Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369
Subj: Re: The subject of the debate
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 12:31:19 pm EST (Viewed 85 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The subject of the debate
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 12:45:46 am EST (Viewed 94 times)

Previous Post



    Wonder Woman can possibly beat Superman, but to me it goes without saying that Superman should be ranked higher than her. I think that's fair *shrug.

    Back to the ranking. I'm not disputing ranking. I'm disputing degree of certainty. I have been the entire thread.

    So, what do you want posters to do. Have Superman be worth $3.99 and Thor $3.97? To say, I'm taking Superman, I guess? So, anyway Supes is ranked #1, deservedly so. Is that better?

    For the hundredth time, the ranking is not my objection.

Ok, cool. We agree that Supes should be ranked higher. I can certainly close the book on that.

    I'm not the one who brought up opinion as a measure of currency on this board. Bk Ray did in his original post. He wrote, "No one has argued about Superman being top, as he is the king of the herald levelers." That basically says, hey, no one's objected, i.e., no one's given their opposing opinion, so it must go without saying that Superman should be at the top of the list. My rebuttal, using his criteria and not mine, is that plenty of people have spoken up on this in the past, actually most of it post-Avengers/JLA. Then I went into why people can validly hold that opinion. Unlike Bk Ray, I don't believe it's the consensus of opinion itself that validates whether Thor can or should beat Superman a preponderance of the time, but why people hold that opinion. And I've given those reasons over and over again in this thread. That's why I find you overly dismissive of others' opinions to the point that you think your reasoning is worth 1000 times theirs. So to answer your question, no, fan opinion is not the highest currency on this board, but the reasons people hold those opinions are the highest currency on this board.

And I repeat for the 100th time, that the reasons you give just aren't good enough to make Thor a favorite over Supes, not when the story shows otherwise. And I said it's the published story that matters than 1,000 fan opinions, not my reasoning. Let's get that straight. I'll kindly ask you not to twist my words around.  The problem is you expect me to accept your evidence even when it is pales when put next to the actual hard evidence and get bent out of shape when I don't. 





    They're not mutually inclusive. People disagree on power levels on this board all the time. Does it mean there's a clause attached to it that you brand them irrational and devalue their opinions? To assume that, well, that I would call irrational.

    It depends on how people disagree. If you think there is a rigid rule that renders everyone else's opinion worthless, then yeah, you're devaluing their opinions and implicitly believe they are irrational for not following your rule that you think is such common sense. If people take context into account and provide multiple sources of evidence across decades of continuity, then it's understandable how people come to different conclusions. No reasonable opinions are rendered worthless from that perspective.

    But Thor doesn't have decades of continuity that says he can beat Superman most of the time. If saying so hurts your feelings then I don't know what to tell you.

    It has nothing to do with feelings. It has to do with evidence. Does Thor really not have decades of continuity that says he can beat Superman much if not most of the time? Thor's beaten Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, Glory, and Mangog, opponents much more powerful than Superman. Thor stalemated a Count Nefaria, who Jim Shooter said he intended to be Superman power-wise and this was Silver Age Superman. Post-Crisis Superman didn't even exist at the time. Thor's beaten Gladiator, Hyperion, and Shazam/Captain Marvel, all roughly Superman's equals. But I get it. Nothing else counts for you except that one issue.


Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story. The story that showed in a direct and fair fight for the highest stakes that Supes pulled out a hard-earned but undisputed win. I think based on that story, it is very fair to think Superman would win more often than not. 




    Also, from what I can tell in the world of battleboards, the general rule is that the story trumps fan opinion. Correct or wrong? If you think this is wrong then we have wasted a lot of board space under the wrong premise.

    The answer to that is it depends. You want to set a rule, whoever wins a fight on the page in the comic deserves to be ranked higher, whatever that means. My take is that you have to take all evidence into account and so I have given you repeated examples that break your rule. Spider-Man beating Firelord, Spider-Man beating Hulk, Spider-Man beating Juggernaut, Thor beating Galactus. You can't answer any of them, but instead just say they are inadequate analogies without explaining why. I have asked you questions throughout this thread and you simply refuse to answer them.

    You speak of context, well you very well know the context around the fights above that you mentioned. They are apples to the Supes/Thor Aardvark.

    I don't know that to be the case at all and you either can't or won't explain why. Firelord wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Hulk wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Juggernaut wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Yet to you those victories don't mean anything, but the Thor-Superman fight does. So either your rule about in-comic fights doesn't work or you only choose to apply it when it suits you.

And I have to say your evidence isn't nearly enough, sorry. Certainly not after JLA/Avengers. I think were both smart enough to grasp context. We both know what the context was in each of those examples that your brought out. Is there context why Thor lost to Superman? I'm also surprised that you would think I would formulate my opinions in a vacuum. Why would you think those stories you mentioned would be the only guidelines on how I should formulate my opinion with those characters and how they would do against each other? Dear me, whoever said that JLA/Avenger is exclusively the reason why my opinion is, LOL?  It is not the only reason but probably the biggest reason. Superman has his entire history, his powers, his rep along with the actual victory over Thor in an actual comic. That complete package is evidence enough for me.

Continued here:


How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software