God Like Cable vs Superman

You failed to rebut anything, all you did was harp on about the same nonsense that has already been dissected and painstakingly disproven. *sigh*

Originally posted by Allankles
Again you failed to grasp the precise definition of deft. Yes whether or not MB has a radar sense is besides the point guy, I don't know why you can't grasp why I brought up radar sense. As in precise perception and therefore manipulation of molecules or atoms vs visualization, manipulation of those same molecules or atoms but without actually perceiving them or sensing them with any kind of precision. It makes a whole world of difference.

I know why you brought up radar sense, the very issue is that your reason for bringing it up is not at all valid. Not having a radar sense with which to "sense" individual atoms doesnt somehow take away from the fact that you are manipulating individual atoms. Once again you are conflating concepts badly. In a case where a being is merely matter manipulating a structure from one state to the other by affecting the structure as a whole then yes the feat performed has little deftness involved. However when it is specifically mentioned that the being is manipulating the structure at the atomic level then that feat certainly involves deftness because the being was consciously focusing on manipulating the structures atoms as opposed to just the totality of the structure itself. My fabric analogy is an apt illustration of these concepts (though i see you promptly ignored it). Matter manipulators can perform both the former and the latter. The latter by definition requires immense precision nimbleness and skill because they are manipulating the structure from the point of its indvidual molecules/atoms. Whether they are doing this via visualization or not is irrelevant. Dont let this fly over your head again.....

If you're going to make a big deal about vibrating molecules or even atoms you better show that it is a result of precise manipulation based on being able to sense and affect even individual molecules or atoms, otherwise you're just hyping a feat that has more to do with power and the visualization necessary to create or break down something with that power.

If a person is consciously focusing on affecting the individual atoms of something else and not just the totality of the structure then yes it is deft by definition (which you seem happy to post, but releluctant to read.lulz) Whether this comes about through visualization is irrelevant, as visualization does not preclude deftness. Stop wasting my time with your recalcitrance.

Basically you don't need to be able to sense individual molecules or atoms to manipulate matter. Plenty of characters from cosmic type beings, to magicians can do this, and many of them don't have the perception to sense the individual molecules and atoms that they're rearranging.

This is true, and an even cursory glance at this post will make it clear that i have explained differing matter manipulating scenarios and their corresponding levels of deftness. Your attempt to place Cable within the "tp nuker" group reeks of double standard. Neither cable nor black have the senses to be able to sense the microscopic components they are manipulating whether atoms or capillaries. This does not preclude them from consciously ad individually manipulating them at that microscopic level. And consequently does not denigrate the deftness of their feats.....Oh wait it should for Cable but not for Black.heh
Nonsensical.

Vibrating someones molecules, atomizing or demolecularizing someone is not deft by definition. Learn the definitions.

If you are consciously focusing on vibrating each indvidual molecule, the you are displaying nimbleness, dexterity, and precision i.e deftness. Learn to read the definitions...not just post them. Oh and go brush up on your critical thinking. It would save you and me both the trouble if you didnt continuously use fallacious reasoning and double standards.

Originally posted by Naija boy
You failed to rebut anything, all you did was harp on about the same nonsense that has already been dissected and painstakingly disproven. *sigh*

I know why you brought up radar sense, the very issue is that your reason for bringing it up is not at all valid. Not having a radar sense with which to "sense" individual atoms doesnt somehow take away from the fact that you are manipulating individual atoms. Once again you are conflating concepts badly. In a case where a being is merely matter manipulating a structure from one state to the other by[B] affecting the structure as a whole then yes the feat performed has little deftness involved. However when it is specifically mentioned that the being is manipulating the structure at the atomic level then that feat certainly involves deftness because the being was consciously focusing on manipulating the structures atoms as opposed to just the totality of the structure itself. My fabric analogy is an apt illustration of these concepts (though i see you promptly ignored it). Matter manipulators can perform both the former and the latter. The latter by definition requires immense precision nimbleness and skill because they are manipulating the structure from the point of its indvidual molecules/atoms. Whether they are doing this via visualization or not is irrelevant. Dont let this fly over your head again.....[/B]

Stop there. When you change the overall "structure" of an object you're manipulating said object at the molecular level or atomic level.

You can't change the overall structure of an object without affecting its molecular structure. If I atomize something I'm obviously changing the overall structure of that object.

There's no difference except the terms used. Hellion on the other hand has been categorically stated to be able to sense those individual atoms and molecules and then manipulate them with the specific aid of that precise information.

When you visualize the same thing and then not only affect the object but affect it wholesale to atomize it or liquify it through vibration (which is what happens fundamentally before any structural break down anyway), you are not applying deftness to it. If the result is atomized or demolecularized limbs and brains that is not deft.

The issue isn't whether or not Cable can be deft or not, he has the ability to be as deft as he likes. The issue is that in his uber mode he simply hasn't applied deft use of his TK in combat.

Originally posted by Naija boy
If a person is consciously focusing on affecting the individual atoms of something else and not just the totality of the structure then yes it is deft by definition (which you seem happy to post, but releluctant to read.lulz) Whether this comes about through visualization is irrelevant, as visualization does not preclude deftness. Stop wasting my time with your recalcitrance.

And what are the results of such TK use? Since you just seem to be using terms like "vibrating molecules and atoms" without giving me info about it's end result, which would determine if it was deft or not.

We've already established that vibrating molecules, breaking down the structure of matter involves more energy and results in messier outcomes than what MB did. Which means that such manipulation is not actually deft by definition. Vibration of particles at the molecular level is a violent process - atomizing is not actually deft.

Is vibration of molecules the only avenue open to Cable? Of course not. If Vibration of said molecules leads to demolecularizing body parts that is not deft by definition, it is extremely violent. It doesn't matter the scale. Manipulating someones finger nail and liquifying it involves the manipulation of billions upon billions of molecules, it is an enormous and violent expenditure of energy when compared to MB did i.e. not deft.

Originally posted by Naija boy
This is true, and an even cursory glance at this post will make it clear that i have explained differing matter manipulating scenarios and their corresponding levels of deftness. Your attempt to place Cable within the "tp nuker" group reeks of double standard. Neither cable nor black have the senses to be able to sense the microscopic components they are manipulating whether atoms or capillaries. This does not preclude them from consciously ad individually manipulating them at that microscopic level. And consequently does not denigrate the deftness of their feats.....Oh wait it should for Cable but not for Black.heh
Nonsensical.

Atomizing something is a far more violent application of TK than what MB did here. Whether this manipulation is done at a microscopic level or not it is far less deft to liquify or demolecularize matter than it is to restrict small blood vessels.

The level of violence and the level or energy being expended is like night and day, they are not on the same level with regards to efficiency, gentleness, deftness. There's no double standard. And stop arguing like I'm being dismissive of Cable's capabilities. I'm pointing out that there's a world of difference in their applications in combat, which there is.

And please be specific about what Cable's vibration has done beyons liquifying, demolecularizing and atomizing his opponents in combat. Otherwise we're just wasting our time with this discussion. Sometimes it seems like you're not actually reading my posts before you reply.

I've already said I'm willing to change my mind, but you're not giving specifics on what the results of this "deft vibrations" were. So in fact you're wasting a lot of time here, on a guy who would easily give up the argument if there's evidence to the contrary.

what is this wall of texts?

Originally posted by Allankles
I don't think demolecularizing or atomizing someone is a precision type exercise . Complex, sure but deft?... I'm not yet sold until I get an idea of his perception level.

Originally posted by Allankles

If he uses picometer level perception and not simply [b]visualization to perform his TK, then I'd agree. Otherwise atomizing someone is more a power move than a deftness move.
[/B]

Or was it not enough for the comic to provide a visual pretrial of how Cable ripped the virus cell by cell on himself?

Originally posted by Allankles

More a function of power (given the breaking apart of structural forces), than a function of pure precision. Again I think visualization is playing a major part in this and not micro radar senses.

If he has some kind of radar sense that let's him literally pick out single molecules to manip then I'd agree.

Originally posted by Allankles

I'm not talking about what Cable [b]can do I'm talking about what Cable has done. You're speculating that Cable can do the same thing MB did, and I agree that he can do it, but I disagree that he would.

I don't think it would even cross his mind that he can do this based on how he's used TK before. The DP example is relevant because, really, MB showed more control in this area and better creativity too. [/B]

Originally posted by Allankles
Stop there. When you change the overall "structure" of an object you're manipulating said object at the molecular level or atomic level.

You can't change the overall structure of an object without affecting its molecular structure. If I atomize something I'm obviously changing the overall structure of that object.

There's no difference except the terms used. Hellion on the other hand has been categorically stated to be able to sense those individual atoms and molecules and then manipulate them with the specific aid of that precise information.

When you visualize the same thing and then not only affect the object but affect it wholesale to atomize it or liquify it through vibration (which is what happens fundamentally before any structural break down anyway), you are not applying deftness to it. If the result is atomized or demolecularized limbs and brains that is not deft.

Learn to be more careful in your reading of the posts you are replying. I was very specific in the wording that i used in my posts ad it was in anticipation of these kind of objections. Indeed, you cannot change the overall structure of an object without affecting its molecular structure. However, the difference in deftness lies in the focus, intentionality and method of application. This is why I clearly delineated the forms which matter manipulation may take in the post you quoted. Affecting a structure wholesale through matter manipulation (i.e Doc strange changing daggers to birds with a spell) implicitly assumes that the structures atoms have been affected. Yes. However in terms of deftness , this is not at all the same as consciously focusing on applying tk to the individual atoms in the structure in order to achieve some desired effect. That requires extreme deftness unlike the previously mentioned act of wholesale matter manipulation. My fabric analogy also demonstrates these concepts. The focus of Cables tk application isnt the structure as whole but rather the indvidual atoms within it. Thats why the entire distinction of having tk on an atomic level is even relevant.

Atomization being the result of molecular manipulation does not at all preclude deftness.Deftness by definition is not predicated upon results but rather characterizes the process and manner in which an act is carried out. Atomization as a result of an action, does not necessitate the absence of deftness in that action. Your failure to understand the actual denotation and connotation of the term "deft" is leading you head on into a causal oversimplification fallacy. Pump the brakes.

And what are the results of such TK use? Since you just seem to be using terms like "vibrating molecules and atoms" without giving me info about it's end result, which would determine if it was deft or not. We've already established that vibrating molecules, breaking down the structure of matter involves more energy and results in messier outcomes than what MB did. Which means that such manipulation is not actually deft by definition. Vibration of particles at the molecular level is a violent process - atomizing is not actually deft. Is vibration of molecules the only avenue open to Cable? Of course not. If Vibration of said molecules leads to demolecularizing body parts that is not deft by definition, it is extremely violent. It doesn't matter the scale. Manipulating someones finger nail and liquifying it involves the manipulation of billions upon billions of molecules, it is an enormous and violent expenditure of energy when compared to MB did i.e. not deft.

Not even close, but a word of advice before i tear this apart: Attempt to actually analyze the implication of the word's definition. A recurrent theme in your arguments has been a negligence towards carefully examining the actual meaning of the word being discussed. This is what causes you to come up with all these grossly innaccure analogies.

Now as I mentioned before, deftness is a description of the way an action is performed not the results it induces. Just take a look at the definitions you yourself posted. So right out of the gate your argument is stumbling.

Secondly an action requiring more energy than another unrelated action does not suddenly make one more deft than the other. Here we have more fallacious reasoning with you comparing apples and oranges. A soccer player can perform a deft stepover dribble while a tennis player can perform a deft crosscourt shot. Assuming it requires less energy for the soccer player to perform his dribble is he necessarilly more deft? NO because deftness refers, to, cleverness, nimbleness, skill, adroitness and dexterity in performing a particular action. Hence deftness is determined in relation to a specific performance of a specific action. Consequently your attempt to label Cable as less deft by default because his action required more energy while ignoring that the additional energy was necessitated by the additional complexity and fudamental difference of his action from that of manchester black is
just further showing ur failure to comprehend the meaning of the word in question and ignorance of proper methods of reasoned argumentation.

Your argument just went from stumbling to straight up free falling..

Atomizing something is a far more violent application of TK than what MB did here. Whether this manipulation is done at a microscopic level or not it is far less deft to liquify or demolecularize matter than it is to restrict small blood vessels. The level of violence and the level or energy being expended is like night and day, they are not on the same level with regards to efficiency, gentleness, deftness. There's no double standard. And stop arguing like I'm being dismissive of Cable's capabilities. I'm pointing out that there's a world of difference in their applications in combat, which there is. And please be specific about what Cable's vibration has done beyons liquifying, demolecularizing and atomizing his opponents in combat. Otherwise we're just wasting our time with this discussion. Sometimes it seems like you're not actually reading my posts before you reply. I've already said I'm willing to change my mind, but you're not giving specifics on what the results of this "deft vibrations" were. So in fact you're wasting a lot of time here, on a guy who would easily give up the argument if there's evidence to the contrary.

lol,Really this is getting painful. You just keep using words that you seem to not know the meaning of. Taking apart something at the atomic level can only be more or less efficient than an entirely different action (restricting small blood vessels) in relation to the level of energy conserved regarding the specific aims of the respective actions. In other words? Taking apart something (which is what Cable does when he deconstructs thigs at the atomic level) is not inherently less efficient than restricting small blood vessels. The aims are different.....so...can u guess where u have landed?....apples and oranges again! Fallacious reasoning loses once more. The results of his vibrations are tangential to their deftness. Learn the defiinition of the word and what it actually describes before and abusing it. Hence i dont necessarilly need to show you any results because the premises on which you are basing the question are faulty to begin with.

Oh and im reading your posts very well. The lack of reasoned argumentation hurts my eyes..but yeah im still reading them and pointing out the numerous flaws in them that obviously flew way over your head. Seriously, started off with a non-sequitur, built up speed with the causal oversimplification and finished it off with some brilliant apples and oranges comparisons. In the race for the most logically doomed argument ive seen on KMC in the past few days, you are definitely in the lead. Bravo.

Remember how your argument was stumbling?....then free falling?
Guess were it is now

-Six feet under. Dont bother trying to revive it.

Originally posted by "Id"
A debate is not built around arguing your opinion. Fact is, demoleularizing or atomizing ....however you want to call it. Takes far more precision that simply clamping down capillaries.

He can tell you the weight of a molecule by its atomic activity. His senses expanded, when he rid himself of the T.O.

Or was it not enough for the comic to provide a visual pretrial of how Cable ripped the virus cell by cell on himself?

I wasn't arguing Cable's capability for deftness, I said pages ago that of course he can be deft.

I was arguing his application of his TK in combat. Don't know where you guys are coming from. A few examples of him not liquifying bio matter in combat would suffice.

It would be brief and informative instead of page upon page of repetition. I'm tired of writing "demolecularize", "atomize" etc

Originally posted by "Id"

Your talking about a guy that shuts down specific portions of your brain to depower you.

If he did that in combat, and it didn't involve destroying chunks of matter then that is by definition deft. If this is true the discussion ends there.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Learn to be more careful in your reading of the posts you are replying. I was very specific in the wording that i used in my posts ad it was in anticipation of these kind of objections. Indeed, you cannot change the overall structure of an object without affecting its molecular structure. However,[B] the difference in deftness lies in the focus, intentionality and method of application. This is why I clearly delineated the forms which matter manipulation may take in the post you quoted. Affecting a structure wholesale through matter manipulation (i.e Doc strange changing daggers to birds with a spell) implicitly assumes that the structures atoms have been affected. Yes. However in terms of deftness , this is not at all the same as consciously focusing on applying tk to the individual atoms in the structure in order to achieve some desired effect. That requires extreme deftness unlike the previously mentioned act of wholesale matter manipulation. My fabric analogy also demonstrates these concepts. The focus of Cables tk application isnt the structure as whole but rather the indvidual atoms within it. Thats why the entire distinction of having tk on an atomic level is even relevant. [/B]

And having TK on the atomic level by itself doesn't signify deftness. I have no idea why manipulating molecules or atoms by itself constitutes deftness to you. The whole distinction you make with wholesale vs "desired effect" also doesn't address the issue of visualization vs specific microscopic perception.

Why? (And I'll explain this without being patronizing) Because Doc Strange (using the example you provided) can perform those "desired effects" or specific desired effects through the very same matter manipulation, without the benefit of actual atomic level perception.

Do you understand? Or are you just going to state it's an arbitiary classification again. The point is visualization can achieve very specific desired effects.

But even with that it is all besides the point. You're right that results by themselves don't determine deftness, for instance mixing a few molecules from two stable chemicals can produce explosive results, a volatile product. The procedure might be deft but the results are violent, that is a noted exception.

Using TK on the other hand is a world of difference. You're taking perfectly stable organic matter and destroying it via molecular manipulation, that is not deft by any definition. The energy expended, the violence of the process, the sheer number of molecules that are manipulated resulting in that atomized or demolecularized matter is not in anyway a deft application of TK.

Id bailed you out with a feat, so it's all good.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Now as I mentioned before, deftness is a description of the way an action is performed not the results it induces. Just take a look at the definitions you yourself posted. So right out of the gate your argument is stumbling.

Yes, I already know this. He's vibrating molecules (that is his act of deftness according to you). But do we agree that it is an extremely violent process? There's no gentility, neatness or nimbleness to atomizing matter, which is essentially what that vibration results in.

We've already been through this but you'd rather bandy words for pages. The sheer effort it takes to break down and restructure that matter by pure Telekinesis is far more than the Telekinetic power or energy necessary to do what MB did.

This isn't a slight or delicate rearrangement to cause a bigger reaction. We're talking literally shaking the whole structure of that piece of matter by sheer TK force. And we're only talking combat, just to reclarify.

Yes the way the action was performed was not a function of deftness.

I love how you argue. Making generalizations like "action is performed", over and over until we lose sight of the actual gist of our disagreement. What action? And how was it's performance a function of deftness? Explain, don't just state and generalize.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Secondly an action requiring more energy than another unrelated action does not suddenly make one more deft than the other. Here we have more fallacious reasoning with you comparing apples and oranges. A soccer player can perform a deft stepover dribble while a tennis player can perform a deft crosscourt shot. Assuming it requires less energy for the soccer player to perform his dribble is he necessarilly more deft? NO because deftness refers, to, cleverness, nimbleness, skill, adroitness and dexterity in performing a particular action. Hence deftness is determined in relation to a specific performance of a specific action. Consequently your attempt to label Cable as less deft by default because his action required more energy while ignoring that the additional energy was necessitated by the additional complexity and fudamental difference of his action from that of manchester black is
\

Oh boy! The analogy is so retarded. First of all instead of talking about how the two moves were deft i.e. the type of technique or touch applied to the ball you just call them both "deft" and then chalk it up as an analogy.

Basically what you said was "action A is deft and took more energy and action B was deft and took less energy therefore action A is not deft". As if that resembles anything I've said, learn how to use analogies.

When I break down what you say, it turns you're not saying much at all. Arguing with you feels like an out and out pissing contest, it's draining.

The amount of energy expended is a result of the violence of the process of vibrating molecules to demolecularize matter. It expends more energy because it is a more violent process, I thought you were smart?

I wasn't saying that energy level alone is the reason the TK application lacked deftness, I already explained why it takes more energy. This isn't rocket science, and if you're smart stop making arguments that don't address what I've actually said.

It's the violence involved at the molecular level that make the process lack deftness, since you already know the definition of deft.

We also know scale (microscopic or otherwise) doesn't not factor into deftness. Atomic theory wants to meet you.

Originally posted by Allankles
And having TK on the atomic level by itself doesn't signify deftness. I have no idea why manipulating molecules or atoms by itself constitutes deftness to you. The whole distinction you make with wholesale vs "desired effect" also doesn't address the issue of visualization vs specific microscopic perception.

Why? (And I'll explain this without being patronizing) Because Doc Strange (using the example you provided) can perform those "desired effects" or specific desired effects through the very same matter manipulation, without the benefit of actual atomic level perception.

Do you understand? Or are you just going to state it's an arbitiary classification again. The point is visualization can achieve very specific desired effects.

But even with that it is all besides the point. You're right that results by themselves don't determine deftness, for instance mixing a few molecules from two stable chemicals can produce explosive results, a volatile product. The procedure might be deft but the results are violent, that is a noted exception.

Using TK on the other hand is a world of difference. You're taking perfectly stable organic matter and destroying it via molecular manipulation, that is not deft by any definition. The energy expended, the violence of the process, the sheer number of molecules that are manipulated resulting in that atomized or demolecularized matter is not in anyway a deft application of TK.

Id bailed you out with a feat, so it's all good.

The reason you have no idea is because you have no idea what the meaning of deftness really is. You have absolutely bastardized its meaning and abused it worse than you would a cheap crack whore.
Specifically manipulating individual atoms and molecules requires deftness becaus the process itself requires extreme
skill, dexterity, prowess, adrotiness,nimbleness etc which is what something being deft actually is.

As for the visualization bit. You would be able to drastically reduce the absurdity of your posts if you would simply.learn to be more careful in the reading of the posts you are replying to Jeesh. The distinction I made esablishes the point perfectly? why? because it isnt the desired effect that is important or even relevant.That is the result, which by definition does not determine deftness as I stressed immensely in previous post. I like how you recharacterized it as "wholesale vs desired effect" to make it more conducive to you argument. That is strawman argumentation (more fallacies *h5*) as the distinction wasnever wholsesale vs desired effect but rather wholesale vs focused mircroscopic manipulation. It is the focus,intentionality and method of application that is relevant. For heavens sakes I italicized and bolded this in my last post. Should I have underlined it to? This is because deftness is concerned with the method performance of an action (in this case matter manipulation). Hence Dr strange achieving the same desired effect has absolutely no bearings when he did not do it using the same process and hence was not deft. Your recalcitrance knows no bounds. You just further exposed your inability to properly analyze the points of an argument in addition to your inability to use sound reasoning.

Furthermore just because you are using Tk to take apart something does not take away deftness. The scale of the matter manipulation is also irrelevant. Deftness is not mutually exclusive from the act of taking something apart. That is a false distinction made by you due to your bastardization of the word. The energy expended is relevant in comparison only to other ways of taking the very same thing apart. The difference is that taking apart with a bomb is not nimble,skillful, dexterous etc. Consciously taking apart each individual atom however is all those things as long as the focus of your applications is the atoms at their microscopic level. The amount of atoms doesnt preclude deftness as long as they are all being consciously and individually manipulated via tk.

And just lulz me needing to be bailed out of anything. Seriously go take some logic classes or something. Im sure your not a stupid guy but your failure to understand even the basic tenets of a cogent argument and constant resortation to fallacious reasoning is really appalling. Your arguments dont stand up to even the slightest bit of logical scrutiny. facepalm

Originally posted by Naija boy

lol,Really this is getting painful. You just keep using words that you seem to not know the meaning of. Taking apart something at the atomic level can only be more or less efficient than an entirely different action (restricting small blood vessels) in relation to the level of energy conserved regarding the specific aims of the respective actions.

Efficiency - in general describes the extent to which time or effort is well used for the intended task or purpose. It is often used with the specific purpose of relaying the capability of a specific application of effort to produce a specific outcome effectively with a minimum amount or quantity of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. "Efficiency" has widely varying meanings in different disciplines.

As in it's more efficient to get maximum results from the least amount of energy i.e. if there's a means for cable to use a less energy costing technique to get the same relative effects (incapacitating his opponent) then he's not being as efficient as he could be.

As an example I mentioned blowing up someone's brain as being less efficient than giving them a stroke via blood vessel constriction if said strategy is viable.

There's nothing to argue about here, but you'll find a way. Are you going to dispute my interpretation of the definition of efficiency now? Move along guy. You should be smart enough not to make non points and make arguments where there's no room for them.

Originally posted by Naija boy
In other words? Taking apart something (which is what Cable does when he deconstructs thigs at the atomic level) is not inherently less efficient than restricting small blood vessels

Read above. It is by defintion if a less costly technique is available to him that could achieve the same relative outcome.

Originally posted by Naija boy
The aims are different.....so...can u guess where u have landed?

The issue about efficiency is an issue of comparison and there's room for comparison because they're trying to achieve the same thing as in incapacitate the target. It is more efficient to expend less energy performing said objective.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Whether Cable had other options is not the debate, it's
....apples and oranges again! Fallacious reasoning loses once more.

How is it fallacious again? We can compare the two applications of TK on the grounds of their efficiency based on their purposes which was to in general terms incapacitate. We can indeed compare the two based on their function as incapacitation techniques using TK.

The way you reason is the problem here.

Originally posted by Naija boy
The results of his vibrations are tangential to their deftness.

And another statement without substance. Why are the results tangential to their deftness? You do know billions upon billions of particles are being violently shaken? Scale doesn't determine deftness either since scale in this case is actually inversely proportional to the violence of the process, the smaller the scale the greater the violence and the pressures and energies involved to effect change.

Originally posted by Naija boy
to Learn the defiinition of the word and what it actually describes before and abusing it.

No you should learn. I don't hurl patronizing words by intention. So when I told you to learn I wasn't being patronizing. So please, desist. You seem to equate deftness with scale when the two are not in anyway in correlation. Again it doesn't matter the scale of the TK manip, it's the type of action taking place on whatever scale that matters. At that scale the molecules are being moved violently to break up structural bonds, there's nothing deft in that break down process.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Hence i dont necessarilly need to show you any results because the premises on which you are basing the question are faulty to begin with.

Which is why this is a waste of time. Both the trigger/activation and the result are far from deft.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Oh and im reading your posts very well. The lack of reasoned argumentation hurts my eyes..but yeah im still reading them and pointing out the numerous flaws in them that obviously flew way over your head. Seriously, started off with a non-sequitur, built up speed with the causal oversimplification and finished it off with some brilliant apples and oranges comparisons. In the race for the most logically doomed argument ive seen on KMC in the past few days, you are definitely in the lead. Bravo.

Remember how your argument was stumbling?....then free falling?
Guess were it is now

-Six feet under. Dont bother trying to revive it.

Consider the flaws in your argument before addressing mine. You have a whole encyclopedia of flaws in your rebuttals.

yay for semantics 🙂

Originally posted by Allankles
Yes, I already know this. He's vibrating molecules (that is his act of deftness according to you). But do we agree that it is an extremely violent process? There's no gentility, neatness or nimbleness to atomizing matter, which is essentially what that vibration results in.

We've already been through this but you'd rather bandy words for pages. The sheer effort it takes to break down and restructure that matter by pure Telekinesis is far more than the Telekinetic power or energy necessary to do what MB did.

This isn't a slight or delicate rearrangement to cause a bigger reaction. We're talking literally shaking the whole structure of that piece of matter by sheer TK force. And we're only talking combat, just to reclarify.

Yes the way the action was performed was not a function of deftness.

I love how you argue. Making generalizations like "action is performed", over and over until we lose sight of the actual gist of our disagreement. What action? And how was it's performance a function of deftness? Explain, don't just state and generalize.

You say you already know this and yet you talk about the the results being the determination of deftness continuously. Get the hell outta here with this nonsense. increasing the vibration of each individual molecule does require nimbleness (given that he is consciously operating at that micropscopic level),dexterity,and skill which are the core definitions of the word deftness. The word neat doesnt apply in this context only because you are using it to describe the result of the action when deftness relates to the process itself. It is obviously a more violent process because the result he is looking for calls for it but this has no bearing on the deftness of the way he is using his tk.

I have already been through this but you would rather ignore it and use fallacies left right and center. Your inability to grasp simiple logic just went from slightly irritating to flat out annoying.

The sheer effort was greater because the task is one that is much more daunting. The doesnt by any means prevent the task from being achieved in a deft manner. You claim you understand that and yet you make the same conflation just a few lines later. Learn how to freaking reason.

He isnt merely shaking the whole structure as any regular telekinetic could esily do, he is consciously manipulating each
individual atom. That requires deftness. Stop attempting to recharacterie what he did so it will make it easier for you to argue against.

The last bit is probably the most asinine thing you have posted since this discussion started . I was describing what part of an action deftness relates to and mentioned it is focused on the performance of the action. And then you single it out and call it a generalization and ask what action? and how was its performance a function of deftness?.lmao. I was not referring to a specific action in that case but rather the general definition of the word deftness and in what context it can be applied. You attempts to single that out make yourself look smart, have instead made you look like a bum with no reading comprehension. Seriously what idiocy

Oh boy! The analogy is so retarded. First of all instead of talking about how the two moves were deft i.e. the type of technique or touch applied to the ball you just call them both "deft" and then chalk it up as an analogy. Basically what you said was "action A is deft and took more energy and action B was deft and took less energy therefore action A is not deft". As if that resembles anything I've said, learn how to use analogies. When I break down what you say, it turns you're not saying much at all. Arguing with you feels like an out and out pissing contest, it's draining. The amount of energy expended is a result of the violence of the process of vibrating molecules to demolecularize matter. It expends more energy because it is a more violent process, I thought you were smart? I wasn't saying that energy level alone is the reason the TK application lacked deftness, I already explained why it takes more energy. This isn't rocket science, and if you're smart stop making arguments that don't address what I've actually said. It's the violence involved at the molecular level that make the process lack deftness, since you already know the definition of deft. We also know scale (microscopic or otherwise) doesn't not factor into deftness. Atomic theory wants to meet you

There is something seemingly rearded here but its neither me nor my analogy? Can you guess what it is? While you are using ur paltry mental power to do that let me see if i can educate you were school clearly failed. I mentioned the technique applied to the soccer ball which was a stepover dribble. Nimbles, adroit, skillful,cleveri .e deft. Then for tennis a well placed crosscourt shot to the corner also requires similar skill, cleverness, nimbleness etc. deftness. I gave you too much credit in thinking you would understand this and i wouldnt need to go into tennis and soccer technicalities. Dont worry I wont make that same mistake. Also It resembles exactly what you said which was:

We've already established that vibrating molecules, breaking down the structure of matter involves more energy and results in messier outcomes than what MB did. Which means that such manipulation is not actually deft by definition

Now you are resorting to straight up lying. Your based the lack of deftness of cables feat on its requiring more energy to perform and resulting in messier outcomes (which is irrelevant as deftness is concerned with the performance of the action). It is more violent only because by definition taking something apart is violent action. However deftness is concerned with the precision,nimblness,skill,etc
that was used during the process of taking it apart. Just the fact that he is taking it apart doesnt denigrate its deftness. My God. I am arguing against everything you say. You are the one that is selectively choosing what to quote and mischaracterizing everything i say so that it becomes easier for you to fallaciously debate against. This is getting pitiful. The scale of the matter manipulation is only irrelevant in so far as it is referring to the quantity of atoms(or whatver is being referenced) being manipulated. In terms of sheer size though, the scale i.e microscopic size is very relevant indeed because he is displaying high levels of nimbleness in manipulating it at its smallest possible point. Manchester black applying telekinetic pressure to supermans entire arm wholesale would be much less deft than him doing so to his capillaries. Jeesh.

And lulz at your last patheti little comment. As if that has any relevance here. We arent arguing atomic theory we are arguing about the application of the English language. Reasoning and logic DONT want to meet you. You are the antithesis of everyhing they stand for.

Originally posted by Naija boy
The reason you have no idea is because you have no idea what the meaning of deftness really is. You have absolutely bastardized its meaning and abused it worse than you would a cheap crack whore.
Specifically manipulating individual atoms and molecules requires deftness becaus the process itself requires extreme
skill, dexterity, prowess, adrotiness,nimbleness etc which is what something being deft actually is.

As for the visualization bit. You would be able to drastically reduce the absurdity of your posts if you would simply.learn to be more careful in the reading of the posts you are replying to Jeesh. The distinction I made esablishes the point perfectly? why? because it isnt the desired effect that is important or even relevant.That is the result, which by definition does not determine deftness as I stressed immensely in previous post. I like how you recharacterized it as "wholesale vs desired effect" to make it more conducive to you argument. That is strawman argumentation (more fallacies *h5*) as the distinction was[B]never wholsesale vs desired effect but rather wholesale vs focused mircroscopic manipulation. It is the focus,intentionality and method of application that is relevant. For heavens sakes I italicized and bolded this in my last post. Should I have underlined it to? This is because deftness is concerned with the method performance of an action (in this case matter manipulation). Hence Dr strange achieving the same desired effect has absolutely no bearings when he did not do it using the same process and hence was not deft. Your recalcitrance knows no bounds. You just further exposed your inability to properly analyze the points of an argument in addition to your inability to use sound reasoning.

Furthermore just because you are using Tk to take apart something does not take away deftness. The scale of the matter manipulation is also irrelevant. Deftness is not mutually exclusive from the act of taking something apart. That is a false distinction made by you due to your bastardization of the word. The energy expended is relevant in comparison only to other ways of taking the very same thing apart. The difference is that taking apart with a bomb is not nimble,skillful, dexterous etc. Consciously taking apart each individual atom however is all those things as long as the focus of your applications is the atoms at their microscopic level. The amount of atoms doesnt preclude deftness as long as they are all being consciously and individually manipulated via tk.

And just lulz me needing to be bailed out of anything. Seriously go take some logic classes or something. Im sure your not a stupid guy but your failure to understand even the basic tenets of a cogent argument and constant resortation to fallacious reasoning is really appalling. Your arguments dont stand up to even the slightest bit of logical scrutiny. facepalm [/B]

And it still doesn't address the point I made about visualization vs micrsocopic perception.

Because you mentioned scale again as being the determination of deftness. That is where the visualization bit comes into play. Way to go showing that you weren't even following the line of reasoning that I was on, or even people like 757 and Leo.

Visualization wouldn't require deftness, since the practitioner isn't even able to perceive or sense things at a microscopic level. You even provided Strange as an example. He wouldn't need deftness to manipulate those molecules.

He could perform extremely complex actions by visualization, bypassing the head ache of atomic manipulation by jumping to the activation phase of the process.

You've used the terms "focused microscopic manipulation" but that can be achieved via visualization, without actually having actual microscopic perception.

If I want a few molecules to be maniped for a specific focused purpose I can achieve that through visualization because I have an activation. Whether that activation is magic spell or potent TK doesn't matter. But when actual microscopic perception is involved, then deftness becomes essential in performing more intricate manipulations.

You just proved that you weren't really paying attention.

And yes breaking down something doesn't mean it isn't deft. However again, that is dependent on the actual actions being taken at that microscopic level and whether or not its based on visualization or perception.

And Id did bail you out, since you're weren't providing anything specific with regards to Cable's microscopic perceptions.

Originally posted by Allankles

If he did that in combat, and it didn't involve destroying chunks of matter then that is by definition deft. If this is true the discussion ends there.

Why does he need to show that he can do that in combat when he showed that he was capable in those scans?

You attempts to single that out make yourself look smart, have instead made you look like a bum with no reading comprehension.

There is something seemingly rearded here but its neither me nor my analogy

And lulz at your last patheti little comment.

Stop attempting to recharacterie what he did so it will make it easier for you to argue against.

using ur paltry mental power to do that let me see if i can educate you were school clearly failed.

We arent arguing atomic theory we are arguing about the application of the English language.

You are the antithesis of everyhing they stand for.

Without adding or taking from either side of the debate, the irony here is hilarious to me. Mostly the way it all adds up to those last couple of comments. 😄

Originally posted by Juntai
Without adding or taking from either side of the debate, the irony here is hilarious to me. Mostly the way it all adds up to those last couple of comments. 😄

Originally posted by Naija boy

Now you are resorting to straight up lying. Your based the lack of deftness of cables feat on its requiring more energy to perform and resulting in messier outcomes (which is irrelevant as deftness is concerned with the performance of the action). It is more violent only because by definition taking something apart is violent action. However deftness is concerned with the precision,nimblness,skill,etc
that was used during the process of taking it apart.

I've mentioned the violence of the process being responsible for the energy being expended time and time again in this thread, before you wrote up that rebuttal the first time. Stop taking individual sentences/statements without framing it to what I'm saying in totality, and then running with it.

Forming an entire essay of argumentation on a statement that was besides the point.

Yes cleverness (I'd like to you explain how vibrating someones brain or limbs since these were the subjects of our debate on this matter is clever). I'd also like you to explain how it requires nimbleness since you didn't provide any evidence of Cable's microscopic perception and were just running on nothing but verbosity?

How it is gentle, neat or adroite? Skill I'll give you because the word as broader definitions.

Cable is better than MB at everything, case closed.

Originally posted by carver9
Why does he need to show that he can do that in combat when he showed that he was capable in those scans?

Because I was discussing CIS? How the character uses his abilities in combat.

Originally posted by Mindset
Cable is better than MB at everything, case closed.

This is a pissing contest between me and Naija. It isn't about which character is better anymore.