Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
actually it does.. in either case thanos reacted to a faster than light speedblitz.. period. The point is.. you have NO IDEA how far away the Fallen One was... you have NO IDEA how long it takes for him to accelerate to light speed and you have NO IDEA how fast he was actually traveling. Period.
Thanos didn't react to a faster than lightspeed blitz.
A negative is always true unless the positive is proven.
That means Fallen one never exceeded light speed when Thanos stopped him.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Death to all infidels and heathens. I already answered it. You then asked again. I made it clear.Prove Mar-vell is nowhere near Superman's level of strength. Thanos dominated Mar-vell who wasn't even remotely close to threatened by Nova or the Surfer.
Thanos can cause his death and Superman fighting in character means he will take some shots. It's in his character to assume he can take it.
I asked you to define more powerful, you answered more power output.
I then asked you to define power output, you never answered.
As far as Mar-vell not being in Superman's level. A negative is always true unless the positive is proven.
If Thanos causes Superman's death then he wins. Who cares if the death is permanent or not?
Superman can take some shots but will step his game up if he feels Thanos is too powerful to be messing around with.
Originally posted by Nihilist
Can your trolling get any worse, Marvell didnt do a thing to Thanos at all...Thanos punched him drawing blood then chokeslammed him into the floor.You are simply pathetic.
Mar-vell stomped him into the ground. Who cares though Mar-vell is not in Superman's physical level.
Originally posted by h1a8Capable of damaging a character moreso than another character's power with a single attack. Imagine a blast doing more damage than a character who just uses strength and punches. That's how I define overall power.
Thanos didn't react to a faster than lightspeed blitz.
A negative is always true unless the positive is proven.
That means Fallen one never exceeded light speed when Thanos stopped him.I asked you to define more powerful, you answered more power output.
I then asked you to define power output, you never answered.As far as Mar-vell not being in Superman's level. A negative is always true unless the positive is proven.
If Thanos causes Superman's death then he wins. Who cares if the death is permanent or not?
Superman can take some shots but will step his game up if he feels Thanos is too powerful to be messing around with.
Superman can't take shots from someone this powerful. The guy can put Galactus on his ass. The power difference is huge.
Originally posted by h1a8this is just wrong. Just because u can't prove something doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen. If i killed someone but u cant prove it, that doesn't mean I didn't kill them. What's the positive? Me killing someone. What's the negative? Me not killing them. Can u prove I killed them? No. So then by ur logic of "if u can't prove the positive then the negative is ALWAYS true" I didn't kill anyone.The negative always true UNLESS the positive can be proven. Is that better
Originally posted by Raptor22Owned.
this is just wrong. Just because u can't prove something doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen. If i killed someone but u cant prove it, that doesn't mean I didn't kill them. What's the positive? Me killing someone. What's the negative? Me not killing them. Can u prove I killed them? No. So then by ur logic of "if u can't prove the positive then the negative is ALWAYS true" I didn't kill anyone.
Originally posted by Raptor22*math equation*
this is just wrong. Just because u can't prove something doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen. If i killed someone but u cant prove it, that doesn't mean I didn't kill them. What's the positive? Me killing someone. What's the negative? Me not killing them. Can u prove I killed them? No. So then by ur logic of "if u can't prove the positive then the negative is ALWAYS true" I didn't kill anyone.
I'm right. Now it's time to use a new line of logic for a week that is a "fact"
Originally posted by Raptor22
this is just wrong. Just because u can't prove something doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen. If i killed someone but u cant prove it, that doesn't mean I didn't kill them. What's the positive? Me killing someone. What's the negative? Me not killing them. Can u prove I killed them? No. So then by ur logic of "if u can't prove the positive then the negative is ALWAYS true" I didn't kill anyone.
You don't understand. This is fiction. That means none of this stuff really happened. Thus the negative is always true unless the positive can be proven still holds.
Second, my statement still holds for your analogy since you have proven to yourself that you killed (in your mind).
Finally, if no one can prove to others that you killed someone then it is irrelevant if you did or didn't kill someone.
Good try though!
Originally posted by h1a8first my analogy was fiction too. Second not at all since the question is can u prove it, not if i know i did it. In the scenario u don't know that I know I did it, and u can't prove I did. So from your view, using your logic, since u can't prove the positive (I did it), then the negative is true(I didn't). Third ur whole point was that if u can't prove it never happened then it didnt, now it's if u can't prove it, it's irrelevant. And how would whether or not I killed someone NOT be relevant when your trying to prove if I killed someone or not.
You don't understand. This is fiction. That means none of this stuff really happened. Thus the negative is always true unless the positive can be proven still holds.Second, my statement still holds for your analogy since you have proven to yourself that you killed (in your mind).
Finally, if no one can prove to others that you killed someone then it is irrelevant if you did or didn't kill someone.
Good try though!
Good try but stick to making up bs math and stay away from making up bs fictional rules.
Originally posted by Raptor22
this is just wrong. Just because u can't prove something doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen. If i killed someone but u cant prove it, that doesn't mean I didn't kill them. What's the positive? Me killing someone. What's the negative? Me not killing them. Can u prove I killed them? No. So then by ur logic of "if u can't prove the positive then the negative is ALWAYS true" I didn't kill anyone.
Not all statements can be reduced to True or False. And even those that can, may not be answered either way due to lack of information.
Assuming that something isn't the case, unless proven otherwise is a piece of common sense, practical 'wisdom'. In many cases it makes life easier to manage with doubts and inadequate information. I don't buy the idea that this holds true for all conditions nor that it is an intelligent position to take in certain instances.
Yet your example of assuming that, absent proof, I should still consider you guilty of murder is only sensible if there is a reasonable body of evidence to support such a supposition. Your example rests more on degrees of certainty, and the idea that you often have to make assertions or act upon assumptions that aren't 100% proven true.
As a result, we have a lot of innocent people in prison (and as a result of a dogmatic application to the inverse 'rule', a lot of guilty people out on the streets).
Anyway, the old mantra "Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence" is best ✅
Originally posted by h1a8That was Thanos slamming Marvell into the ground YOU GOD DAMN F*CKING CLOWN.
You are either blind, a liar, or just plain stupid. Mar-vell hit Thanos into the ground before Thanos choked him.
Here is the full fight,props to bran for the scans.
http://tinypic.com/r/2qv9nia/7
http://tinypic.com/r/25ho2fc/7
http://tinypic.com/r/1199uyp/7
http://tinypic.com/r/e1b49h/7
http://tinypic.com/r/5xos3o/7
Originally posted by Nihilist
That was Thanos slamming Marvell into the ground YOU GOD DAMN F*CKING CLOWN.Here is the full fight,props to bran for the scans.
http://tinypic.com/r/2qv9nia/7
http://tinypic.com/r/25ho2fc/7
http://tinypic.com/r/1199uyp/7
http://tinypic.com/r/e1b49h/7
http://tinypic.com/r/5xos3o/7
Uhm, the second scan 🙄