Originally posted by h1a81. If the rule is always true then it would be true in Jessica Jones case too. But it’s not.
2. Mjolnir was cracking. After a certain extent, all the energy inside was released in an explosion. This contributed to the rest of the destruction of Mjolnir. The explosion proves that the energy inside was exerting an outward pressure inside the hammer.
2b) Anyway Mjolnir cracked as if it was brittle and not malleable. Once something is cracked then its structural integrity is compromised, making it vastly easier to damage it further (think of an egg). So the feat is really about the strength needed to compress Mjolnir less than 1 cm on each side in order to get it to crack.
3. Hela isn’t worthy and thus lifted Mjolnir. This means that she had some manipulation ability over it. This makes sense because Mjolnir was once hers.
4. That’s not how fiction works. Hela was automatically applying the majority of her strength when she was trying to kill or stop someone. It makes no sense for Hela to hit someone with a tiny fraction of her strength to not even ko them when she is murdering everyone else.
5. It rearranged its whole structure at will.
1) And it would be. Until evidence is provided where it doesn’t. Fiction overrules reality but reality is a default constant until fiction directly overrules it. Until then, all evidence is valid and need to be taken at face value.
Also: 1) It was never proven that any of her “feats” would give her bulletproof hands. Stop claiming this until this is proven. 2) She’s not part of the discussion so pls stick to Hela or I will report you for trying to derail the thread. 3) I never made the claim that she is/is not bulletproof so stop strawmanning me or see (2).
2) Pure unbridled speculation. We only know Mjolnir exploded. We don’t know if the explosion was internal or radiated outwards. The way Mjolnir’s magic works, there is far more evidence that it radiates its magic outwards or else it would compromise its structure every time it fired a lightning bolt. You have no legs to stand on. This is just pathetic.
2b) This line of logic is irrelevant and idiotic. Mjolnir is not hollow like an egg and is not dependent on its shape to distribute pressure evenly across its structure. lern2physics or better yet, just use google.
I will not even address this further until you can provide its relevance to the debate.
3) No, this means that she was strong enough to overpower the enchantment (#facevalue). Means she is already well beyond Hulk level strength.
4) Wrong. A character exerts as much as they are shown to exert. Exertion is visually evident. Hela showed none. A person killing ants is not proof of that person’s upper limits of strength. Your reasoning is asinine.
Until you show me evidence of her struggling and unable to do something due to lack of strength, you have no contradictory evidence.
5) Lol. Being able to reposition its parts because it had a flexible design does not mean it can reform. Stop making shit up. This is some desperate sh!t.
This is just lazy now. Step up your game, this is getting boring.
There seemed to me some sort of "return to your owner" power before Thor's depowering. But my question is basically wondering if Hela had to be "worthy" of Mjolnir before Thor 1. Seems unlikely to me since Odin seemed to only place that enchantment on it for Thor. So IOW, not only was Hela able to overpower Thor's connection to it, but she was able to overpower the "worthy" enchantment too. Hard to see all that coming from "well she used to use it so maybe stuff and things"
And also, we see how easily Odin took away Thor's ability to use it. If he had to put down Hela, it stands to reason that he took away her ability to use it as well. I mean if we are speculating here let's go balls deep. Any connection she had with the hammer would likely have been negated by Odin as soon as he turned on her. She sure didn't use it against the Valkyries
We don’t even know if Hela had the same control on Mjolnir as Thor did. Or even if she had the same powerset as Thor with Mjolnir (like flight). She literally just has a mural holding Mjolnir with her arm raised. Pure unadulterated speculation from h1. Just another lazy debating day for him.
And yes, her being to crush Mjolnir and being able to physically overpower the worthiness enchant is some pretty serious strength showings. Hulk wasn’t able to even budge Mjolnir and here she is palming it, holding it in place and then crushing it. Places her strength wayyyy past Hulk.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) And it would be. Until evidence is provided where it doesn’t. Fiction overrules reality but reality is a default constant until fiction directly overrules it. Until then, all evidence is valid and need to be taken at face value.Also: 1) It was never proven that any of her “feats” would give her bulletproof hands. Stop claiming this until this is proven. 2) She’s not part of the discussion so pls stick to Hela or I will report you for trying to derail the thread. 3) I never made the claim that she is/is not bulletproof so stop strawmanning me or see (2).
2) Pure unbridled speculation. We only know Mjolnir exploded. We don’t know if the explosion was internal or radiated outwards. The way Mjolnir’s magic works, there is far more evidence that it radiates its magic outwards or else it would compromise its structure every time it fired a lightning bolt. You have no legs to stand on. This is just pathetic.
2b) [b]This line of logic is irrelevant and idiotic. Mjolnir is not hollow like an egg and is not dependent on its shape to distribute pressure evenly across its structure. lern2physics or better yet, just use google.
I will not even address this further until you can provide its relevance to the debate.
3) No, this means that she was strong enough to overpower the enchantment (#facevalue). Means she is already well beyond Hulk level strength.
4) Wrong. A character exerts as much as they are shown to exert. Exertion is visually evident. Hela showed none. A person killing ants is not proof of that person’s upper limits of strength. Your reasoning is asinine.
Until you show me evidence of her struggling and unable to do something due to lack of strength, you have no contradictory evidence.
5) Lol. Being able to reposition its parts because it had a flexible design does not mean it can reform. Stop making shit up. This is some desperate sh!t.
This is just lazy now. Step up your game, this is getting boring. [/B]
1. JJ casually crumbled objects that are highly resistant to knife attacks and small arms. According to your rule, that would make her hands bulletproof and knife proof. Basically, you claim that ANYONE that crumbles an object with their hand means that their hand is more durable than that object in every way (against heat, cold, stabbing, etc). Yet when this rule is applied to another character of the same universe it fails. And in real life, being heat resistant is not the same as being stab or blunt resistant (or vice versa).
When someone gives a universal rule of logic then another can show that it is false by giving a counterexample. In other words, why does the logic only apply to Hela and not to others?
2. An explosion proves there was initially internal pressure pushing outwards. Otherwise, you wouldn't get an explosion.
3. We don't know for sure whether Hela had some command over Mjolnir or she just purely overpowered the enchantment. We can't claim either way. There is evidence to support her having command over Mjolnir though due to it being hers at one time. All her other showings show that she is not much stronger than Hulk (if any.
Originally posted by h1a8
1. JJ casually crumbled objects that are highly resistant to knife attacks and small arms. According to your rule, that would make her hands bulletproof and knife proof.1b) a. Basically, you claim that ANYONE that crumbles an object with their hand means that their hand is more durable than that object in every way (against heat, cold, stabbing, etc). b. Yet when this rule is applied to another character of the same universe it fails. c. And in real life, being heat resistant is not the same as being stab or blunt resistant (or vice versa).
1c) When someone gives a universal rule of logic then another can show that it is false by giving a counterexample. In other words, why does the logic only apply to Hela and not to others?
2. An explosion proves there was initially internal pressure pushing outwards. Otherwise, you wouldn't get an explosion.
3. We don't know for sure whether Hela had some command over Mjolnir or she just purely overpowered the enchantment. We can't claim either way. There is evidence to support her having command over Mjolnir though due to it being hers at one time. All her other showings show that she is not much stronger than Hulk (if any.
1) Already refuted by my last post. You are just repeating yourself.
1b) a. No, I said that the object crushing is more durable. Don’t strawman. b. No it does not. c. Specialized durability is an irrelevant argument. The Destroyer beam was unable to even singe Volstagg’s eyebrows. So its heat vs Asgardians was just pathetic/nonexistent. It’s most effective destructive potential vs Asgardians was its concussive force. Which is physical force, where Mjolnir > DBeam, w/c Hela palmed like nothing.
1c) Except you never proved it was false (and you never provided evidence that any of what you said about JJ was true). And it applies to all until evidence (brought about by fiction) says it doesn’t apply to a specific case. My last reply already addressed this.
Also, I already said stop bringing JJ into this as it only serves to try and derail the thread. Reported.
2) Purely speculative BS. There is no standardized behavior for fictional magical lightning explosions coming from the crushing of lightning-shooting enchanted uru hammers.
Magical lightning radiating out, however, is a common observable behavior by the hammer itself and it has not been shown to ever compromise its structure structure in any way.
So yeah my evidence > your speculation.
3) We don’t have to know for sure. Evidence is taken at face value until proven otherwise. The conclusion that requires no additional evidence (than what is already available) to support it is the more correct one.
The rest is just you making more unsubstantiated claims. So ignored.
How many theories have you thrown out that I refuted/you abandoned? 20? 25? Yet you still keep throwing shit arguments just to see what sticks.
Your heart just isn’t this anymore looks like. You should retire, over 12 years of trolling is long enough, kid.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Already refuted by my last post. You are just repeating yourself.1b) a. No, I said that the object crushing is more durable. Don’t strawman. b. No it does not. c. Specialized durability is an irrelevant argument. The Destroyer beam was unable to even singe Volstagg’s eyebrows. So its heat vs Asgardians was just pathetic/nonexistent. It’s most effective destructive potential vs Asgardians was its concussive force. Which is physical force, where Mjolnir > DBeam, w/c Hela palmed like nothing.
1c) Except you never proved it was false (and you never provided evidence that any of what you said about JJ was true). And it applies to all until evidence (brought about by fiction) says it doesn’t apply to a specific case. My last reply already addressed this.
Also, I already said stop bringing JJ into this as it only serves to try and derail the thread. Reported.
2) Purely speculative BS. There is no standardized behavior for fictional magical lightning explosions coming from the crushing of lightning-shooting enchanted uru hammers.
Magical lightning radiating out, however, is a common observable behavior by the hammer itself and it has not been shown to ever compromise its structure structure in any way.
So yeah my evidence > your speculation.
3) We don’t have to know for sure. Evidence is taken at face value until proven otherwise. The conclusion that requires no additional evidence (than what is already available) to support it is the more correct one.
The rest is just you making more unsubstantiated claims. So ignored.
How many theories have you thrown out that I refuted/you abandoned? 20? 25? Yet you still keep throwing shit arguments just to see what sticks.
Your heart just isn’t this anymore looks like. You should retire, over 12 years of trolling is long enough, kid.
1. You didn't refute anything.
You are saying Hela crushing Mjolnir proves that her hand is more durable, IN EVERY WAY, than Mjolnir. This implies that anyone who crushes an object proves that their hand durability is greater, IN EVERY WAY, than the object they crushed. JJ never injured her hands by less than bullet force. So that would mean her hands is more durable than the steel she crushed in every way.
We don't see Volstagg get hit by the beam.
2. Explosions by definition is an outward force. Mjolnir exploded and energy was released. We clearly see the behavior.
3. Wrong, it was given that Mjolnir was hers. This is evidence.
Originally posted by h1a8
1. You didn't refute anything.
You are saying Hela crushing Mjolnir proves that her hand is more durable, IN EVERY WAY, than Mjolnir. This implies that anyone who crushes an object proves that their hand durability is greater, IN EVERY WAY, than the object they crushed. JJ never injured her hands by less than bullet force. So that would mean her hands is more durable than the steel she crushed in every way.
We don't see Volstagg get hit by the beam.2. Explosions by definition is an outward force. Mjolnir exploded and energy was released. We clearly see the behavior.
3. Wrong, it was given that Mjolnir was hers. This is evidence.
1. Wrong. Reread my post before the last one.
Strawman.
Red herring.
Requires countershowing to refute. Only showing vs Asgardian did 0 heat damage.
2. Speculative. Bad logic.
3. Not evidence. 😆
You are not even debating the Destroyer winning anymore. Just trying to discredit someone else’s arguments using weak unsupported and lazy asspulls.
I am assuming you conceded already.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Wrong. Reread my post before the last one.Strawman.
Red herring.
Requires countershowing to refute. Only showing vs Asgardian did 0 heat damage.
2. Speculative. Bad logic.
3. Not evidence. 😆
You are not even debating the Destroyer winning anymore. Just trying to discredit someone else’s arguments using weak unsupported and lazy asspulls.
I am assuming you conceded already.
2. So the fact that we see an explosion is speculative?
We do not see him get hit directly with the beam.
3. The problem is that we do not know anything except that she was its master. It's possible that the lifting enchantment wasn't in place as her feet didn't sink in the ground like Hulk's did.
How strong was Hulk at the time he tried to lift it? What's Hulk's average strength?
The force he used was enough to sink in the concrete a little.