Whataboutism was is a reference to your suggestion that Superman is also a war criminal. In the universe of the first movie we as the audience are essentially told by the text that Superman is good and Lex is bad. In introducing the idea that “Superman is also” as a reason to excuse teaming up with Lex seems to fit the bill for that.

Hmm, i see what you mean and i hadn't considered it as a whattaboutism as i wasn't using it as a foundation of another argument, merely using it to illustrate the weakness of using the term "war criminal" in a context where that term is hugely subjective.

But i concede that it could be considered as such.

As far as no true Scottsman, there’s potentially a fallacy that fits better, and no true Scotsman may not even really fit the bill at all, but essentially this concept that you cannot portray someone as universally good. I just think that’s not really relevant in this context and I disagree with it. I’m not saying that Superman has to be perfect. I just don’t think it’s good to team up with Lex. The idea that some people might not see it as a negative doesn’t change the fact that some people would. And conceptually I understand that where I’d draw the line might differ from where other people draw the line, but the suggestion that where I draw the line is somehow unreasonable to the point of bringing up the idea that nobody could be perfect seems strange.

I'm not sure where i was making the argument that superman has to be perfect, but that was not my intention, i was merely pointing out that the term "War Criminal" is subjective to the point of being useless in my opinion, because it's a term that comes from the in world corrupt and broken systems.

The term "Criminal" is used to assign a negative status to whomever the current regime deems it to be so.

In this film specifically superman is considered a "War Criminal" by Boravia.

I'm not disagreeing with your subjective moral position, i'm saying the term you are using is weak.

I wasn't suggesting your subjective opinion was incorrect (or unreasonable), i was just positing that alternative positions are possible.

A difference of opinion.

I’m not suggesting that Superman is held to some high minded unrealistic standard. I think most people would agree that Lex is a bad guy and from a moralistic standpoint would prefer if Superman not have to work with him. I’m not saying it would necessarily make better media, just that we probably don’t need to watch war criminals have a redemption arc at this moment in history.

I think that's unsubstantiated opinion, but it's not like i have reams of data to prove otherwise so again, a difference of opinion.

Additionally, I don’t care very much about what was and was not the case in the comics. My understanding is that in the comics his parents never suggested he form a harem. I think that each reboot should be considered as its own incarnation, and I think Lex in this incarnation is an objectively bad person. I do not think that the movie left any real room for interpretation there. He’s not misguided, or misinformed. He’s a bad guy because fundamentally at the core of his being he has these flaws that affect the way he sees the world and treats others.

The comic were used as a point of reference to support my subjective opinion that it's possible to have a plausible redemption arc with lex, i then used that as a basis to provide a situation in which it could occur.

I fundamentally disagree that objectively bad exists, but i agree he was an across the board arsehole in this one.

Like I said, I will have to reserve ultimate judgment for when we know more about the actual content, but I just don’t think it’s a good premise.

Fair enough.