Colossus vs. Sabertooth

Originally posted by Creshosk
I explained above what logic was and still you use this attack on people that disagree with you?

And what supports you, as I use what supports me. as anyone uses what supports them in a debate.

That's why as Wickerman said, real world physics have little (not no) place in comic book debates. Actually Spiderman didn't beat the X-Men back then either. He beat the X-men (minus Xavier) who were holding back. . .

Poisoned tea. . .

But everyone does that. . . everyone.

Take care.

he's saying that its REAL WORLD LOGIC, and I wasn't talking about that, jinzin has problems understanding stuff because hes so presumptious it gets annoying, especially since he isn't new here.

As for supporting, don't overlook evidence to the contrary, there are many types of evidence to the contrary.

conclusion, unless you can find where its a HUNKING PIECE OF METAL, then why are you saying that its true?

Originally posted by Onikirimaru
THats a point I was trying to make with the whole "Wolverine Logic" thing. By his power's definition, he shouldnt be able to do all of the feats that he has done. So you venture into a grey area with him. Sometimes he heals instantly, some times he doesnt. He cant have his joints dislocated, dont know why. (They probably could fix it in one sentance in the comic book if they wanted) just what is his strength level, etc etc. I can look at that and say "Thats just Wolvie fan fueled Marvel stupidity"someone else says "Thats how Wolvie rolls, he's that good, he does this all the time, it HAS to be true"

See post above 😂

yes, i agree.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
I think he means that since he does things outside his abilities, that's PIS. His abilities however should be based on feats. There's a vicious circle in there of whether by applying PIS consistently it no longer becomes PIS and just fact, or not.

~wickerman~

No it should be on intangibles, you and I can make a list a mile long on who beat who, can we.

Take out the plot devices and the HERO factor, and go by that logic.

We had this discussion over human torch, does he go nova on good guys to kill him, no.

Can he, yes.

Or why flash gets hit by boomerangs....

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Take a really sharp kitchen knife and cut a can, now pretend that can is metal from top to bottom.

You need strength and leverage to cut.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Wolverine taking his blows are ps nonetheless

Why? 😑

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
, and not falling out...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Unless the knife is sharp enough and just glides right through the can, as some of my faveorite knives around here do. I mean they just go right through aluminum and tin cans like they weren't there.

Even though he does it the majority of the time? 😬

Why? 😑

Eh?

because it doesn't make sense, hulk has hit many, many characters and they've stood up.

Flash gets hit often too, are you getting my point now...

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
he's saying that its REAL WORLD LOGIC, and I wasn't talking about that, jinzin has problems understanding stuff because hes so presumptious it gets annoying, especially since he isn't new here.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As for supporting, don't overlook evidence to the contrary, there are many types of evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
conclusion, unless you can find where its a HUNKING PIECE OF METAL, then why are you saying that its true?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No it should be on intangibles, you and I can make a list a mile long on who beat who, can we.

Take out the plot devices and the HERO factor, and go by that logic.

We had this discussion over human torch, does he go nova on good guys to kill him, no.

Can he, yes.

Or why flash gets hit by boomerangs....

Apples and oranges here. . .

Originally posted by Wickerman
No personal attacks man nono

I myself think it's a nasty crap-ass debate, and to tell you the truth, it gives me headaches. Soooo.......i would normally avoid wolverine/sabertooth threads, seeing as how they involve a certain amount of brain processing, and i usually come in this forum quite tired.

~wickerman~

sorry but coming from a guy that just told me I have no grasp of logic because I simply share a difference of opinion...forgive me if I'm not exactly awake at night after making such "personal attacks" at least I'm not calling anybody around here nuttswingers.. 😂

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
because it doesn't make sense, hulk has hit many, many characters and they've stood up.

Flash gets hit often too, are you getting my point now...

It's like seeing a guy shoot a bullseye 90% of the time and then saying he can't do it again. THAT makes less sense than what you're saying.

That what Wolverine does the majority of the time is simply a plot device? 😬

There's a difference between a personality flaw and an ability flaw. . .

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
No it should be on intangibles, you and I can make a list a mile long on who beat who, can we.

Take out the plot devices and the HERO factor, and go by that logic.

We had this discussion over human torch, does he go nova on good guys to kill him, no.

Can he, yes.

Or why flash gets hit by boomerangs....

Ok, i'm tired, so i'm gonna give you a scenario so that i can understand what you're saying better.

You have a character. He has abilities A and B.
Now...the character wasn't popular at first.
Abilities A and B wouldn't make it able for him to fight another character and survive. However, he does. Let's call that PIS.
Still not being popular, the same character engages several more characters that should kill him given his abilities A and B, but they don't. He survives, even wins. Let's call that PIS too.
He eventually becomes popular. He now loses like...once a year, even though he keeps on fighting characters that should kill him given abilities A and B.

BUT the character has been shown during his entire career, that despite his abilities A and B that he can do those things. So then i come in the discussion and say that he's written consistently, and that even though he shouldn't be able to do those things, he DOES them. And so that we shouldn't be surprised if he does them again.

This is wrong, i understand. But it's fact. And so, can it then REALLY be considered that all of his career was one big PIS or that in time due to the constant writing he's had, the character now has ability C?

Now i see ability C as Wolverine's ability to take heavy hits from heavyweights.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by jinzin
sorry but coming from a guy that just told me I have no grasp of logic because I simply share a difference of opinion...forgive me if I'm not exactly awake at night after making such "personal attacks" at least I'm not calling anybody around here nuttswingers.. 😂

You never call me that, i know 🙁
But either way, both of you need to chill out.I like the both of you, and i hate i when the two of you argue. So both of you chill, or no more hawt luvin mhm

~wickerman~

this is the argument that srank had with him in the wolverine spiderman thread all over again.

*wolverine is pis

-even though he does this stuff all the time?

*remember that one time a street level hit him (while he wasn't looking) and won the fight?

-as opposed to the 20 odd times wolverine beat that street level before and afterwards? as opposed to the even more numerous times he's taken down tougher opponents?

*you don't get logic

-sure I do but comic book logic differs from real world logic

*you're a fanboy

-cause I share a differing viewpoint?

*.......................

*flash and bommerangs! yadda yadda yadda

-🤨

* you think wolverine can beat blah blah blah...

-those are argument's I've never made 🤨

* I just owned you

*good job

*thank you

-why are you patting yourself on the back?

*you think wolverine can kill the ocean floor!...

every argument ever posted by (insert assumption here) I think you all know who I'm talking about. 😉

Originally posted by Wickerman
You never call me that, i know 🙁
But either way, both of you need to chill out.I like the both of you, and i hate i when the two of you argue. So both of you chill, or no more hawt luvin mhm

~wickerman~

arguing? I'd have to take his arse off ignore to argue with him... if he's still stuck in the rutt of responding to my post when I can't see him..well....

Originally posted by jinzin
arguing? I'd have to take his arse off ignore to argue with him... if he's still stuck in the rutt of responding to my post when I can't see him..well....

ooooookay.......how's about we just discuss characters and no more personal references before i get pissed and bring Mainstream into the thread and ask him to flood the thread with .wmv's of Apocalypse's "I am destiny, look unto me for i hold bla bla bla" speeches.......and i WILL....... 😖hifty:

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
ooooookay.......how's about we just discuss characters and no more personal references before i get pissed and bring Mainstream into the thread and ask him to flood the thread with .wmv's of Apocalypse's "I am destiny, look unto me for i hold bla bla bla" speeches.......and i WILL....... 😖hifty:

~wickerman~

😂

Originally posted by jinzin
😂

Laugh all you want funnyboy......you KNOW you fear that prospect 😖hifty:

~wickerman~

Originally posted by jinzin
-sure I do but comic book logic differs from real world logic

There is no "comic book logic" or "real world logic". . . Logic is just a tool for processing data. Comic book data and real world data are different, but are processed by the same tool.

If you are trying to get a "real world" output, you use "real world" data.
If you are trying to get a "comic world" output, as we are, you use "comic world" data. However you temper this with real world data to fill in what is not known, but real world data should never be used where comic book data already exists. However, to blend the two you should use comic world data to chose what bits of real world data are useable as well.

Originally posted by Wickerman
Laugh all you want funnyboy......you KNOW you fear that prospect 😖hifty:

~wickerman~

I love mainstream....do it anyways...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually as I've been trying to get this changed to be more technically accurate.

There is no "comic book logic" or "real world logic". . . Logic is just a tool for processing data. Comic book data and real world data are different, but are processed by the same tool.

If you are trying to get a "real world" output, you use "real world" data.
If you are trying to get a "comic world" output, as we are, you use "comic world" data. However you temper this with real world data to fill in what is not known, but real world data should never be used where comic book data already exists. However, to blend the two you should use comic world data to chose what bits of real world data are useable as well.

hmm good point...but I wasn't making a statement..rather...a joke.

although I still don't think that quote wuld be wrong..

you 've kind of just supported it by saying that both real world and comic book logic are derived from their own different sets of evidence, thus comic book logic STILL differs from real world logic.

but yes, I understand it's more equated as a tool to reach a conclussion rather than the conclussion itself.

Originally posted by jinzin
hmm good point...but I wasn't making a statement..rather...a joke.

Originally posted by jinzin
although I still don't think that quote wuld be wrong..

you 've kind of just supported it by saying that both real world and comic book logic are derived from their own different sets of evidence, thus comic book logic STILL differs from real world logic.

but yes, I understand it's more equated as a tool to reach a conclussion rather than the conclussion itself.

*New Definitions Appear*
"Comic Book Logic": Logic that is processing Comic Book Data.

"Real World Logic": Logic that is processing Real World Data.

Well would you look at that 😐

Originally posted by jinzin
hmm good point...but I wasn't making a statement..rather...a joke.

although I still don't think that quote wuld be wrong..

you 've kind of just supported it by saying that both real world and comic book logic are derived from their own different sets of evidence, thus comic book logic STILL differs from real world logic.

but yes, I understand it's more equated as a tool to reach a conclussion rather than the conclussion itself.