows this. So why doesn't he do it?. What does he gain from pretending to be benevolent, only to double-cross us later? Whatever he is planning to do to us later, he can do to us now.

2. Another possibility raised in this thread is that thinks he is being genuinely benevolent, but his beliefs are actually evil and repugnant. However, please remember that he will be followed by cameras 24/7, and bombarded with questions as to his intentions. If he is actually a religious fanatic/racist/homophobe/baby eater, he will tell us because a) he sees nothing wrong with his beliefs (because he sincerely holds them) and b) see point 1. Likewise, if he means well but his plans are idiotic. Although this is unlikely due to his super-genious powers, every one of them will be scrutinized over and over by the top minds in the world.

3. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. He has absolute power. If he is corruptible, he will be corrupted, and we will see it immediately, because point 1. If the corruption is slow, due to him slowly succumbing to temptation to make Everything Better, then I would like to point out that people generally have a degree of self awareness, as evidenced by Raw Shark's post. Being super intelligent, John Smith will anticipate this, and take steps to prevent it.

In other words, four weeks is plenty of time to discern his intentions. If he does not do anything objectionable in that time, there is no reason to push that button.

But hey, let us all furiously fellate each other bragging how we are all Tough Men willing to make Hard Choices for the Greater Good.

Also, "no one should have this power?" What if you're wrong and he is benevolent? Congratulations, assholes, you've just doomed millions of people who could have been saved to painful deaths, and probably destroyed the one surefire way to prevent human extinction. Talk about abuse of power.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Grumman]

And it seems nakedly obvious that this power is already corrupting you even to think about it, because you're basically saying "sure, I'd assassinate Superman if you gave me the chance."

It is not power that corrupts here, it is the mindset, this Harrison Bergeron view of equality that says murdering innocent people is an acceptable method of balancing the scales.

Not only is this preemptive strike morally abhorrent, it is also incredibly stupid. Murdering the most important person in the world is going to have consequences. You probably just caused the next Iraq for starters, when some unpopular leader is framed as being involved with whoever did it. Plus, if it is physically possible for a person like John Smith to exist, there may be another, and they're unlikely to be as friendly knowing that their predecessor was murdered by some bigot.

[Enigma]

John Smith could possibly help cure many diseases, provide relief aid to those that truly need it, and so on and so forth. Yet, few here prefer him dead because he has too much power.

Might as well nuke the U.S., cause you know, they have too much power over the world and we just can't have that, now can we?

Aren't we a bunch of cynics, eagerly to see the worst in others.

[Ford Prefect]

Why would he necessarily believe you? You could easily be a madman, after all.

Maybe he won't. Maybe he will. He is described as extremely intelligent, however.

[Simon_Jester]

And it seems nakedly obvious that this power is already corrupting you even to think about it, because you're basically saying "sure, I'd assassinate Superman if you gave me the chance."

It is not power that corrupts here, it is the mindset, this Harrison Bergeron view of equality that says murdering innocent people is an acceptable method of balancing the scales.

In my opinion it is both. The ability to (so to speak) kill Superman by pushing a button is a big lump of power. When it is combined with a mindset that lends itself to evil, it becomes corruption.

And I agree, the Harrison Bergeron school of equality lends itself to evil.

Why would he necessarily believe you? You could easily be a madman, after all.

Maybe he won't. Maybe he will. He is described as extremely intelligent, however.

Maybe his superintelligence tells him that celebrities get death threats all the time from disturbed individuals?

[Scrib]

1. As Batman said, if John Smith decides to go "kneed before Zod" or proclaim himself Emperor of Mankind, or open cannibal camps or whatever, there is nothing we can do to stop him. We know this. He knows this. So why doesn't he do it?.

Does he? He's a new superhero right? Wouldn't he worry about what the Gubments of the world had hidden in a bunker somewhere?

What does he gain from pretending to be benevolent, only to double-cross us later? Whatever he is planning to do to us later, he can do to us now.

He's a bastard? He's looking for potential weaknesses/other heroes? He meant well then someone convinced him that Good meant going a different path? What if he simply wants a slower transition into power?

2. Another possibility raised in this thread is that thinks he is being genuinely benevolent, but his beliefs are actually evil and repugnant. However, please remember that he will be followed by cameras 24/7, and bombarded with questions as to his intentions. If he is actually a religious fanatic/racist/homophobe/baby eater, he will tell us because a) he sees nothing wrong with his beliefs (because he sincerely holds them) and b) see point 1. Likewise, if he means well but his plans are idiotic. Although this is unlikely due to his super-genious powers, every one of them will be scrutinized over and over by the top minds in the world.

What if simply doesn't believe in say...democracy and can back up this viewpoint but decides to keep it to himself for a while as he searches for possible counters to his power?

3. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. He has absolute power. If he is corruptible, he will be corrupted, and we will see it immediately, because point 1.

Or something in particular could set him off after the time limit.

If the corruption is slow, due to him slowly succumbing to temptation to make Everything Better, then I would like to point out that people generally have a degree of self awareness, as evidenced by Raw Shark's post. Being super intelligent, John Smith will anticipate this, and take steps to prevent it.

You're doing it again. Assuming that John Smith is like you (or at the very least, Superman or Batman) that is . What, he's going to put a cache of Kryptonite in the hands of a trusted organization in case of red kryptonite or something ? This particular idea is a comic book writer's conceit. I don't think that you can guarantee that most people see this as "corruption".

And we're just supposed to trust his defense mechanism? Assuming he has one of course.

In other words, four weeks is plenty of time to discern his intentions. If he does not do anything objectionable in that time, there is no reason to push that button.

True. Well, except the fact that people are not static creatures and four weeks is not enough time to tell how anyone will react to constant fame,pressure and (almost unconditional) power over decades if not centuries.

[fgalkin]

Does he? He's a new superhero right? Wouldn't he worry about what the Gubments of the world had hidden in a bunker somewhere?

He's a bastard? He's looking for potential weaknesses/other heroes? He meant well then someone convinced him that Good meant going a different path? What if he simply wants a slower transition into power?

If he wants any of these things, he sure has an odd way of showing this. It's not like anyone forced him to come out to the world and expose himself to all this scrutiny and, assuming what you said is true, danger. He's an near-ominpotent super-genius, there is any number of things he could have done. He could have stayed in the background, or he could have gotten someone else pretend to be the hero while he fakes their powers and sees what happens to them, or he could just fly up to the President and force them to reveal the contents of said secret gubmint bunkers. Instead, he's gone with what is probably the worst plan possible, as it guarantees his enemies (like yourself with the button) will get the drop on him.

What if simply doesn't believe in say...democracy and can back up this viewpoint but decides to keep it to himself for a while as he searches for possible counters to his power?

If he doesn't believe in democracy, then he doesn't believe in democracy? It's incredibly arrogant to assume that the freedom to elect Bush for two terms means more than the lives of millions.

You're doing it again. Assuming that John Smith is like you (or at the very least, Superman or Batman) that is . What, he's going to put a cache of Kryptonite in the hands of a trusted organization in case of red kryptonite or something ? This particular idea is a comic book writer's conceit. I don't think that you can guarantee that most people see this as "corruption".

Actually, you are the one assuming. See, the notion that people are evil and invariably corrupted by power is a useful oversimplification. The desire for love, admiration, or belonging is a powerful one. In my experience, plenty of people would like to do good, but are afraid of the consequences. Hell, you probably did it if you ever went "I'd love to help, but....". Now, there are no "buts" anymore. Why wouldn't someone want to help and be universally beloved (assuming they're not a sociopath)? It's basic human psychology.

And we're just supposed to trust his defense mechanism? Assuming he has one of course.

Or, we could, you know, trust him?

True. Well, except the fact that people are not static creatures and four weeks is not enough time to tell how anyone will react to constant fame,pressure and (almost unconditional) power over decades if not centuries.

True. Except here is what we DO know, for a certainty. Next year, millions of people will die around the world from easily preventable causes. And millions more after that. John Smith might turn out to be evil (but the odds of that are so small you have to grasp at straws), but if you press that button, they WILL die.

Of course, my arguments are not likely to convince anyone as the people who want to kill John Smith are driven by an emotional response- fear of the unknown and numerous studies have shown us that such things are immune to arguments. So, perhaps a little emotional stimulation is in order



Look into his eyes and press the button.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Scrib]

Does he? He's a new superhero right? Wouldn't he worry about what the Gubments of the world had hidden in a bunker somewhere?

He's a bastard? He's looking for potential weaknesses/other heroes? He meant well then someone convinced him that Good meant going a different path? What if he simply wants a slower transition into power?

If he wants any of these things, he sure has an odd way of showing this. It's not like anyone forced him to come out to the world and expose himself to all this scrutiny and, assuming what you said is true, danger. He's an near-ominpotent super-genius, there is any number of things he could have done. He could have stayed in the background, or he could have gotten someone else pretend to be the hero while he fakes their powers and sees what happens to them, or he could just fly up to the President and force them to reveal the contents of said secret gubmint bunkers. Instead, he's gone with what is probably the worst plan possible, as it guarantees his enemies (like yourself with the button) will get the drop on him.

That's all reasonable.

If he doesn't believe in democracy, then he doesn't believe in democracy? It's incredibly arrogant to assume that the freedom to elect Bush for two terms means more than the lives of millions.

You miss the point of democracy. Whether people should have the ability to choose their leaders as a standalone right is another discussion altogether. The more important aspect to me seems to be tyrant-prevention. That's the real issue. If we could prove that John Smith would be a benign tyrant forever we'd actually have an interesting moral debate on our hands. As it is and as it has always been we cannot and never will be.

And again, this is a different sort of tyrant. I'd be extra worried.

You're doing it again. Assuming that John Smith is like you (or at the very least, Superman or Batman) that is . What, he's going to put a cache of Kryptonite in the hands of a trusted organization in case of red kryptonite or something ? This particular idea is a comic book writer's conceit. I don't think that you can guarantee that most people see this as "corruption".

Actually, you are the one assuming. See, the notion that people are evil and invariably corrupted by power is a useful oversimplification. The desire for love, admiration, or belonging is a powerful one. In my experience, plenty of people would like to do good, but are afraid of the consequences. Hell, you probably did it if you ever went "I'd love to help, but....". Now, there are no "buts" anymore. Why wouldn't someone want to help and be universally beloved (assuming they're not a sociopath)? It's basic human psychology. [/quote]
It's not so much "invariably" as "enough so that the possibility can never be ruled out".

And no, they won't be universally loved. They'll be feared, questioned. They'll have constant demands made of them. They want to go watch a football match at an English stadium? Well, turns out that the stadium was owned by a Russian that pillaged his countries natural resources. Now all those people are mad. He said something about what he likes in a woman? He's fat-shaming! He visited/save Country X? Country X is run by a dictator waging war against the press! Why won't he kill the rebels in Country Y! Why won't he make Country Z give women the right to drive?? You're assuming that he's well adjusted enough to handle this.

And we're just supposed to trust his defense mechanism? Assuming he has one of course.

Or, we could, you know, trust him?

I'm not sure that I see the meaningful difference.

True. Except here is what we DO know, for a certainty. Next year, millions of people will die around the world from easily preventable causes. And millions more after that. John Smith might turn out to be evil (but the odds of that are so small you have to grasp at straws), but if you press that button, they WILL die.

Bullshit? Sorry, your argument requires that I buy into your notions. Without that, it's just the optimistic path dressed up.

Of course, my arguments are not likely to convince anyone as the people who want to kill John Smith are driven by an emotional response- fear of the unknown and numerous studies have shown us that such things are immune to arguments. So, perhaps a little emotional stimulation is in order

Look into his eyes and press the button.

Emotional manipulation? Quite uncalled for. Your argument -that I, in a position of privilege is judging for the world and declaring that my autonomy is more important than the lives of others (something I've slammed comic book writers for)- is valid and I am and always have been sympathetic. Pictures have no real bearing on that or my problems with it.

[Simon_Jester]

You miss the point of democracy. Whether people should have the ability to choose their leaders as a standalone right is another discussion altogether. The more important aspect to me seems to be tyrant-prevention. That's the real issue. If we could prove that John Smith would be a benign tyrant forever we'd actually have an interesting moral debate on our hands. As it is and as it has always been we cannot and never will be.

And again, this is a different sort of tyrant. I'd be extra worried.

Maybe this is exactly the sort of tyrant that could work, who knows? Or maybe it wouldn't actually lead to tyranny after all.

It seems to me that you're so frantic to find reasons that the new Superman guy COULD actually be this terrible force for evil, that you're totally ignoring both the potential for good, and the inherent injustice of killing someone for something they haven't done, haven't shown any sign of planning to do, and indeed... aren't even anywhere near doing, except that you fear they might do it.

Do you think it's normal for us to say "we should kill people UNLESS we are absolutely certain that their existence is a net positive?"

And no, they won't be universally loved. They'll be feared, questioned. They'll have constant demands made of them. They want to go watch a football match at an English stadium? Well, turns out that the stadium was owned by a Russian that pillaged his countries natural resources. Now all those people are mad. He said something about what he likes in a woman? He's fat-shaming! He visited/save Country X? Country X is run by a dictator waging war against the press! Why won't he kill the rebels in Country Y! Why won't he make Country Z give women the right to drive?? You're assuming that he's well adjusted enough to handle this.

Given how real celebrities are, if John Smith really is super-intelligent he won't have much of a problem. Even people whose contributions to the world are limited to showing up in movies or football games are usually wildly popular, and become disliked only if they turn out to be raging assholes or drug addicts or cheating on their spouses.

How much more popular would someone be who did real good things every day, and who could credibly claim godlike power if they wanted to?

True. Except here is what we DO know, for a certainty. Next year, millions of people will die around the world from easily preventable causes. And millions more after that. John Smith might turn out to be evil (but the odds of that are so small you have to grasp at straws), but if you press that button, they WILL die.

Bullshit? Sorry, your argument requires that I buy into your notions. Without that, it's just the optimistic path dressed up.

...What notions? That human beings don't automatically default to evil?

What exactly makes it so hard for you to believe that a person with nothing to fear would do good, or at least net good? Why did you even start this thread if you are that certain you already know the answer? It's nuts.

Emotional manipulation? Quite uncalled for. Your argument -that I, in a position of privilege is judging for the world and declaring that my autonomy is more important than the lives of others (something I've slammed comic book writers for)- is valid and I am and always have been sympathetic. Pictures have no real bearing on that or my problems with it.

And yet you seem totally unaffected by this thing you claim to be "sympathetic" to. I don't think you "sympathize" with suffering people at all here.

So I think fgalkin's argument is actually very good: that you would be judging for the world from a position of comfort, and deciding to destroy a huge irreplaceable thing, with NO evidence other than your own personal private suspicions.

Do you have any remote grasp of how massive a "fuck you" that is to all the people in this world who are suffering, who are oppressed, who are afraid of the very real tyrannies that now exist? That rather than even stand aside and let someone else handle these things, you would destroy that someone if you could, for fear that they might try to change you next.