Punisher vs Wolverine

Started by Creshosk58 pages
Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by Master-Borg
true...and I agree with you that a bullet would not be able to go through logan's eyesocket

my point is that its not the best argument to say that because a comic feat is inconsistent with real world knowledge of human anatomy then it must be discounted

on the other hand, your point that logan has been shot in the eye before but not damaged in the brain IS a legitimate point against Carver's argument

I mean, I always say its BS that Logan's skeleton doesnt fall apart when he's burned to the bone...but you and Battlehammer have debated that its always been that way, and I've come to accept your conclusion...despite the fact that it would not make sense if we considered real anatomy

that's the way the game works. It has to happen often enough to be accepted. Everyone of Spiderman, Hulk, Daredevil or the fantastic four's appearances is an anatomical impossibility. You cannot get powers from radiation. Any time a mutant appears and uses a power that is more than a simple physical one. Also not possible. But that's part of the suspension of disbelief. If it happens often enough its part of the story.

Wolverine's skeleton has held together under numerous circumstances it shouldn't in 616. so like the gamma radiation, the radioactive spider bite, the cosmic radiation, the radiation foo m toxic chemicles or the existance of beings born with a gene that allows you to defy physics... its part of the character.

But getting shot in the eye? What, once? That's not often enough to be part of the character. especially considering there are instances that counteract it. Jubilee isn't immune to psionics. Wolverine has adamantium behind his eyeballs. Spider-man cannot knock out a herald. etc.

OneDumbG0 Find Your Own Fire

It's funny that Creshock and Jinzin continue to argue real world science when comics themselves just don't give a crap about it. Real world science would postulate that Wolverine could never crawl out of molten metal no matter what his healing factor circumstances were, and yet, you want to use that as evidence during this debate.

So what is this, a double standard? Clearly. If you really have a problem with comics ignoring bone structure of the skull, write them a letter and hope that a future author retcons the two instances. Until then, the evidence which is ON-PANEL, continues to trump your inability to suspend your disbelief. If you were to entrench your opinions on pure scientific fact, I wouldn't really have a problem with that. What I do find offensive, is your selective use of "real world science." When it's convenient for a skeleton to crawl out of a vat of molten metal that would incinerate any muscles far faster then they could regrow in order to support movement, you have no problem with it. "But oh noes! Wolverine's adamantium skull is penetrated by bullets? How dare they!!!!"

Your arguments are thus:

1) Wolverine is uber. His healing factor allows him to do impossible feats, clearly beyond what Punisher could throw at him, even things that are completely out of the realm of natural science. We like that.
2) Wolverine's brain should not be penetrated through any fictional gaps in the skull. Even though this is a comic and even though we like it when comics science trumps real world science when it favors Wolverine, comics science cannot be used here. Even though it happened twice. On-panel. We don't like that.
3) Ennis doesn't like superheroes. Even though he's never been quoted as ever saying so and even though he's written superhero comics before and had no problem with Daredevil in the same story. Therefore, when Wolverine gets owned the two times in Ennis comics by the Punisher, no thank you. We don't like that.

This essentially is your point. And it is a fine opinion. Your arguments which form the basis of those opinions are fine in and of themselves. But what I do take exception to, is your use of your opinion. Because you do two things: 1) Display them as if they were absolute fact and not just personal opinion; and 2) Ignore the same standard you utilize.

Hypocrisy is the signature of logical fallacy and weakness in debating skills. By taking that double standard which you so ceremoniously employ, I could also discount anytime I think Wolverine's high feats would fail under the cold light of real science scrutiny. I could just as easily and justifiably discount Frank Tieri's depiction of Wolverine beating Punisher, while shoving Ennis in your face.

Here's an example: He weighs 195 lbs without the skeleton and he's been depicted on panel as weighing 300 lbs with the skeleton. This CANNOT be true under real world science. Why? He has been shown to have all his flesh completely incinerated and regrow his entire body. Essentially he regrows 190+ lbs of flesh, organs, skin and blood. Supposedly, the bone marrow within his bones is protected and his marrow is the basis from which his body regrows. When you apply real world science to this, this CANNOT make sense. If that were the case, then his bone marrow must have at least the same mass as his entire body (discounting bones). Conservation of mass. Single most immutable law of real world science. Wolverine's bone marrow could only support regrowing body mass that the bone marrow itself sustains. Therefore, if the bone marrow contains less then 190+ lbs of mass, his healing factor would have no base mass to draw upon to regenerate his flesh. And looking at on-panel evidence, we know this much: Wolverine weighs 195 lbs without the adamantium skeleton and 300 lbs with it. For him to sustain any type of full body incineration healing, his bone marrow would have to weigh 190+ lbs on its own. Otherwise, conservation of mass laws prevent any scientific regeneration. He must weigh 500 lbs and approximately 200 of that must lie within his bone marrow to make any full body regeneration scientifically feasible under the MOST BASIC law of real world science. Because he clearly doesn't ON-PANEL, then those instances don't make sense and therefore they must be completely discounted per the "real science trumps comics science" standard.

I personally have never had a problem with this. Why? Because it still happens on-panel and it's a god damn comic book in the first place! Who cares about real world science when people can fly and shoot lazers out of their eyes! And during a debate about comics, I can suspend my disbelief even though it doesn't suit my position. This is, after all, comics and not the real world. I also have no problem with the way Tieri depicts Punisher getting beat by Wolverine, even though it doesn't suit my position. When you want to engage in a real debate about comics, you have to suspend your disbelief and accept what other writers have written as long as it's canon. There are always two legitimate sides to a debate and in the world of popular literature, things won't always fall on your side.

What I do have a problem with? Is when the people I debate with choose to employ a double standard on both of these fronts and strut and posture as if they are superior debators. It's unsightly, contributes to fanboyism and lowers the quality of discourse and debate on these forums.

And what I don't have a problem with? Pointing it out publically.

Punisher with one hour prep 6/10.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
*More trolling by a punisher fanboy*
Wolverine wins.

Deal with it.

OneDumbG0 Find Your Own Fire

Pointing out double standards in a debate is hardly trolling.

Punisher wins in a very close match with the thread creator's stipulations. 6/10.

Deal with it. Peace.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Pointing out double standards in a debate is hardly trolling.

Punisher wins in a very close match with the thread creator's stipulations. 6/10.

Deal with it. Peace.

Srawmanning on the other hand is.. you know that thing where you dictate what the other person is saying?

It falls under the red herring category of logical fallacy. and Red herrings are attempts to derail or change the topic.

Your name is fitting for you, inside joke or not. wave

jinzin Senior Member
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
It's funny that Creshock and Jinzin continue to argue real world science when comics themselves just don't give a crap about it. Real world science would postulate that Wolverine could never crawl out of molten metal no matter what his healing factor circumstances were, and yet, you want to use that as evidence during this debate.

you clearly missed out on the part where it's unsuitable because of COMIC BOOK EVIDENCE that already contradicts it, not science. Though, real world physiology supports the contradicting evidence.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
So what is this, a double standard? Clearly. If you really have a problem with comics ignoring bone structure of the skull, write them a letter and hope that a future author retcons the two instances. Until then, the evidence which is ON-PANEL, continues to trump your inability to suspend your disbelief. If you were to entrench your opinions on pure scientific fact, I wouldn't really have a problem with that. What I do find offensive, is your selective use of "real world science." When it's convenient for a skeleton to crawl out of a vat of molten metal that would incinerate any muscles far faster then they could regrow in order to support movement, you have no problem with it. "But oh noes! Wolverine's adamantium skull is penetrated by bullets? How dare they!!!!"

The only double standard I see is you ignoring previous on panel evidence and then expect us to uphold the one you've selected because it's on panel.

I don't think anyone here is condoning the fact that Wolverine's walked out of avat of molten lava... But it has happened.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Your arguments are thus:
1) Wolverine is uber. His healing factor allows him to do impossible feats, clearly beyond what Punisher could throw at him, even things that are completely out of the realm of natural science. We like that.
2) Wolverine's brain should not be penetrated through any fictional gaps in the skull. Even though this is a comic and even though we like it when comics science trumps real world science when it favors Wolverine, comics science cannot be used here. Even though it happened twice. On-panel. We don't like that.
3) Ennis doesn't like superheroes. Even though he's never been quoted as ever saying so and even though he's written superhero comics before and had no problem with Daredevil in the same story. Therefore, when Wolverine gets owned the two times in Ennis comics by the Punisher, no thank you. We don't like that.

1: He is, it does, both his mutant heritage, his lupin heritage and theological background defy "natural" science so I see no problem with 1.
2: Um,no...The argument is that Wolverine's brain should not be penetrated by a bullet in the eye socket because it's physically impossible AND because Wolverine's been depicted to contradict this multiple times already. 😬

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
This essentially is your point. And it is a fine opinion. Your arguments which form the basis of those opinions are fine in and of themselves. But what I do take exception to, is your use of your opinion. Because you do two things: 1) Display them as if they were absolute fact and not just personal opinion; and 2) Ignore the same standard you utilize.

Hypocrisy is the signature of logical fallacy and weakness in debating skills. By taking that double standard which you so ceremoniously employ, I could also discount anytime I think Wolverine's high feats would fail under the cold light of real science scrutiny. I could just as easily and justifiably discount Frank Tieri's depiction of Wolverine beating Punisher, while shoving Ennis in your face.

Here's an example: He weighs 195 lbs without the skeleton and he's been depicted on panel as weighing 300 lbs with the skeleton. This CANNOT be true under real world science. Why? He has been shown to have all his flesh completely incinerated and regrow his entire body. Essentially he regrows 190+ lbs of flesh, organs, skin and blood. Supposedly, the bone marrow within his bones is protected and his marrow is the basis from which his body regrows. When you apply real world science to this, this CANNOT make sense. If that were the case, then his bone marrow must have at least the same mass as his entire body (discounting bones). Conservation of mass. Single most immutable law of real world science. Wolverine's bone marrow could only support regrowing body mass that the bone marrow itself sustains. Therefore, if the bone marrow contains less then 190+ lbs of mass, his healing factor would have no base mass to draw upon to regenerate his flesh. And looking at on-panel evidence, we know this much: Wolverine weighs 195 lbs without the adamantium skeleton and 300 lbs with it. For him to sustain any type of full body incineration healing, his bone marrow would have to weigh 190+ lbs on its own. Otherwise, conservation of mass laws prevent any scientific regeneration. He must weigh 500 lbs and approximately 200 of that must lie within his bone marrow to make any full body regeneration scientifically feasible under the MOST BASIC law of real world science. Because he clearly doesn't ON-PANEL, then those instances don't make sense and therefore they must be completely discounted per the "real science trumps comics science" standard.

I personally have never had a problem with this. Why? Because it still happens on-panel and it's a god damn comic book in the first place! Who cares about real world science when people can fly and shoot lazers out of their eyes! And during a debate about comics, I can suspend my disbelief even though it doesn't suit my position. This is, after all, comics and not the real world. I also have no problem with the way Tieri depicts Punisher getting beat by Wolverine, even though it doesn't suit my position. When you want to engage in a real debate about comics, you have to suspend your disbelief and accept what other writers have written as long as it's canon. There are always two legitimate sides to a debate and in the world of popular literature, things won't always fall on your side.

What I do have a problem with? Is when the people I debate with choose to employ a double standard on both of these fronts and strut and posture as if they are superior debators. It's unsightly, contributes to fanboyism and lowers the quality of discourse and debate on these forums.

And what I don't have a problem with? Pointing it out publically.

Punisher with one hour prep 6/10.

Blah blah blah... Nothing more than a bunch of nonsensical ranting based off an inaccurate interpretation of the arguments that we actually presented. No one's ignoring on panel evidence because it's what we like. We're just not apt to accept on panel evidence that's contradicted by other on panel evidence. And contradicted by more evidence.

The majority sets the standard.. So far that majority dictates a bullet ain't going through the eye socket.

Btw: Wolverine has holes in his Adamantium skeleton for the marrow,
your examples of Wolverine going down to bullets are still horrible, circumstantial and also inaccurate, and Punisher still loses. 🙂

OneDumbG0 Find Your Own Fire

Originally posted by jinzin
you clearly missed out on the part where it's unsuitable because of COMIC BOOK EVIDENCE that already contradicts it, not science. Though, real world physiology supports the contradicting evidence.
Where's the on-panel evidence that contradicts Scalphunter sniping Wolverine through the eye and Deadpool shooting Wolverine through his throat? You mean the circumstantial torture pit scene where Wolverine takes a bullet from his eye? Did you ever stop to think that the bullet was pushed out from his brain through his eye socket? Because that's how I read the scene and is perfectly plausible. Indeed, it makes more sense when you take Scalphunter's sniping into context. Your "so-called" comic book evidence actually can be read to support that Wolverine's brain can be penetrated through his eye socket. Real world physiology really doesn't mean a god damn thing when ON-PANEL evidence clearly portrays Wolverine's brain being penetrated by a bullet through the eye socket. There is no equivocating there. It's very funny that your appeal to real world physiology has to come during a comics book debate and that we must apply it to a feral mutant with an already odd bone structure.
Originally posted by jinzin
The only double standard I see is you ignoring previous on panel evidence and then expect us to uphold the one you've selected because it's on panel.

I don't think anyone here is condoning the fact that Wolverine's walked out of avat of molten lava... But it has happened.

Like I said, the torture pit scenario can be read either way and is not conclusive and was published in October 2007. Whereas, we have two conclusive scans of bullets going into Wolverine's brain, through his eye and through his throat, published in January 2008 and April 2008 respectively. Clear and more current on-panel evidence trumps inconclusive, older (maybe on-panel?) evidence. And him climbing out of molten lava happened on-panel and I accept it because I don't use real world science to overturn on-panel comic book depictions of pure fiction.
Originally posted by jinzin
1: He is, it does, both his mutant heritage, his lupin heritage and theological background defy "natural" science so I see no problem with 1.
2: Um,no...The argument is that Wolverine's brain should not be penetrated by a bullet in the eye socket because it's physically impossible AND because Wolverine's been depicted to contradict this multiple times already. 😬
Haha. Multiple times eh? I've heard only mention of the questionable torture pit scene and that's it. You argue real world science over comics science only when it suits you. You argue an older circumstantial instance over two more recent and absolutely conclusory ON-PANEL scans. It's funny that you're trying to characterize your arguments this way when all people have to do is read the thread themselves.
Originally posted by jinzin
Blah blah blah... Nothing more than a bunch of nonsensical ranting based off an inaccurate interpretation of the arguments that we actually presented. No one's ignoring on panel evidence because it's what we like. We're just not apt to accept on panel evidence that's contradicted by other on panel evidence. And contradicted by more evidence.

The majority sets the standard.. So far that majority dictates a bullet ain't going through the eye socket.

Btw: Wolverine has holes in his Adamantium skeleton for the marrow,
your examples of Wolverine going down to bullets are still horrible, circumstantial and also inaccurate, and Punisher still loses. 🙂

I know Wolverine has pores in his adamantium skeleton to allow his marrow to be a basis for his healing. I posited that theory years ago in another Wolverine thread. If there were no pores, he could never produce blood, since bone marrow is responsible for producing red blood cells. My scans of Wolverine going down to bullets are clear, reflect his downgraded healing factor (except for the WWII scan), and are more recent. The fact that neither of you couldn't respond to my calling you out on the egregious double standard you employ just leaves another nail in the coffin of this debate. Not to mention you couldn't even respond to the whole "I hate Ennis' on-panel depiction of Punisher > Wolverine" so I won't use it as evidence. It's been a pleasure, but I think we can stick a fork into this thing. [/thread]
🤣
Punisher with one hour prep 6/10:

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Where's the on-panel evidence that contradicts Scalphunter sniping Wolverine through the eye and Deadpool shooting Wolverine through his throat? You mean the circumstantial torture pit scene where Wolverine takes a bullet from his eye? Did you ever stop to think that the bullet was pushed out from his brain through his eye socket?
Speculation. Got proof that that's what happened?

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Because that's how I read the scene and is perfectly plausible.
More plausible than the fact that authors will often time not know about things like anatomy or other sciences and thus screw up?

Sorry, but a one time feat is not acceptable on these forums. Especially when it is illogical.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Indeed, it makes more sense when you take Scalphunter's sniping into context.
It's called PIS because it makes characters that are not a challenge seem like more of a challenge. Its also referred to as SMvsFL when these one time never been repeated feats are used.

Spiderman beat firelord. Its on admissible as evidence onf these forums even though it happened on panel.

Wolverine climbing out of that vat falls into the same category: Stupid stunts writers pull that make no sense.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Your "so-called" comic book evidence actually can be read to support that Wolverine's brain can be penetrated through his eye socket.
Got proof that that's what happened?

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Real world physiology really doesn't mean a god damn thing when ON-PANEL evidence clearly portrays Wolverine's brain being penetrated by a bullet through the eye socket.
ON panel evidence doesn't mean a god damn thing when it's beyond the characters capabilities. By this same reasoning I can use that vat scene, and the one where wolverine was incinerated to point out the fact that its just a low showing and here on KMC we're to use an average. Got a low showing of him taking a bullet to the brain? Great, I got two feats of his flesh being seared off and him being just fine.

Oh I can't use those? "Hypocrisy is the signature of logical fallacy and weakness in debating skills."

My style is Socratic irony. My fallacies are your fallacies being thrown back at you.

The bullet to the brain happened on panel? So did his flesh getting seared off twice. Oh wait then there's when he took that nuke/napalm thing and survived with his pants intact.

We either accept all of those, or we accept non of those. For the sake of consistency, the flesh searing happened more than the bullet to the brain.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
There is no equivocating there. It's very funny that your appeal to real world physiology has to come during a comics book debate and that we must apply it to a feral mutant with an already odd bone structure.
That is very much equivocating. Its also the no limits fallacy.

"Oh because he has a different bone structure that he's stated to have. He must have a different bone structure that he was NOT actually stated to have."

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Like I said, the torture pit scenario can be read either way and is not conclusive and was published in October 2007. Whereas, we have two conclusive scans of bullets going into Wolverine's brain, through his eye [b]
Scalphunter and ... what? You said two.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
[B]and through his throat, published in January 2008 and April 2008 respectively. Clear and more current on-panel evidence trumps inconclusive, older (maybe on-panel?) evidence.
Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
And him climbing out of molten lava happened on-panel and I accept it because I don't use real world science to overturn on-panel comic book depictions of pure fiction.
Good then I can just claim PIS on wolverine for the bullet to the brain thing or SMvsFL or the gunmen. and discard your "evidence" anyway under KMC rules.

Because a bullet to the brain is going to do more damage than having everything seared off, right?

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Haha. Multiple times eh? I've heard only mention of the questionable torture pit scene and that's it. You argue real world science over comics science only when it suits you.
Apparently you're either hung up on your own strawman or you fail at reading or both. ITs a matter of consistency in order to over ride such things.

Can Spiderman beat firelord? It happened on panel. If you say yes you're breaking KMC's rules. If you say no you're being hypocritical.

Either way is not a very strong position.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
You argue an older circumstantial instance over two more recent and absolutely conclusory ON-PANEL scans.
Hypocrisy is a sign of a poor debator. Or one whom uses Socratic irony. Seeing as how you are legitimately arguing your double standard, that clearly indicates you in the weak debator category.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
It's funny that you're trying to characterize your arguments this way when all people have to do is read the thread themselves.
Ad populem fallacy. What other people think has no consequence on the truth of the matter.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
I know Wolverine has pores in his adamantium skeleton to allow his marrow to be a basis for his healing. I posited that theory years ago in another Wolverine thread. If there were no pores, he could never produce blood, since bone marrow is responsible for producing red blood cells.
Oh, I'm sorry arguing for real world science in a comic book? Hypocrisy is a sign of a weak debator.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
My scans of Wolverine going down to bullets are clear, reflect his downgraded healing factor
[ Which you've failed to prove is the case outsdie of the circumstantial eveidence.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
(except for the WWII scan), and are more recent. The fact that neither of you couldn't respond to my calling you out on the egregious double standard
You're doubly a hypocrite. Not only do think other people have double standards. but you yourself are guilty of it while you do it.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
you employ just leaves another nail in the coffin of this debate. It's been a pleasure. [/thread]
People whom declare themselves the victors are weak debators yelling loudly.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Punisher with one hour prep 6/10:
Wishful thinking fallacy, slothful induction, suppressed evidence fallacy, circular reasoning fallacy.

The list actually keeps going but the point is that this statement is highly illogical.

Badabing Gym rat

This thread gets reported too much. I've given everybody a chance to be civil and posted several times for people to act respectful.

Originally posted by Badabing
You all have been asked time after time to stop with the nonsense. If I get one more report regarding this thread I will be dealing out multiple warnings and closing the thread. Debate the topic without the spam, bashing, trolling and flaming. Thanks.

Originally posted by Badabing
This isn't directed at any one person so don't PM me with complaints. durfist

Guys, we're starting to get too many reports from this thread again. I don't want to close threads or give out warnings but if this keeps up then I will. Thanks.

Originally posted by Badabing
Guys, this thread had come to my attention too many times in the past week. Let's be civil and debate without resorting to bashing and flaming. Thanks.

Closed......

Badabing Gym rat

Reopened.