Hela vs Destroyer

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Took me 2 seconds. Stop being lazy.

1. Lol. Of course it is debatable. As there her hands and torso have varying showings of durability. You call it “stupid as phuck” and yet provide NO EVIDENCE or argument. Sorry, but that’s not how debating works.

The fact that she crushed Mjolnir with her hands PROVES this. Even when you ignore the compelling (she uses her hands to block attacks and grab weapons) corroborative evidence presented before you, you cannot deny that she easily crushed Mjolnir barehanded. Thus her hands and torso have provably different durability showings.

And this is all still a red herring false equivalence. You are trying to distract by creating a debate where non exists. I do not have to argue Hela and an Asgardian blade, because you have never proven that the Destroyer beam has anything to do with an Asgardian beam.

What is so hard to understand here? This is already a 5 year old level logical breakdown here.

2. And this is where your entire argument fails. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the Destroyer beam would even damage her. Thus all I got to say is that it does not and I win the debate.

2. Her being impaled by an Asgardian sword is not a red herring. It's there to show you that crushing Mjolnir has nothing to do durability. Otherwise Jessica Jones (who can CASUALLY crush large steel padlocks) would be bulletproof.

3. She has no feats resisting energy on par with the Destroyer's beams. Therefore, by default, she can't. This is a rule we use here on kmc (based on the status quo hypothesis). If there is no sufficient amount of evidence (not necessarily feats) to support a character being resistant to a certain attack then they are not.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. It's not debatable. Crushing Mjolnir is not a durability feat, otherwise Jessica Jones would be bulletproof. Therefore her hands and torso DO NOT have varying degrees of durability. Even if her hands and torso had inconsistent showings of durability then that gets chalked up to fiction inconsistency (lows and highs), nothing more.

2. Her being impaled by an Asgardian sword is not a red herring. It's there to show you that crushing Mjolnir has nothing to do durability. Otherwise Jessica Jones (who can CASUALLY crush large steel padlocks) would be bulletproof.

3. She has no feats resisting energy on par with the Destroyer's beams. Therefore, by default, she can't. This is a rule we use here on kmc (based on the status quo hypothesis). If there is no sufficient amount of evidence (not necessarily feats) to support a character being resistant to a certain attack then they are not.

1. Jessica Jones is not Hela. Not even the same species. Can barely even be categorized as the same universe. I remember you whining about how it is was stupid as hell that she wasn’t bulletproof:

Originally posted by h1a8
You know what's stupid as hell? Jessica Jones can casually (with utmost ease) crush and also break solid steel with her hands yet is not bullet proof or fully attack proof from human attacks. Her hands alone should have the durability or higher than solid steel.

Stupid writers.

But now suddenly, this is fact because it suddenly fits your argument? Sorry, no dice.

I know intellectual honesty and logical consistency is a hard thing for you, but try and keep it to a minimum around ppl who know how to do a simple forum search, ok?

JJ is the exception, not the rule. She is not bulletproof and invulnerable because she is SHOWN thru showings that she is not bulletproof. And honestly, we don’t even know if her hands ARE not bulletproof or invulnerable. I don’t recall her hands ever being pierced or cut, so an argument can certainly made. And she certainly has the showings to support this. At the very least an argument can be made that her hands are more durable than the rest of her body (w/c would then be more logically consistent with her “feats”).

Hela has no such low end durability showings for her hands as well PLUS the fact that she uses her hand as a defensive tool against attacks (grabbing blades and blocking lightning blasts) that would otherwise hurt the rest of her (something I don’t recall JJ ever doing) proves the consistency of this logic. Sorry, the showings exist, whether you whine about “poor logical inconstency” doesn’t take away the fact that it exists. Especially when an explanation exists that would make her showings logically consistent. What is so hard to understand here?

Again, it shows the weakness of your argument if you have to dismiss on-screen showings just to have anything to say.

2. Here let me explain to you the way I would explain to a 2 year old since the 5 year old explanation doesn’t seem to be working.

The Destroyer Beamy-beam is not an Asgardian stabby stab. They’re not the same. No no no lil h1. Bad h1. Not the same. /wagsfinger at you

False equivalence. Red herring.

3. Except that her showing of durabilty (with the Mjolnir showing) is well above any Average Asgardian and the D beam hasn’t even managed to kill or even considerably visibly injure an Asgardian on screen has it? Volstagg wasn’t even visibly damaged when the Destroyer had him dead to rights, did he? Didn’t even singe his eyebrows IIRC. He had the wind knocked out of him but was there even any visible injury?

And what exactly is “par” for the Destroyer beam that makes you think it would hurt her? Come on. Show the Destroyer beam “feat” that you base your logic on. Stop being lazy and post evidence already.

Til then. 6 pages in. And you still have nothing.

Well, just on the JJ thing. She has actually caused a relatively minor cut on her hand before, but it was rather self-inflicted when she punched a fist-sized hole in a concrete wall (something a single handgun round, for example, can't really do). So, not really conclusive, especially when she at another point punches a hole through the hood of a car without getting hurt.

But anyway, none of this matters. Different writers wrote those scenes. Just because one writer intends for one character to be able to do certain things while not being able to do others, does not mean it suddenly applies to a completely different writer and character.

H1 proving he is a waste of time. Still fun to abuse but the guy just knows baseless claims. It is who he is.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Jessica Jones is not Hela. Not even the same species. Can barely even be categorized as the same universe. I remember you whining about how it is was stupid as hell that she wasn’t bulletproof:

But now suddenly, this is fact because it suddenly fits your argument? Sorry, no dice.

I know intellectual honesty and logical consistency is a hard thing for you, but try and keep it to a minimum around ppl who know how to do a simple forum search, ok?

JJ is the exception, not the rule. She is not bulletproof and invulnerable because she is SHOWN thru showings that she is not bulletproof. And honestly, we don’t even know if her hands ARE not bulletproof or invulnerable. I don’t recall her hands ever being pierced or cut, so an argument can certainly made. And she certainly has the showings to support this. At the very least an argument can be made that her hands are more durable than the rest of her body (w/c would then be more logically consistent with her “feats”).

Hela has no such low end durability showings for her hands as well PLUS the fact that she uses her hand as a defensive tool against attacks (grabbing blades and blocking lightning blasts) that would otherwise hurt the rest of her (something I don’t recall JJ ever doing) proves the consistency of this logic. Sorry, the showings exist, whether you whine about “poor logical inconstency” doesn’t take away the fact that it exists. Especially when an explanation exists that would make her showings logically consistent. What is so hard to understand here?

Again, it shows the weakness of your argument if you have to dismiss on-screen showings just to have anything to say.

2. Here let me explain to you the way I would explain to a 2 year old since the 5 year old explanation doesn’t seem to be working.

The Destroyer Beamy-beam is not an Asgardian stabby stab. They’re not the same. No no no lil h1. Bad h1. Not the same. /wagsfinger at you

False equivalence. Red herring.

3. Except that her showing of durabilty (with the Mjolnir showing) is well above any Average Asgardian and the D beam hasn’t even managed to kill or even considerably visibly injure an Asgardian on screen has it? Volstagg wasn’t even visibly damaged when the Destroyer had him dead to rights, did he? Didn’t even singe his eyebrows IIRC. He had the wind knocked out of him but was there even any visible injury?

And what exactly is “par” for the Destroyer beam that makes you think it would hurt her? Come on. Show the Destroyer beam “feat” that you base your logic on. Stop being lazy and post evidence already.

Til then. 6 pages in. And you still have nothing.

1. JJ does not have to be Hela in order to apply a universal logic. You are applying a universal logic.

Hela was shown stabbed. JJ is not an exception. And that's how fiction works. Crushing something doesn't make you more durable than what you crushed in fiction. Plus Hela could have only partly squeezed Mjolnir. The pressure inside (due to magical energy) could have caused Mjolnir to break into pieces.

And you are an idiot to believe that the writer wants us to think that JJ hands are possibly vastly more durable than the rest of her body. Stop arguing against common sense; it makes you lose credibility.

So again, Hela's hands being vastly more durable than her torso is not debatable. That goes against common sense.

I stated that JJ should be bulletproof and not that she is bulletproof. Do you see the difference? But she isn't bulletproof and I can't argue that she is in a forum fight. Do you understand now?

And I see you are getting more dumb. I easily explained to you why I mentioned being stabbed by an Asgardian sword. Yet you ignored it. It has nothing to do with the Destroyer's beams. It was to show that crushing Mjolnir is irrelevant to durability when someone was shown with less durability than Mjolnir (being stabbed). I was basically killing your universal logic.

The Destroyer's beam wasn't shown to directly hit Volstagg. If you disagree then kindly post a picture or clip of exactly where he got hit directly. And why is her durability above his? Do you know his durability against energy? If the beams don't damage him then why in the hell he was running? What is the writer trying to show?

Originally posted by h1a8
1. JJ does not have to be Hela in order to apply a universal logic. You are applying a universal logic.

2. Hela was shown stabbed. JJ is not an exception. And that's how fiction works. Crushing something doesn't make you more durable than what you crushed in fiction. Plus Hela could have only partly squeezed Mjolnir. The pressure inside (due to magical energy) could have caused Mjolnir to break into pieces.

3. And you are an idiot to believe that the writer wants us to think that JJ hands are possibly vastly more durable than the rest of her body. Stop arguing against common sense; it makes you lose credibility.

4. So again, Hela's hands being vastly more durable than her torso is not debatable. That goes against common sense.

5. I stated that JJ should be bulletproof and not that she is bulletproof. Do you see the difference? But she isn't bulletproof and I can't argue that she is in a forum fight. Do you understand now?

6. And I see you are getting more dumb. I easily explained to you why I mentioned being stabbed by an Asgardian sword. Yet you ignored it. It has nothing to do with the Destroyer's beams. It was to show that crushing Mjolnir is irrelevant to durability when someone was shown with less durability than Mjolnir (being stabbed). I was basically killing your universal logic.

7. The Destroyer's beam wasn't shown to directly hit Volstagg. If you disagree then kindly post a picture or clip of exactly where he got hit directly.

8. And why is her durability above his? Do you know his durability against energy?

9. If the beams don't damage him then why in the hell he was running? What is the writer trying to show?

1. Lol. Applying “universal logic” that you come up with and decide on yourself to fiction thus causing said fiction to contradict itself is not logic. You cannot disprove my argument, so you’re going the “universal logic” route. What happened? Your usual “common sense” BSlogic not available today? Oh wait, I see it’s just a few paragraphs down...

Our bodies aren’t the same toughness allthroughout. Certain parts are harder than others (knee is tougher than my stomach, top of head stronger than ribs, etc). Some ppl in real life can even make specific body parts tougher thru training and conditioning. It is acceptable in fiction for possibilities and differences like these to be taken to an extreme level. You do not write the rules of fiction. So you do not get to decide what “universal logic” is and how it applies to fiction.

My logic shits on yours. You have nothing.

2. My logic (variable durability) makes evidence A (Hela getting stabbed) and B (Hela crushing Mjolnir) consistent with each other. You try to handwave the logical inconsistency by simply accepting logical inconsistency unto itself even though a logically consistent argument exists. You might wanna relearn how logic works.

And coming up with new unsupported theories doesn’t help you as I do not have to disprove your unsupported beliefs. Lolpressure from inside. Ppl can literally smelly your desperation now, and it stinks.

3. Stop it with the red herrings and false equivalencies. JJ is not in this debate, and we do not need to wonder what her writers think or do not think. Stop trying to weasel out when you know you got no arguments. This is about Hela and the Destroyer.

And you questioning my credibility is a laugh. You’ve demonstrated time and again (hell even stated it) that you do not care about your own credibility and you have basically reduced your credibility to ZERO here. I’m not sure you even know what credibility means, so you trying to call me out this way is just hilarious.

4. Wrong. It is funny, everytime you go “goes against common sense/universal logic” it just tells everyone here that you have no argument. Absolutely none, I’d challenge you to a BZ about what should be “common sense” in this case, but we both know you’d never accept it like the coward you are. The “common sense” argument is essentially your concession.

5. Don’t try to rewrite the narrative. You stated that JJ not being bulletproof is stupid. But then refuse to accept plausible explanations that manage to create consistency in the evidence as soon as it goes against who you want to win. Essentially, you would rather stay stupid than to admit you are wrong due to your deep unrelenting bias.

6. Lol. The Asgardian Blade is a distraction because even if it DID disprove my logic (w/c it DID NOT), you would be no less closer to proving the Destroyer beam could even hurt Hela’s hand or even Hela herself. It is a distraction. A way to extend an argument or add faux-content even when it would have zero relevance in the end. It’s funny that you still try to play these logic games with me when I have consistently shown you how easy it is for me to deconstruct your constant poorly executed logical weaseling.

7. IF it didn’t directly hit a large target lik Vollstag when it had him dead-to-rights at close-medium range (the guy was frozen with a deer in headlights look) then Hela would win even harder. Because that means that the Destroyer won’t even lay a hit on her once she starts moving. Choose one: hit Volstagg or it didn’t hit him. Hela would win either way. At this point, I don’t care w/c you choose as I’ll win either way.

8. Because even if you do not want to believe the Mjolnir crushing is a durability “feat” (w/c only really show ppl that you are ultra biased and super dumb, but I digress), there is still the fact that completely no-selling a Mjolnir throw is a high end durability “feat” unto itself. Be it chest or hand, it would be a durability “feat” no Asgardian has been shown able to do or be able to do (except maybe Thor himself if we take his high end IW “feats” in here or Odin/Bor if we go by implied durability). If you have proof to the contrary, feel free to post it. Til then, this factually puts her durability well beyond Asgardians.

9. Because explosions still hurt them apparently. But not enough to cause considerable visible damage. There are levels to what damage is, genius.

I have REPEATEDLY called you out on providing evidence on why you think the Destroyer beam would hurt Hela. Until now, you still have nothing.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Well, just on the JJ thing. She has actually caused a relatively minor cut on her hand before, but it was rather self-inflicted when she punched a fist-sized hole in a concrete wall (something a single handgun round, for example, can't really do). So, not really conclusive, especially when she at another point punches a hole through the hood of a car without getting hurt.

But anyway, none of this matters. Different writers wrote those scenes. Just because one writer intends for one character to be able to do certain things while not being able to do others, does not mean it suddenly applies to a completely different writer and character.

So do you believe that she is bulletproof in a forum fight?

Accept the battlezone, h1.

Originally posted by h1a8
So do you believe that she is bulletproof in a forum fight?

No, and I never hinted or implied anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out that she has indeed injured her hands before, but that the feat on its own doesn't mean much either way. If you read anything else in my post, then I question your grasp of the English language.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Lol. Applying “universal logic” that you come up with and decide on yourself to fiction thus causing said fiction to contradict itself is not logic. You cannot disprove my argument, so you’re going the “universal logic” route. What happened? Your usual “common sense” BSlogic not available today? Oh wait, I see it’s just a few paragraphs down...

Our bodies aren’t the same toughness allthroughout. Certain parts are harder than others (knee is tougher than my stomach, top of head stronger than ribs, etc). Some ppl in real life can even make specific body parts tougher thru training and conditioning. It is acceptable in fiction for possibilities and differences like these to be taken to an extreme level. You do not write the rules of fiction. So you do not get to decide what “universal logic” is and how it applies to fiction.

My logic shits on yours. You have nothing.

2. My logic (variable durability) makes evidence A (Hela getting stabbed) and B (Hela crushing Mjolnir) consistent with each other. You try to handwave the logical inconsistency by simply accepting logical inconsistency unto itself even though a logically consistent argument exists. You might wanna relearn how logic works.

And coming up with new unsupported theories doesn’t help you as I do not have to disprove your unsupported beliefs. Lolpressure from inside. Ppl can literally smelly your desperation now, and it stinks.

3. Stop it with the red herrings and false equivalencies. JJ is not in this debate, and we do not need to wonder what her writers think or do not think. Stop trying to weasel out when you know you got no arguments. This is about Hela and the Destroyer.

And you questioning my credibility is a laugh. You’ve demonstrated time and again (hell even stated it) that you do not care about your own credibility and you have basically reduced your credibility to ZERO here. I’m not sure you even know what credibility means, so you trying to call me out this way is just hilarious.

4. Wrong. It is funny, everytime you go “goes against common sense/universal logic” it just tells everyone here that you have no argument. Absolutely none, I’d challenge you to a BZ about what should be “common sense” in this case, but we both know you’d never accept it like the coward you are. The “common sense” argument is essentially your concession.

5. Don’t try to rewrite the narrative. You stated that JJ not being bulletproof is stupid. But then refuse to accept plausible explanations that manage to create consistency in the evidence as soon as it goes against who you want to win. Essentially, you would rather stay stupid than to admit you are wrong due to your deep unrelenting bias.

6. Lol. The Asgardian Blade is a distraction because even if it DID disprove my logic (w/c it DID NOT), you would be no less closer to proving the Destroyer beam could even hurt Hela’s hand or even Hela herself. It is a distraction. A way to extend an argument or add faux-content even when it would have zero relevance in the end. It’s funny that you still try to play these logic games with me when I have consistently shown you how easy it is for me to deconstruct your constant poorly executed logical weaseling.

7. IF it didn’t directly hit a large target lik Vollstag when it had him dead-to-rights at close-medium range (the guy was frozen with a deer in headlights look) then Hela would win even harder. Because that means that the Destroyer won’t even lay a hit on her once she starts moving. Choose one: hit Volstagg or it didn’t hit him. Hela would win either way. At this point, I don’t care w/c you choose as I’ll win either way.

8. Because even if you do not want to believe the Mjolnir crushing is a durability “feat” (w/c only really show ppl that you are ultra biased and super dumb, but I digress), there is still the fact that completely no-selling a Mjolnir throw is a high end durability “feat” unto itself. Be it chest or hand, it would be a durability “feat” no Asgardian has been shown able to do or be able to do (except maybe Thor himself if we take his high end IW “feats” in here or Odin/Bor if we go by implied durability). If you have proof to the contrary, feel free to post it. Til then, this factually puts her durability well beyond Asgardians.

9. Because explosions still hurt them apparently. But not enough to cause considerable visible damage. There are levels to what damage is, genius.

I have REPEATEDLY called you out on providing evidence on why you think the Destroyer beam would hurt Hela. Until now, you still have nothing.

1. You were applying a universal logic (crushing something automatically makes you more durable than that object). I proved it false by giving a counterexample. In other words, Crushing Mjolnir is not a durability feat. I gave counter examples of why.

I stated the word "vastly" because I knew that there is at least slight differences in different body part durability. Did you recognize that I used the word, "vastly"? Hela's hands and torso are NOT vastly different in durability . So if someone penetrates the torso "with ease" then it also can penetrate the hand as well. Notice the key words, "WITH EASE".
Did you see the key words "with ease"? Look at the key words, "with ease". Don't ignore the key words, "WITH EASE".
Therefore, a random Asgardian sword can penetrate Hela but not Mjolnir.

JJ not being bulletproof is indeed stupid. Doesn't make her bulletproof in a forum fight though, because the contrary was shown. Those are facts.

I don't have to prove that the status quo is true. You have to prove that the status quo isn't true. Is there significant evidence (not necessarily feats) to support Hela not able to be damaged by the Destroyer's beams? If not, then she will be damaged by them in a forum fight.

Volstagg was out of clear sight and inside the building. There was no clear shot. Yes Destroyer is not very accurate (due to PIS in order to protect the characters). Hela could definitely evade the beams or use her cape to block them. But for how long? She's not on Asgard, what's her stamina? How much energy does she have before running out? Etc.

How would she beat the Destroyer? With blades?

Originally posted by h1a8
1. You were applying a universal logic (crushing something automatically makes you more durable than that object). I proved it false by giving a counterexample. In other words, Crushing Mjolnir is not a durability feat. I gave counter examples of why.

2) I stated the word "vastly" because I knew that there is at least slight differences in different body part durability. Did you recognize that I used the word, "vastly"? Hela's hands and torso are NOT vastly different in durability .

3) So if someone penetrates the torso "with ease" then it also can penetrate the hand as well. Notice the key words, "WITH EASE".
Did you see the key words "with ease"? Look at the key words, "with ease". Don't ignore the key words, "WITH EASE".
Therefore, a random Asgardian sword can penetrate Hela but not Mjolnir.

4) JJ not being bulletproof is indeed stupid. Doesn't make her bulletproof in a forum fight though, because the contrary was shown. Those are facts.

5) I don't have to prove that the status quo is true. You have to prove that the status quo isn't true. Is there significant evidence (not necessarily feats) to support Hela not able to be damaged by the Destroyer's beams? If not, then she will be damaged by them in a forum fight.

6) Volstagg was out of clear sight and inside the building. There was no clear shot. Yes Destroyer is not very accurate (due to PIS in order to protect the characters). Hela could definitely evade the beams or use her cape to block them. But for how long? She's not on Asgard, what's her stamina? How much energy does she have before running out? Etc.

How would she beat the Destroyer? With blades?

1) Wrong. It is a durability “feat” as your “counterexample” does not prove that a less durable object with a much smaller thickness can easily crush a more durable object.

The only thing your JJ “counterexample” tries to imply is that Hela crushing Mjolnir crushing was an outlier. Which I completely blow away by my explanation. An explanation that manages to maintain logical consistency between Hela getting stabbed and Hela crushing Mjolnir. You are just denying this using another red herring that is irrelevant to this discussion as JJ is a different writer using very different rules of logic.

You reek of desperation.

2) Lol. Hela’s hands have been shown BY “FEATS” to have superior durability vs. her torso. This is fact. You are just in denial now.

Tell me what is more likely:

That as a universal rule, a less durable object with much less thickness should be able to eaily crush a more durable object or that the various body parts of a fictional nonhuman alien with super powers can have different durability?

Want to BZ to see what ppl think is more likely of the two?

3) Wrong. You have no argument here. You are just denying the logic behind my argument but offer no rebuttal but nuh-uh. Let me repeat: You do not determine the rules of fiction. Fiction can exaggerate the difference between the durability of one part to another.

4) Except when a plausible explanation that makes both logically consistent exists. Which I have provided. Which you have yet to disprove.

5) The Destroyer beam being able to damage Hela is not the status quo. Plus I have never heard of a logical “status quo” basis of argumentation. Are you making up rules of logic now? Pls link me where this is indeed a rule of logic, til then, I will assume you made it all up and ignore your attempt to shift burden of proof yet again for the 1 millionth freakin time.

I don’t have to prove that Hela can’t be damaged by the Destroyer beam. You have to prove that she would be.

And I have already provided solid evidence. A direct apples-to-apples comparison. Mjolnir treated the Destroyer beam like nothing. Hela crushed Mjolnir barehanded. This is good an evidence as one could POSSIBLY get outside of directly blocking the Destroyer beam itself.

Between the two of us, only one has provided evidence supporting his argument. While the other just tries to discredit the evidence by inserting unsupported, biased and scientifically unsound logical fallacies.

6) Are you kidding me?? Now you’re implying that she’d get tired?? She doesn’t need to fight it longer than a minute or two. It’s going to shoot her and she can just palm that shot the second she gets close enough and shove it back into its face.

Although, easiest way she’d win is simply dodging it or throw necroblades til it is stunned so she can close in to melee range and then tear it apart. Since this was indeed what they planned to do, I feel that the filmakers agree with me.

Or she can close in, crumple its head like a piece of scrap paper. Without its only weapon, she could rip it apart at her liesure.

Or she can just cut it up lengthwise where the blade won’t slip thru the gaps in the armor like what happened with Sif’s blade.

I could probably come up with several other ways to win, but I feel like I made my point.

You have zero ways for the Destroyer to win other than exhausting her and possibly hurting her with unproven damage from its beams if she decides to stand still and get hit. Absolute stupidity.

You need to stop this insanity as it has gone on long enough.

Typo. I meant “UNLIKE what happened with Sif’s blade”.

h1 still hasn't backed up his claim that the beam would damage Hela.

He hasn't backed up any actual claims that I can see. I will say this, I'm a little confused about the hand>torso argument. Mjolnir was blunt versus sharp blades. That seems obvious to me. But the blades come from her hands so maybe there is that reason.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
He hasn't backed up any actual claims that I can see. I will say this, I'm a little confused about the hand>torso argument. Mjolnir was blunt versus sharp blades. That seems obvious to me. But the blades come from her hands so maybe there is that reason.

It’s a conclusion that comes out when you work backwards from the evidence, using an evidence + evidence = conclusion approach while making sure that logic stays consistent allthroughout. Usually, ppl have preconcieved notions on how things should be and this taints their ability to accept evidence as they are (especially for h1 who tries to make evidence fit a preconcieved conclusion rather than vice versa) and when the quick and simple explanations are inconsistent with evidence, we can then use deductive reasoning to come up with a plausible explanation. It is not always easy to accept because it requires us to look at angles we normally would not consider.

Of course, I doubt that the writers intended the viewers to think this. But I also doubt the writers even considered having an explanation for this at all. It is simply not something writers consider when writing a story as viewers aren’t really battleboard posters who try and dissect logic in every scene to come up with quantified “feats”. It is a non-consideration. But in the absence of writer intent, we then move down to “feats” and quantify and explain them based on the virtue of their existence.

Ergo, her hand has stronger durability showing + torso has lower durability showing thus, ipso facto, the hand is more durable than the torso. This could mean that it is part of Hela’s abilities due to the possibility that training/conditioning/magic has made her hands much stronger than the rest of her since she uses it as a means of attack as well as defense.

h1 using the “vastly more durable” argument is him simply refusing to quantify such differences so he uses subjective non-quantified nonspecific terms to create the appearance of an argument rather than making an actual one.

Bottom line, we don’t know how much more durable Mjolnir is vs an Asgardian blade (just that a blade was never shown to pierce Mjolnir, but we don’t see an Asgardian blade breaking trying to pierce Mjolnir either AFAIK). The difference might not be that high, as we know that Asgardian Blades have some serious piercing “feats” (piercing Kurses for example). Mjolnir might well have more or less the same material strength as Asgardian blades, just that Mjolnir is much better at handling enchantments.

It’s moot anyway. The Destroyer beam is NOT an Asgardian blade. There is no point even bringing it up except to create the illusion of an argument so he can distract from the fact that he has brought no argument and no evidence. A red herring based on a false equivalence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Wrong. It is a durability “feat” as your “counterexample” does not prove that a less durable object with a much smaller thickness can easily crush a more durable object.

The only thing your JJ “counterexample” tries to imply is that Hela crushing Mjolnir crushing was an outlier. Which I completely blow away by my explanation. An explanation that manages to maintain logical consistency between Hela getting stabbed and Hela crushing Mjolnir. You are just denying this using another red herring that is irrelevant to this discussion as JJ is a different writer using very different rules of logic.

You reek of desperation.

2) Lol. Hela’s hands have been shown BY “FEATS” to have superior durability vs. her torso. This is fact. You are just in denial now.

Tell me what is more likely:

That as a universal rule, a less durable object with much less thickness should be able to eaily crush a more durable object or that the various body parts of a fictional nonhuman alien with super powers can have different durability?

Want to BZ to see what ppl think is more likely of the two?

3) Wrong. You have no argument here. You are just denying the logic behind my argument but offer no rebuttal but nuh-uh. Let me repeat: You do not determine the rules of fiction. Fiction can exaggerate the difference between the durability of one part to another.

4) Except when a plausible explanation that makes both logically consistent exists. Which I have provided. Which you have yet to disprove.

5) The Destroyer beam being able to damage Hela is not the status quo. Plus I have never heard of a logical “status quo” basis of argumentation. Are you making up rules of logic now? Pls link me where this is indeed a rule of logic, til then, I will assume you made it all up and ignore your attempt to shift burden of proof yet again for the 1 millionth freakin time.

I don’t have to prove that Hela can’t be damaged by the Destroyer beam. You have to prove that she would be.

And I have already provided solid evidence. A direct apples-to-apples comparison. Mjolnir treated the Destroyer beam like nothing. Hela crushed Mjolnir barehanded. This is good an evidence as one could POSSIBLY get outside of directly blocking the Destroyer beam itself.

Between the two of us, only one has provided evidence supporting his argument. While the other just tries to discredit the evidence by inserting unsupported, biased and scientifically unsound logical fallacies.

6) Are you kidding me?? Now you’re implying that she’d get tired?? She doesn’t need to fight it longer than a minute or two. It’s going to shoot her and she can just palm that shot the second she gets close enough and shove it back into its face.

Although, easiest way she’d win is simply dodging it or throw necroblades til it is stunned so she can close in to melee range and then tear it apart. Since this was indeed what they planned to do, I feel that the filmakers agree with me.

Or she can close in, crumple its head like a piece of scrap paper. Without its only weapon, she could rip it apart at her liesure.

Or she can just cut it up lengthwise where the blade won’t slip thru the gaps in the armor like what happened with Sif’s blade.

I could probably come up with several other ways to win, but I feel like I made my point.

You have zero ways for the Destroyer to win other than exhausting her and possibly hurting her with unproven damage from its beams if she decides to stand still and get hit. Absolute stupidity.

You need to stop this insanity as it has gone on long enough.

1. It's not a durability feat. That's not how it works in fiction. I gave a counterexample (JJ). You are now basically claiming that JJ's hands are bulletproof.

Hela's hand and torso have similar durability. It's not debatable. You are arguing and making up stupid shit that the writer had no intention of thinking about. It's called fiction inconsistency.

3. If you believe that the feat is an outlier then it's not usable in any way.

4. Assuming the beam does not damage her, you still haven't proven that she will shove the beam back in its mouth. You have to prove that she will think of such a tactic and you have to prove that the Destroyer will stand in one spot and blast long enough to allow her to do that. But guess what? It's impossible for her to do that anyway. Why? Because the beam has concussive ability and sent Asgardians flying without even hitting them directly. Hela can't fly, she will simply be either pushed back or prevented from moving forward.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
He hasn't backed up any actual claims that I can see. I will say this, I'm a little confused about the hand>torso argument. Mjolnir was blunt versus sharp blades. That seems obvious to me. But the blades come from her hands so maybe there is that reason.

Give you the claim you didn't back up, okay. You didn't back up the claim that the Destroyers beam would damage Hela.

Once you back that one up I'll list one of the many others you've failed to back up.

Originally posted by h1a8
Congrats. You wrote a book by now. I'll continue to keep it short and sweet and you continue to write more books.

1. It's not a durability feat. That's not how it works in fiction. I gave a counterexample (JJ). You are now basically claiming that JJ's hands are bulletproof.

Hela's hand and torso have similar durability. It's not debatable. You are arguing and making up stupid shit that the writer had no intention of thinking about. It's called fiction inconsistency.

3. If you believe that the feat is an outlier then it's not usable in any way.

4. Assuming the beam does not damage her,

5. you still haven't proven that she will shove the beam back in its mouth. You have to prove that she will think of such a tactic

6. and you have to prove that the Destroyer will stand in one spot and blast long enough to allow her to do that.

7. But guess what? It's impossible for her to do that anyway. Why? Because the beam has concussive ability and sent Asgardians flying without even hitting them directly. Hela can't fly, she will simply be either pushed back or prevented from moving forward.

Of course I’m writing a book, that’s ‘cuz I’m schooling you. Seriously, I should be charging you tuition.

You, of course, can only keep it short because there is only so much you can do with nothing.

1. This has already been debunked. Until you can provide a logical argument, then you are repeating yourself now. I have never argued that JJ has bulletproof hands. You’ve gone from red herring to false equivalence to strawmanning now. Good job.

Lol. You saying something is fact does not make it so. You need to provide evidence and a logical argument other than “nuh-uh” and “izz stoopid”.

I will repeat, my explanation is logically consistent with the evidence. My explanation is a direct consequence of the evidence. You need strength and durability to successfully crush something. Strength isn’t enough. Logic is simple and stands on itself.

That is all I need. Until you can show where the logical inconsistency is, you have nothing.

3. Wrong. Outliers are evidence and are still usable in many cases. Such as this. Since this compares directly apples-to-apples (durability vs. durability) to the evidence and is applicable by virtue of transitive property (Hela Hand>Mjolnir, Mjolnir>DBeam thus Hand > DBeam). If Supergirl lifted a key weighing 50 million tons, we cannot argue that she would get crushed because she would be unable to push a 20 million ton weight off her.

4. Well, good then since you provided no evidence that it would hurt her, one cannot argue that it would hurt her.

5. It is not rocket science. It literally took Thor less than a minute to figure it out. Hela has been shown to palm an attack and use that to disable/disarm an opponent (Thor by crushing Mjolnir) or one interpret that as “palming an attack and destroying an opponent’s primary weapon”. Which would still be applicable to crushing the Destroyer’s beam projector face. She has the showings indicating that she could think of this and is in line with how she’s been shown to fight and you have not provided one SHRED of counterevidence or even a coherent argument other than your usual “nuh-uh”.

6. The Destroyer doesn’t need to stand still. She can simply close in (easily) by dodging/evading or by stunning it with necroblades and then as soon as the Destroyer opens its face (literally telegraphing its attack, may as well hang a sign there) to shoot, like here:

(0:38) and (0:59)

https://youtu.be/9UvCZqQbvqc

Where it takes at least a few seconds for it to even get a shot off, Hela jumps on, crumples its face like tinfoil, palms the beam and shoves its blast back into its head. Easy peezy Destroyerface squeezy.

The Destroyer has zero evasion game. It’s a slow moving lumbering machine. It doesn’t have to stand still. Because with the way it moves, it may as well be standing still. Pathetic argument, btw.

7. Except you are forgetting one critical detail: She caught a full Mjolnir throw with her hand without budging an inch. If a Mjolnir throw couldn’t budge her, the concussive force from a Destroyer beam would do nothing. You know, the same Mjolnir that plowed thru the Destroyer beam, concussive force and all like it was nothing?

Which is exactly what your argument is. Nothing. You. Got. Nothing.

And seeing as you seem to have no rebuttal for the several other methods I have outlined where Hela pwns the Destroyer, I’m assuming that you have conceded this insanity?

Originally posted by h1a8
You didn't read any of my posts. Give me a claim that I didn't back up?
Basically Nibedicus is making up stupid shit like Hela's hands are vastly more durable than her torso.
His reasoning is that she caused Mjolnir to be destroyed with her hands (which has numerous possible explanations) and yet got easily stabbed by a a random Asgadian sword.
The problem is Jessica Jones has casually crushed huge steel padlocks and isnt bulletproof. Unless he's trying to say that Jessica's hands are indeed bulletproof.

What SM said.

“Vastly” is a subjective nonspecific quantification. Also, my evidence/logic > yours.

Consistent with evidence and logic.

Strawman.

To: shadowfyre

h1 likes to call stuff stupid. Like when he said JJ being not bulletproof but able to perform “feats” that require more than human durability.

Then, all of a sudden, it becomes fact when it helps his argument. Now he calls my evidence-supported, logically consistent argument “stupid”.

Apparently, the thin line between stupid and fact is when it helps h1’s argument.

I have no doubt that as soon as my “variable durability due to “feats”” argument becomes convenient to his arguments, it will suddenly become fact. I shit you not.