Originally posted by Silent Master
You're the one that claimed Thor used his strongest attack, that means the burden is on you.
I can't prove that it was. It sure seemed like it.
You were assuming that Thor was holding back based on what you saw in previous movies. I did the same thing, I assumed that was Thor's strongest hit based on what I saw in previous movies.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, he didn't want to because the Hulk was an ally, IOW he was holding back...I'm glad that you agree.
Maybe he didn't use those powers because he thought they wouldn't be effective against Hulk. Maybe he thought plain hammer hits would do the most damage.
There can be so many reasons
Originally posted by Firefly218
I can't prove that it was. It sure seemed like it.You were assuming that Thor was holding back based on what you saw in previous movies. I did the same thing, I assumed that was Thor's strongest hit based on what I saw in previous movies.
Now I know that you're lying, because Thor sent Frost giants and Iron-man further than he did the Hulk, so you can't be basing your opinion on the movies...you're basing it on your bias.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Maybe he didn't use those powers because he thought they wouldn't be effective against Hulk. Maybe he thought plain hammer hits would do the most damage.There can be so many reasons
So your argument is that Thor used his weakest attacks against the Hulk because he didn't think his stronger attacks would work, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Now I know that you're lying, because Thor sent Frost giants and Iron-man further than he did the Hulk, so you can't be basing your opinion on the movies...you're basing it on your bias.
No, I'm basing my opinions on the movies. Hulk seems more dense than iron man or the frost giants.
This is irrelevent. I admitted that it was an assumption. I can't prove that was Thor's strongest hit.
Originally posted by Firefly218
No, I'm basing my opinions on the movies. Hulk seems more dense than iron man or the frost giants.This is irrelevent. I admitted that it was an assumption. I can't prove that was Thor's strongest hit.
Iron-man is wearing a suit of metal armor and the Frost Giants were even taller than the Hulk...any difference in weight isn't likely to be very much.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So your argument is that Thor used his weakest attacks against the Hulk because he didn't think his stronger attacks would work, do you realize how stupid that sounds?
I'm saying that it's a plausible scenario. Thor holding back was never made official, and is therefore subjective.
Apparently Thor's lightning attacks were not his stronger ones against Iron Man. Thor's plain hits worked the best against Iron Man. It is plausible that Thor applied that to Hulk.
I know it's unlikely, but the point is that it's plausible - and therefore your argument is an assumption.
Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm saying that it's a plausible scenario. Thor holding back was never made official, and is therefore subjective.Apparently Thor's lightning attacks were not his stronger ones against Iron Man. Thor's plain hits worked the best against Iron Man. It is plausible that Thor applied that to Hulk.
I know it's unlikely, but the point is that it's plausible - and therefore your argument is an assumption.
No, Thor using weaker attacks because he doesn't think the stronger ones would work isn't a plausible scenario. it's you showing your bias.
Originally posted by Silent Master
No, Thor using weaker attacks because he doesn't think the stronger ones would work isn't a plausible scenario. it's you showing your bias.
Are you ignorant or just narrow-minded? It is an unlikely scenario, but a plausible one. These "stronger" attacks you referance were actually the weaker ones when used against Iron Man. The strength of an attack depends on the target.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you ignorant or just narrow-minded? It is an unlikely scenario, but a plausible one. These "stronger" attacks you referance were actually the weaker ones when used against Iron Man. The strength of an attack depends on the target.
The difference is, Thor actually used those attacks on IM before he decided not to.
Originally posted by FrothByte
The difference is, Thor actually used those attacks on IM before he decided not to.
The fact that they didn't work on Iron Man could have deterred Thor from using them on Hulk.
People basing their argument on Thor holding back are assuming and have no legitimate proof.
Look below. I've already explained
Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm saying that it's a plausible scenario. Thor holding back was never made official, and is therefore subjective.I know it's unlikely, but the point is that it's plausible - and therefore your argument is an assumption.
Originally posted by Firefly218
The fact that they didn't work on Iron Man could have deterred Thor from using them on Hulk.People basing their argument on Thor holding back are assuming and have no legitimate proof.
Look below. I've already explained
LOL. Thor is not stupid dude. What doesn't work on a man in a high tech suit is not automatically not gonna work on a big green brute.
You're bending this so much just to fit your arguments.
Bottom line is, if you really wanted to kill someone, you open with your strongest attacks. You also don't try to reason with someone you're trying to kill. No matter how you look at it, Thor was obviously holding back against Hulk.
Originally posted by FrothByte
LOL. Thor is not stupid dude. What doesn't work on a man in a high tech suit is not automatically not gonna work on a big green brute.You're bending this so much just to fit your arguments.
Bottom line is, if you really wanted to kill someone, you open with your strongest attacks. You also don't try to reason with someone you're trying to kill. No matter how you look at it, Thor was obviously holding back against Hulk.
Are you not understanding anything I'm saying?
I realize it is extremely unlikely that Thor wasn't holding back, but it is possible. The fact that it's possible means that your argument is an assumption.
Besides, if you assume Thor was holding back, then I can assume that in this scenario Hulk would be much angrier and stronger - considering Banner thinks Thor murdered Betty Ross
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you not understanding anything I'm saying?I realize it is extremely unlikely that Thor wasn't holding back, but it is possible. The fact that it's possible means that your argument is an assumption.
Besides, if you assume Thor was holding back, then I can assume that in this scenario Hulk would be much angrier and stronger - considering Banner thinks Thor murdered Betty Ross
No it just doesn't make sense. Simply trying to reason with Banner is already proof of Thor holding back. Him not using his other powers is further proof. Just drop it, because no one else is buying it.
Besides, even if Hulk got angrier, we really don't know by how much more he'll get stronger. OTOH, if a held back THor was giving Hulk loads of trouble, a bloodlusted Thor would really be something.