[ExI] avengers aren't human?

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Mon Jan 30 22:19:05 UTC 2012

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/1/30 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> Whaaaaat?  Oh this is such an outrage.  Dolls are taxed at 12 percent.  Toys
>> are taxed at 6.8.  I demand a 5.2 percent refund on my companion.
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/30/x-men-arent-human-us-govt-says-but-hulk-is/
> I hope this ruling isn't some day used as a precedent for denying
> genetically modified humans their human rights. That would suck.

The gist of it seems to be, these figures depict figures that are (in
many cases, obviously) not potentially representative of any actual
human being.

If and when genetically modified humans come into being which look
like these figures and are capable of the same feats as the fictional
characters, the logic behind the ruling - and thus, potentially the
ruling itself - would be overturned.

Similarly, prior to 2008, anyone could argue that a figure depicting a
black US president was obviously fictitious, and (barring substantial
other circumstances) not possibly a reference to any given individual,
past or present.  That is no longer the case.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list