Originally posted by Nephthys
I'm writing an essay, so I don't have enough time to reply to such a long post. But I'll do so on Friday, if I remember, or am not too tired.
Who cares? This thread is hilarity incarnated and any further "discussion" here is a pointless waste of time. I don't think that Superman can simply speedblitz anybody because of his notorious lack of speedblitzing ability whenever it would have come in handy. I'm also not convinced that he's immune to magic, just because he's fast.
Since all posts concerning Superman can be summed up with "SPEEDBLITZ!!!!" being uttered in different fashions, I'm not interested in reading more of it. So just focus on your essay.
Originally posted by BorbaradIt's okay if you are unable to reply to my posts and are intimidated by them man.
Who cares? This thread is hilarity incarnated and any further "discussion" here is a pointless waste of time. I don't think that Superman can simply speedblitz anybody because of his notorious lack of speedblitzing ability whenever it would have come in handy. I'm also not convinced that he's immune to magic, just because he's fast.Since all posts concerning Superman can be summed up with "SPEEDBLITZ!!!!" being uttered in different fashions, I'm not interested in reading more of it. So just focus on your essay.
You don't have to put up a "This thread is a waste of time I'm now interested in reading it BAWWW" facade.
Superman won this 0.000005 seconds into the fight. Assuming he was being lazy.
Originally posted by NemeBro
It's okay if you are unable to reply to my posts and are intimidated by them man.
Oh. Yes. I'm totally intimidated by some noob on an online forum. No. Actually, I'm not. I was just not talking to you. But if you wish...
]1. You seem to be under the deluded impression that the Wizard will be able to say anything beyond "-" Yes Superman is so fast he will cut off his sentence before it begins.
You seem to be under the deluded impression, that Wizards do actually need to speak something in order to work magic, when it has been demonstrated again and again on screen, that all that is required is intention to work magic. In the same instances in which Superman decides to "speedblitz" people, the Wizards will also be acting, with apparition or single spells could be an option.
Also, cute. It is glaringly obvious you have no idea how the Imperius Curse works. Yes, it controls the mind. Wanna know something neat though? It can be resisted by willpower. Aka, what Superman has in abundance. To the point that he was able to carry a small country of Kryptonite into space, through willpower overpowering his weakness despite the pain. No, Imperio will not work on Superman. Or Hulk for that matter, his RAGE being too great to control. Abom and Hancock may be fair game though.
Have we ever seen a Muggle resisting an Imperius Curse? No? So then we would need to assume that one needs magic first in order to be in a position to counter it, right? Not that it matters even a little bit, provided that Voldemort has access to Legilimency, meaning he can meddle with Superman's mind as he sees fit.
2. I am only so well-aware of what the Wizards can do. I acknowledge that their magic is versatile. Hell, I'll throw you a bone and say it is, in fact, superior to the uses of the Force in the movies. But Superman is beyond them.
Yeah. If we limit the HP Wizards to the pathetic spell flinging we see them doing, this appears to be pretty clear. What about the more subtle uses of magic?
4. Oh is that so? Only the problem here is that you cannot actually show Imperio being used from miles away. Oh, and another problem is... From a thousand miles away, Superman would still be able to hear/smell/see Voldemort, and blitz him before he can process a thought. 😐
Really?
What we have witnessed, is Voldemort putting a curse on his own name (DH) and on the DADA teacher position in Hogwarts. Immaterial things. And the curse on the DADA position remained active, even when Voldemort was "dead". So what exactly stops Voldemort from affecting material things he can't see?
And if Superman blitzes Voldemort, than you would still encounter the problem, that this is GOF Voldemort, with all Horcruxes (with exception of his diary) still in action, meaning that, if Superman "kills" him, he will stay alive and dangerous. Just posessing Superman would be an option for him to keep fighting after his "death" in the speedblitzing hands of the Man of Steel.
5. Silly gai, Voldemort and all of Hogwarts was annihilated 0.005 seconds into the match. That's if Superman takes his times.
Superman can't kill Voldemort. Fact.
And Superman will speed blitz through a building with magical architecture that constantly changes with certain rooms not accessible (common rooms) and others clearly magical in nature (Room of Requirements)? Is there any demonstration of his FTL running speed inside buildings or his capabilities in understanding magical architecture?
6. No-Limits Fallacy sir. Has never been tested against something possessing the sheer might of Superman.
Logical fallacy, as you can't accurately cauge the power of magic. So you're just speculating about power-levels here, which equals arguing in circles. That is a fallacy.
Superman can annihilate Hogwarts from space if he wants to.
If he could locate the castle - which he is entirely incable of - he could possibly do this. One wonders why his heat vision would penetrate the shielding around the school where the combined magic of the Death Eaters does apparently fail...
Originally posted by Borbarad
[B]You seem to be under the deluded impression, that Wizards do actually need to speak something in order to work magic, when it has been demonstrated again and again on screen, that all that is required is intention to work magic. In the same instances in which Superman decides to "speedblitz" people, the Wizards will also be acting, with apparition or single spells could be an option.
Originally posted by Borbarad
[B]Have we ever seen a Muggle resisting an Imperius Curse? No? So then we would need to assume that one needs magic first in order to be in a position to counter it, right? Not that it matters even a little bit, provided that Voldemort has access to Legilimency, meaning he can meddle with Superman's mind as he sees fit.
Originally posted by Borbarad
[B]And if Superman blitzes Voldemort, than you would still encounter the problem, that this is GOF Voldemort, with all Horcruxes (with exception of his diary) still in action, meaning that, if Superman "kills" him, he will stay alive and dangerous. Just posessing Superman would be an option for him to keep fighting after his "death" in the speedblitzing hands of the Man of Steel.
Originally posted by Borbarad1. And you really should be intimidated, considering the sorry post you just made. Bad Borbarad! Don't do that!
Oh. Yes. I'm totally intimidated by some noob on an online forum. No. Actually, I'm not. I was just not talking to you. But if you wish...You seem to be under the deluded impression, that Wizards do actually need to speak something in order to work magic, when it has been demonstrated again and again on screen, that all that is required is intention to work magic. In the same instances in which Superman decides to "speedblitz" people, the Wizards will also be acting, with apparition or single spells could be an option.
Have we ever seen a Muggle resisting an Imperius Curse? No? So then we would need to assume that one needs magic first in order to be in a position to counter it, right? Not that it matters even a little bit, provided that Voldemort has access to Legilimency, meaning he can meddle with Superman's mind as he sees fit.
Yeah. If we limit the HP Wizards to the pathetic spell flinging we see them doing, this appears to be pretty clear. What about the more subtle uses of magic?
Really?
What we have witnessed, is Voldemort putting a curse on his own name (DH) and on the DADA teacher position in Hogwarts. Immaterial things. And the curse on the DADA position remained active, even when Voldemort was "dead". So what exactly stops Voldemort from affecting material things he can't see?And if Superman blitzes Voldemort, than you would still encounter the problem, that this is GOF Voldemort, with all Horcruxes (with exception of his diary) still in action, meaning that, if Superman "kills" him, he will stay alive and dangerous. Just posessing Superman would be an option for him to keep fighting after his "death" in the speedblitzing hands of the Man of Steel.
Superman can't kill Voldemort. Fact.
And Superman will speed blitz through a building with magical architecture that constantly changes with certain rooms not accessible (common rooms) and others clearly magical in nature (Room of Requirements)? Is there any demonstration of his FTL running speed inside buildings or his capabilities in understanding magical architecture?Logical fallacy, as you can't accurately cauge the power of magic. So you're just speculating about power-levels here, which equals arguing in circles. That is a fallacy.
If he could locate the castle - which he is entirely incable of - he could possibly do this. One wonders why his heat vision would penetrate the shielding around the school where the combined magic of the Death Eaters does apparently fail...
2. While it is unfortunate that I have to point this out to you, it appears I must. Superman isn't merely capable of killing them before they can think. He is capable of doing it before they can begin to process a thought. Oh, and fun fact, while some abnormally powerful Wizards can do magic both without a wand and do so nonverbally, it is in fact not commonplace, at least in terms of advanced spells.
3. No actually that is not how it works at all. There is no explicit magical way to resist the Imperius Curse, rather, it is explicitly a matter of will, not once is magical power or lack of it brought up. Also, Leglimency? Not once is the Leglimency spell itself used to tamper with the mind, while obviously knowing the thoughts, memories, and emotions of your opponent can help in that endeavor, the spell itself does not tamper with the mind. Also, Leglimency, like most HP magic, has to be focused towards the person trying to be influenced. Voldemort cannot do that to something as fast as Superman.
4. Pathetic spell-flinging, aka what goes on in HP. Harry Potter is not particularly subtle in most of its applications of magic.
5. The Taboo Curse, and a specific jinx Voldemort crafted for that occasion. Aka, SPECIFIC SPELLS FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. Taboo Curses explicitly affect names for one. And you are not really getting what I am saying, I am speaking about certain spells with explicit effects being unable to hit Superman, largely because they require the use of a wand to focus their magic towards their target, or require focusing in the direction of the individual in general. Avada Kedavra or Crucio for example. And this is across a great distance, with Imperio never being used from such a distance. Taboo and the Imperius Curse are, in fact, not the same spell, spells in HP have specific effects, stop pretending there is signifigant overlap.
Are you serious? It took 11 years or so for Voldemort to even vaguely resemble anything that could be considered a "threat" after his physical form was destroyed. 😐 He possessed snakes because he was too weak to do much else, and had to drink Unicorn blood to survive. So no, that is not actually what will happen, since if he could possess anyone, he would have possessed baby Harry.
6. No but he can render him a harmless parasite who possesses snakes and feeds on Unicorn blood. 🙂 Understanding it? He could pulverise the large hill Hogwarts stands on, and please stop assigning feats Hogwarts does not have. Magical in nature it may be, but do not pretend it has demonstrated feats that imply it can take what can only be likened to "Tsar Bomba in the shape of a man in tights." FTL running speed? I meant flying pseed.
7. No, you assuming magic has no upper limit is in fact the fallacy. Superman has feats, good ones. These magical shields have not been shown to possess anywhere near the required feats to resist Superman. Technically, I will admit, I am committing a fallacy, but otherwise all we could say is "We do not have enough information to say," and that is boring. But I find what I propose to be more likely.
8. He can hear everything in Hogwarts to the point it may as well not be invisible at all. You are assuming that the Death Eaters are more powerful than Superman, funny.
Although actually, I will admit I strain to think of Heat Vision feats at the moment, does anyone in this thread have any? Will not argue this point further until I do.
Originally posted by NemeBro
So you concede right?It would be one thing if you wanted to just "Agree to disagree," that would be fine, but you didn't say that so I must assume you are conceding. mmm
Er, no.
At this point I am trying to figure out how fast it takes from Supes to go from 0 to lightspeed.
I did point out, previously, that it is a limits fallacy to place a limit on something that does not have a known limit. The fallacy is placing an arbitrary ceiling limit when none has been specified: illogical because there is no "P" to "then Q". It would be considered a non sequitur argument, if we wanted to be more specific.
As Borbarad pointed out, it is also committing a no-limits fallacy: stating that Superman's speed is strong enough to overcome the charms would be un-limiting Superman's powers. There would be a limit to what Superman could just bust through and that limit is not established especially for shield charms. So, technically, by claiming Superman or Hancock can bust through the shield charms, you are committing two fallacies: A no-limits fallacy and a limits fallacy (or a non sequitur fallacy) both at the same time.
It boils down to this:
Supporter: "The shield will stand up to Superman because only magic can undue the shield and very powerful magic, at that."
Detractor: "Nuh-uhhh! That's a no-limits fallacy because the shields should break under enough physical force."
Supporter: "On what grounds?"
Detractor: "On the grounds that you've just committed a no-limits fallacy."
Supporter: "Where is your evidence that the shields will break under enough physical force?"
Detractor: "..."
Supporter: "Where's your evidence that anything except 1. The caster dispelling the shields. 2. Anti-shield charm magic dispelling the shields. can take down the shields?"
Detractor: "..."
Supporter: "Really?"
Dectractor: "...uh...NO LIMITS FALLACY!"
Supporter: "O rly?"
Just because I think the heroes win, doesn't mean I don't think some of the arguments are bullshit.
seriously feel like the wizards are being overestimated, they can do a lot of stuff sure, but many of them lack to organization or knowledge to accomplish all of this...I mean superman could just obliterate all of hogwarts with a blast of heat vision at the start...but he usually doesn't perform at that caapacity and wouldn't do that in the fight. I mean the wizards had trouble containing a berserk ogre, how do you think they'll stop the Hulk?
Nemebro
At 1:31 He shoots a wide beam that incinerates the pieces of glass before they hit the innocent bystanders. Heat vision is not the only thing he can **** them with. His super breath is really really powerful as well.
I forgot how he used the heat vision to separate the shuttle during the shuttle/plane scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZVfvdFDe-I
YouTube video
In the beginning of the video he can be seen using it.
Later in the film he uses heat vision to burn through the ocean's floor before he lifts the kryptonite island into space.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I did point out, previously, that it is a limits fallacy to place a limit on something that does not have a known limit. The fallacy is placing an arbitrary ceiling limit when none has been specified: illogical because there is no "P" to "then Q". It would be considered a non sequitur argument, if we wanted to be more specific.
Is there actually such a fallacy? I googled it and saw no evidence for such a thing (which of course doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
Frankly such a fallacy sounds stupid to me. In fact one could use it the other way. For example, Superman is never shown to have a limit on his strength. However, I would call bull shit on someone claiming that he could move entire galaxies with one arm. Yet, according to your limit fallacy I would be saying something illogical. 😬 I don't buy it.
To debate a subject, I believe the simplest way is to use feats and using those as the highest showings.
Originally posted by ares834
Is there actually such a fallacy? I googled it and saw no evidence for such a thing (which of course doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
It does exist simply because I defined it. You think "no-limits fallacy" is an actual fallacy? It's not: it's a fallacy invented for versus debates in the last decade.
Regardless, trying to point out that it is not an actual fallacy detracts from the actual point. If you need an official label, I already told you that it is basically a non sequitur fallacy.
Originally posted by ares834
Frankly such a fallacy sounds stupid to me.
Frankly, calling such a fallacy "stupid" is just ignorant. (not to me, but just plain ignorant.)
Originally posted by ares834
In fact one could use it the other way. For example, Superman is never shown to have a limit on his strength. However, I would call bull shit on someone claiming that he could move entire galaxies with one arm. Yet, according to your limit fallacy I would be saying something illogical. 😬 I don't buy it.
It's still a fallacy in that you do not have anything to prove that he CAN'T. This is literally logic 101: If P, then Q. If there is not P, then you cannot conclude Q.
There's also the problem of a galaxy being mostly empty space so how is he supposed to get "purchase" on all the matter in the galaxy?
Very bad comparison and it only proved my point.
To go more with your actual point: he strained under the large island. It's possible we could say he was reaching his limit at that point but how much of that was the kryptonite and how much of that was him reaching his limit? Therefore, we still cannot prove one way or the other.
Originally posted by ares834
To debate a subject, I believe the simplest way is to use feats and using those as the highest showings.
Wrong: There as some things that cannot be determined, even using feats.
For instance, prove that the shield charm can be destroyed with just physical force. You can't. You, therefore, cannot logically state that superman flying at near light speed can destroy the shield or even bust through it. Going by "screen feats" it can only be taken down by the caster OR by anti-shield magic.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Was it explicitly stated in the movies that the shield charm can only be broken by magic?
I have an even better question:
Was it explicitly stated that shield could be broken by a large amount of physical force?
To actually answer your question:
Sort of, but not really.
There's the scene where Flitwick has an exchange with the Deatheaters about the shield. The only "instance" we can tell is the caster releasing the spell and anti-shield magic from Volde's side in the Deathly Hallows film (it may happen in 2).