The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Now look who is guilty of "Straw Man Argument"...
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:45:35 pm EST (Viewed 5 times)
Reply Subj: But my point is and remain...
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:44:54 pm EST (Viewed 428 times)

Previous Post

    The reason he keeps on fighting despite sustaining so many injuries is because his healing factor enables him to.  You can't really stop him because any damage he sustain, he immediately heals from it.  But he do get damaged.'s never said explicitly that he is or not bulletproof anywhere. You know because you saw it, not because it's said and explained to the reader. 

If you dismissed WW because she is explicitly said not to be impervious vs bullets, despite the fact you never needed anything explicit to see how she was reacting to bullets before that explanation came to exist, you can't say the same for Lobo is the point. Why does it matter? Because Lobo has, very often, taken no damage at all from attacks that are FAR superior to conventional  gun shots too and he too had showings (much more I agree) that show or imply he isn't impervious to some kind of other attacks like bullets and sharp weapons. It proves that resisting one kind of attack, even if it's more powerful and no weakness are explicitly mentioned, is FAR from a foolproof argumentation for any comic-book character Thor included. Hence, why Thor has VERY little actual showing that can't be easily dismissed vs bullets and sharp projectiles/blades. A nuke, or a punch from Hulk, isn't a proof Thor is bullet proof is the point.

You, obviously.  BTW, I just read your reply to me below...bad form that you said that you will quit the discussion because it can only end badly, then sneak in a response there.  Anyway, you are guilty of "straw man" here.  Like we know, a straw man is to distort the argument of the other person, refute it, but never actually refute the original point.
My point is (and has always been) Thor is bulletproof because there are instances that show him to be such.  Not just that he has withstood more powerful attacks.  Withstanding much more powerful attacks are just circumstantial evidences of  his durability which support the direct evidences of him actually being bulletproof.
I dismissed WW not because it was explained by John Byrne...I mentioned his explanation because he was the one who explained why she can take punches from Superman, but she can be harmed by a bullet (blunt versus pointed attacks)...I dismissed WW's durability because she almost died from a bullet wound, was immediately incapacitated by a martian heatvision, he hands were burned pushing Asmodel's ship, etc., etc., etc.  so, i dismissed her becaus of what I actually read in comics, just like how I formed by opinion that Lobo is not bulletproof.  Just like how I formed an opinion that Thor is bulletproof.  What's shown in printed comic form.  Not an assumption based on a vague depiction.  The evidence must be direct.  Now, circumstantial evidence is good too, but only if there are no direct evidence present. If there are contrdicting direct and circumstantial evidence, greater weight is given to the former.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software