Dr. Manhattan vs Monarch

Originally posted by Mindset
What you just said doesn't even make sense.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

One can't win if one can't kill the relative unkillable, ko the relative unkoable, or bfr the relative unBfrable.

OK, and what you said didn't make sense.

How does them thinking someone who is more powerful prove their logic is faulty when you admit he can be killed, koed, and bfred since you list them as him not being immune to those forms of attacks?

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
I know what you did and no he's not trans. I'm not arguing with you that you said what you just repeated, I know. I'm disagreeing with you over what you said. Example... he isn't trans.. no way no how... furthermore, Thanos is also not Trans and would be low skyfatherish level

Originally posted by h1a8
This fight blitzing won't work (maybe on Monarch) as Dr. M can't be koed.

Originally posted by Mindset
OK, and what you said didn't make sense.

How does them thinking someone who is more powerful prove their logic is faulty when you admit he can be killed, koed, and bfred since you list them as him not being immune to those forms of attacks?

In general, who's more powerful doesn't prove who will win.

I said Dr. M is relatively unkillable, unkoable, unBFRable.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
I know what level thanos is.I said hes Dr. M is between surfer and thanos.IMO hes trans. If he can't be KO'd hes above LT.He can be KO'd it just takes a lot to do it.

His powerset prevents him from being koed. You can disintegrate his brain and he will reform.

Originally posted by h1a8
In general, who's more powerful doesn't prove who will win.

I said Dr. M is relatively unkillable, unkoable, unBFRable.

Which means he can be killed, koed, and bfred.

Originally posted by Mindset
In general, who's more powerful is the person who wins.

Which means he can be killed, koed, and bfred.

No it doesn't. A implies B doesn't mean
B implies not A.

Being wholly unkoable implies being relative unkoable. But being relative unkoable doesn't imply that one is koable.

Originally posted by h1a8
Only dumbass people think so, people with minimal logic skills. 1 counterexample proves the general rule is wrong. This is common sense.

No it doesn't. A implies B doesn't mean
B implies not A.

Being wholly unkoable implies being relative unkoable. But being relative unkoable doesn't imply that one is koable.

Originally posted by Mindset
I don't think you know what "in general" or "relative" mean.

In general means "All the time" or "In All cases"

Relative "means in relation to something or someone". It doesn't mean "ONLY in relation to something or someone."

You must understand that if TOAA is relatively unkillable to Superman then that doesn't mean he is not wholly unkillable.

Originally posted by h1a8
In general means "All the time" or "In All cases"

Relative "means in relation to something or someone". It doesn't mean "ONLY in relation to something or someone."

You must understand that if TOAA is relatively unkillable to Superman then that doesn't mean he is not wholly unkillable.

Originally posted by Mindset
So I was right.

No you were wrong.

In general means usually, as in, not all the time.

Relative, in the context of your statement, means not absolute.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20general
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relative

see definition 1 in both.

words usually have more than 1 meaning.

Originally posted by h1a8
His powerset prevents him from being koed. You can disintegrate his brain and he will reform.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Proof?He has re-formed from disintegration but monarch can do much more then disintegrate him.

Originally posted by h1a8
He can't absorb him since Dr. M can teleport away or duplicate himself millions of times over WHILE Monarch is trying to absorb him.

Originally posted by h1a8
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20general
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relative

see definition 1 in both.

words usually have more than 1 meaning.

Yes, I am aware words have more than one meaning, no meaning of generally means all the time. I hope you realize the first definition you posted does not mean that. Being applicable to the whole =/= happens all the time. 😬

As I said, the context in which you were using relative is the same as not absolute.

Heh.

Originally posted by Mindset
Yes, I am aware words have more than one meaning, no meaning of generally means all the time. I hope you realize the first definition you posted does not mean that. Being applicable to the whole =/= happens all the time. 😬

As I said, the context in which you were using relative is the same as not absolute.

Heh.

You may be right about relative. Most used the word to imply it is not absolute. I only used the term since I do not know whether Dr. M can be koed at all. I just know Monarch can't do it. But it may be true that Dr. M can't be koed period

As far as "In general", I think you are referring to the word "generally" which means "usually". All the time can refer to "with respect to the whole class".

I'm a math person. In many of my graduate classes we describe a rule as being in general true if it is always true and it not being true in general if there exists a case where it is not true.

How did this turn into a debate about the words general and relative?

Originally posted by h1a8
You may be right about relative. Most used the word to imply it is not absolute. I only used the term since I do not know whether Dr. M can be koed at all. I just know Monarch can't do it. But it may be true that Dr. M can't be koed period

As far as "In general", I think you are referring to the word "generally" which means "usually". All the time can refer to "with respect to the whole class".

I'm a math person. In many of my graduate classes we describe a rule as being in general true if it is always true and it not being true in general if there exists a case where it is not true.