Originally posted by Starscream M
You believe superman wins or you're just saying that?
No, I do not believe that supes could win, I would give mags 8/10 against almost anyone that energy he can tamper with and since magneto creation I have as of yet to see anyone break through his shields.
Magneto controls the em spectrum on a planetary scale... he would see supes like a play toy.
But again, I give up on this thread and I'm going to end it like this...
Supes for the majority.
Originally posted by carver9The no limits fallacy is the illogical idea that a poorly understood phenomena can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed to not have any maximum value or threshold. For a gross example, observing that a shield can easily withstand an attack from a particular weapon, one might illogically conclude that the shield could withstand fire from an unlimited number of those weapons at the same time, or that it could withstand fire from a similar weapon that was much more powerful.
No, I do not believe that supes could win, I would give mags 8/10 against almost anyone that energy he can tamper with and since magneto creation I have as of yet to see anyone break through his shields.Magneto controls the em spectrum on a planetary scale... he would see supes like a play toy.
But again, I give up on this thread and I'm going to end it like this...
Supes for the majority.
Originally posted by Creshosk
The no limits fallacy is the illogical idea that a poorly understood phenomena can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed to not have any maximum value or threshold. For a gross example, observing that a shield can easily withstand an attack from a particular weapon, one might illogically conclude that the shield could withstand fire from an unlimited number of those weapons at the same time, or that it could withstand fire from a similar weapon that was much more powerful.
So mags shields withstanding attacks from "phoenix, galactus, thor, an enraged hulk, black bolts scream" etc... etc, doesn't prove anything? How about this, show me the weakest character that has actually broken through it for your argument (I was about to ignore your post and let someone else respond to it) to hold any kind of weight.
And please don't come at me with that real world logic cr** for a comic book.
Originally posted by carver9
So mags shields withstanding attacks from "phoenix, galactus, thor, an enraged hulk, black bolts scream" etc... etc, doesn't prove anything? How about this, show me the weakest character that has actually broken through it for your argument (I was about to ignore your post and let someone else respond to it) to hold any kind of weight.And please don't come at me with that real world logic cr** for a comic book.
real world logic counts. you not wanting it to doesn't change that.
Originally posted by carver9
The key word in my post is "almost".
I saw the almost... which means MOST people who squared off against Mags you would give him the win if he could tamper with their energy. Why would I be excluding some when I was working under your.. almost all. Anyways, why would Thanos or Prime beat mags.. while supers.. wouldn't? I'm just curious on what factors you believe to be different in those situations.
By the way.. I think some of the arguments for Mags are reasonable, I don't think it's enough, but they are certainly plausible.
Originally posted by -Pr-
real world logic counts. you not wanting it to doesn't change that.
Imo it doesn't. What happened to the shockwave from the prime and ion fight? Why was the only thing that was destroyed was a cemetary? Real world logic doesn't apply to a comic... at all. There are so many things going against this that its crazy.
Originally posted by carver9
Imo it doesn't. What happened to the shockwave from the prime and ion fight? Why was the only thing that was destroyed was a cemetary? Real world logic doesn't apply to a comic... at all. There are so many things going against this that its crazy.
you're talking about science, not logic. completely different things.
Originally posted by carver9I't's not something that you can have an opnion on. It's not a suibjective thing. Without real world logic there's no point in trying to debate who would win because all of YOUR arguments are based off real world logic.
Imo it doesn't.
Magneto's sheild you reason to be able to block out superman because you've seen it block out other things. Real world logic would dictate it'd be able to block out the same thing in the future.
If p then q. P therefore q
That's real world logic.
Evidence and proof are part of real world logic as well. Otherwise a person can say Superman wins, just because. When the forum rulexs state that'sd not allowed. That you have to PROVE it.
Likewise if you think that Magneto's sheild will stop Superman level attacks the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it.
Just take the rule and replace spiderman with magneto's sheild.
"You think that <Magneto's Sheild> is stronger than Superman? Then you need to prove it."