The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Subj: And here I thought we were doing good so far...
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:26:01 pm EST (Viewed 418 times)
Reply Subj: Now look who is guilty of "Straw Man Argument"...
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 05:45:35 pm EST (Viewed 5 times)

    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.

First, this was like 4 days ago and the topic here had a lot of things filling my mouth with nonsense.Disagree if you want, no problem with that, but at least don't make me say things I didn't. I couldn't guess Oliva would feel the need to produce another such thread after all that was said.

Second, what do you care that I decided to defend myself here? Is it bad form to change your mind when you realize somebody is making you say things you haven't? I don't think so. Even if it's bad form to you, what do you expect from me by pointing fingers like that? How do you think you saying this will help you win your point about the topic?

Third, I just read your reply below and frankly this one I won't reply to because it's true it will end badly. That you have the balls to, again, call upon straw man after summing my argumentation the way you did is quite something. Even "I" would laugh at my own argumentation if I wouldn't know how badly you cut the corners while trying to ridicule it all. Did you at least saw the scans that were attached to my post? Why is there no trace of my argument saying you don't need to see Thor shot in the head to conclude he isn't impervious to bullets? Of course if I cherry pick my opponent's argumentation and give it a ridiculous twist I can make anyone look bad too. 

Finally, will you please stop it with the definitions. I know what a straw man is thank you and, again, it really doesn't help. What is ironic is you still call straw man here and there is none to be seen at all unless you use one yourself. So please show me the supposed straw man.

    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.
For the nth times, yes there is material to support Thor being bulletproof. I hope this part will sink in because I'm really tired of repeating what I actually said several times by now. That being said, there are also instance showing Thor say he isn't safe from them or that he would have been killed or that it's deadly. I'm VERY tired to remind you that a bullet making Thor bleed isn't the only valid evidence. It's unreasonable to expect anybody to read Thor say bullets are unsafe, that he was lucky to deflect them or that soldier would indeed have carried their kill orders successfully hadn't he blocked some ordinary bullets. 

Also, you consider Thor surviving bigger attacks circumstantial evidences supporting your side and I agree with that. That being said, him always deflecting bullets is EXACTLY the same for the opposite side. It sure doesn't look too good to see someone always blocking everything if he in fact doesn't need to. It certainly is suspect no less. It makes as much sense for someone to block attacks he is impervious to as it make sense for bullets to injure him when bigger attacks have failed to do so. So, again, I think it's far from clear Thor was "always" bulletproof all the way to inception point. 

    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.

It's not an assumption that Thor said he wasn't safe, etc. (etc not being only JIM#100) It's factual dialog shown in printed form too. I can never agree that only blood drawn by a bullet matter. It's horribly unreasonable not to mention EXTREMELY convenient.

As for your stance about contradictions we agree and so does KB BTW. The only difference is, I disagree there was always more instances supporting your side. In fact, the more you go back in time, the less there is for you.Your "always" I couldn't agree with it.