Originally posted by TheLurkingFear
This earthquake thing didn't happen on screen, Superman may have used tech to do whatever he did, for all any of us know.
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.
Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.
Originally posted by Silent MasterProve what. I stated multiple things.
Prove it.
Originally posted by h1a8H1, no one takes you seriously.
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.
Prove what. I stated multiple things.
Originally posted by h1a8News articles are 100% accurate if it's the writer's intentions for them to be.
Not necessarily. It may have just been a nod to Reeve's Superman.
Like in MOS we see the exact Wayne sign they use in the TDK trilogy. But it was just a nod, and not evidence that MOS and TDK were in the same Universe.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He knows that news articles aren't 100% accurate or reliable, which is why he refused to answer my question about what a headline would look like if a reporter either saw or questioned a random witness in regards to Thor's feat. he is also IMO clearly misusing Occam's razor.
Refused to answer? Are you trolling or did you miss where I replied? See below. I'm agreeing that it could potentially read as you claimed.
Originally posted by Robtard
The article? Sure, given enough reporters the headlines could vary in multiple ways
I don't believe I'm misusing Occam's, I'm using it as described, imo.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not necessarily. It may have just been a nod to Reeve's Superman.Like in MOS we see the exact Wayne sign they use in the TDK trilogy. But it was just a nod, and not evidence that MOS and TDK were in the same Universe.
It was a clear nod to Superman 1978.
But stated feats are valid in the MVF, even if they're silly, unless something's changed.
Originally posted by Robtard
It was a clear nod to Superman 1978.But stated feats are valid in the MVF, even if they're silly, unless something's changed.
Are they? That would have been useful to know in quite a number of threads I was debating before. Like when Thor beat up what Coulson said were some of his best SHIELD agents.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, but it would be a very different kind of strength feat. Like Silent is saying, we have no idea how he managed it. Same way that if someone said Thor destroyed an entire city - that statement would be true but you wouldn't know the specifics of it.Same here. We also don't know how reputable that news article is. Not everything on the news is 100% fact. It also could just have been a suspicion of the writer. "Superman stops earthquake ----- or did he?"
Bottom line is, we don't know anything about the article. And that's a very flimsy thing to use in this debate. Superman has enough strength feats to prove he's stronger than Thor and Hulk anyway. Not sure about Kurse.
Sorry, almost missed this with the spamming of some poster.
Agreed, we don't know. I'm saying that what we know of Superman's powers, strength makes the most sense.
Agreed again, we don't know the writers ultimate intention. Not sure why we'd add to it instead of taking it at face value then. Seems the former seems more of a stretch.
Fair enough, I was somewhat playing devil's advocate, to spark debate.
Originally posted by Robtard
Refused to answer? Are you trolling or did you miss where I replied? See below. I'm agreeing that it could potentially read as you claimed.I don't believe I'm misusing Occam's, I'm using it as described, imo.
I missed it, sorry about that.
IMO, you are misusing it as Occam's would state if a person doesn't have the feats to support performing an off-panel feat via method A, then it wasn't performed using method A.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Are they? That would have been useful to know in quite a number of threads I was debating before. Like when Thor beat up what Coulson said were some of his best SHIELD agents.
I believe so, I've seen people debate with stated and not seen feats before. Really depends on the stated feat and how it's put forth by the debater.
Originally posted by Silent Master
I missed it, sorry about that.IMO, you are misusing it as Occam's would state if a person doesn't have the feats to support performing an off-panel feat via method A, then it wasn't performed using method A.
No worries.
I think we just have different views here that won't gel.
Originally posted by Robtard
I believe so, I've seen people debate with stated and not seen feats before. Really depends on the stated feat and how it's put forth by the debater.
I just think we know too little about that article to use it in a debate. We don't know if the article was factual. We don't know if it was a reputable newspaper. We don't know if it was satire.
We don't know if Superman had help. Did the government assist him by detonating charges along a fault line?
Did Superman push against the tectonic plate's movements or did he merely nudge it to the side to avoid colision with another tectonic plate? Did he stopped it's movement or did he simply redirect it? If he redirected, was in only by an inch? Did he even push it or did he just smash into it at full speed?
How much effort did Superman put into it? Did he struggle so much that it nearly killed him?
All of these are different scenarios which would all need different strength levels. But since we don't know anything, it makes it hard to use in a debate. Pretty sure in a court of law a single newspaper heading is not exactly proof of anything.
edit: I just finished reading your latest reply. Guess my response above is now redundant. In any case, I doubt Thor or Hulk can replicate Superman's feat of pulling that tanker. IMO, Superman has better pushing/pulling strength feats whereas Thor and Hulk have better striking feats.
Overall agreed, we could spend an entire day putting up possible reasons in the "how it happened" with my favorite being that the 'fault line moved back by itself and Superman took credit because he's a total dick'. My argument was going with the simplest explanation, 'he used his strength'. Which also helps it tie
To your edit: 👆
Originally posted by h1a8
Let's not pretend this happened in real life.Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.
Lol, what? You can't just start mushing Reeve's feats on to Cavill now because of a newspaper clipping. That's ridiculous, especially since Cavill has done absolutely nothing to suggest he'd have anywhere near the strength necessary to replicate it.
Until we actually see what happened, you can't just assume your most favorable scenario, it's a non-feat as far as I'm concerned.