KuRuPT Thanosi
Senior Member
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ You haven't shown anything. Somebody throws a ball 1,000,000 miles. The other guy throws it 100 miles. Exponential difference. You can conclude that at this moment, the other guy can throw it farther... because in fact... he has thrown it farther... exponentially farther.You're suggesting that because of purple prose or through rampant speculation, this simple conclusion is somehow thrown into doubt. That's preposterous. This isn't a fallacy. It's common sense. I don't care how you equivocate over the term "superior." I've only argued that the UN has demonstrated a "superior scope of power" or that it is "more powerful." Take whatever solace you can find in purple prose of "being god of your universe," "infinite power," etc. if that helps you sleep better at night.
We both know which artifact has demonstrated a greater scope of power to an exponential degree. Arguing over terminology doesn't change that quantitiative comparison.
This is where your comparative logic falls way way short...
YOu see in the example you used and been using.. Somebody lifted this (more) while somebody else lifted this (less). You have a direct test of strength that could be compared using your example. Problem is that isn't even close to what actually happened between these two objects.
1. The IG never tried to do what the UN did PERIOD. That is why your example is horrible and a fallacy. Now before you go and say.... ooo negative proof fallacy this... that is what YOUR doing not I. Your claiming the IG couldn't do it and made such claim first. You only do so by the fallacy your trying to cast onto others. The point is that is why your example is laughable and falls miserable short. The IG never tried to do what the UN did. I don't think it could either but doesn't change your example being horrible.
2. Its not word play or arguing over a word. You argued the UN was superior.. yet on panel its only been superior in one area. While the IG has shown superiority over many more areas. Examples.. Spiderman is superior at sling web and flying around.. compared to Wolverine.. yet wolverine is superior in other areas isn't he? Thus, we wouldn't say spiderman is superior as a whole would we.. superior in that one area.
3 More examples that are a lot closer than the horrible one you used... Odin has effected the multiverse in battle. Period. Fact. A celestial has not effected the Multiverse in battle. Period. Fact. One has done some that effected the multiverse while another has not. Seems very similar to the UN and IG that your perpetuating doesn't it? While I believe the IG to be multiversal. By your train of thought it isn't so lets go with that...Yet the IG has pwned the "ultimate weapon of destruction" "with but a thought" Just as a celestial has pwned Odin with relative ease. Hmmmm very similar eh?
4. More examples... Just because Reed has done an exponentially greater feat than Doom. Fact. On panel. Doesn't mean we FOR SURE say he's superior to Doom. Reed has a multiversal mind feat.. Doom doesn't and hasn't tried. Much better example than yours and more in line with what we're talking about. Yet again.. We don't say Reed is for sure better or smarter because in One v One encounters Doom has held his own.
5. Wolverine has many more strength feats than sabertooth. Yet when they face off do we get the impression wolv is stronger? Nope. We get the opposite impression that sabertooth is actually stronger. Yet wolverine has th3 featz!!! The point is feats and especially ONE feat doesn't prove something or someone is superior. Especially when someone or something hasn't tried it and there is a direct one v one confrontation.
6. Furthermore, why was there only ONE eternity in the abraxas arc? We saw multiple galactus's? Yet only one Eternity... hmmm Seems very similiar to what we saw in the IG story isn't it. Yet you give that eternity the title of multi-eternity and just eternity in the other. Interesting.. Even though in their bio it makes it clear they are the exact same Eternity. Smells like hypocrisy again. To go even further.. when Thanos had the HOTI... there was only ONE eternity and abstracts wasn't there. No where in that story did it mention.. universeS or multiverse or anything of the sort did it? The IG saga made much more statements that show us the IG could at the very least be multi-universal. However, we know the HOTI was multiversal because it pwned a being that resides over the omniverse. Hmmmm yet only one eternity was there.. no mention of other universes or other galactus's.. hmmmm. Just because there wasn't multiple anything doesn't mean its only deal with one universe does it? On panel battles can mean something is multiversal just as it has with Thanos and the heart. There doesn't need to be multiple this and that for things to be multiversal in power.
7. For God's sake... the IG was THE power of the infinity being which created the Omiverse. It didn't say it gave some of its power to the gems.. it literally BECAME the gems.. Yet your going to still claim its only universal lol.