Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
So? Hancock's also taken everything thrown at him without even a scratch or a skipped beat, which means he can take more then what we've seen him take in the movie. You're trying to create a limit on Hancock that simply doesn't exist or hasn't been shown to us yet.
Thusly, you're committing the no limits fallacy.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Where did I say he was less durable?
You were implying it.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
No no... just Superman's. 🙂 Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.
You're the one making the claim that Hancock can take Superman's punches. Logistically speaking, you're the one who should be able to substantiate your claims.
In any case, you most certainly can't prove that Hancock can take Superman's punches indefinitely. It's like trying to say that just because a person can take a bullet with no problem that he can also take a nuclear explosion just as easily... with absolutely nothing to offer as proof other than the bullet feat. 😬
Originally posted by batdude123
You were implying it.
And you can prove that?
What I was implying was that they had equal durability, not that Hancock's was superior.
You're the one making the claim that Hancock can take Superman's punches. Logistically speaking, you're the one who should be able to substantiate your claims.
Logistically speaking, yes.
In any case, you most certainly can't prove that Hancock can take Superman's punches indefinitely. It's like trying to say that just because a person can take a bullet with no problem that he can also take a nuclear explosion just as easily... with absolutely nothing to offer as proof other than the bullet feat. 😬
Agreed. That's ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous to say that the person wouldn't be able to take the nuclear explosion with no proof other then "well he hasn't done it before", especially if said person took the bullet without any trouble, as well as taking two hundred pounds of C4 and being shot with a cruise missle without any trouble. It's a sticky situation.
Me saying Hancock has no limit to his strength or durability is just as bad as you giving him a limit that you ca't prove exists.
I usually stay out of debates like this. 😬 Bu I wuv Will Smith and hate Dark-Jaxx. 🙁
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
And you can prove that?What I was implying was that they had equal durability, not that Hancock's was superior.
Logistically speaking, yes.
Agreed. That's ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous to say that the person wouldn't be able to take the nuclear explosion with no proof other then "well he hasn't done it before". It's a sticky situation.
Me saying Hancock has no limit to his strength or durability is just as bad as you giving him a limit that you ca't prove exists.
I usually stay out of debates like this. 😬 Bu I wuv Will Smith and hate Dark-Jaxx. 🙁
Except I never made any statement claiming a limit to Hancock's level.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I wasn't talking specifically to you. 😛
uhuh
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
But by saying that Hancock can take all this punishment but can not take Supe's punches, even though there is no proof saying so other then "He hasn't done it before", is putting a limit on Hancock's abilities.
Asking proof of statements presented as "absolutes" is not putting a limit on a character. 😬
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I agree that thread should be closed.
Probably.
Originally posted by Blax_HydraliskAnd according to you that means we must assume he does not have one. Which is a No-Limit fallacy.
So? Hancock's also taken everything thrown at him without even a scratch or a skipped beat, which means he can take more then what we've seen him take in the movie. You're trying to create a limit on Hancock that simply doesn't exist or hasn't been shown to us yet.
Superman has not just provided a little more force than what Hancock has been shown to take, he has shown to be able to hit with MUCH more force than what Hancock has been shown to take.
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
And according to you that means we must assume he does not have one. Which is a No-Limit fallacy.
Wow 'cuz I like.. t-t-t-TOTALLY didn't know that! dur
Superman has not just provided a little more force than what Hancock has been shown to take, he has shown to be able to hit with MUCH more force than what Hancock has been shown to take.
eeeeee-relevent.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk1. Because when I troll, it's art. You're just an average troll at best. 131
1. You pride yourself on your trolling. Shut up.2. Probably based on... what?
2. The fact that Hancock's best durability feat, going through the atmosphere, pales to Superman's power feats, like turning the planet fast enough to turn back time.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk1. Speed is a large part of strike force. Flying that speed at Hancock will fvck him up.
That's not power that's speed.But regardless, the fact that he went through the atmosphere effortlessly means that that isn't his limit. He can take more then that, much more since it was effortless. That being the case, there's still no proof Supers can rip him in half.
2. O RLY? You can't even prove how "effortlessly" he went through the atmosphere. You have no idea. Superman has feats that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>going through the atmosphere, like going through the atmoshpere while carrying a continent of Kryptonite with a piece of Kryptonite still in his side.
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
1. Speed is a large part of strike force. Flying that speed at Hancock will fvck him up.
Strike force has nothing to do with turning back time. All I was referring to was that moving fast enough turn back time was not a product of his strength so much as his speed. And you'd have to prove that it would **** hancock up. There's no proof saying that Hancock will get even a single scratch, actually. You're trying to put a limit on him that does not exist. He's taken everything that's been thrown at him without even a scratch. Just because he hasn't taken a hit with Supes strength behind it doesn't mean he can't, since we don't know his limits.
2. O RLY? You can't even prove how "effortlessly" he went through the atmosphere.
Can you prove that he had to use effort to go through the atmosphere? Considering he managed to do it even though he was on death's door and had just recovered from being dead, I'd guess that it really doesn't take all that much effort. *shrug*
Superman has feats that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>going through the atmosphere, like going through the atmoshpere while carrying a continent of Kryptonite with a piece of Kryptonite still in his side.
Irrelevant. And he had just been sun dipped, though that's also irrelevant.