Oh I agree. However, in the terms of a debate I think we have to accept that certain things don’t have defined limits and thus have to give them arbitrary limits to have a debate especially when concerning moves as there is little enough material to go off. Just my 2 cents
Strings up all the planets with a giant chain… I’m not kidding he does something like this in a comic. But frankly it was more the point of the matter. Superman is never shown to have a limit to his strength in the movie, however to assume he can lift the weight of numerous planets at once is wrong IMO.
He also moved a moon so I would say that its clear the strain he was exerting when lifting the continent is due to the Kryptonite, especially considering how it instantly depowered him earlier.
Nor can the opposite be accurately said either (that the shield can sustain any amount of physical force). So it seems we would be something at a stalemate, which is why I would simply turn to screen feats.
Going by screen feats it can only generate enough power to repel several wizards, nothing suggests it can repel infinite kinetic energy.
So the answer is, no, it is neither stated, nor shown, to be breakable only through magic. I'm well aware that alternatively there is no proof that sufficient physical force can break it, as well.
Both claims are ridiculous and unsubstantiated from a logical perspective. The only thing you can really say is that we don't have enough of an understanding of the ability to make an educated statement on its limits either way.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
You to? Don't tell me that RJ and Robtard have got YOU doing this, now.
That's illogical and this should not be done. The arbitrary line can be drawn in favor of either side since one literally did not exist.
It's not fair to pick and choose which side gets to set the limit. Really, that's up to the thread starter: they must define the limit if no limit is known. Even then, that could get them in trouble so they are probably better asking someone in PMs like the Mod, Imp.
No, it is not wrong: it is baseless. It is illogical. But it is not wrong because there does not exist, in the context of the movies, something that clearly defines an upper limit.
This is the difference where you and I are stuck on: wrong versus baseless.
This makes sense but how did he move the moon? Similar to the speed force, is there a strength force that prevents him from just punching straight through the moon (because the force required to move the moon is stupidly greater than the tensile strength of the composition of the moon. Does that make sense?)
But, yes, we can clearly see that there is not really a limit, yet. We have not seen this limit in the movies.
Sort of, but not really.
Using your logic, go by what is seen onscreen: the shields can only be taken down by the caster or special anti-shield magic. There's also the exchange between Flitwick and the Deatheaters. Depending on what was said, we may have statements that support the "magic" disarming idea.
Going by screen feats, only those with magic can take down the shield.
I know that's what you said. I was just trying to help you out. No point is universally correct until I make it myself.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
You also have to have a high K/D ratio. No noobs allowed.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
That could feasibly work. Bit of a pain in the ass though. However, I thought this forum went with the rule that a limit is placed on what is shown in the films like the other forums such as comics and video games. I guess not.
True. So let me try to understand this, you aren’t saying that Superman can’t break it but saying that there is no evidence that he can?
Because I pretty much would agree with that.
Sure. But he is a comic character and physics don’t really matter and thus he can pull off such ridiculous feats. I mean he not only accelerates to light speed, but he flies faster than it. Plus he has that crazy “repair” vision in the fourth movie… God that film was awful.
That's not really a rule, though. Since no limit other than magical was shown, only magic exceeds its "limit". Does that make sense?
To use an example: chains are holding Wolverine's arms. The captor says, "Those chains can definitely hold the likes of you, Logan. STFU."
Then Logan's strength is the upper limit?
What if the chains were adamantium? What if...what if...what if...
The line is arbitrary and silly. No one should ever entertain non sequitur arguments unless it is defined as baseless speculation.
Sort of: I'm saying we cannot say that he can break it or not break it. It's undefined.
Sorry about the tangent: I just wondered if there was something like a "strength force" to explained stupid things like Hulk picking up a mountain. They did a good job of explaining why a person doesn't vaporize when the Flash carries them at near light speeds.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 05:08 AM
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
It is indeed a fallacy to place an arbitrary limit on something without a known limit, that was not my intention, and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. Beyond that, I actually mentioned that I am, technically, committing a fallacy.
But it was never made explicit that Protego or any variant of the spell could only be undone by magic. In fact, Rowling has directly stated "In a fight between a Muggle with a shotgun and a wizard with a wand, the Muggle will win."
Why is this, when Protego can allegedly make any non-magic means of harm suck? And why is it that the Wizards must maintain a masquerade, hiding from the Muggle world? The answer seems obvious to me, muggles, with their superior technology and greater numbers, would crush the Wizarding community. Oh, but one important caveat kiddies, do note I am not saying any random muggle with a shotgun can kill any Wizard. For instance, Lord Voldemort could kill any random muggle with a shotgun, but in all-out war, he and his forces would be stomped out. Which is likely why he never to my recollection went into all-out war with Muggles.
Now, admittedly I should have brought this up earlier to explain my reasoning, but I did not, probably because I was lazy, which is not really an excuse, and I apologise for not clearly explaining myself.
But this goes a long way to support that Superman CAN break their shields, if Muggles can, and Superman is more powerful than any and every weapon mankind has ever created. Put together.
So yeah, that is why I believe Superman can break their shields.
Edit: Oh, and before I head to bed, assuming you made this post for the reason I think you made this post (Not that you are lying out of spite, only that you may have been less inclined to do so were it not for recent events), let me say once again I apologise for the way I went about confronting you in that other thread. While I still do not agree with the way you argued at first, I could have made that known in a less offensive manner, and for that I am sorry.
Anyway, I am heading to bed. Night dicknuggets.
__________________ Thanks Scythe!
Last edited by NemeBro on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 06:00 AM
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
I was talking about an argument that Nephthys and I had in the past: it looked like others were bringing it up, again. I actually didn't read your posts in this thread because:
1. They were too long.
2. You were most likely correct.
You took that quote way out of context and she's also wrong: the wizard could easily apparate away, apparate back with an anvil, and drop it on the muggle.
She's not smart enough to understand vs. debates. She's also not smart enough to understand her own universe.
Why is this?
Here's why:
"You took that quote way out of context and she's also wrong: the wizard could easily apparate away, apparate back with an anvil, and drop it on the muggle.
She's not smart enough to understand vs. debates. She's also not smart enough to understand her own universe."
You also have to prove that she didn't have "shields up before the fight starts" in mind, as well.
It doesn't even come close to supporting superman being able to destroy shields: she's also wrong even IF shields are not up.
I was never offended, at all, in the other thread. No harm done. I do not think you have some sort of ulterior motives: it's all fun. Some people just don't understand that.
Gender: Male Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
What is "fun" here, is your inability to recognize logical fallacies.
Unless you can provide proof that, without moving at FTL and time dilation kicking in, he's capable of thinking faster than the Wizards. Good luck. If he can't, each Wizards will have at least one spell fired, before Superman hits them.
He has possessed people while being in his spirit shape. So if Superman kills him, he loses.
He just had problems with that, because in the original, his supporters turned tail when he was "defeated" while he himself went into hiding. Yet, we've seen him possessing other people from his spirit shape (Quirrel in PS/SS), so it's entirely possible for him.
Actually, I should be laughing at you, rather than replying to your postings. But indimitation? No. Sorry.
What is unfortunate, is that I have to point out, that Superman, for all we've seen, doesn't think faster than ordinary humans while on "normal" speed. Thusly, before he decides to go into FTL speed, the Wizards think - and act - just as fast as he does, meaning they can use spells.
And "abnormally powerful"? For the teachers using magic without incantation is common in the movies. Magic without wand? Also commonly used by Dumbledore (multiple times), Voldemort and Quirrel (!) in the movies.
Right. You do recognize, that this is never mentioned in the movies, as the fake "Mad-Eye", unlike in th book, does never use the spell on Harry? So what is it? Movie feats only or do we take the books into consideration. Please stop cherrypicking. That aside: Even in the book Harry needs multiple attempts before he's capable of shacking off the curse (training!) and even then it isn't done instantious but takes some time. So if Superman should be hit with it, that would be enough to follow up with some deadly curse at least.
Well. Going by Snape's lecture on the powers of Voldemort, it can be used to do what I said. Want to contradict Snape? Then you should have a reason for this.
Really? Did you see a spell effect flying through the air somewhere in the movies? I didn't. So it stands to reason that legilimency, especially used by Voldemort, who can do so without a wand but just by intention, doesn't require a clear "target". Not that it matters, since Voldemort still has the option to simple possess Superman.
Oh. But "speedblitzing on lightspeed levels" is what goes on in the Superman movies all the time, correct? Pathetic.
How about you stopping to install limitation where there are none in the movies. I've never heared about a specific jinx Voldemort crafted to curse his name or the DADA position in Hogwarts. He did it with some magic. What stops him from using similar magic to curse Superman, Superman's clothes and so on...Nothing, I suppose.
And thanks for the attempt to straw man me. Already resorting to logical fallacies in order to "argue" me? That totally intimidates me. *shrug*
We know that he can't do it with Harry, so thanks for attempting to take the exception as proof for the general rule. What did change in the 11 years between his depature and him possessing Quirrel? Where is the difference between possessing snakes and human beings? For the rest: See above. It took him so long because his supporters left him and he went into hiding in some sort of panic reaction (naturally, because he didn't understood what just happened to him). None of that would apply here.
That "harmless parasite" was instantly able of possessing other creatures, without any limitation to that ability (save for "not Harry Potter") being given. Your point is mood. Voldemort dies and Superman goes over to the other team due to being possessed. End of story.
And thanks for the second straw man. Did I say Hogwarts would be able to resist Superman? No. He could fly through the walls, probably, as a dragon can damage them. That doesn't change the fact that some places of the castle are just accessibele via magic.
I don't assume that magic has no upper limit.
I'm merely assuming that Superman can not simply break a magic shield using blunt physical force, especially not in the context, that the Death Eaters (with their force of Dementors, Giants and whatnot) were incapable of getting through said shields.
Unfortunatelly he won't, because the Muggle Repelling Charm will tell him that he has some serious business to do in Metropolis, before he even reaches the school. Bye, bye, Superman. Also thanks for the third attempt to use the straw man on me with your point number eight. Might be a new record there.
Oh. Great.
__________________
"Dear God, what is it like in your funny little brains?"
Another thing that I'd like to point out: if the shields could be overcome with just enough physical force, why didn't the deatheaters use the muggles' nukes?
They certainly were taking over the world and would do everything in their power to accomplish their tasks...so why didn't they try using nukes?
I'll tell you why: JK Rowling didn't think of that.
But, we could say this hehehehehe: If the Deatheaters used ALL of the muggle nukes, at once, on the shields, the shields still would not break. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! lol hahahahahaha
I imagine that even Death Eaters would be hesitant to make an area completely unaccesable to everyone not wearing a radiation suit for like 50 years. That seems kind of counter-intuitive, lol. That would be kind of funny in a way though.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Remember that the whole point was to destroy Harry Potter, not inhabit the castle. Harry Potter was the only thing that could stand in Volde's way due to the prophecy so he was a prime target.
They could easily transmute things to their liking. They do it all the time. I always found that weird about HP: they have all of these magical abilities but have difficulty in these very linear fights with other wizards. I told RJ that if I were a wizard from HP, I'd rule the entire place, with ease. Why? Because I have a bit more of an imagination than the characters that JK Rowling created.
That's INSIDE the shield charms. The are trying to break in. Detonating all the worlds nukes on the shields in an attempt to take down the shields is how they are trying to get inside. Once inside, yeah, they won't be exploding any nukes.
No, we are saying that in a forum thread something (the barrier) cannot be block something vastly greater than what its been shown to be able to (Superman). To say that it can is pure conjecture and baseless speculation. And also very, very stupid.
No, you idiot. If the barrier had the feats to back it up I would freely admit that Superman would be unable to brake through. As shown it has been shown to block Smoke. Whoopdy fvcking do! Supermans powers are not unlimited, but they have been shown to be vastly superior to what the barrier has shown. End of discussion.
We don't need an upper limit.. There is no such thing as a limits fallacy. You made it up.
Um, where teh fvck are you getting this from? Was this actually stated in the movie, or is it another thing that you just pulled out of your ass and are now parading as fact?
Fixed.
HAH! GTFO noob.
You have a wierd sense of fun.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jun 2nd, 2011 04:18 AM
