Quote from Tecness2I was wrong. It has been tested before. Just, not recently. As someone put it, many people can defeat the hulk, just nobody wants to kill him, because they want him as a labrat. So I ask again. When was this weakness "taken out"? I have asked you this twice now, and seeing as how you have NOT given me an answer, where's your proof?
Are you always so hypocritical?
I'm not being a hypocrite, you've got your head so far up your own ass you aren't able to see that I've addressed it already. You aren't doing yourself any favors by spouting off a bunch of baseless claims and making up a bunch of bullshit. I can't immediately recall a single time you've actually cited real-world proof for your claims, you just say "YA IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE" and hope that people will believe you. You are a moron.
EDIT: Upon review, I also noticed that in the same breath that you call me a hypocrite, you also continue to fail to provide a source or citation. You say "It has been tested before." When? Where? How? Also, "As someone put it" as who put it? Why should I care what "someone" thinks? This is as pointless and irrelevant as the rest of your arguments.
I can't think of any example besides this:
Goku can reach SS 4 by himself. Vegeta needs the help of a machine his wife built to get to SS4. Guess who's SS4 is better? My argument is he could be drained, good job on noticing that. I also said "A BIT DIFFERENT". A bit different, means slightly different. Like the difference between 1.3% and 1.4%. While machines and abilities both have limits, a machine is programmed with it's limits, while an abilities limits, are made and can be expanded.
I fail to see how this changes anything. He overcame having his powers drained the same way as if it were through someone's abilities, even still, I've already shown why this is a moot point.
I say again, are you always this hypocritical? Your examples are basically this: You're being arrested for murder.
You: I have an air-tight alibi
Cop: What is it?
You: I was with a girl at that time.
Cop: Where is she?
You: She's away in a different country and can't be reached, but it's air tight, Trust me!
Are you kidding? I've provided numerous citations, references, and links. You've provided what, none? All of your arguments thus far have been based off of "I think" or "I believe", then you go on to say things like "it's been done before" without providing any proof. You are avoiding my point by trying to turn it around on me. In fact, in the SAME POST you are quoting I provided a source for you and you've chosen to ignore it rather than address that you're wrong.
You are no longer attempting to prove yourself, you're trying to save face by taking me down with you. Again, there's no shame in admitting that you are wrong. It looks a lot better than making a bunch of baseless attacks.
I'm using backwards logic? You said half the same stuff I did, and said I was wrong while you were right. Sigh... Also, not once have I said that I assume spiderman can fly because he hasn't done it yet, I've said, in the video games, he basically CAN fly. And when I say "given enough time batman could teleport blahblahblah." I basically mean, if he had a reason too, with the amount of money he has, I'm sure he could find a way to do it with a device. Given. Enough. Time.
Yes, you're using backwards logic. What you're doing is called Ad Ignorantum, which is when you're saying something must be true because it hasn't been proven false. As per the example in the logical fallacies thread, this is like saying aliens must exist because there's no evidence to the contrary. As an aside, the intended mechanic in the spider-man game in which you claim he can "fly" was intended to be the normal action of swinging from web to web. The fact that the webs don't immediately appear to attach themselves to anything is due to a programming limitation, and is not to be confused with a fucking flying ability for spider-man. You are arguing a completely irrelevant point, anyway. Who gives a shit? You're still making retarded claims using logical fallacies, and that is my whole point.
Again, hypocritical much? This is from you.
Granted, I can't find this link at the moment, but you have provided it. It's the same thing with your nice, big letters that you put the comics in. I can't read them, but you posted them, so they MUST be true, they MUST provide all the facts that would help you with this argument but since I can't read them, it's not your problem right? Well, it's not my problem that you can't read something that YOU'VE posted.
LOL Are you being serious? It's YOUR deal that you're not willing to participate in this discussion by following through on my citations. In a real world situation, if you were handed a document that made a bunch of claims, and provided citations, YOU would be expected to look them up to follow through. BEYOND THAT, I TOLD you where you could find the same information online. Here's how it's gone down: I provided the citation, you ignored it for several pages, then when I brought it back to your attention, you said "durr i cant luk dem up bcuz i don no how 2", so I provided an alternate source to find the same information by telling you to look up the Hulk's wikipedia page, and NOW you're faulting me for what? Not linking to it? Are you that inept you cannot go to wikipedia and search "THE HULK"? Okay, here let me take 2 seconds to do it for you.
SOURCE
I eagerly await your excuse as to why this doesn't apply this time.
Didn't he eventually win that fight? Also, this is from one of the links I posted below:
Note that tachyons exist only in theoretical physics, but in the Watchmen alternate history they have been already observed and manipulated by 1985.
What fight are you even talking about? Also how does this matter? Tachyons exist in the Watchman universe, good job. If you're going to try to argue that Tachyons wouldn't work because they don't exist in Marvel, then you've completely lost me, because in that logic, Doctor Manhattan wouldn't exist in the Marvel universe and the whole argument becomes invalid.
Insulting my friend.......Great idea.
It is, because you posted it as if it had anything to do with the argument, or any sway on your points, when your friend didn't even bother to read any of the posts on this thread. He just recited the same opinion you took from him at the beginning of this thread and that was it. Why should I care what your buddy thinks? He clearly doesn't know shit. It would be like me quoting highly as evidence as to why you're wrong.
http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Jon_Osterman
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Jonathan_Osterman_(Watchmen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_warping
http://marvel.wikia.com/Category:Reality_Warp_Immunity
http://superherouniverse.com/wiki/Hulk_Powers/
http://www.incrediblehulkonline.com/powersabilities.html
http://marvel.com/universe/High_Evolutionary
http://www.comicvine.com/high-evolutionary/29-13346/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Evolutionary
OH GOOD NOW WE'RE GETTING SOME REFERENCES. WHAT DO THESE HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
Those are all links, relative to this discussion. Click a few, they might help.
Help with what? Please tell me what I'm supposed to be looking for. You can't just throw a bunch of links at me and say "READ, THESE PROVE MY POINT" without addressing what point you're trying to prove.
NOWHERE does it say, that (Dr Manhattan could disassemble the Hulk at the atomic level and splatter his remains across the universe, effectively killing him)
Okay, so no where does it prove your argument? good to know.
It DOES say, however, that hulk shows a great resistance to unwilling transformation of his physical form. Which is as close to "immunity of reality warping" as he gets. Didn't see the problem? I'll make it nice and big for you, so you can. great resistance THAT DOES NOT mean, he is immune to it. It just means, it's a lot harder than normal.
I never said he was immune, YOU said that. I have always said he was resistant to it, and given that the Hulk's power is infinitely scalable, that resistance effectively becomes so powerful that he couldn't be touched period.
So, please, continue to try to insult me all you wish. If this was chess, I believe this would be check.
Knocking over your own game pieces and then throwing your hands up in exasperation is not a check. Sorry. You've barely addressed any of my points in this. You kinda got somewhere at the end, but mostly it's just you calling me a hypocrite and then repeating the same shit I've already proven wrong.
Keep trying though, it is pretty cute.