Silver Surfer vs. Gladiator + Thor

[Captain Morgan]

Is Amazo with Superman's powers plus the rest of JLA vulnerable to kryptonite? as yet, I'm just asking.

The show version was.

[Pendaran]

You seem to want to argue that degree is important when we're talking about specific vulnerabilities. Which is fine, as stated, you are entitled to have your opinion.

You argue that Wonder Woman's vulnerability to bullets wouldn't apply to a comp with Thanos because Thanos isn't weak to bullets.

So, is Thor weak to this kind of radiation? Is he weak to it at all? Because if he's not, it's literally the same thing. Sure, the degree is different, but that really doesn't matter if you want to say that WWnos is immune but Thoriator isn't.

And yes, give enough UV radiation, Batman drops nearly instantly. That same amount will not even be noticeable to Superman. This is because UV radiation does this to human bodies and not to kryptonians.

Likewise, the special magic Riptonite radiation has an exagerrated effect on Kallark. You say that it's a small amount - was the amount ever specified? Did it say that there were exactly 623 joules of enregy or something? Pretty sure not. Thor has no weakness to this, so wouldn't his resistance to this energy work like Superman's in the SuperBat composite against all the thousands of forms of energy which will drop Batman directly at relatively modest outputs but which wouldn't affect Superman at all?

You never answered my questions above, by the way. Still waiting there. Yes or no is all that you need to reply with. I wasn't asking for you to apply what degree you think is important, just asking simple yes or no questions.

Your questions make no sense to answer as far as the assumptions they make and the basic concepts they ignore. Your attempt to dismiss fundamentally different things as "well that's your opinion man" itself requires again, treating things that are nothing like each other as "matters of degree". You continue to harp on the idea that, somehow, being fundamentally wrecked by something as an extreme violent allergy is the same thing as that the human body isn't built to be shot and that the durability of a human being is all people with compartmentalized durability have against stuff. Or the way someone would react to something they haven't specifically been built to endure. Which is again not the same thing as what happens with Gladiator.

These things are so conceptually far apart that continuing to insist again and again that they aren't is at this point just reading people's posts and deciding their content is optional. You're not making a point, you're repeatedly refusing to engage with one, then responding to people saying so with "no, you are!" Your questions, to engage with, require accepting conceptual similarity between things that have absolutely none. There's not really a point to saying "Wonder Woman and Superman stacked would not be hurt by bullets" when it should be clear, again and again, from a variety of posts, that when Wonder Woman not happening to be superhuman in durability against bullets is not the same thing as a violent allergy to bullets. So no, the composite wouldn't. The problem is you think this somehow justifies your stance on Gladiator/Thor when nothing about that makes sense to claim.

A fantastical violent fictional allergy that resembles nothing quite so much as things from myth is not comparable to someone not happening to have a specific resistance to something. The second thing is just not happening to be built to resist something. The first thing is, despite being otherwise being fine with an overall thing, having a violent fictional allergy that resembles nothing quite so much as things from myth.

You've decided this stark difference is nothing but "a matter of degree". And that's certainly your opinion you can have, as you have adopted wanting to throw in as a comment while telling people things like how they're hiding from your questions or what have you. Your opinion doesn't change that, as far as concepts go, durability is not the same thing as violent fictional debilitating allergies. The only reply you seem to have to this statement from multiple corners now is "nuh-uh". You can keep saying they are the same anyway, but that's not how concepts work and the concept itself of "fundamentally different things are not the same". That if you are wondering is the point of referencing "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same." At some point all that can be said is to try and explain that different things are different from each other in the most direct way possible. There's not really an "you're doing the equivalent of saying" because what you're doing is the equivalent of taking things that have nothing to do with each other, and saying yes, in fact they do.

You keep using completely irrelevant examples to try and dismiss something that functions in no way like them.

Tell you what, since we're doing "yes or no" question time I guess.

Has Wonder Woman ever, when walking towards a crate of bullets, started staggering around and breaking up her speech?

And, you know, all the other stuff as noted for Gladiator and the weakness, but applied to bullets.

If no, how do these things, in any way, resemble each other?

You argue that Wonder Woman's vulnerability to bullets wouldn't apply to a comp with Thanos because Thanos isn't weak to bullets.

There are only so many ways people can keep saying that you are basically straight up using these concepts in ways that have nothing to do with these concepts.

[Pendaran]

The closest analogy I can come up with here is if this were a thread talking about horses, and you suddenly started going on about cars being fed sugar cubes, because after all, horses and cars are both means of transportation. Does anything about that make sense in any way? No, of course it doesn't, it's comparing things that have nothing to do with each other on the basis of some superficial throughline.

But neither does continuing to harp on examples of durability or the body just not being built to deal with a particular thing, as somehow having anything to do with an active violent fictional allergy that analogizes to very little.

[The Arbiter]

Wait. I'm not supposed to put gasoline in my horse?? He runs pretty fast when I try!

[Pendaran]

Wait. I'm not supposed to put gasoline in my horse?? He runs pretty fast when I try!

Damn, irrefutably proven wrong. Horses are cars after all, my bad.

[The Arbiter]

Damn, irrefutably proven wrong. Horses are cars after all, my bad.

The reverse is also true. Why else would State Farm have had the "Like a good 'neigh'bor" slogan?

Your slipping Pen.

[Pendaran]

The reverse is also true. Why else would State Farm have had the "Like a good 'neigh'bor" slogan?

Your slipping Pen.

Look, it's hard to be completely rational when dealing with my obvious anti horse bias.

A horse ate my parents in Crime Alley in front of me on the way home from the Mark of Zorro after all.

[The Arbiter]

Look, it's hard to be completely rational when dealing with my obvious anti horse bias.

A horse ate my parents in Crime Alley in front of me on the way home from the Mark of Zorro after all.

Just as the horse used your parents as fuel for its body, so to could you have used your parents as fuel for a car.

...that's enough internet for me tonight.

[Pendaran]

Just as the horse used your parents as fuel for its body, so to could you have used your parents as fuel for a car.

...that's enough internet for me tonight.

Now I have more reasons to hate horses! I could be fueling my car with comparatively inexpensive parents if only they still lived!

….. will other people's parents work? Asking for a friend.

[The Arbiter]

Now I have more reasons to hate horses! I could be fueling my car with comparatively inexpensive parents if only they still lived!

….. will other people's parents work? Asking for a friend.

Yes, but I would imagine it would take a lot of parents to fill up that big old van of yours. Y'know, the one with the painted mural of Kylo riding an Indominus on the side of it.

[Pendaran]

Yes, but I would imagine it would take a lot of parents to fill up that big old van of yours. Y'know, the one with the painted mural of Kylo riding an Indominus on the side of it.

All I heard there was "yes, reality is in fact exactly like that Blood Drive show!"

… which my friend will find important to hear. When I tell them. My friend.

[Cronus]

There's a difference between level of durability vs specific weakness to something.

[Slade1]

The show version was.

Most versions of Amazo dupe powers but not weaknesses.

[Cronus]

For example: DCs stance regarding Superman and magic, post crisis. Superman isnt specifically weak to magic so much as he has no more resistance to it than the average person. Prior to this, Clark was specifically weak to magical attacks.

[Pendaran]

For example: DCs stance regarding Superman and magic, post crisis. Superman isnt specifically weak to magic so much as he has no more resistance to it than the average person. Prior to this, Clark was specifically weak to magical attacks.

I'll say, even in post crisis they went pretty back and forth on the why of that functioning as far as one or the other depending on who had Superman in a given outing and the reason they gave. Of course that they went pretty back and forth on the why of that functioning tells you that even comic book writers had some idea that these concepts are different things.

Edit: Also honestly the closer/more accurate Superman comparison is to kryptonite. Magic, I don't think, hobbled Superman in the way kryptonite did. He didn't have the same reaction to it.