Captain America vs Batman, Bane & Daredevil at once

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I can see no one here actually has a motorcycle, nor has ever ridden one..usually us bikers avoid cars..

Not that it has any actual effect on ones ability to understand the situation/feat/scenario in question, but I have ridden in the past.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

Cars and Jeeps crush motorcycles, not the other way around.

Typically this is correct. It also worth noting however that motorcycle don't normally impact trucks/jeeps from the angle Caps did.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

The momentum argument is bogus because if a bike hit a jeep head on the the jeep has more momentum and is larger, denser and weighs more..

So you're suggesting that Cap, his bike, and his target all being in motion had zero effect on how the situation played out? and further that given said feat Cap should be able to replicate the result starting from a stationary position with a stationary target.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If Cap didn't lift it, how did it end up above his head?

Don't know exactly. Really there are several possibilities, but if we are not supposed to assume anything, or "make up" anything, or play devils advocate then we shouldn't apply any of the possibilities. Instead we should focus on the feat we saw and only what we saw.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol no...

*uck no.

I'm just going to assume you haven't seen the movies that one or both of the characters in question come from and leave it at that.

Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Don't know exactly. Really there are several possibilities, but if we are not supposed to assume anything, or "make up" anything, or play devils advocate then we shouldn't apply any of the possibilities. Instead we should focus on the feat we saw and only what we saw.

You're taking the assumption thing to a rather silly extreme and you know it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're taking the assumption thing to a rather silly extreme and you know it.

Well I tried being reasonable and was rebuked for it.

No you didn't, what you did was make things up in order to lowball Cap's feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No you didn't, what you did was make things up in order to lowball Cap's feats.

In that case, which scene showed how the bike and women got above his head.

Again, you're taking the assumption thing to a ridiculous extreme, I mean using your new logic we can't prove that most of the people in movies need to eat, drink or sleep.

If you want to claim that he didn't lift an object that he was clearly shown holding, then the burden is on you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, you're taking the assumption thing to a ridiculous extreme, I mean using your new logic we can't prove that most of the people in movies need to eat, drink or sleep.

Thing is it's not my logic. It's the logic prescribed by yourself and several other posters. Personally I think it's a bit short sided, but if it's how you want to judge things you can't go shifting the goal post now.

Originally posted by Silent Master

If you want to claim that he didn't lift an object that he was clearly shown holding, then the burden is on you.

Why is that? In this instance applying your no context criteria feats. The assumption that he lifted it is no more valid then that Stark teleported it their via fairy dust.

Is the second option objectively silly, yes it is. Is it silly to assume that none of these people eat or sleep, yep.

Still if you are unwilling to take context into consideration/apply some level of critical thought. As you were doing earlier, then its what your left with.

Understand I'm not saying he didn't lift the bike or that the bike wasn't a fully fueled operational vehicle per se.

Just that context is important and discussing that context is valid.

Note I'm not claiming the motorcycle in AOU was a anything other then a fully operational motorcycle and thinking about it very likely armored to some degree based not only on its combat role, but also on its impact with a military grade vehicle.

That's the difference, I willing regard all feats with the same contextual based analyzes. You're not ( willing to apply the same standards to all situations/feats ) instead you want keep changing you're approach based on how you feel or what you want to accomplish.

No, what you're doing is making things up in order to lowball Cap's feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, what you're doing is making things up in order to lowball Cap's feats.

Okay, so you're back to that argument. The same argument, that as you pointed out means character can't be assumed to eat or sleep unless it's shown and we don't have any idea ( and are not allowed to theorize ) how the motorcycle got above Cap head.

It's that your logic and reason you can't have it both ways. If you can pick one and want to continue this debate, lets. If not were talking in circles at this point.

Also, I'm not lowballing Caps feats. I'm simply judging them fairly in the way I try to do with all characters. Instead of jumping on the Captain America wank wagon like everybody else is doing at the moment.

My logic is that you need evidence to back up claims, so far all you've done is make wild claims about Cap's feats in an attempt to low-ball them, while providing no evidence to support your claims.

Lol