Originally posted by Allankles
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.
A precise comparison of the efficiency of the two actions is only relevant when the two actions have the same goal. The action that i kept referring to was Cable taking apart a structure with tk (this is what he an surfer were doing while fighting) at the atomic level NOT blowing up deadpools Brain which is not deft in the way it was performed. I was using that feat to establish that in principle manipulating something at the atomic level requires deftness. And then I used his manipulation of the vibrations in a guys arm to show his application of that deftness in combat on an opponent. Furthermore in the post i quoted you did not do a direct comparison between blowig up deadpools brain and suqeezing blood vessels so your use of the word efficiency was much different from how you are applying it now. Moreover even now, your comparison of efficiency is only in the most general of terms i.e incapacitating the opponent, while im referring to efficiency of the specific actions with relation to their specific aims and intents (Cable completely tearing apart a structure, MB giving superman a stroke). The specific aims of the actions are different, even if their general intent is the same.
Still this is indeed irrelevant to the ore of the discussion..
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.
Because results are not a determinant of deftness. Neither is your use of the word violence going to detract from it. The violence of the action in this case is warranted by the type of action being carried out. Deftness for the umpteenth time is based on not the type of action but the way in which that type of action is performed. The scale in terms of size is indeed importance because it emphasizes the level of nimbleness and precision needed.
ou 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.
Not at all. read above. sigh
Originally posted by Naija boy
A precise comparison of the efficiency of the two actions is only relevant when the two actions have the same goal. The action that i kept referring to was Cable taking apart a structure with tk (this is what he an surfer were doing while fighting) at the atomic level NOT blowing up deadpools Brain which is not deft in the way it was performed.
Holy mother! So you were not even basing your rebuttals on the feat I was discussing? Even after I made it clear again and again that I was talking strictly combat feats?
Dude. You keep *sighing* seems I should be the one to sigh longest and deepest.
Originally posted by carver9
So you admit that in a cis environment Gladiator, Surfer, and Superman won't use their speed 90% of the time?
That's a topic for another place but Superman and Glads have used speed in combat. I don't attach percentages to how much they'd use their speed, as is often always the case, its use will depend on the scenario.
If Id's example was a combat feat then I chalk it up as a deft use of TK in combat for Cable, since he has microscopic perception.
Could have saved me a lot writing and repetition if he'd posted that earlier. 😠
Originally posted by Allankles
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.
No i mentioned scale in regards to size as being a contributor to deftness because it helps emphasize nimbleness which itself contributes to deftness. I have been following your apparent line of reasoning (if it can even be called that) just fine. You completely mischaracterized mine and were arguing against strawmen
If he is visualizing the specific atoms and thereby manipulating them then yes it would require deftness because despite the fact that he is visualizing it, he is still displaying a level of precision and skill, that sets him apart from other tkers.
It is the same way in which manchester black performs his tk feats via visualization without actually having to perceive the microscopic capillaries he is manipulating. It is the actual application of pressure to that microscopic body part that shows the level of skill, and nimblesness unseen in just any telekinetic that emphasizes blacks deftness. Whether he used visualization or not is not relevant.
The difference between the magic spell and the focused tk I am talking about is that Dr strange is not individually manipulating each molecule/atom etc. He is using a spell to create a wholesale effect. If he uses a spell however with the precision that cable is in which he would focus on manipulating each indvidual molecule then he would be displaying a increased level of skill and dexterity with his spells and consequently would be showing deftness whether he is using visualization or not.
This is really a waste of my time
Originally posted by Allankles
Holy mother! So you were not even basing your rebuttals on the feat I was discussing? Even after I made it clear again and again that I was talking strictly combat feats?Dude. You keep *sighing* seems I should be the one to sigh longest and deepest.
I mentioned in one of my earliest posts that i was using the deconstruction feat to show why manipulating something at the atomic level in principle required deftness. That was what my entire entry into this discussion was based on.I then mentioned the vibration feat to show his use of that deftness and manipulation in combat.
Seriously learn to read the posts you reply to. I made clear what I was trying to pass across from the very beginning.
Originally posted by Allankles
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.
I was replying to exactly what you said in your post. Its your resposibility to make yourself clear and choose your words in order to pass across whatever message you are trying to give..not mine
The fact that he is manipulating atoms individually makes it nimble. Visualization or not is irrelevant The skill needed to do it is also immense. Furthermore it being adroit is evidenced by the skill and nimbleness required. since adroit is basically a synonym for skill. The terms gentle or neat are not applicable here given that the type of action being performed is one that involves destruction.
Jeebuz!
I see, write an essay and then at the bottom state - for my benefit I assume - how much this is wasting your time. Cool.
You were arguing a completely different set of feats.
We've talked, gentleness, cleverness, nimbleness, adroitness, skill.
Some of the process and effects of the Cable feats I was discussing don't cover the criteria, visualization or otherwise, and something like nimbleness doesn't factor when you're visualizing, but the rest of the definitions might.
Again violently ripping people apart is not deft - these were the feats I was discussing.
Strange's sorcery isn't all that different as an activation actually (as regards visualization), since the magical energy and power are innate, basically he's essentially using his own form of remote kinetic manipulation.
^lulz,
What I was arguing for was the principle of deftness in atomic level tk and then the subsequent application of that TK in Cables vibration feat. Your argument denied this principle and that is what i continuously pointed out.
You will see that the feat you now funnily claim to have been discussing (Deadpools brain feat), I mentioned at the very beginning was not a display of deftness at all.
Learn to r.....Nevermind. smh
Nimbleness does factor in when you are consciously applying tk to such precise degrees visualization or not. The other things I mentioned (skill, adroitness etc) above also factor in and indicate deftness.
I wasn't just discussing the brain feat but also other instances of atomizing his opponents in varying degrees.
Nimbleness wouldn't factor if visualization is involved because you're not perceiving the molecules on any level in manipulating them.
You do realize billions upon billions of particles are involved in this kind of manipulation? Even the most specific?
I already said the other parts of the definition would factor, case in point MB.
^
http://thesaurus.com/browse/nimble
Visualization doesnt eliminate nimbleness. Nimbleness is a component of dexterity, adeptness etc and is certainly necessary for Cables level of tk. its hilarious to think otherwise.
And yes i know that billions of particles are involved in these types of manipulation, however the number of particles involved does not eliminate nimbleness or deftness.