Originally posted by Philosophía
I don't care for you to debate it, I'm asking for personal opinions, not consesus, on quantifiable feats that, in your opinion, would make that character capable of what I've enumerated.
what i am saying though, is that there is no way to judge what the level you have enumerated is. Being stronger than thor could vary between moving mountains to moving planets. I don't think anyone has ever made a close to conclusive arguement about how fast a character has to be to speedblitz Thanos.
like, its not just that comics are inconsistent with character power levels, its that you have picked things that are the debates that derail threads. It doesn't matter who he is fighting, every debate about Thanos ends with massive discussions about how fast his reflexes are or how many times he needs to punch a certain character for them to die.
what I'm saying is that it is illogical to take an opinion on what is stronger than thanos when there is no way to know how strong thanos is.
Originally posted by inimalistWhat you're doing here is nothing more than hiding behind "comics vary" and "there's no way to know how strong a character is", at the same time applying the no-limits fallacy, when what I'm asking is quite simple - based on everything you have read about the characters I mentioned, what would be the bare minimum feat that would make you think that he, indeed, could perform or is at the level I asked.
what i am saying though, is that there is no way to judge what the level you have enumerated is. Being stronger than thor could vary between moving mountains to moving planets. I don't think anyone has ever made a close to conclusive arguement about how fast a character has to be to speedblitz Thanos.like, its not just that comics are inconsistent with character power levels, its that you have picked things that are the debates that derail threads. It doesn't matter who he is fighting, every debate about Thanos ends with massive discussions about how fast his reflexes are or how many times he needs to punch a certain character for them to die.
what I'm saying is that it is illogical to take an opinion on what is stronger than thanos when there is no way to know how strong thanos is.
"There's no way to know how strong Thanos is" is just a no-limits fallacy. Thanos has had fights. Thanos has had feats. Based on those, what would the character have to perform to exceed them, and be considered capable of what I said? Same for the others.
I don't want to bother with this useless discussion, so unless you're about to post something substantial, you should refrain from doing so anymore, as a discussion about why you're not answering the topic is quite absurd.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Why would one shotting or moving a planet put you above Thor?There is no quantifiable feat that a character can do that would place them above Thor strength wise in of itself. Same goes for Hulk, Superman and every other elite top tier strength wise because if need be, a writer can have said characters doing high end unquantifiable feats.
Originally posted by TricksterPriest
If we get into a pissing contest of strength feats by people who aren't abstract level to begin with, Superman is probably going to win.
Depends. But maybe. But regardless of feats, Superman is clearly not as strong as certain incarnations of Doomsday, Superboy Prime, Sodam Yat Ion, Infinity Man, and a handful of others and none of them are abstract level. The fact is villains just have fewer feats (not that the guys I just named are all villains).
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Fair enough, but if we're going by pure feats and ruling out direct comparison and such that would be above any of Thor's quantifiable strength feats, wouldn't you agree?
Where do you draw the line between quantifiable or unquantifiable?
I'm just curious. Where would something like this rank in your book:
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af17/RageOfOlympus/Thor/WithstandsNeutronStar1.jpg
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af17/RageOfOlympus/Thor/WithstandsNeutronStar2.jpg
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Where do you draw the line between quantifiable or unquantifiable?I'm just curious. Where would something like this rank in your book:
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af17/RageOfOlympus/Thor/WithstandsNeutronStar1.jpg
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af17/RageOfOlympus/Thor/WithstandsNeutronStar2.jpg
I would say that's quantifiable, because we know the gravitational force of a neutron star (not that that means that that feat is not one of the best strength feats I've ever seen from a "herald level" character). I would say unquantifiable feats would be like Thor's world engine feat, Superman shattering reality, etc.
Re: Theoretical feats contest
Originally posted by Philosophía
What you're doing here is nothing more than hiding behind "comics vary" and "there's no way to know how strong a character is", at the same time applying the no-limits fallacy, when what I'm asking is quite simple - based on everything you have read about the characters I mentioned, what would be the bare minimum feat that would make you think that he, indeed, could perform or is at the level I asked."There's no way to know how strong Thanos is" is just a no-limits fallacy. Thanos has had fights. Thanos has had feats. Based on those, what would the character have to perform to exceed them, and be considered capable of what I said? Same for the others.
I don't want to bother with this useless discussion, so unless you're about to post something substantial, you should refrain from doing so anymore, as a discussion about why you're not answering the topic is quite absurd.
? I answered your thread...
otherwise, your first 2 questions are almost tautology:
Originally posted by Philosophía
a). Being stronger than Thor.
lift 1 pound greater than Thor's greatest feat
Originally posted by Philosophía
b). Being stronger than Thanos.
lift 1 pound more than Thanos' greatest feat
The remainder are actually not even phrased correctly, as they deal more with the durability of the defending character and attack strength and not speed specifically. A character that only has to hit Silver Surfer once doesn't need to be as fast as a character that has to hit him 15 times.
lol, but start a thread to talk about how we use and measure feats and get pissed when someone actually wants to talk about that with you... word!
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Where do you draw the line between quantifiable or unquantifiable?I'm just curious. Where would something like this rank in your book:
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af17/RageOfOlympus/Thor/WithstandsNeutronStar1.jpg
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af17/RageOfOlympus/Thor/WithstandsNeutronStar2.jpg
Up there with Superman holding a black hole.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Do you mean unquantifiable as in we can't assign an exact number to it or unquantifiable as in we can't even make a rough guess?Up there with Superman holding a black hole.
What definition do you use? I personally think that once we reach the point where any math goes out the window, it's unquantifiable.
I'd rate it higher because IIRC Clark had help from Green Lantern and/or another device.
Anyways, I think once you reach characters like Thor or Superman, there's little one can do in terms of feats that would place them above. Certainly no quantifiable feat imo.
Originally posted by ParmaniacNo. Superman held a black hole in his hand. Superior Strength Feat. WW pulling herself out of a Black Hole and WW pulling MM out of a black hole is also a Superior Feat. Thor and the World Engine is a superior feat. Thor breaking the Midgard Serpent. Superior Feat. Etc.
The black hole was holding superman.But yeah there we get into trouble.
