Originally posted by Creshosk
Since you are forcing me t ouse real wolrd logic to prove my point based on the stats it does not invalidate it.We both know that omic book physics and Real world physics are different enough that things that happen in the comic books might never happen in the real world.
What you don't seem to understand, or rather not except is that the argument between your and I is not about "real world physics" vs "comic book physics" But it is instead based on the necessity of using some sort of "logical parameters" when debating.
As Farseer pointed out, comic books are chalk full of inconsistancies and plot devices, so determining outcomes of battles on a character's "history" alone does not make make for a logical style of argumentation. Instead, it creates a circular-illogical one. Using a character's stats helps one to determine which scenarios should be deemed credible arguments, and which one's should not.
Cyclops for example would have to have a really strong physioology bordering on super human in order to fire his optic blasts due to newtons third law.But in order to counter your real world arguments I myself have to use real world physics to deal with your posts.
There is nothing wrong with applying logic to how things operate in the comic book world, seeing as how real world science/logic is the basis for the existence of its characters.
There is nothing illogical about debating on common ground despite a belief.Don't blame me if that's what Marvel calls them and if they once again got their numbers wrong and simply used something that sounded good, but turns out to not be as such.
This also raises the question of how much could a human lift back when they initially made these characters?
Which again, validates the point that you have nothing statistical backing up your arguments.
You realize that none of your points that use real world logic are valid since you keep brushing off my points with a "You said that real world logic has no place." rather than dealing with these points in the first place.
Logic and debating go hand and hand my friend..there is no way you come to a conclusion to any argument without using logical standards to debate by.
You're setting up a double standard here weather you know it or not. But being hypocritical just so your side can win is certainly making you look like a fanboy.
The only one looking like a fanboy is yourself Creshosk. Your arguments are illogical and the information you have provided has consistently proven to be invalid. I can see at this point it is no longer necessary to debate with you, seeing as how the only responses you seem to come up with now are one line retorts, which have little to do with the actual arguments in question.