Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

How many thors equal one superman, how many hulks


This is strength

How many kurse

I don't see Superman being able to knock Thor's hammer away like Kurse did.

You're right. Superman would catch it and break that b!tch in half

But seriously, I think Superman could curb Thor/Hulk easily enough but I wouldn't put his strength at more than double theirs. If even that much

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see Superman being able to knock Thor's hammer away like Kurse did.


Superman is magnitudes stronger than anyone in the MCU to date.

What are the best strength feats for each?

Superman: pulling a large ship?
Thor: uh... not being killed by the Hulk?
Hulk: Punching down that Chitauri space whale thing?

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
How many thors equal one superman, how many hulks


This is strength

How many kurse
For Thor I would say about 4-10.
For Hulk I would say about 3-7.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see Superman being able to knock Thor's hammer away like Kurse did. The hammer only weighs 40lbs. It can be knocked away when airborne. Even if it was on the ground Superman could knock it away. A piece of the ground would just come out with it.

Originally posted by Scoobless
What are the best strength feats for each?

Superman: pulling a large ship?
Thor: uh... not being killed by the Hulk?
Hulk: Punching down that Chitauri space whale thing?

Nope.
Superman knocking Zod a mile away, and through Skyscrapers too.
Superman pulled a large ship? I don't remember that.

Originally posted by h1a8
For Thor I would say about 4-10.
For Hulk I would say about 3-7.


Thor > Hulk

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman pulled a large ship? I don't remember that.

He did it in BvS

Originally posted by h1a8
The hammer only weighs 40lbs. It can be knocked away when airborne. Even if it was on the ground Superman could knock it away. A piece of the ground would just come out with it.

IOW, you've never seen Thor or Avengers.

Lets do a direct comparison (gif). This should settle this

Superman and Zod Collide

http://i.makeagif.com/media/7-21-2015/nd-QW1.gif

Thor and Malekith Collide

http://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11127/111276539/5163808-4258760676-45790.gif


http://i.imgur.com/RhiGhRe.gif

Who is stronger

Superman tackles zod

http://i.makeagif.com/media/5-31-2015/Ewlylv.gif

Thor tackles Malekith

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/11122/111220339/4527689-3581846859-HZ6ud.gif

Superman throws train

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11121/111211851/4990491-namek+throws+120+ton+train.gif

Kurse Throws Boulder

http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/11128/111283294/5235627-tanks+all+of+kurse's+attacks3.gif

So who is stronger

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you've never seen Thor or Avengers.

I seen them. Characters and objects were too weak to simply break the ground. The ground isn't indestructible.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Thor > Hulk Why?

Originally posted by h1a8
Why?


In Avengers Thor holds his own against Hulk in H2H.

Hulk has no answer to Thor's tornado sucking up Destroyer.


And that's just a start.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
In Avengers Thor holds his own against Hulk in H2H.

Hulk has no answer to Thor's tornado sucking up Destroyer.


And that's just a start.

Jesus. Thor was physically getting curbed by Hulk. Just stop

Originally posted by carver9
Jesus. Thor was physically getting curbed by Hulk. Just stop

Lol!!!!!

Originally posted by carver9
Jesus. Thor was physically getting curbed by Hulk. Just stop

Someone needs to rewatch that film

Superman isn't that strong, he hasn't really done anything to say he's definitively stronger than either Thor or Hulk. He's a lot faster though.

Originally posted by carver9
Jesus. Hulk was physically getting curbed by Thor. Just stop Fixed

Superman is stronger than Thor or hulk but not kurse.
The ship feat is so misinterpreted. It is 50 times easier (literally) to pull a ship on ice than to lift it.

Originally posted by apex_pretador
Superman is stronger than Thor or hulk but not kurse.
The ship feat is so misinterpreted. It is 50 times easier (literally) to pull a ship on ice than to lift it. Almost. The coefficient of friction is a little bit larger than your estimation. Superman is definitely stronger than Kurse. Compare the distances both were hitting their enemies to.

Originally posted by TheLurkingFear
Superman isn't that strong, he hasn't really done anything to say he's definitively stronger than either Thor or Hulk. He's a lot faster though. Hitting someone a mile away or completely up a skyscraper is greater than anything Thor or Kurse has done.
Superman shown that he is at least 3 times stronger than Kurse by measuring the distance Kurse hit Thor away and the distance Superman hit Zod away.

LOL!!!

Originally posted by h1a8


Hitting someone a mile away or completely up a skyscraper is greater than anything Thor or Kurse has done.
Superman shown that he is at least 3 times stronger than Kurse by measuring the distance Kurse hit Thor away and the distance Superman hit Zod away.


Well that's ignoring opposing forces.

I.e. How much the opponent is bracing themselves for that attack.

For instance Vision, Thor and IM all fire on Ultron and it just pushes him back a bit (though you can see the stress on his body) whereas Hulk punches him right after and he goes flying. But clearly that punch wasn't as deadly as the combined firepower of Vision, Thor and IM.

Originally posted by h1a8
The hammer only weighs 40lbs. It can be knocked away when airborne. Even if it was on the ground Superman could knock it away. A piece of the ground would just come out with it.

It has an enchantment that you can't wield it unless worthy. In the air, in the sea, on the ground, it's irrelevant.

If being in the air somehow negated this property then Quicksilver would have had zero issues grabbing it. So yep, slapping it away is a damn good feat.

Also when the Hulk tried to lift it..how come a chunk of ground didn't just come up with it, like you're suggesting?

Originally posted by Surtur
It has an enchantment that you can't wield it unless worthy. In the air, in the sea, on the ground, it's irrelevant.

If being in the air somehow negated this property then Quicksilver would have had zero issues grabbing it. So yep, slapping it away is a damn good feat.

Also when the Hulk tried to lift it..how come a chunk of ground didn't just come up with it, like you're suggesting?

h1 didn't know about that scene, or the scene in Thor where people tried to move it with a truck. it happens when people debate characters that they know nothing about.

Originally posted by h1a8
Hitting someone a mile away or completely up a skyscraper is greater than anything Thor or Kurse has done.
Superman shown that he is at least 3 times stronger than Kurse by measuring the distance Kurse hit Thor away and the distance Superman hit Zod away.

...What? "Hitting somebody completely up a skyscraper" isn't better than any of Thor's high end feats, never mind Kurse. That's pure nonsense.

Superman apparently moved tectonic plates to stop an earthquake.

That would make him stronger than Thor, Hulk, and Kurse combined. Much stronger. Many times stronger.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Superman apparently moved tectonic plates to stop an earthquake.

That would make him stronger than Thor, Hulk, and Kurse combined. Much stronger. Many times stronger.

Do we actually have feats to support this?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Do we actually have feats to support this?

Go rewatch Superman 1.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Do we actually have feats to support this?

theres a newspaper clipping about it on the crippled guys wall in BvS, says he stopped a earthquake or something

So no actual feats, just a headline that gives no specific details.

Originally posted by Surtur
It has an enchantment that you can't wield it unless worthy. In the air, in the sea, on the ground, it's irrelevant.

If being in the air somehow negated this property then Quicksilver would have had zero issues grabbing it. So yep, slapping it away is a damn good feat.

Also when the Hulk tried to lift it..how come a chunk of ground didn't just come up with it, like you're suggesting?

The enchantment only works when it is grounded, not when it's moving in the air. To say otherwise is to be simply making stuff up.

I agree that my comment on that the ground should come up is stupid. I assumed that the hammer was glued to the ground in some way. It isn't.

With that said, that comment is also irrelevant to Mjolnir being in the air. In comics (where the movie is based on), Mjolnir can always be knocked away or even palmed when it's in the air or in Thor's hand. So adding a new rule to movie Mjolnir without evidence is illogical. Even so, the fact that Kurse easily batted it away proves that the enchantment doesn't work in the air. I would bet anything that Kurse couldn't lift Mjolnir from the ground.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well that's ignoring opposing forces.

I.e. How much the opponent is bracing themselves for that attack.

For instance Vision, Thor and IM all fire on Ultron and it just pushes him back a bit (though you can see the stress on his body) whereas Hulk punches him right after and he goes flying. But clearly that punch wasn't as deadly as the combined firepower of Vision, Thor and IM.

Energy beams don't have the same concussive ability as blunt forces.
In many cases, energy beams have 0 concussive force (lasers).

Energy beams have a burning ability and not a sledge hammer ability. And many can be deflected partially or fully by silvery shiny objects (mirror like objects).
That's why it's illogical to relate the two.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So no actual feats, just a headline that gives no specific details.

Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

Originally posted by h1a8



Energy beams don't have the same concussive ability as blunt forces.
In many cases, energy beams have 0 concussive force (lasers).

Energy beams have a burning ability and not a sledge hammer ability. And many can be deflected partially or fully by silvery shiny objects (mirror like objects).
That's why it's illogical to relate the two.

The energy beams were throwing him back at first.

In any case that example doesn't change the main point. Which is it depends on the strength of your opponent and how hard the brace for the attack.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The energy beams were throwing him back at first.

In any case that example doesn't change the main point. Which is it depends on the strength of your opponent and how hard the brace for the attack.

I said that in SOME (not all) cases energy beams have 0 concussive Force.
I also said that they don't have the SAME concussive force as blunt forces.

Anyway I could understand your point about the bracing bit. But there are a couple problems with that.

1.
The science of it isn't sound.
Just because you brace doesn't make you heavier. If you weigh 200lbs then it will take more than 200lbs of force to lift you off your feet. So if Thor gets launched into the air then bracing did little to nothing to prevent that. Bracing works better if you are getting hit horizontally to the ground where your feet are connected to the ground. This is because you can use your feet to prevent getting pushed back. But let's throw real science out of it for now and look at the next problem below.

2.
How do we know if anyone braced really? Why purposely get hit in the face when you can simply block or weave the attack? If Thor braced then Zod could've brace when Superman hit him. I would say that neither braced since that would be stupid to do over just weaving or blocking.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

IYO.

Originally posted by h1a8
The hammer only weighs 40lbs. It can be knocked away when airborne. Even if it was on the ground Superman could knock it away. A piece of the ground would just come out with it. That's not at all how it works. what you're describing is how Blob's powers work, Mjolnir is more akin to the strength, shit the being trying to lift it being completely nullified when applied to the mallet's position. Mjolnir wouldn't even budge when Hulk tried to lift it in the SHIELD helicarrier which was airborne at he time. The floor crumbled under the force of his feet

Originally posted by psycho gundam
That's not at all how it works. what you're describing is how Blob's powers work, Mjolnir is more akin to the strength, shit the being trying to lift it being completely nullified when applied to the mallet's position. Mjolnir wouldn't even budge when Hulk tried to lift it in the SHIELD helicarrier which was airborne at he time. The floor crumbled under the force of his feet

Read my later posts. I made corrections. You are quoting old outdated stuff. Lol

The Earth is airborne. Enchantment works only when it's laying on something. Read my later posts for details.

If the enchantment only works when it's laying on something, explain what happened when the Hulk grabbed it in mid-air.

4 Kurse = Superman
15 Thors = Superman
5 Hulks = Superman

Originally posted by Silent Master
If the enchantment only works when it's laying on something, explain what happened when the Hulk grabbed it in mid-air. Hulk tried to lift it, not bat it away.

Originally posted by h1a8
Hulk tried to lift it, not bat it away.

No he didn't. He tried to catch it. You really need to watch the movie before commenting.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it. Exactly. The burden of proof that he used some other method besides strength to stop tectonic plates is on anyone who wants to dispute it. He did it.

We aren't claiming to know how he did it, the other side is. Thus the burden is on them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
We aren't claiming to know how he did it, the other side is. Thus the burden is on them. Actually it isn't because he never existed. The writer's intentions are the only thing we go by. Writer's intentions are usually clear.

Where in the rules does it say we go by writer's intentions?

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Exactly. The burden of proof that he used some other method besides strength to stop tectonic plates is on anyone who wants to dispute it. He did it.

No, the burden of proof is on the person who claimed he did something that isn't supported by feats.

After all, are newspaper articles always 100% factual?

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, the burden of proof is on the person who claimed he did something that isn't supported by feats.

After all, are newspaper articles always 100% factual?

You have no way to show Thor is anywhere near as strong as Superman, until you do, might not want to keep lying about things.

Silent and Froth do got a point. That tectonic plate feat is a source of fierce debate.

Im talking about screen feats.

Ok, but it is pretty obvious Marvel fans do want to accept it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You have no way to show Thor is anywhere near as strong as Superman, until you do, might not want to keep lying about things.

Wow. What exactly am I lying about? Have I ever said that Thor is as strong as Superman?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im talking about screen feats.

If Superman actually has screen feats of moving tectonic plates (Cavill Superman that is) then please show it.

So if Thor or Hulk had a headline saying they moved a tectonic plate would it be valid?

Originally posted by FrothByte
If Superman actually has screen feats of moving tectonic plates (Cavill Superman that is) then please show it.

That's not what I said, liar. Go back to that comic book hole you exist in, clearly you have no life outside of it.

Techtronic Plate bit was a shout-out to Superman 1978, still don't see why it can't be used as a feat considering it's part of the film.

If you can explain exactly what he did to accomplish the feat, we'll accept it.

"Superman shifts tectonic plate, prevents devastating Earthquake."

Clearly stating he moved the plate and prevented said Earthquake. I'm pretty sure he didn't shift the plate using kind words. Occam's razor it, if you will.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Superman shifts tectonic plate, prevents devastating Earthquake."

Clearly implying he moved the plate and prevented said Earthquake. I'm pretty sure he didn't shift the plate using kind words. Thor destroyed a city in a single strike

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
Thor destroyed a City in a single strike

This is completely false. It's been torn down before, Thor and Tony destroyed Ultron's machine (which was holding the city together to begin with) and said explosion of machine caused the destruction.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Superman shifts tectonic plate, prevents devastating Earthquake."

Clearly stating he moved the plate and prevented said Earthquake. I'm pretty sure he didn't shift the plate using kind words. Occam's razor it, if you will.

Yes, but how did he shift it?

Thor is a lot more powerful than superman. Silly thread.

Originally posted by juggerman
You're right. Superman would catch it and break that b!tch in half

But seriously, I think Superman could curb Thor/Hulk easily enough but I wouldn't put his strength at more than double theirs. If even that much You are an idiot. Batman beat the shit out of him. Canon. Continue to be laughed at and mocked.

Originally posted by h1a8
The enchantment only works when it is grounded, not when it's moving in the air. To say otherwise is to be simply making stuff up.

I agree that my comment on that the ground should come up is stupid. I assumed that the hammer was glued to the ground in some way. It isn't.

With that said, that comment is also irrelevant to Mjolnir being in the air. In comics (where the movie is based on), Mjolnir can always be knocked away or even palmed when it's in the air or in Thor's hand. So adding a new rule to movie Mjolnir without evidence is illogical. Even so, the fact that Kurse easily batted it away proves that the enchantment doesn't work in the air. I would bet anything that Kurse couldn't lift Mjolnir from the ground.

What would be illogical is trying to compartmentalize the abilities of the hammer for no real reason. There is nothing in any scene that indicates it only works on the ground.

This isn't a new rule: it's why Quicksilver wasn't able to pluck it out of the air. What the hammer does in comics is irrelevant. Otherwise why not just claim movie Thor's hammer can do anything the comic version can?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, but how did he shift it?

"Occam's razor it, if you will."

Using what he has in spades, immense strength. We don't just assume Superman invented a "tectonic plate shifting device" or similar. Add to the fact they were referencing Reeves Superman.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is completely false. It's been torn down before, Thor and Tony destroyed Ultron's machine (which was holding the city together to begin with) and said explosion of machine caused the destruction.

But a witness wouldn't know all of that so if they talked to a reporter, the headline would likely read " Thor destroys a city".

Originally posted by Silent Master
But a witness wouldn't know all of that so if they talked to a reporter, the headline would likely read " Thor destroys a city".

Or Tony being the media-hound he is could have explained the workings of said event as he did to us on screen.

Though I think it was "Avengers save Earth".

Originally posted by Robtard
"Superman shifts tectonic plate, prevents devastating Earthquake."

Clearly stating he moved the plate and prevented said Earthquake. I'm pretty sure he didn't shift the plate using kind words. Occam's razor it, if you will.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Occam's razor it, if you will."

Using what he has in spades, immense strength. We don't just assume Superman invented a "tectonic plate shifting device" or similar. Add to the fact they were referencing Reeves Superman.

I thought the tectonic plate thing was from Batman vs Superman? To which I will note in the two movies Superman has appeared in he actually hasn't shown strength on the level that would be needed to accomplish that.

Originally posted by playa1258
So if Thor or Hulk had a headline saying they moved a tectonic plate would it be valid?

No, not unless we have some kind of feat to base it on.

Originally posted by Surtur
I thought the tectonic plate thing was from Batman vs Superman? To which I will note in the two movies Superman has appeared in he actually hasn't shown strength on the level that would be needed to accomplish that.

It was a headline in BvS, which was a nod to Superman 1978.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Occam's razor it, if you will."

Using what he has in spades, immense strength. We don't just assume Superman invented a "tectonic plate shifting device" or similar. Add to the fact they were referencing Reeves Superman. Enter worldbreaker

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's not what I said, liar. Go back to that comic book hole you exist in, clearly you have no life outside of it.

What's with all the aggression? I barely posted on this thread.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or Tony being the media-hound he is could have explained the workings of said event as he did to us on screen.

Though I think it was "Avengers save Earth".

There are thousands of reporters, are you saying it's impossible for any reporter to use the headline from my post?

Originally posted by Silent Master
There are thousands of reporters, are you saying it's impossible for any reporter to use the headline from my post?

Going to leave this here for you again:

Originally posted by Robtard
"Occam's razor it, if you will."

Using what he has in spades, immense strength. We don't just assume Superman invented a "tectonic plate shifting device" or similar. Add to the fact they were referencing Reeves Superman.

If you want to ignore, cool. Don't really care.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Occam's razor it, if you will."

Using what he has in spades, immense strength. We don't just assume Superman invented a "tectonic plate shifting device" or similar. Add to the fact they were referencing Reeves Superman.

Or he could have just slammed really hard into the ground, hitting it hard enough that the tectonic plate was jostled from its current position, enough to avoid an Earthquake.

Or the article might have been written by a tabloid.

Originally posted by Robtard
Going to leave this here for you again:



If you want to ignore, cool. Don't really care.

Occam's razor would actually state that since this version of Superman has no shown strength feats on that level, that if this feat actually happened it was performed with something other than pure strength.

BTW, are you going to answer my question?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Or he could have just slammed really hard into the ground, hitting it hard enough that the tectonic plate was jostled from its current position, enough to avoid an Earthquake.

Or the article might have been written by a tabloid.

That would also be a strength feat, no?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Occam's razor would actually state that since this version of Superman has no shown strength feats on that level, that if this feat actually happened it was performed with something other than pure strength.

BTW, are you going to answer my question?

Disagreed. It would point to strength, as that is Superman's forte'

The article? Sure, given enough reporters the headlines could vary in multiple ways

You're letting his portrayal in other media bias you.

Disagreed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed.

So if the headline said Captain America, you would still be arguing that it was both valid and a pure strength feet?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So if the headline said Captain America, you would still be arguing that it was both valid and a pure strength feet?

No, because Captain America shifting a tectonic plate is not a reasonable feat for his power-set. Superman on the otherhand is.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, because Captain America shifting a tectonic plate is not a reasonable feat for his power-set. Superman on the otherhand is.

They both have superstrength, so if it's a pure strength feat. why not?

Originally posted by Silent Master
They both have super-strength, so if it's a pure strength feat. why not? You seem to be under the impression that all super-strength is equal; it's not. Super-strength as a power-set varies widely, from just above what would be considered maximum human output, to being able to throw objects out of Earth's orbit.

Originally posted by Robtard
You seem to be under the impression that all super-strength is equal; it's not. Super-strength as a power-set varies widely, from just above what would be considered maximum human output, to being able to throw objects out of Earth's orbit.

So you're not basing it on power-set, but rather their shown feats. Ok, what has this Superman been shown to do that puts the feat from the headline within his strength range?

No, I am basing it on a power-set, Superman's super-strength to be exact. See previous quote below:

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed. It would point to strength, as that is Superman's forte'

Probably just agree to disagree at this point, I feel Occam's points to Superman using his strength is what moved the tectonic plate. You can believe it was something else.

They both have super strength in their power-set. if your argument is that Superman has been shown to have much greater levels of super strength. then my counter argument is what has this version of Superman been shown doing to indicate his level of strength is enough to perform the feat mentioned in the headline.

I don't have a feat showing this Superman moving a tectonic plate, if I did the headline story would be irrelevant, I am using Occam's Razor to deduce that Superman did said 'stated feat' with strength and not by some other means.

Are stated feats no longer valid? If so, sure.

But going to have to agree to disagree, cos we're just doing circles otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't have a feat showing this Superman moving a tectonic plate, if I did the headline story would be irrelevant, I am using Occam's Razor to deduce that Superman did said 'stated feat' with strength and not by some other means.

Are stated feats no longer valid? If so, sure.

But going to have to agree to disagree, cos we're just doing circles otherwise.

I didn't ask for you to show a feat of BvS Superman moving a tectonic plate, I'm asking if this version of Superman has a shown feat that is even remotely close to that level.

If I had a feat equal to this Superman moving a T-plate, there would be no need to go off of the implied feat and applying Occam to it.

Are stated feats no longer valid?

Originally posted by Robtard
If I had a feat equal to this Superman moving a T-plate, there would be no need to go off of the implied feat and applying Occam to it.

Are stated feats no longer valid?

If the person has zero shown feats of strength to indicate they could pull off a feat, then Occam's razor would point to the off-panel feat not being done by strength.

Already disagreed and why above.

Is your opinion that Superman didn't move the plate at all or that he did so by some other means other than strength?

Same here.

I don't know how he did it, that is why I'm not claiming "he could have only done it this way".

Robtard keeps saying agree to disagree but the cuck keeps coming back for more. Give it to her one more time.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Same here.

I don't know how he did it, that is why I'm not claiming "he could have only done it this way". Occam's tells me in this scenario that Superman using his strength is the most likely reason in how he moved a T-plate. You think otherwise.

I don't think you are really using Occam's, as IMO the proper use of Occam's would be. If a person doesn't have feats to support doing it via method A, then it wasn't done via method A.

Your argument is IMO more along the lines of "it's Superman, thus it had to be a pure strength feat"

Take it, cuck.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I don't think you are really using Occam's, as IMO the proper use of Occam's would be. If a person doesn't have feats to support doing it via method A, then it wasn't done via method A.

Your argument is IMO more along the lines of "it's Superman, thus it had to be a pure strength feat"

Interesting. What do you propose is a more logical reason then, knowing what we know?

Robtard's DC bias is flaring up again.

Again, I don't know how he did it. however IMO a proper use of Occam's is; if a person doesn't have feats to support doing it via method A, then it wasn't done via method A.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, I don't know how he did it. however IMO a proper use of Occam's is; if a person doesn't have feats to support doing it via method A, then it wasn't done via method A.

I don't think that's correct applied here, while agreed that there could be a vast number of methods in how Superman shifted a T-plate (eg he built a machine, he's prayed it to move, it moved by itself and he lied taking the credit etc. etc. etc.) the simpler "he used his vast strength" is what Occam's would dictate, as the simpler theory is what Occam's is all about.

DC bias strikes once again. He hates marvel.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think that's correct applied here, while agreed that there could be a vast number of methods in how Superman shifted a T-plate (eg he built a machine, he's prayed it to move, it moved by itself and he lied taking the credit etc. etc. etc.) the simpler "he used his vast strength" is what Occam's would dictate, as the simpler theory is what Occam's is all about.

If a person doesn't have the feats to support performing the feat via method A, how can the simpler answer be, he used method A?

News overhyped things anyways...it's how things sell. Reading something from a news paper script should not be taken under consideration, at all. We go by what is shown, not by what is typed or said. Imagine the things I could use to support an argument for Hulk if we just went by words.

Originally posted by Robtard
That would also be a strength feat, no?

Yes, but it would be a very different kind of strength feat. Like Silent is saying, we have no idea how he managed it. Same way that if someone said Thor destroyed an entire city - that statement would be true but you wouldn't know the specifics of it.

Same here. We also don't know how reputable that news article is. Not everything on the news is 100% fact. It also could just have been a suspicion of the writer. "Superman stops earthquake ----- or did he?"

Bottom line is, we don't know anything about the article. And that's a very flimsy thing to use in this debate. Superman has enough strength feats to prove he's stronger than Thor and Hulk anyway. Not sure about Kurse.

Expecting lots of heated discussion next November.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, but it would be a very different kind of strength feat. Like Silent is saying, we have no idea how he managed it. Same way that if someone said Thor destroyed an entire city - that statement would be true but you wouldn't know the specifics of it.

Same here. We also don't know how reputable that news article is. Not everything on the news is 100% fact. It also could just have been a suspicion of the writer. "Superman stops earthquake ----- or did he?"

Bottom line is, we don't know anything about the article. And that's a very flimsy thing to use in this debate. Superman has enough strength feats to prove he's stronger than Thor and Hulk anyway. Not sure about Kurse.

He knows that news articles aren't 100% accurate or reliable, which is why he refused to answer my question about what a headline would look like if a reporter either saw or questioned a random witness in regards to Thor's feat. he is also IMO clearly misusing Occam's razor.

Originally posted by playa1258
Expecting lots of heated discussion next November.

You mean when another movie comes out where Superman doesn't show any strength feats to justify certain people's take on the headline?

Superman might have better feats for all we know.

Originally posted by playa1258
Expecting lots of heated discussion next November. Expecting your DC tears and fanboyism always.

Expecting your Marvel tears and extreme fanboyism.

Thor,Hulk and Superman would all curbstomp Khan.

Originally posted by playa1258
Expecting your Marvel tears and extreme fanboyism.

Thor,Hulk and Superman would all curbstomp Khan. You are the one bringing up Khan which proves I'm inside your head at all times. I'm the best. Make no mistake.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If the person has zero shown feats of strength to indicate they could pull off a feat, then Occam's razor would point to the off-panel feat not being done by strength. That's faulty logic. It's all about the writer's intentions. How the writer believed Superman did it is exactly how Superman did it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He knows that news articles aren't 100% accurate or reliable, which is why he refused to answer my question about what a headline would look like if a reporter either saw or questioned a random witness in regards to Thor's feat. he is also IMO clearly misusing Occam's razor.

News articles are 100% accurate if it's the writer's intentions for them to be.

Originally posted by h1a8

News articles are 100% accurate if it's the writer's intentions for them to be.

That is not how newspaper articles work. An article isn't 100% accurate just because whoever wrote it wished it were so.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's faulty logic. It's all about the writer's intentions. How the writer believed Superman did it is exactly how Superman did it.



News articles are 100% accurate if it's the writer's intentions for them to be.

Prove it.

This earthquake thing didn't happen on screen, Superman may have used tech to do whatever he did, for all any of us know.

Originally posted by TheLurkingFear
This earthquake thing didn't happen on screen, Superman may have used tech to do whatever he did, for all any of us know.

Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it. Prove what. I stated multiple things.

Back up your claims with proof.

Originally posted by TheLurkingFear
This earthquake thing didn't happen on screen, Superman may have used tech to do whatever he did, for all any of us know.



Fair point.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

Prove what. I stated multiple things. H1, no one takes you seriously.

Originally posted by h1a8


News articles are 100% accurate if it's the writer's intentions for them to be.


Not necessarily. It may have just been a nod to Reeve's Superman.

Like in MOS we see the exact Wayne sign they use in the TDK trilogy. But it was just a nod, and not evidence that MOS and TDK were in the same Universe.

The asgardians have a shield in Thor the dark world that blocked ships that crashed right into it. Kurse overwealmed it with one punch

Originally posted by Silent Master
He knows that news articles aren't 100% accurate or reliable, which is why he refused to answer my question about what a headline would look like if a reporter either saw or questioned a random witness in regards to Thor's feat. he is also IMO clearly misusing Occam's razor.

Refused to answer? Are you trolling or did you miss where I replied? See below. I'm agreeing that it could potentially read as you claimed.

Originally posted by Robtard

The article? Sure, given enough reporters the headlines could vary in multiple ways

I don't believe I'm misusing Occam's, I'm using it as described, imo.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not necessarily. It may have just been a nod to Reeve's Superman.

Like in MOS we see the exact Wayne sign they use in the TDK trilogy. But it was just a nod, and not evidence that MOS and TDK were in the same Universe.

It was a clear nod to Superman 1978.

But stated feats are valid in the MVF, even if they're silly, unless something's changed.

If we don't know all the context to the feats you can't make the claim you do. This is pretty common sense type stuff, cuck.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was a clear nod to Superman 1978.

But stated feats are valid in the MVF, even if they're silly, unless something's changed.

Are they? That would have been useful to know in quite a number of threads I was debating before. Like when Thor beat up what Coulson said were some of his best SHIELD agents.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, but it would be a very different kind of strength feat. Like Silent is saying, we have no idea how he managed it. Same way that if someone said Thor destroyed an entire city - that statement would be true but you wouldn't know the specifics of it.

Same here. We also don't know how reputable that news article is. Not everything on the news is 100% fact. It also could just have been a suspicion of the writer. "Superman stops earthquake ----- or did he?"

Bottom line is, we don't know anything about the article. And that's a very flimsy thing to use in this debate. Superman has enough strength feats to prove he's stronger than Thor and Hulk anyway. Not sure about Kurse.

Sorry, almost missed this with the spamming of some poster.

Agreed, we don't know. I'm saying that what we know of Superman's powers, strength makes the most sense.

Agreed again, we don't know the writers ultimate intention. Not sure why we'd add to it instead of taking it at face value then. Seems the former seems more of a stretch.

Fair enough, I was somewhat playing devil's advocate, to spark debate.

Originally posted by Robtard
Refused to answer? Are you trolling or did you miss where I replied? See below. I'm agreeing that it could potentially read as you claimed.



I don't believe I'm misusing Occam's, I'm using it as described, imo.

I missed it, sorry about that.

IMO, you are misusing it as Occam's would state if a person doesn't have the feats to support performing an off-panel feat via method A, then it wasn't performed using method A.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Are they? That would have been useful to know in quite a number of threads I was debating before. Like when Thor beat up what Coulson said were some of his best SHIELD agents.

I believe so, I've seen people debate with stated and not seen feats before. Really depends on the stated feat and how it's put forth by the debater.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I missed it, sorry about that.

IMO, you are misusing it as Occam's would state if a person doesn't have the feats to support performing an off-panel feat via method A, then it wasn't performed using method A.

No worries.

I think we just have different views here that won't gel.

Probably.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe so, I've seen people debate with stated and not seen feats before. Really depends on the stated feat and how it's put forth by the debater.

I just think we know too little about that article to use it in a debate. We don't know if the article was factual. We don't know if it was a reputable newspaper. We don't know if it was satire.

We don't know if Superman had help. Did the government assist him by detonating charges along a fault line?

Did Superman push against the tectonic plate's movements or did he merely nudge it to the side to avoid colision with another tectonic plate? Did he stopped it's movement or did he simply redirect it? If he redirected, was in only by an inch? Did he even push it or did he just smash into it at full speed?

How much effort did Superman put into it? Did he struggle so much that it nearly killed him?

All of these are different scenarios which would all need different strength levels. But since we don't know anything, it makes it hard to use in a debate. Pretty sure in a court of law a single newspaper heading is not exactly proof of anything.


edit: I just finished reading your latest reply. Guess my response above is now redundant. In any case, I doubt Thor or Hulk can replicate Superman's feat of pulling that tanker. IMO, Superman has better pushing/pulling strength feats whereas Thor and Hulk have better striking feats.

Overall agreed, we could spend an entire day putting up possible reasons in the "how it happened" with my favorite being that the 'fault line moved back by itself and Superman took credit because he's a total dick'. My argument was going with the simplest explanation, 'he used his strength'. Which also helps it tie

To your edit:

Originally posted by quanchi112
If we don't know all the context to the feats you can't make the claim you do. This is pretty common sense type stuff, cuck.

Robtard has conceded.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

Lol, what? You can't just start mushing Reeve's feats on to Cavill now because of a newspaper clipping. That's ridiculous, especially since Cavill has done absolutely nothing to suggest he'd have anywhere near the strength necessary to replicate it.

Until we actually see what happened, you can't just assume your most favorable scenario, it's a non-feat as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

Prove that the writers intention was for BvS Superman to have actually performed this feat, rather than it just being added as an Easter Egg and that he meant for BvS Superman to have done so via pure strength.

H1 and his opinion based debating similar to Kt's shitty debating if you can even call it that.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it. Agreed. They can ignore it all they like, but the implication here is pretty obvious, and they all know it. They just don't want it to count because he would then dwarf all their favorite characters even more than he already does. Something like this needs a mod ruling IMO.

So 1000 thors equal superman?

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
So 1000 thors equal superman? Thor is greater than one Superman.

Then if we go by what is implied then Thanos is the most powerful being in the universe. Because that what was said of him in the movie. This was the intention of the writer and director because they included it in the movie.
He automatically wins every vs. fight because of what was said.
Also this wasn't an Easter egg or a homage to an older film , this was actual dialog that describes the character.

Its fun to disregard screen feats and just rely on implications or homage Easter eggs.

I see that h1 ran away rather than back up his claims, I guess that says it all.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Then if we go by what is implied then Thanos is the most powerful being in the universe. Because that what was said of him in the movie. This was the intention of the writer and director because they included it in the movie.
He automatically wins every vs. fight because of what was said.
Also this wasn't an Easter egg or a homage to an older film , this was actual dialog that describes the character.

Its fun to disregard screen feats and just rely on implications or homage Easter eggs.

He could very well be the most powerful being, but that wouldn't mean he wins every fight.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Then if we go by what is implied then Thanos is the most powerful being in the universe. Because that what was said of him in the movie. This was the intention of the writer and director because they included it in the movie.
He automatically wins every vs. fight because of what was said.
Also this wasn't an Easter egg or a homage to an older film , this was actual dialog that describes the character.

Its fun to disregard screen feats and just rely on implications or homage Easter eggs.


The difference there is that's one person's opinion. Whereas this is a description of an actual feat done by MOS.

That said, like others have already brought up, no details are given on how he accomplished said feat, and the newspaper could have it's facts wrong.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
How many thors equal one superman

Over 9000.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
, how many hulks

0.000000000000000000000001