How many thors equal one superman

Originally posted by Robtard
Going to leave this here for you again:

If you want to ignore, cool. Don't really care.

Occam's razor would actually state that since this version of Superman has no shown strength feats on that level, that if this feat actually happened it was performed with something other than pure strength.

BTW, are you going to answer my question?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Or he could have just slammed really hard into the ground, hitting it hard enough that the tectonic plate was jostled from its current position, enough to avoid an Earthquake.

Or the article might have been written by a tabloid.

That would also be a strength feat, no?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Occam's razor would actually state that since this version of Superman has no shown strength feats on that level, that if this feat actually happened it was performed with something other than pure strength.

BTW, are you going to answer my question?

Disagreed. It would point to strength, as that is Superman's forte'

The article? Sure, given enough reporters the headlines could vary in multiple ways

You're letting his portrayal in other media bias you.

Disagreed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed.

So if the headline said Captain America, you would still be arguing that it was both valid and a pure strength feet?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So if the headline said Captain America, you would still be arguing that it was both valid and a pure strength feet?

No, because Captain America shifting a tectonic plate is not a reasonable feat for his power-set. Superman on the otherhand is.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, because Captain America shifting a tectonic plate is not a reasonable feat for his power-set. Superman on the otherhand is.

They both have superstrength, so if it's a pure strength feat. why not?

Originally posted by Silent Master
They both have super-strength, so if it's a pure strength feat. why not?

Originally posted by Robtard
You seem to be under the impression that all super-strength is equal; it's not. Super-strength as a power-set varies widely, from just above what would be considered maximum human output, to being able to throw objects out of Earth's orbit.

So you're not basing it on power-set, but rather their shown feats. Ok, what has this Superman been shown to do that puts the feat from the headline within his strength range?

No, I am basing it on a power-set, Superman's super-strength to be exact. See previous quote below:

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagreed. It would point to strength, as that is Superman's forte'

Probably just agree to disagree at this point, I feel Occam's points to Superman using his strength is what moved the tectonic plate. You can believe it was something else.

They both have super strength in their power-set. if your argument is that Superman has been shown to have much greater levels of super strength. then my counter argument is what has this version of Superman been shown doing to indicate his level of strength is enough to perform the feat mentioned in the headline.

I don't have a feat showing this Superman moving a tectonic plate, if I did the headline story would be irrelevant, I am using Occam's Razor to deduce that Superman did said 'stated feat' with strength and not by some other means.

Are stated feats no longer valid? If so, sure.

But going to have to agree to disagree, cos we're just doing circles otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't have a feat showing this Superman moving a tectonic plate, if I did the headline story would be irrelevant, I am using Occam's Razor to deduce that Superman did said 'stated feat' with strength and not by some other means.

Are stated feats no longer valid? If so, sure.

But going to have to agree to disagree, cos we're just doing circles otherwise.

I didn't ask for you to show a feat of BvS Superman moving a tectonic plate, I'm asking if this version of Superman has a shown feat that is even remotely close to that level.

If I had a feat equal to this Superman moving a T-plate, there would be no need to go off of the implied feat and applying Occam to it.

Are stated feats no longer valid?

Originally posted by Robtard
If I had a feat equal to this Superman moving a T-plate, there would be no need to go off of the implied feat and applying Occam to it.

Are stated feats no longer valid?

If the person has zero shown feats of strength to indicate they could pull off a feat, then Occam's razor would point to the off-panel feat not being done by strength.

Already disagreed and why above.

Is your opinion that Superman didn't move the plate at all or that he did so by some other means other than strength?

Same here.

I don't know how he did it, that is why I'm not claiming "he could have only done it this way".

Robtard keeps saying agree to disagree but the cuck keeps coming back for more. Give it to her one more time.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Same here.

I don't know how he did it, that is why I'm not claiming "he could have only done it this way".