|
Post by NexusOfLight on Jan 3, 2011 19:07:54 GMT -5
I just got lost in what you said. After re-reading it, it made sense.
Anyway, the bottom line is, when speaking of who has super strength or super speed or super whatever, there needs to be a frame of reference. Always. Otherwise, the word "super" loses it's meaning, just like all adjectives do when not used in comparison to something. If I say something is big, that tells you nothing. If I tell you something is as big as a house, you automatically know, or at least have a general idea, of how big that something I'm talking about is. Now when I say someone has super strength, that could range from being as strong as an ape or as strong as Superman, but because there is no reference, there is nothing for you to know how super strong the thing I speak of is. That's why you can't look at the comic world and describe it from everyone's point of view, because everyone's point of view is different.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 3, 2011 19:14:45 GMT -5
Measuring just HOW 'super' someone's strength is is hardly the argument here. Whether they qualify for 'super' status in the first place is.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Jan 3, 2011 19:16:50 GMT -5
Is that also not determined by first finding a frame of reference?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 3, 2011 19:19:34 GMT -5
@nexus:
Sure. People that want to oversimplify things just frame that reference to themselves. I am saying that is inaccurate and lazy.
I can say that a real life Olympic athlete is super compared to me if that were the case.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Jan 3, 2011 19:26:15 GMT -5
They're not framing it to themselves, they're framing it to the fictitious representations of themselves in the comic world, and they just so happen to be called humans. And framing that reference to them is not inaccurate or lazy. It's necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn't have anything to go by in order to figure out where being normal (athletic, Olympic, peak) stops and where super begins.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 3, 2011 19:43:07 GMT -5
They're not framing it to themselves, they're framing it to the fictitious representations of themselves in the comic world, and they just so happen to be called humans. And framing that reference to them is not inaccurate or lazy. It's necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn't have anything to go by in order to figure out where being normal (athletic, Olympic, peak) stops and where super begins. Since I already offered a more accurate alternative, I do not see this statement as true.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Jan 3, 2011 20:05:40 GMT -5
But your alternative doesn't explicitly define what a super ability is. Your explanation of what a super ability is essentially "if you can do something your people can't then you're super." The problem with that definition is that it doesn't define super it defines the person as being super.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jan 3, 2011 20:09:12 GMT -5
But your alternative doesn't explicitly define what a super ability is. Your explanation of what a super ability is essentially "if you can do something your people can't then you're super." The problem with that definition is that it doesn't define super it defines the person as being super. Yes because there is no way to accurately judge super otherwise. Everyone has super strength compared to Stephen Hawking. If we take the viewpoint of the reader, it gets skewed because Stephen could be one such reader.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Jan 3, 2011 20:20:14 GMT -5
Again, we're not taking the viewpoint of the reader himself, we're taking the viewpoint of our human-like representations in the comic world, just like how Creator did in forming his tier list. We know that is a stable viewpoint because the readers can all relate, and we know it's accurate, because they have all been mapped out by the writers of the comic book worlds, and when it comes to accuracy, whatever the writer says goes. There's no skewing and no confusion because everything stays consistent.
|
|
|
Post by masterprime64 on Jan 3, 2011 20:20:24 GMT -5
What are you guys talking about?
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Jan 3, 2011 20:23:36 GMT -5
What are you guys talking about? How to properly define the term "super" when talking about a comic book character's abilities. What's super strength? What's super speed? What's super whatever?
|
|
|
Post by cm24 on Jan 4, 2011 6:00:31 GMT -5
I think you both have a point guys.
|
|
|
Post by cm24 on Jan 4, 2011 6:04:58 GMT -5
For me something could be considered super if it is beyond the known physical and mental limitations of the human body.
|
|
Killshot Caine
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
You Just Mad Cuz i'm Stylin On you!
Posts: 5,732
|
Post by Killshot Caine on Jan 6, 2011 2:02:57 GMT -5
Karate Kid doesn't have powers.
|
|
Decoy Elite
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
I've seen things you wouldn't believe
Posts: 4,854
|
Post by Decoy Elite on Jan 13, 2011 13:12:13 GMT -5
In Dr.McNinja's universe you can become a ninja via drug use or through training. So does it count as a power or not?
|
|