Judge Decides X-Men Aren't Human

An anonymous reader points to this Wall Street Journal article, writing "According to the U.S. Court of International Trade, the X-Men (along with other figures from the Marvel universe) aren't human. The presiding judge subjected the figures to "comprehensive examinations" which included "the need to remove the clothes of the figure." Ironically, the X-Men, whose struggle for human acceptance has been a key theme in the series, were more easily classified as non-human than Kraven and Mole Man.

Comments

wow

[tps12]

Pretty sensationalist headline for the Journal. For those who didn't read the article, it's about whether the X-Men figurines are toys or dolls. Obviously the status of fictional characters as "human" or not is completely absurd, and not at all what the case was about.

X-Men fans should stop whining and go play with their dolls.

It's not a big deal

[Ralph Wiggam]

Before the comic book geeks get worked up about "They may not be Homo Sapiens, but they're human dammit", it's just a stupid tax matter. There used to be different import taxes on "dolls" and "toys". The guv'mint said the Marvel figures were dolls because they're human figures and wanted them taxed at twice the rate of toys. Marvel disagreed and won.

The taxes have since been repealed. Nothing to see here.

-B

Re:Overfuckinglawyered.

[Tackhead]

> The law is no longer in effect, so you've already gotten your wish without having to huff at your elected official (at least this time -- and might I suggest that a threatened vote to his/her major party opponent might be taken more seriously?).

No, I haven't gotten my wish. Calling the elimination of the differential tariff on toys-vs-dolls "getting my wish" is like tossing a hanful of sand into the Grand Canyon and claiming you've "filled" it.

Another symptom - the IRS has seven defintions for "dependent child". I don't have kids, nor do I want 'em, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that that's a crock of shit, and an unfair burden of extra paperwork on those who do, even if understanding those multiple contradictionary definitions results in a tax break for 'em.

Likewise, there have been times when I've wanted to start my own business. One glance at the tax forms for the self-employed, and I'm disabused of that fucking notion with a quickness. I'll never start a business because any enjoyment (and even the huge list of possible tax deductions!) I'd get from spending some free time producing things of value would be sucked dry by my having to fill out hundreds of pages of forms every year. (Or worse, paying thousands to a CPA to fill the hundreds of pages of forms out for me, and then have to sign under penalty of perjury that something I don't even comprehend (or I wouldn't have hired the fucking CPA in the first place!) is a true and faithful representation.

With compliance costs being approximatly 50% of tax collected (1999 - $650B in income tax collected, and $300B in compliance costs), I really do think an overhaul of the ludicrous monstrosity called the Internal Revenue Code is important. And not next time, but this time.

As for threatening to vote for his opposition - tax rates may rise under Democrats and fall under Republicans, but the Internal Revenue Code grows in complexity no matter which major party is in power. I therefore have no reason to believe that either major party has any intention of reforming the Code, and the only way I can see the Code being changed is for third parties to gain enough votes to be a threat to the majors. (In closely-run Democratic races, I'd advise voters interested in third parties to threaten to vote Green, and in closely-run Republican races, I'd likewise advise such voters to threaten to vote Libertarian.)

Re:what about barbie?

[efflux]

This begs the question.

Does anyone know the name for the logical fallacy of incorrectly attributing a logical fallacy to an argument as a counter argument?

Or perhaps I'm missing where the judge assumed the conclusion. As far as I can tell Judge Barzilay's argument goes as follows:
1) "Kraven exhibit[s] 'highly exaggerated muscle tone in arms and legs.'"
2) To have exaggerated or extra-human traits is to be non-human
therefore, Kraven is non-human.

Of course, I think being made of plastic is quite inhuman in itself.