1. He never exerted more than 50 tons of force. Here in kmc he can't because he has no feats of doing so.
2. He used extreme effort in some of his feats and produced less than 100 tons of force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons of force while using all one's might.
Therefore, either Hulk and Thor are weak (less than 100 toners) or director is wrong.
Not having the feats is equivalent to someone can't here on kmc.
If Namor doesn't have feats above 50 tons then he can't exert more than 50 tons in a forum fight. It's always been that way. Nothing new. We argue by feats.
His facial expressions when he punched M'Baku, slung some Wakanda ships, etc showed that he was using extreme effort (more than 90% of his might).
What double standards? There is no law of the excluded middle. Either something is true or it isn't. It can't be true and not true at the same time. There would be no point of debating if that rule can be broken. What happens onscreen >>>> writer's intent when they both contradict each other.
I accepted that Thor can withstand aircraft bullets provided his other feats despite writer's intent that he can't.
So there is no double standard. I favored feats over intent.
Namor exerted full might and yield less than 50 tons force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons.
Nope, it just means lacking evidence. There is such a thing as power scaling however.
It's brand new for you. As all your fantasy arguments depend on made up writer's intent. But as soon as you get ACTUAL Writer's intent clarified, which doesn't suit your bias, you IGNORE it.
1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.
2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.
3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.
Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.
I agree with you on Abom getting wrecked, but I don't think what the director said really stands here. You know how focused this forum is on shown feats only. Namor didn't show himself to be anywhere near a 100 tonner.
Just calling out h1a8 as he's always going on about "writer's intention" on this same forum, and he completely makes up what the writers intentions were.
Then when the director/writer actually makes a statement (one which also has dialogue in the movie suggesting the same) he ignores it because it doesn't suit his bias.
But again, consider this as a feat as it were, of his interpretation abilities.
Like with Thanos lifting a finger being proof of writer's intent that he needs his chair to open portals.
Or when he misunderstood Stoic's post, and tried to argue writer's intent. Both times, glaringly wrong; showing his ability to interpret writer's intent os suspect, and is twisted for his own ends.
I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?
So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.
You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?
Again you're making up it was writer's intent to say that Thor isn't bullet proof. Yet you OUTRIGHT DENY Actual Statements from the writers.
So "writer's intent" as you use it is 100% about your bias and nothing to do with objective debating. You literally just make it up.
As for feats, yes we go by Onscreen Feats here, as that is Objective. However just because someone hasn't done a feat doesn't mean they can't.
For example, Shazam hasn't lifted anything huge yet, even though Black Adam has, that doesn't mean Shazam can't, just that further proof is needed. Although logic would state BA is unlikely to be 100x stronger than Shazam when the source of their powers is the same.
And honestly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up movie dialogue and/or director's commentary to back up an argument. What is total BS is when you yourself make up what writer's intention is.
How am I making up writer's intent?
Why would writer mislead the audience in getting us to think Thor will be significantly injured from such bullets when he wouldn't?
Onscreen showings >>>> what a writers states.
Simple logic.
Kmc rules are not about what writers think. They are about feats.
Where were you when DS was arguing that Tyrant has no form of FTL travel?
Shazam is not as strong as BA due to lack of feats. Power source are different from BA. Even if writer states they have the exact same strength then they don't on kmc due to feat determines strength.
With your own very very subjective assertions as seen here:
It's not for you to answer this question with your own very biased assumption, and then expect everyone else to accept it as "writer's intention."
Writers intention isn't whatever you imagine it to be. We debate here with objective facts.
Yes, On screen showings. Not your very very subjective interpretation like going off face expressions.
You should have thought of that before you harped on about writer's intentions in almost every debate you've participated in for years. Then only chose to accept KMC rules when the writers made it clear they disagree with you.
We clearly see what the writer want us to think. What imagination? Everyone who saw the scene for the first time thought the same thing. Those bullets will phuck Thor up. Plain and simple. Correct. And that's why Thor can resist such bullets, because he has the feats to prove so. Onscreen >> writer's intent. Stop exaggerating. I mention writer's intent in less than 0.1% of all debates. Writer's intent goes when it doesn't contradict onscreen showings.
Forum rules aren't logical fallacies.
Feats determine strength, not writers intent.
Namor with his vibranium spear will poke Abom full of holes. But without it he's not beating Abom. Namor was strong but not at Abom or Hulk's level.
Remember that M'Baku was able to survive a full punch from Namor. I don't think he would have been able to survive a full punch from Hulk or Abom, even with his armor.
I agree with you except it is possible for Abom to grab Namor after a stab.
Namor didn't exactly stab and pull out at superspeed. He more or less stabbed and waited lol.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 14th, 2022 09:54 AM
