Originally posted by FrothByte
Let me put it this way:Namek has super strength and super durability. Vision has super strength and super durability.
Namek has never truly damaged or injured a superhuman opponent before. Vision has at least damaged and injured superhuman opponents before if you count Warmachine.
Namek has proven strong enough to knock around Superman. Vision has proven strong enough to knock around Giantman.
The fairest comparison we can take away from this is that Namek and Vision are near enough in strength and durability to each other. So if the question is whether or not a person of similar strength to another can rip out their insides, the burden of proof false to the more unlikely claim:
In this case, that means it's the person who claims that Namek's insides are way too tough for Vision to damage. That's the more unlikely claim, therefore that's where burden of proof lies.
Dumbest logic ever. Pushing Giant man off balance only takes a few tons of force.
A human can slightly push another human (when they are distracted) to cause them to lose balance.
Nam threw a 200ton train enough distance that it was over 10,000 tons of force.
Nam took hits from Superman, who is far stronger than anything Vision ever tanked. Nam took a full blast of HV without damage, which is far more than Vision ever took.
How in the hell are their durability and strength close again? You are saying Vision is as strong as Superman? Really?
You are so bias, you lost all reasoning.
That's not how it works. If Nam's durability feats are quantified. Then you have to have quantified strength feats for Vision to prove that Vision can harm Nam.
Pushing giantman off balance is more than a magnitude less than what's needed.