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

On MLK day...

[Drunken_Jackass]

Can't we all just get along?

Non human?

[grub]

Soooo... am I demented for wanting to bed Rebecca Romijn-Stamos?

Re:Non human?

[nucal]

and did the Judge need to perform a "comprehensive examination" of her including removing her clothes?

I think that Ken and Barbie would be non-human by this criterion ...

Re:Non human?

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I agree. Especially because the Judge cited, several times, the abnormal proportions (large muscles, etc) of the figures in declaring them non-human. Barbie has pretty inhuman proportions as well...

Re:Non human?

[Anonymous Coward]

Barbie has pretty inhuman proportions as well...

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Re:Non human?

[brysnot]

only demented in thinking that you could

Re:Non human?

[Ford Fulkerson]

Actually, according to something a professor told our class, men stand a 1/50 chance of having features as good as Ken's, while women stand a 1/100,000 chance of having features as good a Barbie.

Yeah, but remember that 76% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Dolls?!?

[Kyn]

The judge is right! The X-men are not dolls. Boys don't play with dolls. They're action figures! Dolls are wussy, action figures are manly! And don't you forget that.

Re:Dolls?!?

[Monkey-Man2000]

They're not dolls or action figures. They're aspiration figures.

Sounds like a typical /.er

[core plexus]

Disclaimer: The following post contains humor.

From the article: "The judge found him to be "stout and thick," with "exaggerated troll-like features" and very pale skin -- fitting for someone who lives underground." Ok, all you guys sitting there in your parents basement, are you more mole than human?

Also from the article: "In her chambers at the U.S. Court of International Trade, in New York, the judge examined Prof. X and the rest of his band of X-Men, all of them little plastic figures " 'Nuff said.

Pigs might fly, but don't make breast landing Weird News

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.

Damn you, Senator Robert Kelly

[jeffehobbs]

I guess it's just a matter of time until the Sentinels arrive. Better start filling out that application to the Hellfire Club right about now...

~jeff

Sir, are you classified as human?

[JesseL]

Negative, I am a meat popsicle.

Semanticists unite!

[thatguywhoiam]

Frankly, I was more dissappointed when Magneto (in the movie) declared himself as leader of the benignly-named

Brotherhood of Mutants

when as we all know the proper, grandiose, toungue-in-cheek name was

Brotherhood of EVIL Mutants

I mean, of course they're not human. The question is, are they eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil?

In other news

[dacarr]

A humanoid in yellow spandex was spotted in Washington, DC the other day, madly yelling "I am not an X-man! I am a HUMAN BEING!!!!"

Re:In other news

[babbage]

Wasn't that an episode of "The Algebraic Prisoner" back in the sixties? "I am not a variable! I am an X-Man!"

No? BY hook or by crook, it is!

Deeply, deeply ironic...

[Malfourmed]

...that the X-Men fight to have themselves accepted as human in their principle-driven comic book world, while their owners and masters fight to have the opposite declared in the dollar-uber-alles real world.

<comic geek pedant mode>

It's Spider-Man, not Spiderman

</cgpm>

And Superman was never human - he was always Kryptonian!

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:It's not a big deal

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

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.

OK, so this shouldn't be the spark for the Mutant Uprising. But it's a little more relevant than you seem to think. To be "dolls", the figures had to depict humans. Otherwise, they were "toys". So the issue actually was, "Do the X-Men count as human?" This in turn demands we answer, "What makes a human human?"

And that's more important than you might want to admit. Sure, we're probably not likely to see Xavier and his cohorts on the streets of Manhattan. But how about cloned people? Or genetically modified -- even genetically enhanced -- people? What about, say, a weightlifter who's been designed from before birth to be the world's best weightlifter ever? What if the genetic modification was done under the sponsorship of a corporation? What if that corporation later asserted "property rights" to the modified person?

I found the judge's criteria, as quoted, quite disturbing. Apparently differing abilities was enough to classify the mutants as "non-human". The judge focused on their mutant powers, such as the ability to control storms or to withstand injury. Apparently she did not focus on their ability to speak, to reason, to create, to love ... none of the things that make being human a worthwhile thing. People born without limbs are also "differently abled". People without sight often have sharper hearing. Does this make those people "other than human"?

Although the actual case is a bit of a joke, the issues raised are deep and pressing. We're heading to a place where the very notion of "human" will be under strain as never before. Perhaps it's good that somebody is reasoning about it ahead of time -- though I could have wished for a better result.

Re:It's not a big deal

[ndogg]

Firstly, Magneto has it wrong, Mutants are humans since they can interbreed with any Homo-sapien on the Marvel earth. They would be better classified as the only other race of Homo-sapiens (NB "races" such as Caucasian, Indian, Hispanic, etc. don't really exist because there isn't enough differences in the genetics for such races to exist within the definition of biology.)

Secondly, you're right, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter all that much, but it's still something to be upset about. The X-Men, for many people, aren't merely characters in a great piece of fiction, but also a metaphor for those in humanity who have felt the sting of oppression by fellow human beings.

This comic also shows that oppressed people are still human. Being oppressed does not necessarily provide justification for all actions used to break that oppression. The comic shows the complexity of human nature and its affairs, rather than trying to make clear distinctions between good and evil.

Ron Jeremy's human status called into question

[TheKodiak]

"The judge found him to be "stout and thick," with "exaggerated troll-like features" and very pale skin -- fitting for someone who lives underground. Given all that, Judge Barzilay concluded, the Mole Man was more mole than man."

Sorry, Ron, back to the farm with you.

obligatory reference

[goatasaur]

No, sir, I didn't see you playing with your dolls again, sir!

Overfuckinglawyered.

[Tackhead]

Overlawyered. Overfuckingregulated.

OK kids. A 32-page ruling on whether or not the X-Men are human or non-human, due to a 6.8% vs 12% import duty differential charged seven years ago, a duty that isn't even in effect anymore.

How many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars got spent on lawyers - both from Marvel's shareholders for their lawyers and our tax dollars being spent on the Government's lawyers - in the case leading up to this ruling - a ruling that took seven years after the initial dispute hit the courts?

In the world of the X-Men, something would have broken by now, but the real world has no superheroes to save us.

Isn't it time we called our Congressmen/women and demanded, on pain of our voting for third parties, that they put the tax law genie back in the bottle?

Anyone? Bueller?

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:Overfuckinglawyered.

[Tackhead]

> Most entrepenuers would say that anyone that would let taxes (or the paperwork entailed therein) to prevent them from starting a business was not cut out to start a business anyway.

*grin* - good point :)

As for the guy who mentioned 1040-C - it, like 1040 - is deceptively simple. The forms are all two pages, but each line typically involves multiple questions about putting things into slots, just like the "is it a toy or is it a doll" question.

Quickly now, can you tell me whether that new alternator's a valid car and truck expense (II-10, 1040-C)? How about whether or not it was a Section 179 expense deduction? Quickly now, are you renting or leasing your office space and equipment, and what effect does that have on your after-tax income? What percentage of your home were you using for your business? Is it more tax-efficient to use LIFO or FIFO accounting for your inventory? (What does "inventory" mean if part of what you sell is software? :-)

It ain't the math - it's basic arithmetic. It's figuring out which of the myriad rules apply to one's situation or not.

> Consider also that the taxes you pay helps to construct a legal and infrastructural framework under which businesses can operate quite safely and easily. Last I heard, the Soviet Union did not have any sort of effective tax law (or government either).

Last I heard, Russia instituted a flat tax and tax revenues skyrocketed because people were actually able to comply.

But I digress - my rant wasn't principally about the amount paid, but of the ludicrous complexity involved in figuring out how much is owed.

My "I'd have started a business" was a straw man -- but do you really thing we need seven definitions of "dependent child" (families), to draw a distinction between the taxation of a stock held for 359 days and 360 days (long-term vs short-term gains, and the host of "straddle/spread" rules required to preserve this distinction in the face of hedging strategies made possible through the use of exchange-traded options), to draw a distinction between "Section 1250 contracts" and normal securities (trading the S&P 500 is not the same as trading an S&P-500-based mutual fund - it's treated as 60% long-term-gain and 40% short-term-gain), so make sure you've checked off Form 4952 if you invested on margin, and Forms 4797, 2439, 6252, 4684, 6781, and 8824, (Line 11, 1040-D) whose purposes I've forgotten about, and don't even get me started on the Alternative Minimum Tax - in which you get to do it all over again? Those aren't strawmen - those are picked from just a casual glance at 1040C and 1040D.

At no points on this thread have I whined about the dollar amounts taken by the government, only ludicrous volume of paperwork involved in complying with the legal requirements of the taking.

In Soviet Russia... at least the damn tax system is comprehensible. And whether they're digging up the copper or not, that puts them light-years ahead of us.

To indulge in a little bit of traditional /. anti-corporatespeak: when only multibillion-dollar corporations can afford to hire the army of lawyers and CPAs required to comply with the tax laws, the only legal businesses will be multibillion-dollar corporations.

I am no longer a man once I gain an ability?

[CNERD]

So..If by some act of god, radiation, whatever, I gain some odd ability similiar to that of a super hero, I am denyed all the privilages of a normal citizen?

Sure, you can laugh and say it will never happen, but IT COULD.

Photo caption

[Dannon]

X-Men's Wolverine: Man or beast?

Well, it's obvious the WSJ reporter didn't do the examination. Beast has blue fur (whenever the Marvel writers aren't messing with his mutation), and there's no way in the world could he be confused with Wolverine.

Look at the bright side..

[Anonvmous Coward]

... at least Michael Jackson will have to pay taxes now.

what about barbie?

[gmack]

"The judge found that Kraven exhibited "highly exaggerated muscle tone in arms and legs.""

This begs the question .. if exaggerated musles make craven nonhuman than what about Barbie's extremely small waist size?

Re:what about barbie?

[susano_otter]

You say this like you're the only one who's ever figured it out. Since there's already been a whole Simpsons episode devoted to it, you can safely assume everybody already knows about the problem. Here's a question from the current state of the conversation: Is the rise in American obesity some kind of "Barbie backlash"?

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.

Must... Lash... Out....

[dr_dank]

Here's a guy who changes his clothes in a phone booth and flies through the air," says Mr. Cooper. "Does that mean he's now an animal?"

No,it means HE AIN'T REAL!

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to walk my Incredible Hulk.

Superman is not SUPPOSED to be human!

[Andy_R]

According to the plot of Superman, he shares no DNA with us, he just happens to be roughly the same shape because evolution on Kryton followed a Parallel path.

On the other hand, Spider-man IS human, in fact according to the plot of the comic, he was a perfectly normal person up to the point in the story that he was bitten. Peter Parker dolls definitely should have been subject to the tax, according to the (admittedly very dumb) rules.

Slow news day?

[bopo]

The article is actually on the front page of the deadtree version of the WSJ, a place I really thought I'd never see a little plastic Wolvie.

It's either an incredibly slow news day over there, or the wacky assistant-front page editor is filling in while the boss takes a three-day weekend or something. Wow.

I don't believe the judge can make a ruling,

[teamhasnoi]

until I see under her robe and insure that 'she' isn't some shapechanging manimal freak of nature who can see through walls and absorb my thoughts with her glowing amulet!

Ha! Just remember Judith! I've got the Daily Bugle on my side, and if there's any funny business going on, these pictures that Parker took are going in the afternoon edition!!

Angrily Signed with Desk Pounding Action,
J. Jonah Jameson

What about...

[silhouette]

my Jesus Christ action figure with posable arms and legs? Want to make a ruling on that one? What would Jesus tax? (WWJT)