IW Thor vs Superman

Originally posted by Nevan
It's a full leaping blow vs a normal punch, of course it's stronger, but that won't make it thousands of times stronger than normal and Hulk had to provide the force of the jump with his legs so all the added force also comes from him.

It's however 100% a durability feat regardless of how much strength you think it took since Hulk didn't have his entire body shattered to pieces upon impact.

Something very relevant considering Thor was dazing him with singular lightning punches.

It's like Superman doing a bullrush vs a punch, one is stronger than the other, but it's not by orders of magnitude and it's a durability feat regardless.

It's also a very hypocritical things to ask since Superman doesn't send everyone kilometers away everytime he punches.

If Superman doesn't send someone flying kms away then he didn't hit them with extreme force. If we use real science to prove strength then I have consider the distance Superman hits someone. I'm not hypocritical.

Originally posted by Silent Master
By all means, explain what context I supposedly edited out of those posts and explain how it changed the meaning of what I posted.

Yet you post, "The feats doesn't matter." out of context. This is a troll move. If I'm trolling then post the whole thought. Oh I forgot, if you do that then you look silly for saying that I'm trolling. It looks better when you post people out of context.

^ Thats not out of context.

You are declaring it as a fact that writers mean for Thor not to be bullet proof with ZERO statements, dialogue or on screen proof showing such a thing.

And hence you are throwing all feats which clearly prove the opposite out of the window.

First off, Those were two separate statements as evidenced by the period after bulletproof and you starting a new sentence. you really can't stop yourself from being dishonest.

But even if we count those as one statement. I was doing you a favor by leaving that earlier sentence out as the golden rule of the forum is "Screen feats only" so that sentence was you basically saying "If we completly ignore the boards rules" not to mention that sentence shows you lying about the writer's intention.

IOW, leaving that sentence in would make you look like level 30 troll instead of just level 20.

Originally posted by Silent Master
BTW, you still haven't quoted where I made this argument.

CLARIFY. HOW. YOU. THINK. WE. SHOULD. DEAL. WITH. THORS. FEAT. You love to play the whole, "quote where I said that!" game whilst implying exactly what everyone thought you meant. So then, how should we judge Superman's feat? Why don't you just straight up clarify? Because it will go against your argument and prove that the implication was correct and that you have a double standard.

Here, either Thor's star feat is the new standard, or we average it out, or we take it as an outlier. If it's the new standard, cool, then so is tanking a nuke for Supes. Nothing short of a nuke can take him down, and since Thor's lightning did not appear that powerful, Thor can't take him down with lightning. If we average it out, cool, then Thor has a nice durability and strength boost with his other feats and him and Supes are on more even ground and can hurt each other. If it's an outlier then we toss it and Supes highest feats out the window. Which is it? Do you have the intellectual honesty to pick one and apply it to both?

Also, people saying that you have to average out Superman's speed are right...except he doesn't always use it. It's a power he has to turn on, unlike durability. So you can't average out his super speed with times he wasn't using it. It is very obvious in each movie when he is using it. You can go ahead and average out his super speed feats with his others. I'll wait. A much better thing to do is average out his durability, which is much more clear cut. Which means that yes, you can hurt him with many things that aren't a nuke.

Also silent master, you keep railing on me for not condemning the Superman side enough even though I did it TWICE and I'm not debating with them so, again, why is it my responsibility...but show me where YOU HAVE CONDEMED the Thor side for their double standards. I mean, if you feel I should then why shouldn't you? I know you won't condemn their double standards though, as that would expose your own.

H1, seriously, stop with the nonsense. You are always trying to find ways to lowball marvel. It makes you look silly.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Thats not out of context.

You are declaring it as a fact that writers mean for Thor not to be bullet proof with ZERO statements, dialogue or on screen proof showing such a thing.

And hence you are throwing all feats which clearly prove the opposite out of the window.

I was giving a rule.
If then statement.
If the "if" is true then the "then" is true.
But if the "if" is false then the "then" is not necessarily true.

If the writer's intention is for Thor to not be bulletproof then other feats of durability doesn't matter.

Just like Jessica Jones.
She had been hurt by less and the writer's intentions is that she is not bulletproof. But she has feats that scientifically proves that she has to be low level bulletproof to pull the feats off. Does her feats matter? No. Because of the writer's intentions.

I already clarified, maybe you should take the time to actually read my posts before having a meltdown.

BTW, you still haven't quoted where I made the argument you're attributing to me in this post.

Originally posted by emporerpants
So nothing short of a nuke hurts supes since we saw him take that? Cool. Thor's lightning cloak didn't seem to have the same level of strength as a nuke, so I guess the lighting has no effect, going by that logic. 💃

Originally posted by h1a8
I was giving a rule.
If then statement.
If the "if" is true then the "then" is true.
But if the "if" is false then the "then" is not necessarily true.

If the writer's intention is for Thor to not be bulletproof then other feats of durability doesn't matter.

Just like Jessica Jones.
She had been hurt by less and the writer's intentions is that she is not bulletproof. But she has feats that scientifically proves that she has to be low level bulletproof to pull the feats off. Does her feats matter? No. Because of the writer's intentions.

That statement was you going against the board rules and lying about the writer's intention. you should be thanking me for leaving that out. because leaving it in would have made you look even worse.

Originally posted by emporerpants
H1, seriously, stop with the nonsense. You are always trying to find ways to lowball marvel. It makes you look silly.

I'm not lowballing marvel.
I never claimed Hulk was weak or Thor is weak. They are both very strong, very durable, and Thor is very powerful.

My claims are that Thor isn't resistant against aircraft bullets (but he is against standard bullets).
And if someone is wrongly interpretating a feat then is it lowballing to point it out?

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm not lowballing marvel.
I never claimed Hulk was weak or Thor is weak. They are both very strong, very durable, and Thor is very powerful.

My claims are that Thor isn't resistant against aircraft bullets (but he is against standard bullets).
And if someone is wrongly interpretating a feat then is it lowballing to point it out?

You're a liar.

How is the ludicrous statement "Thor is resistant to normal bullets but not AIRCRAFT!!!!11 BULLETZ!!!1" not lowballing? Thor has endured much worse than aircraft bullets many, many times. It's like saying I could stab Supes with a knife and hurt him because we have never seen him resist knives on screen.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That statement was you going against the board rules and lying about the writer's intention. you should be thanking me for leaving that out. because leaving it in would have made you look even worse.

I was giving a rule, not making a claim.

Writer's intent >>>>>> anything.
If it wasn't then I can ignore the times Jessica Jones been hurt by less and argue that she is bullet proof using her feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
I was giving a rule, not making a claim.

Writer's intent >>>>>> anything.
If it wasn't then I can ignore the times Jessica Jones been hurt by less and argue that she is bullet proof using her feats.

The statement shows you ignoring the board's rules and lying about writer's intention, you should be thanking me for leaving it out. but I'll be happy to add it back. seeing as it makes you look 10x worse.

Originally posted by emporerpants
How is the ludicrous statement "Thor is resistant to normal bullets but not AIRCRAFT!!!!11 BULLETZ!!!1" not lowballing? Thor has endured much worse than aircraft bullets many, many times. It's like saying I could stab Supes with a knife and hurt him because we have never seen him resist knives on screen.

But this is an opinion.
People are just guessing.
They don't know the difference in power of an aircraft bullet vs the other stuff Thor endured. Without science, how can you be sure.

I can examine the other feats. What feats do you have in mind that you BELIEVE are greater than aircraft bullets (in a relevant way)?

I'm not saying aircraft bullets will hurt Thor because he was never shown to resist them.
I'm stating that claim because
1. He was hurt by less
2. Writer's intent (he ran from the bullets out of fear).

Originally posted by Silent Master
I already clarified, maybe you should take the time to actually read my posts before having a meltdown.

BTW, you still haven't quoted where I made the argument you're attributing to me in this post.

Thanks for conceding. You have no retorts so you make none and claim you already clarified when you didn't, hoping that no one bothers to check. Got it. You could prove that you clarified easily if you did. But since you didn't and we both know why you won't, this will be all I get right? Any other of my points you want to address? No? Can't counter them so you are not going to address them? Still not going to take a second to clarify how the feats should be handled so you can continue your bs "quote where I said that!" game while implying the argument being attributed to you? Not going to explain why I have to call out the Superman side for double standards but you don't have to call out the Thor side which is itself a double standard? Not going to address the speed averaging argument I made? It's what I expected, honestly. 👆

Originally posted by Silent Master
The statement shows you ignoring the board's rules and lying about writer's intention, you should be thanking me for leaving it out. but I'll be happy to add it back. seeing as it makes you look 10x worse.

You ignored the boards rule you mean? Past tense.
Or did the boards rule come AFTER?

And what board rules are you referring to? Link to them.

Proof that I'd already clarified and that you didn't read my posts before having a meltdown.

Originally posted by emporerpants
Also, still waiting for you to clarify how we handle Thors feat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Same way we handle Superman's feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
You ignored the boards rule you mean? Past tense.
Or did the boards rule come AFTER?

And what board rules are you referring to? Link to them.

You're a troll and a liar.

www.killermovies.com/forums/f102/t543649.html

Originally posted by Silent Master
Proof that I'd already clarified and that you didn't read my posts before having a meltdown.