Jump to content


Photo

The Imperium of Man vs. Marvel Earth


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#101 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 11 November 2011 - 03:42 PM

"And I'll repeat my position:

Darkseid, Apocalypse, etc, don't use their powers because, sometimes they powers fail. Sometimes their telepathy may not be usefull, or have worked on a person, or maybe they didn't think of it. I discout Out of Universe (plot reasons) entirely. When a character doesn't use an ability to his fullest extent there should never be the explanation of "oh, that would make the plot weak", you should look for an in universe explanation, ex: "That power wouldn't have worked in that situation". "

And what do you do then, when there are no "in universe explanations."?

Granted, my way of doing things requires a little individual thought(as well as basic knowledge about the characters in question), but individual thought shouldn't be too much to ask for in someone participating in a debate.


"Simple: any of the characters that you claim are nigh omnipotent or similar (Mr. M, Franklin Richards, etc) are, AFAIK, good people. Mr. M had a penchant for going around fixing things, etc. You would think, then, since it's in their personality to help people and they supposedly can do anything, they would and could eliminate everday problems such as illness, hunger, poverty, etc. Yet they don't.

Therefore, they can't."

So, you're saying that if you were granted powers like that, you would remove crime, illness, poverty, hunger, etc. etc. etc.? Congratulations, you just slowed down the progress of the human race, by a ridiculous degree, if not killed it completely.

Maybe they have just realized that humans(and pretty much all other living beings) need adversity, they need to struggle in order to grow, they need to know Unhappiness in order to know happiness.

Personally I see the restraint of those people(mister m, gaia, etc.) as proof of their character.


"Yes, you'll forgive my stupidity when I ask you to back up your claims beyond vague "They are nighomnipotent!" claims."

Actually, they are not my claims. The fact that they are "nigh-omnipotent", with "practically unlimited energy." is information given to us by, I believe you used the phrase "word of god". You are willing to accept the "word of god" for an FPL character in a story you read about him, and yet you are unwilling to accept the same for a character from Marvel. Either "word of god" is an acceptable means of getting information, or it isn't. yet you seem to pick and choose in which cases you want to accept it.


As I said in the beginning of this post, a little individual thought. Instead of blindly accepting what is shown 'on screen'. I'm guessing you're one of the people that simply accepts the theories of modern science as "fact" as well. That redshift can actually tell us how old the universe is, for example. Not particularly a critique of you personally, I just don't get how you can simply accept things like that, when there are so many pieces of data that doesn't fit, and so much information that just isn't there.


To use the example of Darkseid, we are not, at any point, given an "in universe" explanation for why he doesn't use his telepathy. We have however, by "word of god"(among other sources), been given the information that he does have telepathic powers, and quite powerful ones at that.

With Mister M(among other high-level reality warpers), we are likewise, Never given an "in universe" explanation for why he doesn't just incapacitate the collective villains, or restore the powers of all the mutants, or half a dozen other things that should be easily within his powers. But we have been given the information by "word of god", that he is a "nigh-omnipotent reality warper" with "practically unlimited energy". We have also been given the information by "word of god", that he has "extensive knowledge in several fields, including biology, nuclear physics, technology(engineering), genetics, and more."



And we haven't even gotten into people like X-man, Hope, Synch, Thor(and Odin for that matter), Iron Man(Uru-Armor), Ms. Marvel, etc. etc. etc. Several of which could take the fleet out on their own(or in small groups).

#102 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:12 PM

He doesn't, why, because that would not be interesting. Comics have to sell issues, people have to write them to be entertaining.

Silver Surfer could just transmute every villain that does not also have transmuting powers into a statue of stone... but he doesn't.

Just because they do not do it, does not mean they can't.

Why hasn't some villain just shot Batman in the face by surprise when he is on patrol, talking to the cops, ect? That would be dull.


Out of Universe explanations, and therefore not valid.

Either way: Wallace West: He began running instantly from crime scene to crime scene, disaster to disaster, until he became a gale force, patrolling his city at speeds no human could follow.

Kingdom Come Flash: The Spectre shows Norman McCay Key Stone City, which he describes as an utopia where a scarlet blur protects he streets from all crime no matter how petty.


#103 kainboa

kainboa

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,805 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:15 PM

Out of Universe explanations, and therefore not valid.

Either way: Wallace West: He began running instantly from crime scene to crime scene, disaster to disaster, until he became a gale force, patrolling his city at speeds no human could follow.

Kingdom Come Flash: The Spectre shows Norman McCay Key Stone City, which he describes as an utopia where a scarlet blur protects he streets from all crime no matter how petty.


Indeed, now you've seen that sometimes they actually do use their powers in a way that could be expected, please come up with an explanation for why they don't use their powers like that all the time.
And do keep in mind that there have been no de-powering of the character, nor any empowering of them to get to that particular level.

#104 Nova Force Nova

Nova Force Nova

    Deadpan Snarker

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A couch near you.
  • Interests:Interesting stuff.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:19 PM

Out of Universe explanations, and therefore not valid.


No. They are just as valid as any other.

#105 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:33 PM

And what do you do then, when there are no "in universe explanations."


If there is no official expalantion or the comic doesn't explain why a character didn't do something, you have to attempt to reason one out.

For instance: Character X has stated ability Y. During a confrontation with character Z, X didn't use Y.

Nowhere in the comic is there an explanation as to why X didn't use Y, even though we know he can.

Therefore, we have to attempt to reason out why this didn't happen. Either X knows his ability Y doesn't work all the time, wouldn't work on Z, wouldn't be applicable in the situation, he simply didn't think to use it, maybe he simply didn't want to use Y, maybe he had a brain fart and simply forgot he had Y ability. Who knows, and really, it doesn't matter, the point is that the ability wasn't used and therefore we can surmise that there is some limit on the ability and that the ability will not always be used.

Why did Obi-wan say he doesn't remember owning any droinds in A New Hope? Do we say "Because Lucas hadn't written ep I-III yet?" No. We, in the absence of an official explanation, attempt to work one out within the confines of the setting. Maybe Obi-wan mean he doesn't remember owning any droids (because he never did own any), maybe he was just witholding information from Luke, maybe he just honestly doesn't remember because he's old. Anything is better than breaking suspension of disbelief and attributing it to the writers.

So, you're saying that if you were granted powers like that, you would remove crime, illness, poverty, hunger, etc. etc. etc.? Congratulations, you just slowed down the progress of the human race, by a ridiculous degree, if not killed it completely.

Maybe they have just realized that humans(and pretty much all other living beings) need adversity, they need to struggle in order to grow, they need to know Unhappiness in order to know happiness.

Personally I see the restraint of those people(mister m, gaia, etc.) as proof of their character.


Yes, because dooming all those engineers, scientists, peace loving politicians, hard working people to healtier lives without fear of illness and disease killing them will suddenly make mankind complacent instead of totally removing one of the constraints of happiness and innovation (ie scientific leaders and thinkers dying because of diseases, children dying at early ages due to some illness).

If they did think the way you are claiming (with some stuff about adversity and unhappiness causing happiness and growth) they would just sit down and never do anything, because the adversity and unhappiness caused by Celestials blowing up a continent, or some random mutant going about to destroy some city would be beneficial in their worldview.

Or maybe, instead of inventing philosophical arguments about the nature of adversity and the struggle of man (which doesn't even hold in real life, because yes, I would) and accept that maybe, just maybe, these characters don't have the abilities being ascribed to them.

Actually, they are not my claims. The fact that they are "nigh-omnipotent", with "practically unlimited energy." is information given to us by, I believe you used the phrase "word of god". You are willing to accept the "word of god" for an FPL character in a story you read about him, and yet you are unwilling to accept the same for a character from Marvel. Either "word of god" is an acceptable means of getting information, or it isn't. yet you seem to pick and choose in which cases you want to accept it.


Only if "word of god" fits with what we see "on screen". Because you seem to think you have to accept something all the time or reject it all the time, instead of, as you say, use a little individual thought and reason out "Mmmh, word of god says this, but on-screen events fundamentally differ with word of god statements..." and then accepting the larger body of evidence.

To use the example of Darkseid, we are not, at any point, given an "in universe" explanation for why he doesn't use his telepathy. We have however, by "word of god"(among other sources), been given the information that he does have telepathic powers, and quite powerful ones at that.

With Mister M(among other high-level reality warpers), we are likewise, Never given an "in universe" explanation for why he doesn't just incapacitate the collective villains, or restore the powers of all the mutants, or half a dozen other things that should be easily within his powers. But we have been given the information by "word of god", that he is a "nigh-omnipotent reality warper" with "practically unlimited energy". We have also been given the information by "word of god", that he has "extensive knowledge in several fields, including biology, nuclear physics, technology(engineering), genetics, and more."


Simple explanations for Darkseid: his telepathic power wouldn't work in that situation, he didn't think to use his telepathic power, he was overconfident and thought he could get by without using the telepathic power, his telepathic power can't be summoned at the drop of a hat, etc etc. All of these are easy, reasonable expalanations to solve why there is a disparity between Word of God comments and in universe events. He retains WoG properties (strong telepathy) and explains a lack of use of this ability all the time (any of the above reasons).

Again with Mr. M. WoG gives those powers, but events in the comics don't show applications of such things, so- he has limits and cannot do some mundane things. Therefore he can't do some things (supply and fix all energy needs around the world), even though he can do some other things.

#106 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:38 PM

Indeed, now you've seen that sometimes they actually do use their powers in a way that could be expected, please come up with an explanation for why they don't use their powers like that all the time.
And do keep in mind that there have been no de-powering of the character, nor any empowering of them to get to that particular level.


Except that I don't have to explain why Flash in the mainstream setting (Eart 616?) doesn't prevent all crime in his city. All I have to do is point out that he doesn't.

If, for instance, someone said "Will the Flash (Earth616) lower crime rates to 0% in Megacity One?" Someone could point out, quite rightly, that yes, he could lower crime to nothing by following Wallace West's superhero technique of zipping around the city all the time.

I, however, would point out that Flash from Earth 616 doesn't do that. Crime occurs in his city. So therefore there's no reason to assume that he would suddenly act out of character in Megacity One and prevent all crime there when he doesn't back home.

#107 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:50 PM

No. They are just as valid as any other.


If I compare a modern day Special Forces team against... I dunno, Rainbow from Rainbow Six, which one wins? I could argue that the SF team wins, because unlike Rainbow the SF team has been put in real situations that are not being contrived to be "winnable" by a writer and therefore when Rainbow finds itself in a situation that is not guaranteed to succeed by a team of writers they'll be out of their element and lose.

#108 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 11 November 2011 - 05:59 PM

If I compare a modern day Special Forces team against... I dunno, Rainbow from Rainbow Six, which one wins? I could argue that the SF team wins, because unlike Rainbow the SF team has been put in real situations that are not being contrived to be "winnable" by a writer and therefore when Rainbow finds itself in a situation that is not guaranteed to succeed by a team of writers they'll be out of their element and lose.


And you just might be correct in that argument, I don't know enough about the Rainbow Six universe to say. Does Rainbow Six's universe include any history for the Rainbow team? If so, then that history has to be considered as well. Are you given any information about the level of training of the Rainbow team? if so, then that information has to be included as well, on top of any history the team has.

By your argument, Karate Kid should win any fight against Street Level characters, after all, he has, despite being a normal (very)well-trained human, physically subdued a kryptonian. Going with simple "in universe" information, Karate Kid is unbeatable to any street level character. Those of us that actually knows the character's capabilities, as well as the capabilities of other Street level character, can tell you that there are several Street Level characters that would defeat Karate Kid.


-snip-



"Yes, because dooming all those engineers, scientists, peace loving politicians, hard working people to healtier lives without fear of illness and disease killing them will suddenly make mankind complacent instead of totally removing one of the constraints of happiness and innovation (ie scientific leaders and thinkers dying because of diseases, children dying at early ages due to some illness)."

Without any sickness, there would be no need for any research in the medical field, and thus, there would be no scientific progress in that field, since funding would be put to use in places where it's actually needed.

Congratulations, by removing illness, you just completely stopped progress in an entire field of science.

A large part of the scientific research that gets done is done by the military, in order to better defend their country. Congratulations, by removing any kind of war, you just effectively crippled the scientific progress of our society.

Or better yet, you go back in time and remove war, then you just effectively set modern science back several years(if not decades or more).

Completely remove poverty, congratulations, you just removed one of the big reasons that people strive to excel, i.e. to get Out of poverty.

Completely remove hunger, well.. congratulations again, you(again) just crippled an area of scientific research. With no illness or hunger, you just removed the last of the need for Genetics research.

So... so far you've completely killed off any kind of medical and genetic research, you've crippled the overall scientific progress, and by going back in time and fixing those problems, you've effectively set our society back(technologically) by several years, decades or more. And you've removed a large part of the drive to succeed, thus creating a mostly stagnant society. Kudos.


"If they did think the way you are claiming (with some stuff about adversity and unhappiness causing happiness and growth) they would just sit down and never do anything, because the adversity and unhappiness caused by Celestials blowing up a continent, or some random mutant going about to destroy some city would be beneficial in their worldview."

And yet again, you are simply taking what you get without doing some thinking of your own outside of the given information. Let's, as you say, assume for a moment that they do think that way. I.e. adversity causes progress. The whole idea is for the human race to Progress, that happens by allowing the human race to deal with the problems they face themselves. The Celestials blowing up an entire continent(North America, if you are referring to Franklin blocking her blast), would in no way cause any kind of progress, in fact, the instant loss of an entire society, along with the majority of earth's greatest minds, would cause a Major setback. Thus, those with the power to prevent it, does so.

If/When you have kids, you don't just solve all their problems for them, you allow them to solve them on their own, and step in when you have to. Otherwise the kids would be completely reliant on you, and not be able to function on their own once they grow up.

The same is the case for beings of that level of power. If they simply solve all of humanities problems, then humanity will become reliant on them and be unable to handle any kind of problems on their own. For the most part, they allow humanity to solve its own problems, but step in when they have to. Magneto for example, is a problem that humanity is unable to handle on their own, so other mutants step in to help solve that problem.

A good analogy for that is the Wizarding World in Harry Potter. They expect the Chosen One to take care of the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters for them, when the problem could be solved simply by every witch/wizard putting in a little effort of their own. If everyone fought back when the DE's come knocking, then there wouldn't be any DE's left for Harry(or Dumbledore) to handle.


"Or maybe, instead of inventing philosophical arguments about the nature of adversity and the struggle of man (which doesn't even hold in real life, because yes, I would) and accept that maybe, just maybe, these characters don't have the abilities being ascribed to them. "

Yes, it does very much hold in real life. I'll refer you to my response a bit further up in this post.



"Only if "word of god" fits with what we see "on screen". Because you seem to think you have to accept something all the time or reject it all the time, instead of, as you say, use a little individual thought and reason out "Mmmh, word of god says this, but on-screen events fundamentally differ with word of god statements..." and then accepting the larger body of evidence."

Ah, but in the case(s) we're talking about here, we don't have any contradicting information "on screen". by "word of god", we have the information that they have specific Powers, Skills and Abilities, and to the best of my knowledge, we don't see anything "on screen" that contradicts that information. What we see "on screen" is that they don't necessarily USE those powers, skills, abilities, etc.

In fact, the only contradictory 'evidence' we have, is "on screen". Where in one case, Spider-Man relatively effortlessly lifts 50 tons, while in another case, he struggles lifting an average car. Or Apocalypse, in one case, uses his telepathic powers to subdue a large group of opponents(including one or two fairly powerful telepaths), while in another, pretty much identical situation, he simply charges the group of opponents and fights when with purely physical powers.


I don't know about you, but I don't always use all of the skills I have. To give an example, I understand german very well, but when/if I meet someone speaking german, I simply don't respond, or respond with "what?", then they either start speaking english, or they leave me alone.

To give a more theoretical example. If I was given almost any kind of 'super powers', how would I use them? Simple, I would use them to spend more time with my girlfriend and make my life a little easier. Would I help stop crime? Well, if the crime happens right in front of me, sure. Otherwise, no, why would I bother? I certainly wouldn't go around fixing every little problem that humanity has(and yes, I've spent quite a bit of time, both talking about it, usually with my brothers or some friends, and thinking about it).


"Simple explanations for Darkseid: his telepathic power wouldn't work in that situation, he didn't think to use his telepathic power, he was overconfident and thought he could get by without using the telepathic power, his telepathic power can't be summoned at the drop of a hat, etc etc. All of these are easy, reasonable expalanations to solve why there is a disparity between Word of God comments and in universe events. He retains WoG properties (strong telepathy) and explains a lack of use of this ability all the time (any of the above reasons)."

And what if the 'explanations' that you come up with, directly contradicts the "word of god"?

"his telepathic power wouldn't work in that situation", it has worked just fine in identical situations in the past, thus this explanation contradicts other "on screen" information.

"he didn't think to use his telepathic power", same as above, this contradicts other "on screen" information.

"he was overconfident and thought he could get by without using the telepathic power.", while plausible in some situations, in the given situation it contradicts both "on screen" information, as well as the "word of god".


My point with all this, what do you do, when there is no 'reasonable' "in universe" explanation? 'cos as I pointed out earlier, the problem isn't that "on screen" contradicts the "word of god", the problem is that it contradicts itself, due to different writers having different needs and ideas.


"Again with Mr. M. WoG gives those powers, but events in the comics don't show applications of such things, so- he has limits and cannot do some mundane things. Therefore he can't do some things (supply and fix all energy needs around the world), even though he can do some other things."

To use the FPL analogy again: By what you're saying, you would claim that the character I mentioned earlier, does not have any Electricity powers. "word of god" says that he has them, but the events in the story written about the character, doesn't show applications of any Electricity power, therefore he can't manipulate electricity. And coincidentally, the creator of the character doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm sure a lot of character creators(including most of the FPLers) will be happy to hear that.

#109 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:48 PM

Karate Kid and Rainbow Six


Except that it was a facetious argument to show that "the writers did it/didn't do it" can be employed against a character too, and hence that OoU reasoning should never be used, because it can be twisted to mean anything.

Nova Force Nova was saying that OoU explanations are valid, I'm pointing out that OoU explanations can be made for anything, including limiting characters. For instance, the Power Rangers would be unable to deal with a single Ork from WH40K, because their level of violence is outside the scope of a kids show.

So... so far you've completely killed off any kind of medical and genetic research, you've crippled the overall scientific progress, and by going back in time and fixing those problems, you've effectively set our society back(technologically) by several years, decades or more. And you've removed a large part of the drive to succeed, thus creating a mostly stagnant society. Kudos.


Except that without illness and disease the fields of medicine are almost completely irrelevant since their entire point of existing is to cure illness and disease.

Also, by removing war you simply remove scientific advancements made in war time, or do you think if not for WWII we wouldn't have atomic power even though atomic weaponry was already being discussed before WWII? Do you happen to think that rocketry and computers were entirely because of the drive of WWII or that they were simply given more importance during such times but were inevitable discoveries anyway?

Poverty is also the cause of one third of all deaths worldwide. Oh noes, no one better solve poverty because some people in rich countries won't strive, who cares about the 1.7 billion people with no standard of living or the 50,000 people who die each day. Same for famine.

Also, with no illness and death the life expectancy goes up, meaning a greater overall population. Genetics research would still occur because people would still need to figure out how to modify crops for increased yields to feed the growing population.

Also, this is all irrelevant anyways, because a nigh-omnipotent/omnipotent being would be able to solve all these problems and keep human technological levels at their current level. Or did you not realize that paradoxes don't mean anything to such a being?

The same is the case for beings of that level of power. If they simply solve all of humanities problems, then humanity will become reliant on them and be unable to handle any kind of problems on their own. For the most part, they allow humanity to solve its own problems, but step in when they have to. Magneto for example, is a problem that humanity is unable to handle on their own, so other mutants step in to help solve that problem.


An omnipotent or nigh omnipotent or whatever, being would be able to save humanity/fix all their problems and not cause humanity to be reliant on them. Remember, they are nigh/omnipotent, they can do whatever.

Ah, but in the case(s) we're talking about here, we don't have any contradicting information "on screen". by "word of god", we have the information that they have specific Powers, Skills and Abilities, and to the best of my knowledge, we don't see anything "on screen" that contradicts that information. What we see "on screen" is that they don't necessarily USE those powers, skills, abilities, etc.

In fact, the only contradictory 'evidence' we have, is "on screen". Where in one case, Spider-Man relatively effortlessly lifts 50 tons, while in another case, he struggles lifting an average car. Or Apocalypse, in one case, uses his telepathic powers to subdue a large group of opponents(including one or two fairly powerful telepaths), while in another, pretty much identical situation, he simply charges the group of opponents and fights when with purely physical powers.


I don't think I once said "contradicting" or "contradiction". Either way, those examples you listed are not contradictions.

Spiderman: Listed as being able to lift 50 tons.
In issue 523 (whatever, made up number) he struggles to lift 39 tons (also made up number).
Contradiction? No, because you can rationalize both statements of information if you think about it a little.

Maybe Spiderman can lift 50 tons on a good day? Maybe he can lift 50 tons during optimal conditions? Maybe that's the most he's ever lifted? Maybe during issue 523 he was injured, or he didn't stretch properly before hand, who knows?

It would only be a contradiction if it said "Spiderman can lift, at minimum, 50 tons" or "Spiderman can lift 50 tons and up with ease" or "Spiderman is easily capable of lifting 50 tons or more". Then it would be a contradiction, because there is no way to reconcile both pieces of information (50 tons and issue 523). What you would have to do then is look at which has more supporting evidence, has Spiderman struggled with lifting objects less than 50 tons before? Yes? Alot of times? Then the Word of God doesn't fit with the comics, so it's wrong. Is the opposite true and it was only that one issue where he had trouble lifting a car, but in all the other comics he throws around trains and shit? Yes? Then issue 523 is wrong and the Word of God is right.

The same for Darkseid. Word of God and several comics says he has telepathy? Ok, then he does. But oh no, in issue 42 he doesn't use telepathy and decides instead to punch a bunch of fools! Contradiction!

No. Maybe Darkseid just felt like punching some fools that day? Maybe his Right Fist and Left Fist hadn't been used in a while and he thought "Why not?"

To use the FPL analogy again: By what you're saying, you would claim that the character I mentioned earlier, does not have any Electricity powers. "word of god" says that he has them, but the events in the story written about the character, doesn't show applications of any Electricity power, therefore he can't manipulate electricity. And coincidentally, the creator of the character doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm sure a lot of character creators(including most of the FPLers) will be happy to hear that.


No, I'm saying that if I have a statement saying this character has electricity powers but I don't see those electricity powers in his stories then I can make no statement, positive or negative, on his electricity powers, because I have never seen them and hence have no reference point to go off of.

#110 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:55 PM

BTW, I looked up Spiderman (I assume this is their official website) and it says:
"Peter can cling to most surfaces, has superhuman strength (able to lift 10 tons optimally) and is roughly 15 times more agile than a regular human."

It says he can "lift 10 tons optimally". So if in a certain issue he has trouble lifting a car (which, in 2004 weighed about 2 tons) then that's not a contradiction. Because the official site says he can lift those 10 tons on optimal conditions, ie in the best day of his life at the peak of his strenght on a day when he's in a good mood and running on a good breakfast (you get the idea) he can lift those 10 tons. Maybe not easily, or effortlessly, but he can. So why couldn't he lift that car in that one issue? Simpe: he wasn't in his optimal conditions.

#111 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 11 November 2011 - 09:12 PM

BTW, I looked up Spiderman (I assume this is their official website) and it says:
"Peter can cling to most surfaces, has superhuman strength (able to lift 10 tons optimally) and is roughly 15 times more agile than a regular human."

It says he can "lift 10 tons optimally". So if in a certain issue he has trouble lifting a car (which, in 2004 weighed about 2 tons) then that's not a contradiction. Because the official site says he can lift those 10 tons on optimal conditions, ie in the best day of his life at the peak of his strenght on a day when he's in a good mood and running on a good breakfast (you get the idea) he can lift those 10 tons. Maybe not easily, or effortlessly, but he can. So why couldn't he lift that car in that one issue? Simpe: he wasn't in his optimal conditions.


Which is what I have been saying(about Spider-Man) all along, that his max strength is 10 tons. Yet we have more than one instance of him lifting far more than that, with no 'power boosting' circumstances, like an adrenaline rush, to explain it. aka. contradictory, to both the WoG, and to general information given "on screen".

As I said, sometimes there are no "on screen/in universe" explanations.


-snip-



"Except that it was a facetious argument to show that "the writers did it/didn't do it" can be employed against a character too, and hence that OoU reasoning should never be used, because it can be twisted to mean anything.

Nova Force Nova was saying that OoU explanations are valid, I'm pointing out that OoU explanations can be made for anything, including limiting characters. For instance, the Power Rangers would be unable to deal with a single Ork from WH40K, because their level of violence is outside the scope of a kids show."


And again, you are sticking to just 1 'method'. Instead of your 'all or nothing' approach, try the approach that makes much more sense. Go with the 'in between' method . With the 'literary' method, you go with the approach that none of it is real. With the, as you call it, 'suspension of disbelief' method, you go with the approach that ALL of it is real. However, as I've tried to point out(with the example of Spider-Man lifting 50 tons, among other things) those two methods don't always work, or make sense. If you instead, go with the approach that the Characters are real, while the 'show'/on screen action, is not. Then you're starting to get to the approach that I'm using. The characters real, while the 'show' is just a small bit of their life, a show directed by the writers of the comics. We have absolutely no information on what happens between comics(which would incidentally be about 99% of the character's life), thus, we don't have enough information to simply discard the information we have been given by "word of god".



"Except that without illness and disease the fields of medicine are almost completely irrelevant since their entire point of existing is to cure illness and disease.

Also, by removing war you simply remove scientific advancements made in war time, or do you think if not for WWII we wouldn't have atomic power even though atomic weaponry was already being discussed before WWII? Do you happen to think that rocketry and computers were entirely because of the drive of WWII or that they were simply given more importance during such times but were inevitable discoveries anyway?"


You also remove scientific advancement in between wars. You don't honestly believe that the military only makes research for the purpose of war, during wartime, right? As you pointed out yourself, atomic weaponry was being discussed even before WWII. With 'war' being completely removed, there would never have been such a discussion, since there would be no need for weapons, and thus, we would have no nuclear energy.

I can't figure out if you're actually as blind as you seem to be, or if you just pretend in order to keep the debate going.


"Poverty is also the cause of one third of all deaths worldwide. Oh noes, no one better solve poverty because some people in rich countries won't strive, who cares about the 1.7 billion people with no standard of living or the 50,000 people who die each day. Same for famine."

So, you're saying that people in the poor countries do not strive to get out of poverty? I know a few people living in countries like that, who would disagree on that.

"Also, with no illness and death the life expectancy goes up, meaning a greater overall population. Genetics research would still occur because people would still need to figure out how to modify crops for increased yields to feed the growing population.

No, genetics research would not be needed to modify crops. You removed hunger, remember?


"Also, this is all irrelevant anyways, because a nigh-omnipotent/omnipotent being would be able to solve all these problems and keep human technological levels at their current level. Or did you not realize that paradoxes don't mean anything to such a being?"

Ah, so not just are you going to essentially throw society hundreds of years back, and slow progress down to a minimum. You want to remove progress along with illness, hunger, war, etc. By also making sure that humanity has no need for research, or any other kind of work humanity would otherwise do to grow. You're certainly turning out to be a truly excellent wielder of omnipotent power. What are you gonna do for an encore? reverse evolution?


"An omnipotent or nigh omnipotent or whatever, being would be able to save humanity/fix all their problems and not cause humanity to be reliant on them. Remember, they are nigh/omnipotent, they can do whatever."

Omnipotence =/= Omniscience. Despite being highly knowledgeable, Mister M is far from all-knowing. How exactly, would you propose to essentially cater to humanities every need, and not make them reliant on you?



"I don't think I once said "contradicting" or "contradiction". Either way, those examples you listed are not contradictions.

Spiderman: Listed as being able to lift 50 tons.
In issue 523 (whatever, made up number) he struggles to lift 39 tons (also made up number).
Contradiction? No, because you can rationalize both statements of information if you think about it a little.

Maybe Spiderman can lift 50 tons on a good day? Maybe he can lift 50 tons during optimal conditions? Maybe that's the most he's ever lifted? Maybe during issue 523 he was injured, or he didn't stretch properly before hand, who knows?

It would only be a contradiction if it said "Spiderman can lift, at minimum, 50 tons" or "Spiderman can lift 50 tons and up with ease" or "Spiderman is easily capable of lifting 50 tons or more". Then it would be a contradiction, because there is no way to reconcile both pieces of information (50 tons and issue 523). What you would have to do then is look at which has more supporting evidence, has Spiderman struggled with lifting objects less than 50 tons before? Yes? Alot of times? Then the Word of God doesn't fit with the comics, so it's wrong. Is the opposite true and it was only that one issue where he had trouble lifting a car, but in all the other comics he throws around trains and shit? Yes? Then issue 523 is wrong and the Word of God is right."


And when it goes the other way(as I mentioned earlier)? When "word of god"(as well as the majority of comics), tells us that Spider-Man's max strength is 10 tons, and in one issue, he lifts 50 tons, with no 'power boosting' circumstances(i.e. no "on screen" explanation) ?


"The same for Darkseid. Word of God and several comics says he has telepathy? Ok, then he does. But oh no, in issue 42 he doesn't use telepathy and decides instead to punch a bunch of fools! Contradiction!

No. Maybe Darkseid just felt like punching some fools that day? Maybe his Right Fist and Left Fist hadn't been used in a while and he thought "Why not?"


You seem to have ignored part of what I said. In (at least)two, pretty much Identical, situations. Darkseid(and apocalypse for that matter), acted completely differently.

In the case of Apocalypse, the only difference between the two instances, was the the first(where he used his telepathy to incapacitate a large group of opponents), his opponents were unknown to him. While in the other instance(where he simply attacked them, using purely physical powers), was against a group that had bested him on more than one occasion, i.e he knew that purely physical powers was not enough to defeat them.(the first group was the Inhumans, the other group was a team of X-men).


"No, I'm saying that if I have a statement saying this character has electricity powers but I don't see those electricity powers in his stories then I can make no statement, positive or negative, on his electricity powers, because I have never seen them and hence have no reference point to go off of."

You're starting to contradict yourself here.

With Mister X, I am proposing a use of his powers, that has not been shown in the comics. And you said:

"any of the characters that you claim are nigh omnipotent or similar (Mr. M, Franklin Richards, etc) are, AFAIK, good people. Mr. M had a penchant for going around fixing things, etc. You would think, then, since it's in their personality to help people and they supposedly can do anything, they would and could eliminate everday problems such as illness, hunger, poverty, etc. Yet they don't.

Therefore, they can't."

"with Mr. M. WoG gives those powers, but events in the comics don't show applications of such things, so- he has limits and cannot do some mundane things. Therefore he can't do some things (supply and fix all energy needs around the world), even though he can do some other things. "

How, exactly, is the case of Mister M, different from the case of the FPL character?

Both of them have a set of stated capabilities.
Both of them have only shown a limited use of those capabilities(the FPL character has never actually been shown as having Electricity powers).

And yet in one case(Mister M), his stated capabilities are discarded with the words "he hasn't shown those capabilities, therefore he doesn't have them.", while with the FPL character, his stated capabilities are blindly accepted. Make up your mind.

#112 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 02:16 AM

Which is what I have been saying(about Spider-Man) all along, that his max strength is 10 tons. Yet we have more than one instance of him lifting far more than that, with no 'power boosting' circumstances, like an adrenaline rush, to explain it. aka. contradictory, to both the WoG, and to general information given "on screen".

As I said, sometimes there are no "on screen/in universe" explanations.


Then you find the one with more weight behind it. Have there been alot of comics showing him lifting more than 10 tons with ease? If yes, then the comics are right and the Word of God statements are wrong, if there haven't, then the Word of God statements are right.

When I say an in universe explanation, I don't mean an official statement from the holders of the setting (Marvel in this case), I mean an explanation that appeals to something within the setting.

Example in Star Wars, during Ep II the Acclamators don't provide any sort of CAS for the clone army, even though it would have been greatly helpful and the Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections says that the Acclamators have guns. AFAIK, there is no official in universe explanation as to why they didn't provide fire support. So we have to find one that appeals to the setting itself instead of an OoU one (Lucas/ILM Studios forgot to make them fire). So, in lieu of a real official explanation we can guess that the Acclamators on this attack didn't have guns (but normal models do), that their firesupport would have been in-effective or over-effective (it would have killed everyone), the Commanders ordered no fire support due to some military objective (maybe in such close quarters it would result in too many friendly fire) etc.

thus, we don't have enough information to simply discard the information we have been given by "word of god".


Except, which has been my entire point, when the information given by word of god doesn't match anything we see in their "on screen" time.

You also remove scientific advancement in between wars. You don't honestly believe that the military only makes research for the purpose of war, during wartime, right? As you pointed out yourself, atomic weaponry was being discussed even before WWII. With 'war' being completely removed, there would never have been such a discussion, since there would be no need for weapons, and thus, we would have no nuclear energy.

So, you're saying that people in the poor countries do not strive to get out of poverty? I know a few people living in countries like that, who would disagree on that.

No, genetics research would not be needed to modify crops. You removed hunger, remember?


That's some ludicrous thinking. Are you seriously proposing that only the military would have researched atomic energy? That the only way we would have nuclear energy today is because of WW2 and not[/b] because nuclear physics was already a well establish field of research prior to WW2? BTW, the bolded part in your comment makes no sense. You, in one sentence, acknowledge that nuclear energy was being discussed prior WW2 and then in the very next sentence you say that without WW2 there wouldn't be any research into nuclear energy. So, in case you didn't know, nuclear energy and weaponry was already being discussed prior to WW2. WW2 is not the cause for all those advancements, it's simply the cause for all those advancements occuring faster: ie there was a fear that the Axis powers would develop these bombs first, so the Allies had to build them first. With no war, research into nuclear energy and weaponry would have occured at a more leisurely pace. Hell, it might have occured faster given that their research wouldn't be competing for funds with the military. The same is true of computers and rocketry, all those fields were already being explored and talked about prior WW2 and would have occured anyway.

No, I was pointing out how you are saying that solving poverty would be a bad thing because it takes away the strive to come out of poverty. I was pointing out how solving poverty would save about 1.7 billion lives. Solving poverty wouldn't take peoples strive to accumulate wealth (as you wrongly believe) since, here's a hint, people who don't live in povery still continue to attempt to accumulate wealth.

Yes, genetic research would occur for reasons I already stated which you obviously didn't read. With no poverty and no illness, the global population rises. This requires an increased supply of food, so scientists would [i]still
study genetics to be able to modify crops to give modified fods of increased yield to feed the growing world population. BTW, in case you also didn't know the field of genetics was not started to solve illness, it was started entirely on observation of already existing phenomena (inheritence and why parents produce offspring with similar traits).

So your arguments against the removal of war, poverty and illness are based on bad assumptions:
  • Elimination of poverty doesn't mean people won't strive to accumulate wealth: as an example look at every single nation on the face of the Earth that has low poverty levels> people in those countries still attempt to gather more wealth.
  • Elimination of disease doesn't mean the field of genetics won't develop, as genetics wasn't developed to deal with desease in the first place.
  • Lack of WW2 doesn't mean the world won't have nuclear energy, as the world already knew about nuclear energy before WW2.

Omnipotence =/= Omniscience. Despite being highly knowledgeable, Mister M is far from all-knowing. How exactly, would you propose to essentially cater to humanities every need, and not make them reliant on you?


Except that some definitions of omnipotence already include the "ability to do anything". Franklin Richards, for example is gifted in regards to intelligence. he probably doesn't know exactly how quantum mechanics, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and all the other fundemantal physical rules of the universe functions... yet he can make universe. Omnipotence, by some definitions, means that even if the being in question doesn't actually know how things work he can make them work because he is able to "do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency"

And when it goes the other way(as I mentioned earlier)? When "word of god"(as well as the majority of comics), tells us that Spider-Man's max strength is 10 tons, and in one issue, he lifts 50 tons, with no 'power boosting' circumstances(i.e. no "on screen" explanation) ?


Its an outliner then. If someone asks "How much can Spiderman lift" you respond with "At best 10 tons. He once lifted 50 tons easily, but that made absolutely no sense and you shouldn't bank on it."

It's also probably one of the few times that there is no in universe explanation and an OoU explanation is all there is. Another example would be a glaring error that requires an incredibly convulted explanation, such as... I dunno. Wolverine having his claws come out of his fingers for one panel and one panel only.

#113 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 02:52 AM

You seem to have ignored part of what I said. In (at least)two, pretty much Identical, situations. Darkseid(and apocalypse for that matter), acted completely differently.

In the case of Apocalypse, the only difference between the two instances, was the the first(where he used his telepathy to incapacitate a large group of opponents), his opponents were unknown to him. While in the other instance(where he simply attacked them, using purely physical powers), was against a group that had bested him on more than one occasion, i.e he knew that purely physical powers was not enough to defeat them.(the first group was the Inhumans, the other group was a team of X-men).


So wait, how is that a contradiction? He has telepathic powers, yet in one situation he acted differently... so what?

BTW, now that I know more about this event it makes the original argument ridiculous. This started out, IIRC, that Apocalypse's telepathic powers would be too powerful, and hence the writers didn't want to do a short dramaless confrontation. Yet the writers did write a short dramaless confrontation between him and the Inhumans.

Still, I don't see what the big problem is here. Apocalypse once subdued some group with telepathy. During another confrontation he attacked with his fists. So what? Clearly Apocalypse just didn't want to use his telepathy.

You're starting to contradict yourself here.

With Mister X, I am proposing a use of his powers, that has not been shown in the comics. And you said:

How, exactly, is the case of Mister M, different from the case of the FPL character?

Both of them have a set of stated capabilities.
Both of them have only shown a limited use of those capabilities(the FPL character has never actually been shown as having Electricity powers).

And yet in one case(Mister M), his stated capabilities are discarded with the words "he hasn't shown those capabilities, therefore he doesn't have them.", while with the FPL character, his stated capabilities are blindly accepted. Make up your mind.


There's no contradiction there at all.
The FPL character has the ability to use electricity. Yet in his stories we don't see him use that power. Therefore I have no clue about the extent or limitations of his abilities. I cannot make either a positive or negative statement about his ability. If someone said "Hey that FPL character can shoot lightning that blows up countries" I can't agree or disagree, no one has seen such abilities even though WoG says "this guy can control lightning".

Mr. M, on the other hand, as far as I can tell from his Marvel wikia entry, has a pretty big disparity between what he does in the comics and what his stats page says. For instance you say he should be able to shield all of Earth or make it phases so all of the IoM fleet's shots won't hit it. When has he made shields in the comics? How big an area has he shielded or phased? Even in situations it may have been beneficial?

#114 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:16 AM

-snip-



"That's some ludicrous thinking. Are you seriously proposing that only the military would have researched atomic energy? That the only way we would have nuclear energy today is because of WW2 and not because nuclear physics was already a well establish field of research prior to WW2? BTW, the bolded part in your comment makes no sense. You, in one sentence, acknowledge that nuclear energy was being discussed prior WW2 and then in the very next sentence you say that without WW2 there wouldn't be any research into nuclear energy. So, in case you didn't know, nuclear energy and weaponry was already being discussed prior to WW2. WW2 is not the cause for all those advancements, it's simply the cause for all those advancements occuring faster: ie there was a fear that the Axis powers would develop these bombs first, so the Allies had to build them first. With no war, research into nuclear energy and weaponry would have occured at a more leisurely pace. Hell, it might have occured faster given that their research wouldn't be competing for funds with the military. The same is true of computers and rocketry, all those fields were already being explored and talked about prior WW2 and would have occured anyway."

"[*]Lack of WW2 doesn't mean the world won't have nuclear energy, as the world already knew about nuclear energy before WW2."

When did I say anything about WW2? I thought you/we were talking about removing war completely, as in 'war' has been completely removed as a problem, it no longer exists.

What I said, had nothing to do with WW2, I never mentioned that particular war at all. What I said was: "As you pointed out yourself, atomic weaponry was being discussed even before WWII. With 'war' being completely removed, there would never have been such a discussion, since there would be no need for weapons, and thus, we would have no nuclear energy.", which is simply fact. With no war, there would have been no talk about "atomic weaponry" in the first place, simply because without war, there wouldn't be any need for weapons of any kind, let alone the mass-destruction kind, and considering that we(for the purpose of that particular discussion) assume that War, Illness, Poverty, etc. has been removed at a point back in time, there hasn't been any need for weapons for quite some time. Hence, we would not have nuclear energy.

Say you went back to, just around the fall of the Roman Empire, and at that time, you remove War, Illness, Poverty, Hunger, and the other major problems that plague humanity. Then, from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, scientific progress pretty much stops(slowing down so much that it might as well have stopped).
There are no wars, so we have no reason to do any research into means of defending ourselves or attacking our enemies, this means that things like metallurgy remains largely stagnant, since we have no need for more durable materials.
There is no illness, so no kind of medical research is done, because we have no need for it.
There is no hunger, so no new means of growing/producing food are researched because, again, we don't need it.
There is no poverty, so people don't produce more than what they need themselves, and with almost no trade, the world economy never comes into existence.

Congratulations, we reach the year 2000 and we are still, scientifically, in the 1600's(if that).


"No, I was pointing out how you are saying that solving poverty would be a bad thing because it takes away the strive to come out of poverty. I was pointing out how solving poverty would save about 1.7 billion lives. Solving poverty wouldn't take peoples strive to accumulate wealth (as you wrongly believe) since, here's a hint, people who don't live in povery still continue to attempt to accumulate wealth."

There is always going to be people who want more than they need, greed is something that creates a whole lot of problems(unless you remove greed, along with the rest of the things that plague humanity). But for the most part, people aren't striving to accumulate wealth, for the sake of wealth. For the most part, people simply strive to get the resources to live a comfortable life. With no poverty and no hunger, that(a comfortable life) has already been achieved.

But of course, since Crime was removed as well, most of the problems coming from Greed don't really come up.

"Yes, genetic research would occur for reasons I already stated which you obviously didn't read. With no poverty and no illness, the global population rises. This requires an increased supply of food, so scientists would still study genetics to be able to modify crops to give modified fods of increased yield to feed the growing world population. BTW, in case you also didn't know the field of genetics was not started to solve illness, it was started entirely on observation of already existing phenomena (inheritence and why parents produce offspring with similar traits)."

And the increasing need for food is not going to be a problem, you removed hunger, remember? So no, scientists would not study genetics to modify crops, there is no need for it.

And yes, I'm well aware of why genetics research started, that has nothing to do with why it still exists though, or with why that research gets any kind of funding. Good luck to the few people who want to research genetics for its original purpose, with no funding.


"Except that some definitions of omnipotence already include the "ability to do anything". Franklin Richards, for example is gifted in regards to intelligence. he probably doesn't know exactly how quantum mechanics, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and all the other fundemantal physical rules of the universe functions... yet he can make universe. Omnipotence, by some definitions, means that even if the being in question doesn't actually know how things work he can make them work because he is able to "do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency""

And that is exactly why the High-level Reality Warpers are able to do some of the things they do, sub-consciously. Like Franklin creating a universe, this was done sub-consciously, a knee-jerk action, formed by his need to save the lives of his parents.

But what we are talking about is not sub-conscious action, we are talking about Consciously making it so humanity is not dependent on the near all-powerful being that provides everything they need, and takes care of all their problems.


"There's no contradiction there at all.
The FPL character has the ability to use electricity. Yet in his stories we don't see him use that power. Therefore I have no clue about the extent or limitations of his abilities. I cannot make either a positive or negative statement about his ability. If someone said "Hey that FPL character can shoot lightning that blows up countries" I can't agree or disagree, no one has seen such abilities even though WoG says "this guy can control lightning".

Mr. M, on the other hand, as far as I can tell from his Marvel wikia entry, has a pretty big disparity between what he does in the comics and what his stats page says. For instance you say he should be able to shield all of Earth or make it phases so all of the IoM fleet's shots won't hit it. When has he made shields in the comics? How big an area has he shielded or phased? Even in situations it may have been beneficial?"


FPL character X has the power of Electricity(Ultimate) and we never see him use it. By your own statement "he hasn't done it, so he can't.", yet you're accepting the WoG saying that he Can, in fact, control electricity.
Mister M has Nigh-Omnipotent Reality Warping powers, and we never really see him use it. By your statement "he hasn't done it, so he can't.", but unlike with the FPL character, the WoG saying that he Does have that power, is completely ignored.

That is the contradiction right there.


"So wait, how is that a contradiction? He has telepathic powers, yet in one situation he acted differently... so what?

BTW, now that I know more about this event it makes the original argument ridiculous. This started out, IIRC, that Apocalypse's telepathic powers would be too powerful, and hence the writers didn't want to do a short dramaless confrontation. Yet the writers did write a short dramaless confrontation between him and the Inhumans.

Still, I don't see what the big problem is here. Apocalypse once subdued some group with telepathy. During another confrontation he attacked with his fists. So what? Clearly Apocalypse just didn't want to use his telepathy."


Information about Apocalypse: Powers: Energy Manipulation and Absorption, Telepathy, Complete Control of his own Molecular Structure, The ability to absorb extra mass/energy with no limits, from an unknown dimension. Skills: is "a genius of a level that humanity cannot comprehend", has knowledge in certain areas of biology, namely Genetic Engineering and Mutation, as well as technology beyond the level of the modern world(marvel). Is a brilliant strategist and manipulator with thousands of years of experience. Personality: Prone to arrogance(though not to the levels of the likes of Dr. Doom), Manipulative, a thinker and philosopher. Skilled fighter but tends to rely on his powers.

The two cases, which were nearly identical, i.e. Apocalypse vs. a large group of super-powered opponents, contradicts not just each other, but the WoG given information as well. It doesn't fit with his personality to go all out with his powers against and unknown group of opponents, due to his arrogance, it would be much more likely that he would attack then with purely physical abilities(his primary power). While against a group of opponents that is not just known to him(and has bested him in the past), he also know that they know about him, he makes no use of any kind of strategy, he doesn't go all out to prove his superiority(which would fit perfectly with his personality), no instead he simply charges them physically and is summarily beaten. As I said, contradictory. Though it might be that you have to actually know a little about the character(apocalypse) to see it.


Two final notes(for now):

1. You seem to have ignored or forgotten part of my post.
2. It's currently 10:30 am, and I haven't gotten any sleep yet, so if there are any important part of your post(s) that I have forgotten(or missed), then just let me know and I'll address is when I wake up. <_<

#115 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 04:02 AM

With 'war' being completely removed, there would never have been such a discussion, since there would be no need for weapons, and thus, we would have no nuclear energy.", which is simply fact.

There are no wars, so we have no reason to do any research into means of defending ourselves or attacking our enemies, this means that things like metallurgy remains largely stagnant, since we have no need for more durable materials.

There is no illness, so no kind of medical research is done, because we have no need for it.

There is no hunger, so no new means of growing/producing food are researched because, again, we don't need it.

There is no poverty, so people don't produce more than what they need themselves, and with almost no trade, the world economy never comes into existence.


Without any war nuclear energy would still come into existence, since nuclear energy is simply the application of research into the natural world. Again, go back and remove WW2 and nuclear energy still happens, because it was already being talked about before WW2. If the concept of weaponry didn't exist nuclear bombs would still be developed, because the initiation of a nuclear reaction would be interesting to the field of nuclear physics. No one would think to use these devices to bomb cities, but they would think to use these devices to study the effects of radiation in the atmosphere, the overpressure of such events, etc.

Right, no need for more durable materials... except to build more durable buildings and tools. There's no need for stronger swords, yes, but there is still a need for durable hammers and axes, or construction material.

No, there wouldn't. In a world with no illness there is no medicine. Big surprise there. If, however, only human illness is cured then medicine still rises, except focused solely on keeping pets and livestock alive.

Yes, there is. For some reason you don't get this. With no poverty and illness the global average lifespan will rise. An increased lifespan and standard of living will cause the population to rise. Hence, farmers and scientists still need to discover methods to feed huge amounts of people>genetic engineering of foods still occurs, as does the development of more efficient farming methods

What? Are you saying that only people who live in poverty develop trading systems? That people who aren't poverty stricken only produce what they themselves need and never seek to make a profit? Just what do you think poverty means? Because as far as I know poverty means being unable to afford basic necessities (food, clothing, medicine, shelter), and hence the annihilation of poverty gives everyone in the world the ability to afford the food, medicine, shelter and clothing necessary to live. Do you happen to think that when I say "elimination of poverty" I actually mean "everyone becomes a millionaire?"

With no poverty and no hunger, that(a comfortable life) has already been achieved.

And the increasing need for food is not going to be a problem, you removed hunger, remember? So no, scientists would not study genetics to modify crops, there is no need for it.

And yes, I'm well aware of why genetics research started, that has nothing to do with why it still exists though, or with why that research gets any kind of funding. Good luck to the few people who want to research genetics for its original purpose, with no funding.


No, lack of poverty does not guarantee a "comfortable life". It simply guarantees being able to afford the basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter and medicine. People would still strive to buy TVs, music players, better houses because people want things.

Yes it is. Remove all deaths caused by poverty and illness and you suddenly get more people living. This, amazingly enough, requires greater amounts of food to feed the greater number of people. How is this hard to understand?

Why would they get no funding? They aren't competing with defende departments for funding, and even more esoteric fields of research (for instance, particle physics) get huge sums of money as funding.

And that is exactly why the High-level Reality Warpers are able to do some of the things they do, sub-consciously. Like Franklin creating a universe, this was done sub-consciously, a knee-jerk action, formed by his need to save the lives of his parents.

But what we are talking about is not sub-conscious action, we are talking about Consciously making it so humanity is not dependent on the near all-powerful being that provides everything they need, and takes care of all their problems.


Which completely misses the point of what I just said. Omnipotence already implies that any action can be done by the being wishing the action, actual understand of how the action is carried out isn't needed. Therefore these characters are not omnipotent/nigh-omnipotent, because they cannot do the above things (which our discussions about are completely irrelevant, since our views on the elimination of poverty and illness and hunger are not necessarily their views on the matter).

#116 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 04:17 AM

FPL character X has the power of Electricity(Ultimate) and we never see him use it. By your own statement "he hasn't done it, so he can't.", yet you're accepting the WoG saying that he Can, in fact, control electricity.
Mister M has Nigh-Omnipotent Reality Warping powers, and we never really see him use it. By your statement "he hasn't done it, so he can't.", but unlike with the FPL character, the WoG saying that he Does have that power, is completely ignored.

That is the contradiction right there.


No, what I'm actually saying is:
FPL character has, by the author's comment, control of Electricity(Ultimate). As such, if someone says: That character can generate a 1E23 joule lightning strike.
My response is: I dunno, we have never seen any actual example of his electricity powers even though the author says he does.

Mr. M has, by the author's comment, nigh-omnipotent reality warping powers that we never see.
We do, however, see some of his powers which have, AFAIK, almost no relation to the stated powers. If he DID have "nigh omnipotent reality warping powers" none of the events as depicted in the comics where he appears would have happened as they did. There is therefor a disconnect between what is stated and what we see. Therefore, go with what we see, because we see that more.

This is also part of my other argument, that Mr. M clearly has limits. It is therefore on the person claiming "Mr. M will do X in this situation" to prove that X action is within his limits.

The two cases, which were nearly identical, i.e. Apocalypse vs. a large group of super-powered opponents, contradicts not just each other, but the WoG given information as well. It doesn't fit with his personality to go all out with his powers against and unknown group of opponents, due to his arrogance, it would be much more likely that he would attack then with purely physical abilities(his primary power). While against a group of opponents that is not just known to him(and has bested him in the past), he also know that they know about him, he makes no use of any kind of strategy, he doesn't go all out to prove his superiority(which would fit perfectly with his personality), no instead he simply charges them physically and is summarily beaten. As I said, contradictory. Though it might be that you have to actually know a little about the character(apocalypse) to see it.


Maybe you are using a different meaning of contradiction here, but to me the idea that a character can act differently in similar(or exactly the same) situations is not a contradiction. Darth Vader, for instance, choked the General aboard the Executor in a relatively normal manner (the dude just looked like he was choking on food and died) and yet in another similar situation he lifted the offending general in the air and choked him so badly that you literally hear his throat suddenly implode. A contradiction? No, he just acted differently in simular situations.

Back to Apocalypse, was this a one time thing? Is he usually prone to acting more smart than this? Or does he regularly fight in such a manner? It could just be an outliner, a once in a lifetime thing that he looks back on and thinks "Oh man, I was stupid that day!"

Two final notes(for now):

1. You seem to have ignored or forgotten part of my post.
2. It's currently 10:30 am, and I haven't gotten any sleep yet, so if there are any important part of your post(s) that I have forgotten(or missed), then just let me know and I'll address is when I wake up. <_<



1. Which part? I do cut out some parts that I feel are either: repeats of something already being mentioned, or information that doesn't require being quoted, or something that'll be responded to later on anyways. If, however, it was something else point it out to me, I'll go back and reply to it.
2. It's alright. I don't think I'll argue this much more anyways as I doubt any sort of headway will be made anyways.

#117 xman4life

xman4life

    Kneel before Zod

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,441 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta
  • Interests:Comics, Women, Weed, and Food. Not to mention MONEY

Posted 12 November 2011 - 10:51 AM

Honestly what is the debate? Franklin richards by himself created a UNIVERSE. So even if you want to say that he can't destroy a fleet for some odd reason the COMBINED efforts of Scarlet witch, X-Man,Franklin Richards, Hope, Synch, Mister M, Wiccan, AND Thor damn sure can without a doubt.

Thor once created a force field that withstood a blast that could have destroyed the UNIVERSE
Senty has fly FTL,So can Thor





So then in the milliseceonds it takes to the ships to even power up the cannons Thor can destroy somewhere around 500 ships per minute(at least) along with Sentry. Add in Hope, scarlet witch, franklin richards, mister m, and synch then there is NO DEBATE.


Reed Richards created the a weapon that could kill GALACTUS. Not to mention Dr. Doom to help. Along with Box, Forge, and Dr. Nemesis. Come on man.......... Many people have already tipped the scales for the heroes to win your still debating they can't

#118 Jaeger Panzer

Jaeger Panzer

    The Gorram Hypocyte™ ~1337 Slenderman~

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,505 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2011 - 01:18 PM

Uh no, it contained a blast that would have destroyed 1/5th of the Universe.

The Life Bomb Scenario.

#119 Ruinus

Ruinus

    Plebiscite Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SupaFreedomland AKA USA
  • Interests:Star Wars, Guilty Gear, Guns N' Roses, astronomy, school, English, reading, science fiction, drawing, video games and playing guitar.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 01:20 PM

Many people have already tipped the scales for the heroes to win your still debating they can't


Have I ever once said Marvel Earth can't win?

#120 Nova Force Nova

Nova Force Nova

    Deadpan Snarker

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A couch near you.
  • Interests:Interesting stuff.

Posted 12 November 2011 - 01:25 PM

Assuming that xman4life can understand either sirmethos's or Ruinus's posts, let alone read them, is giving him too much credit.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users