Supermans chain feat vs Thor feat

Started by carver92 pages

Both are hyperbolic.

Do people honestly not understand what hyperbole means

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Do people honestly not understand what hyperbole means

Educate us Saint

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Do people honestly not understand what hyperbole means
I was going by exaggerations. Thor being almighty is an exaggeration no? But it can be taken literally. So my bad here.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Educate us Saint

For those homeschooling their kids:

https://kidskonnect.com/language/hyperbole-examples/

Hyperbole is when you use language to exaggerate what you mean or emphasize a point. It’s often used to make something sound much bigger and better than it actually is or to make something sound much more dramatic. Hyperbole is a figure of speech.

For example: “There’s enough food in the cupboard to feed an entire army!”

In this example, the speaker doesn’t literally mean that there’s enough food in the cupboard to feed the hundreds of people in the army. Instead, the speaker is using hyperbole to exaggerate the amount of food that they have.

Are the chains unbreakable? That's hyperbole. But their function - being used to haul stars - isn't hyperbole.

The Old King Thor mini is basically beginning to end wank fest feats. Why would you use one of the least concrete ones for comparison?

The answer to the question is that it would be impossible for Superman to lift Mjolnir, whereas he broke what was said to be unbreakable. Therefore the chain wasn't truly unbreakable.