A) Ignorance is usually considered a weakness, so I'd say not knowing how to achieve something counts as being powerless to do so.
B) "With great power comes great responsibility" doesn't rule out people with little power also having great responsibility.
C) As far as I'm aware, having spider-like powers doesn't inherently hamper Peter Parker in any way (his secret identity and vigilanteism can hamper him, but that's the result of his choices, not his powers). So there's nothing Peter-Parker-without-powers can do that Peter-Parker-with-powers can't, but there are things Peter-Parker-with-powers can achieve that Peter-Parker-without-powers cannot, so it still adds up to Peter-Parker-with-powers being more powerful whichever way you slice it.
In other words, the very thing that allows me to bring up hurricanes and rivers is the fact that I see no significant difference between the power they manifest and the power manifested by a superhuman.
edited 3rd Feb '11 9:37:37 AM by Tongpu
Nobody's mentioned the antecedent, from Luke 12:48, "to whom much is given, much shall be required." This isn't rocket science or deliberately obscure philosophy. If you have any inkling of spirituality, you have to realize that what you own is basically on loan to you from God (or the universe or whatever), and you have a responsibility to use it wisely.
The Aesop is "broken" only in the sense that people these days who behave irresponsibly are not punished. The more irresponsible they are, the more we seem willing to indulge them. Cheat one person out of her life's savings, and you go to jail. Cheat one hundred thousand people, and you get a bonus. Corruption is still corruption, only now it's institutionalized.
Under World. It rocks!A good point.
About the Peter/Spidey power thing: it depends on the writer. I remember more than one story in which a villain has turned Peter's spider-sense against him. But other than that, I see your point.
^^^^ I was referring to the way you dealt with the word responsibility in the firstplace - you used a dictionary definition for it and then built the rest of your argument on what looked like a "that must assumed to be true and the only definition" basis.
To which I countered that the way natural disasters and humans with great power impose that power is vastly different: not only do natural disasters have no concept of responsibility, but natural disasters are the result of reactions within nature, they are technically not exerting anything as much as merely existing, and aren't given power as much as wax and wane. Humans are hugely different
To which you countered that any comparison between the two is irrelevant. Hence my... irritated confusion, as it sounds like you were just attempting to toss aside the topic once it was challenged.
As I recall, It was Gertrude who said it. She was very smart, but also very sarcastic, cynical, and opinionated. Plus the Runaways as a whole distrusted Adults, so her ripping on his philosophy, makes some sense.
One Strip! One Strip!^ I see. Though we must, of course, ignore the concept of choice or free will entirely, as well as the fact that natural disasters do not react out of nowhere, they just seem to from our limited perspective - they actually are simple ebbs and flows of natural processes with effects grand enough to impact human society.
As for the second. Well, actually trying to back up that you think the similarities outweigh the contrasts as apposed to simply refusing to acknowledge the point altogether might have made your point seem a little less... pretentious, for lack of a better word. In fact, the major reason I kept bringing it up is because making a point and then scoffing "well that's irrelevant" when someone counters it is really bad form.
edited 10th Feb '11 12:26:17 AM by KnownUnknown
With great power comes great responsibility.
power = ability to do something
great = more than others
responsibility = a requirement to do something with that power you possess; say a debt of honor. We all have responsibilities to ourselves, to our communities, to our friends and family, to our countries, and to the world.
So. Suppose one is responsible for spider-powers. What are you obligated to do with them?
ophelia, you're breaking my heartAt the lowest level, you have responsibility over the power itself - not to abuse it and somesuch, and to take responsibility for the actions caused by the use of your power.
Responsibility above that becomes relative - do you have the responsibility to use it to protect people? Is your responsibility to your fellow man to do all you can do to aid them? Why? Etc?
The idea behind Spiderman's origin might not be that it was his responsibility as a spider-person to beat the shit out of that random mugger, but his responsibility as a person not to literally step aside and let something terrible happen just because you'd rather not be inconvenienced, when helping was as simple as sticking your leg out or not moving out of the way - thinking of yourself above others that you could easily help. Metaphorically holding the door open for someone to victimize someone else or get away from it simply because you can't be bothered to let it shut.
You might say that it wasn't necessarily his responsibility to stop it, but that it was a breach of responsibility to disregard the situation in the way that he did.
Though it's also highly Laser-Guided Karma - "Ha, you decided to step aside this one time? Well, sucks to be you, that guy you let go just so happened to kill your uncle. Take that, bitch! Signed, Destiny."
edited 10th Feb '11 11:24:23 PM by KnownUnknown
So what Spiderman takes up is the responsibility to be a Good Samaritan, as it were. Rescuing old ladies from burning buildings before the paramedics get there, using his skills to take down supervillains, and beating up muggers.
ETA:...omg. I just realized that Responsibility is spelled wrong in the discussion title.
edited 11th Feb '11 2:59:17 PM by Maridee
ophelia, you're breaking my heartHoller at a mod if you want it corrected.
I'd agree that you have the responsibility to not directly harm people with your powers, but you have no obligation to help people with them.
edited 11th Feb '11 3:38:15 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.The fact that the mugger killed Uncle Ben is a wildly improbable coincidence, but it illustrates the basic point. If good people stand aside and allow evil to prosper, somebody will suffer. It's not always easy to see on a personal level, but it's obvious on a societal level. That's why we have jails. The next victim might not be your uncle, but he is somebody's uncle or husband or father or brother.
The root question is, "Am I my brother's keeper?" You can't protect everybody. That's not an excuse to refuse to protect anybody if you can. Imagine if the situation were reversed. If someone had the opportunity to stop a friend from driving drunk, if he failed to take that opportunity, and if the friend then killed your daughter, wouldn't you say that he behaved irresponsibly? If he were a bartender, he'd be criminally liable.
Sometimes it's a gray area. Sometimes it's not.
Under World. It rocks!Wanting to protect people is a wonderful thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with that desire. I don't believe it's an obligation, that anyone with superpowers MUST become a superhero, but to want to be one is a great thing. For Spider-Man, the biggest flaw I find is his methods.
Who never wanted to be a superhero when they grow up? I mean, honestly. "I want to be Superman/Spider-Man/Batman/What have you" is THE childhood dream. But honestly, one man swinging around the city thirty feet up looking for trouble just isn't too likely to find it. For every one mugger he stops, there's probably thirty crimes that go off without a hitch because he just didn't happen to be in just the right part of town at just the right time to overhear it and go to help.
There is more to fighting crime than punching criminals in the face. A LOT more. Peter Parker is a very intelligent man, and that intelligent mind could be put to great use in a forensics lab, for example.
And then there's the anonymity. His anonymity really hurts his case of responsibility. Yes, we all understand the notion of "I have to protect my loved ones", but you have to balance the issues. Being anonymous means he cannot fill out police reports. He cannot testify in court. The most he can do is tie up a criminal and leave him for the police with a note saying "FROM YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN". Half the time he's the only witness to the crime; this isn't protecting anyone when the criminal will be back in business tomorrow because no one even knows what they're supposed to charge him with, let alone have sufficient evident to do so; and statistically, once free, he'll probably be one of the thirty Pete didn't happen to be around for after that.
I can respect the idea of "I should use my powers to help people," but the way he goes about it honestly feels more like the Great Power line is just an excuse to justify putting on a mask and punching people in the face.
edited 27th Feb '11 6:51:54 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Arguably, the anonymity helps him, also. Spider-man can fight criminals like the Kingpin because he doesn't have to worry about reprisal as long as his secret's intact. The fact that Wilson Fisk doesn't know who he is is a major advantage that he has over, say, an ordinary police officer. Real life cops face this problem all the time.
I agree with the rest of your points, though.
edited 27th Feb '11 6:23:34 PM by KingZeal
Er, most of Spider-Man's catches aren't crimes in progress he discovers on patrol. He just patrols because he likes it, and sometimes he does happen to catch a criminal because if you swing around the city long enough it's going to happen, and Spider-Sense helps the ratio a bit. No, he finds out about most crimes the same way other people do: Public Ostentatious Villainy, news broadcasts, word of mouth, having the good/bad luck to be in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, having the bad luck to have his elderly aunt be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And of course villains targeting him, as a fall guy, as an enemy, sometimes as a mind-control victim.
And you act like Spider-Man has to cover the entire city by himself; that's not the case. If he only gets one criminal in thirty-one, that's still a contribution, and there are plenty of heroes to cover the other thirty. I don't think Spider-Man's methods actually do leave much room for him to fight enemies who aren't already wanted, except the ones that immediately target him instead of anyone else, so if there's a lack of evidence that's specifically not his problem.
edited 27th Feb '11 7:35:23 PM by Ezekiel
I can respect the idea of "I should use my powers to help people, " but the way he goes about it honestly feels more like the Great Power line is just an excuse to justify putting on a mask and punching people in the face.
Well, it is just an excuse, but it's one on the part of the writers, not on the part of Peter. The world of comic books is set up so that superheroing is a lot more efficient than it would really be. Patrolling works; superheroes can testify in court; nobody gets concussions when hit on the head in a fight and fights are far less deadly or crippling than they'd really be. And the world is full of crooks who pretty much need to be caught by people with powers to begin with. Not to mention that Reed Richards Is Useless, so Peter can't just patent his web formula.
If you lived in that sort of world, putting on a mask and beating people up would be a sensible thing to do.
Spider-Man has the responsibility to back up his power. Hence, he's the good guy. The fancy superpowered criminals have no sense of responsibility to go with their powers. Hence, supervillains. Kingpin has a truckload of political power. He is not responsible at all. Villain. Responsibility is what helps separate superheroes from supervillains. Being indifferent is obviously not as bad as being outright malevolent, but it's still irresponsible and as such causes problems like loss of life, as Spidey found out firsthand. If you can stop something bad, you should.
Also, I couldn't resist. Look at post #16 in this topic. "Uncle Bean"
edited 28th Feb '11 3:16:16 PM by Anomalocaris20
You cannot firmly grasp the true form of Squidward's technique!But it comes down to a question of what do you define as bad?
Crime generally isn't as black and white as it is in superhero comics. With superheroes, you always have the sense of knowing that the law is always right, the good guys always win, and the criminal is always an irredeemably evil scumbag who's committing evil, evil crimes for the lulz.
Doc Ock is a scientist who went crazy and started robbing banks. He's not a 60-year-old war vet who's been starving to death on the streets for years and would do anything, ANYTHING, for just something to eat. In a superhero world, crime is a product of being really, really evil. In reality, it's typically a product of desperation and lack of any other options.
Crime is just too complicated for a simple answer like "I have superpowers so I punch criminals in the face for great justice."
edited 28th Feb '11 3:24:34 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don't know what kind of place you're living in, but I don't hear a lot of news reports about sixty-year-old veterans robbing banks. Maybe mugging, I dunno, but generally the court tends to frown on that too. See, to the legal system it doesn't actually matter whether you're starving or not. They'll throw you in jail, and you can eat there. But that sixty-year-old veteran mugging people is harming or threatening to harm people just as much as some thug who decides to rob a store just for the hell of it, and has probably actually harmed more people than the average supervillain in his entire career. And that's what the judge cares about. It doesn't matter why you did it, only that you did it. If the judge asks why he is not doing his job and should be replaced. He is wrong to do this, he is being unjust. What do you tell the family of a mugger's victim when he's released? "I'm sorry, ma'am, but the man was sixty years old and starving." It doesn't work and that's why the courts don't do it.
edited 28th Feb '11 4:02:22 PM by Ezekiel
Not all crimes are murders and rapes, and not all criminals are sadistic killers. Sometimes a crime can be stopped by just talking things through. Most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment by someone who hasn't really thought about what he's doing and is just acting out of desperation, out of panic, out of an emotional momentum of some fashion that has overridden his rational sense.
Not all crimes are equal and not all criminals are necessarily wrong. Motivation means a hell of a lot more in a criminal trial than you seem to realize. For the jury, it can mean the difference between a guilty verdict and an annulment. For the judge, the difference between a ten-year prison sentence and a two-year parole. Hell, if the crime is light enough, it can mean the difference for the officer between an arrest and a warning.
edited 28th Feb '11 4:05:34 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

One of the biggest problems with "great power = great responsibility" being a normative state is that it doesn't really define what's to be done about unconscious power. If you define power as "the ability to do things", then it is also partially dependent upon awareness of it. For example, if a person encounters a problem, but is unaware of a solution, then they will conclude powerlessness, although the solution may simply be an ambiguous puzzle. On top of that, power can be a catalyst rather than a thing unto itself. It's highly possible to react to a problem in a way that seems pointless, only for said pointlessness to actually resolve the situation. This, in fact, is the classic hallmark of the Determinator—to somehow turn powerlessness into power through unforeseen circumstances. And that's not even counting whether or not inherent abilities/properties can, in themselves, be powerlessness instead of power. (For example, possessing a Healing Factor which heals your body wrong without Required Secondary Powers.)
Like I said, the entire ideal behind Spider-man's mantra assumes that Spider-man is inherently "more powerful" than Peter Parker. We assume that's true because the superhero genre is romantic, but it need not be true from a realistic standpoint.
edited 3rd Feb '11 1:07:53 AM by KingZeal