dum529001's forum posts

#1 Edited by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

No! The answers to racism is: Stop being racist!

Its because of selfishness that people can't possibly dream of the idea that there are other human beings that are physically different than them. Some people can't imagine or except the existence of another human being that does not reflect their image.

Selfishness leading to feelings of fear and division, then superiority and ignorance that will lead to allow one group to overgeneralize characteristics of another group(s) when they haven't bothered to see or know many of that group's members.

Hating and fearing instead of love and understanding.

Racism goes on whether people open their mouths to speak any words about it.yy

#2 Posted by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

I like this manga so I've definitely been waiting for the anime to come.

#3 Edited by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvin the Martian!

#4 Edited by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

People who are not God who have a God-complex, thinking they should have all the universe bow to their will is at the center of morality.

Lots of people define right and wrong as anything that won't make people come after you with a gun or prison cell to lock you up in as acceptable and righteous.

For many, morality is about getting your way and getting away with as much as possible without people noticing.

#5 Posted by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozen said:

@galacticfork:

The reason I do this is because you repeatedly compare it to the taliban, a group that actually forces real women to wear what they demand. So even in context, saying the words "demands for women to cover up their skin" still tries to draw that parallel, as if there's any similarity, or as if they are coming from the same place. So it is very dishonest to keep trying to draw that parallel. It is not redundant or a waste of time because honesty is very important. I really don't understand, though, if you actually do see a difference, why do you keep applying action to fictional characters? It is literally impossible for Wonder Woman to ever EVER cover up her skin, but you keep saying it. The only people who can change that are the artists. So either you don't understand the difference between fiction and reality or you are deliberately trying to equate calls for designers to not objectify fictional women with violent insistent that actual women not express or display their own bodies the way they want.

Why do you insist on making dishonest and ignorant points? This is a trait I've noticed with your posts. Allow me to refresh your memory on your ownposts. Your statement: Wonder Woman cannot express herself because she is not real and artists/designers depict her appealingly for the male libido.

And again:

If it is an artist's desire to make a fictional character sexually appealing, and not for her to really have pride in her attractive femininity, then it is also the male artist's desire to limit Wonder Woman's sexuality to readers. How does he do this? As shown in the OP; by covering her up.

To expand, by your logic, as depicted above, Wonder Woman is forced to cover-up her skin for the sake of modesty because of the artists designing her.

The double standard and hypocrisy within your argument is amusing

Wonder Woman not being real has nothing to do with my overall point. Stop trying to project that onto my argument; my point from the very beginning was that there are demands, within context to cover up female characters, for you to even suggest otherwise is a lie --- it is irrelevant if Wonder Woman is not real --- she's a fictional character and real within the context of her universe. If Wonder Woman is written as having a fierce beauty, then the artists will portray her as a beautiful warrior.

Short answer, I'll keep doing it until you stop trying to use the words dishonestly. I don't mind wasting a little time, I can type pretty fast.

Translation: I don't have much of an argument, so I'll keep twisting facts and churning out debunked points.

You mean the artists who designed Wonder Woman as a beautiful and graceful figure are doing her Amazon myths roots a great disservice by requiring a warrior woman also be on display for men when that wasn't what the Amazons were about; when it came to pandering to the male libido, the lack of creativity and knowledge simply resulted in putting her in a bodice and shorts (eventually down to briefs) and just saying she is a goddess.

Context required:

Wonder Woman was created during an era to which women were considered second-class to men. They were expected to dress conservatively. There was very limited sex-appeal at all. Feminism had achieved political goals but not social. Inequality existed; this era was very Conservative --- Wonder Woman's inception was groundbreaking in the sense that there was now liberalization in the entertainment; portraying a woman who can kick the asses of men (absolutely unheard of in the 1930s/40s) and look good while doing it was very empowering as a source of inspiration for females. Your argument is deliberately leaving out context yet again; you act as if Wonder Woman was created as a piece of meat, yet completely ignore the social context of the time. She was an empowering figure.

Uh... Those two images aren't the same. Spider-Man's back is straight, and Spider-Woman is actively arching her back to point her butt upward in a way Spider-Man isn't. If you want to see a more accurate comparison, I will not put the image here, but I will link, and warn that it is not safe for work. Well, it's a bit less safe for work than the Spider-Woman image is. It's by the by the same artist as the Spider-Woman cover. Click here to see the similarity. Women don't typically arch their backs that way when climbing on a rooftop.

They are exactly the same; the difference is that Spider-Woman has a larger and more shapely butt, whereas Spider-Man is more toned from head to toe; the body tones are different. The image on the right from the link you've posted depicts a woman with her legs more spread out and butt higher up - whereas both Spider-Man and Spider-Woman are resting themselves on a similar surface.

No a more accurate way is not "women don't need to cover up." Again, please direct all agency to the artist. The reason for this is simple. A real person decides how much or how little to wear. It's all completely up to them and should be. It is impossible for Wonder Woman to do that. She has no choice. Whether she was attractive or not. Whether she is a goddess or not. She is not able to decide how little or how much she wears. She is not covering up in the new design. She did not uncover her skin in the old design. None of this is about Wonder Woman's choice or whether or not women should or shouldn't cover up. Women and men should decide for themselves if they want to cover and uncover. The designer decides what the characters wear or not wear. All arguments of self expression are out the window and cannot be used because it is not a matter of self expression. It's a matter of artistic expression and what the artist chooses. It's about the artist's power over the image of another and what that image is expressing within society as a whole. You are trying to shift the discussion from criticizing artistic expression within society to personal freedom of self expression, or trying to equate them.

Again, why do you keep ignoring how dishonest this argument is? You constantly take this point and argue ''Wonder Woman is sexualized'' because artists can only depict it yet turn a blind eye to the fact that it works both ways; by your line of logic, men are controlling Wonder Woman by forcing her to cover up. What I have argued from the start is that artists should not be goaded/pressure into covering their characters up. I have clarified this point atleast three or four times and you continue to ignore it in a desperate attempt to misinterpret my argument. Allow me to refresh your memory.

Clear-cut clarification, not difficult to read: I clearly state that it's the artists response when covering up
Again, my over-reaching point was that artists already have control. That in itself was established my first few posts

Read above; and learn it. I have not once even remotely tried to shift the discussion from artistic expression --- my argument on a whole is against the attack on artistic expression. The notion that Wonder Woman as a fictional character does not have the personal choice was established from the get-go. The point which Scott Campbell made is that the complaints and demands for comic-characters to cover up is a parallel to the authoritarian policing; it doesn't matter if she isn't real, it's that people who complain are under the impression that she has some sort of real-world effect on people, to the point where they feel the need to complain in an attempt to change her.

Are you suggesting a woman being attractive requires her to show her skin? Is that the message? That because she's a beautiful woman, uncovering the skin is needed? Is that just what attractive women are supposed to do whether they want to or not. I'd prefer women choose how little or how much they want to wear without social pressures telling women that if you are attractive, you need to uncover your skin. Or are you just saying Wonder Woman, because she was written that way, because she was coincidentally written to be an altered version of an amazon that's actually more about being feminine and attractive than being a warrior? So the secret to always have women characters half naked or displayed sexually is just always write them as needing to be so... because of their character. Then if they drew her with more clothes it would just be out of character. Hmm That sounds familiar. Now what kind of message does that send to actual women?

Nope. I said that showing skin is not a sin nor is it objectifable. Wonder Woman can look attractive and feminine without showing as much skin; but that there's nothing wrong with the classic design as it stands. The argument against it is that it ''sexualizes'' her, which does sound familiar in telling women what they're supposed to wear.

The new design in the OP has layered Wonder Woman with clunky armored plates; running along her body, shoulders and legs. The over-reaching point is that there is nothing wrong with classic design.

There's a difference between being attractive and designed in a pandering way. If it was just a matter of women being attractive, that wouldn't be an issue. It's a matter of the characters having their very designs intended to stimulate others, it's not just making a character attractive... Well, actually, look at what you said before that because Wonder Woman is attractive they have to draw her that way. An attractive woman not drawn to show off her sexyness? Out of character.

Wonder Woman's design was not created to pander; it challenged the then Conservative and bland style of women at the time; Superman is drawn to stimulate others; not only does he have an attractive face, but his muscles are depicted to rip out of his clothes with the perfect physical stats; he embodies the male masculine super-model, aka male sexiness. Superman was not even initially designed like that, he was initially large but not as muscle-defined, it was only when the industry Liberalized was he depicted as being more muscle bond. This blog notes how Superman became more muscular over the years. The same goes for Batman: For you to suggest that fantasy characters are not depicted as the epitome of their respective sex is a lie.

The rest of your response is just relying on double standards. I'll repeat the point again: nearly every single comic-book character and most other characters in fantasy are depicted as physically perfect; the epitome of what we want to become. This is not unique to Wonder Woman, stop pretending as if it is.

In regards to the covers; again, selective examples is not a good idea. If we're going down that route, you're forgetting that Batman wears a suit fabricated from nylon, which has been used in bondage. If we use selective examples:

Oh... wait. I think I just actually got what you're saying by pointing out the artists were male. Wow. OK! Geesh. Now that I understand I can explain my side better. I said that a person (in comics' place usually a man) displaying a person (in comics usually a woman) in a sexual way is more of an expression of artists sexuality and that of the intended audience than the character expressing their own sexuality. In the case of a non sexual creation, even if it's a man controlling her clothing, it's not an expression of his sexuality or that of the intended audience, and it's not presented at all as an extension of the character's sexuality. So if you create a character the way you would if you never gave the male audience's sexuality a thought, how would you create a Princess of the Amazons? Daughter of Hippolyta, who in legends was the daughter of Ares, God of War! How would you use that legend?

And keep in mind I'm talking about the social environment where the female characters are typically expressed sexually by the artists, creating an atmosphere where this is not only the norm but expected. And I'm not saying sexualized images are bad or anything, but when it's the norm and expected it creates that expectation, one like that puritanical view that a woman's body is the domain of men.

Again, I think you missed the point. If a male artist is covering Wonder Woman with the intent to limit her sexuality; because of complaints, then that by your own line of thinking is a man limiting the sexuality of an established character; thereby controlling her. It's not an expression of his sexuality, but is an expression of his intent to limit the sexuality of a female --- which comes down to control.

This 'expected' argument is taking one viewpoint; this picture sums it up well.

Whoa. Saw this coming.....

#6 Edited by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaacspider said:

@sc said:

@isaacspider said:

Oh cool, and that you refer to him with a male pronoun is very respectful and decent thing to do and testament to your sincerity as far as showing respect to others. Nice! I think that is a type of defensiveness that occurs within any group, LGBT community, Christian community, Atheist community, Muslim community, comic book fans, video game fans, feminists, liberals, republicans, many can be defensive and jaded towards criticism or anything that doesn't sound like support. Actually you occasionally I will see people within the group fighting even over misunderstandings, I am sorry if you have felt attacked unfairly.

Your friend, are you saying that he use to say his genes were a mistake? It was never a sense or feeling they had instead? I ask because of perceptions of peoples selves they hold, because feeling as if you are in the wrong body is different to a person making declarations about biology. Gender is more of a fluid concept, shaped by perceptions, many peoples ideas and perceptions can compete and conflict with each other. I understand your earlier point, I know people who do not identify with ideas considered masculine and feminine, but there is still differences between gender and biology, again some overlap but not the same thing. Interestingly enough pink use to be a boys color in the western world, and blue a girls color. I think it was after the 1930's that started to change.

Oh nice, zoology is a great subject. Still majority of studies and research I am away of points at homosexuality happening in more species than just human and we also do not have any examples of anything unnatural, that being an idea or concept that relies on the existence of what is natural in order to exist. Basically the contention seems to do more about people who view gender and sexual orientation as fluid ideas with degrees and then people who view sexuality and gender as being more binary and restricted, man and woman. The latter being a bit more outdated as time goes by, generally speaking.

Thanks. I appreciate that, I have enjoyed our discussion and again, sorry if you have been attacked by people who didn't take the time to talk to you and understand where you are coming from. I think most people want that, LGBQT people as well, just for others to make the effort to talk to them with respect and understanding. Hope you have a great day!

Honestly, I don't really know. I never really asked him what he meant by "in the wrong body". I just assumed that he thought he was meant to be a boy. But I don't really know, that's really all speculation.

As too homosexuality in animals, I did read studies that said that may be true. But I have a hard time understanding it really, due to monogamy not really being present in animals.

I also enjoyed our discussion. I am also really surprised to see all the respectful responses, even the ones that don't agree with me. And did I come off as a bigot honestly? I sure didn't think so. Bu hey, its all in people's perception.

Approving of the human sexual reproduction process and spitting on it like its worthless in the same breath? You can't pretend that makes sense. Homosexual people do this and heterosexual people do this in their own different ways.

The word "Natural" refers to what occurs in nature, also known as the universe. The only time something natural is praised is when it is good for you. An apple or an egg is naturally ocurring and it is good for my body in the right amount. In the wrong amount it can't be bad.

Something that can and does occur in the universe can definitely be bad for you. Manufacturing a huge piece plastic and trying to swallow it down only to choke myself is natural but it isn't good. Jumping off a cliff is natural as well. Flying myself into the sun or a pit of lava is natural. Death is natural but you don't see me rushing to meet it as soon as physically possible.

What you decide to set your own mind on doing is your choice. Plain and simple. What you decide you want to do with your sex organs, your male and female reproduction parts, are up to you.

Take two twins, people who are expressing all the traits in the human genome the exact same way and notice their differences in personality. Homosexuality is not genetic. Quit fooling yourselves. People are not biologically geared to go against their own human biology. I can want to be a fish all day long it doesn't make me a fish because according to biology i am a human, according the molecular structure of my DNA and all structures that is spawned from it with the sole intent to better sustain and protect my life as a living being.

To all people, being counterproductive in whatever way, shape or form and encourage such behavior if you wish but don't expect me to go along with what you're doing.

I respect the lives of people but not always their ways of living.

#7 Edited by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

@divell said:

@medulaoblaganda said:

@divell: doomsday has never killed sky-fathers in 3 punches without even trying. where is the prove? you lied bro!!. and mind you darkseid is not a sky-father level character. he is a sky-father wanna be. hulk fought buch of sky fathers when he was on is way fighting zeus. The In-Betweener, who went toe to toe with Galactus in Silver Surfer 18. One of THE most powerful entities in the MU. Skyfather level. How many are there in DC? Nekron, Anti-Monitor, not many. In-Betweener splits into his two parts, Chaos and Order. As stated by Doctor Strange. Then we see Hulk being restrained and on the next page Choas states "I do not know what to do with him expect waste energy restraining him. He is pure anger and force. I takes nearly everything I have.". Then he lets him go and states "At least I have regained most of my power"

Nearly everything I have for someone who went toe to toe with Galactus. It's an astonishing feat of strength. That he's split in two makes no difference, that's still half a Galactus level being

Ok First, did you even read what i writte?

  • There isn't even a skyfather in DC universe, how can you tell that?
  • If you are saying this bc he beat Darkseid in 3 puches Darkseid isn't even as strong as Thanos and he can't fight the power of a skyfather.

I'm talking about Doomsday not Hulk and besides Zeus, Hulk hasn't figted a Sky-Father lv in a one at one. He fought other Gods in his way to fight Zeus with Sky-father power, nothing more. And Zeus beat him with pure strength alone.

BTW In-Betweener was holding the hulk so he don't create destruction. Just that he wasn't trying to defeat him while is true that he was using almost all his power as he says to hold him back. But hulk wasn't nearly close to brake lose.

@divell said:

@medulaoblaganda said:

@divell: doomsday has never killed sky-fathers in 3 punches without even trying. where is the prove? you lied bro!!. and mind you darkseid is not a sky-father level character. he is a sky-father wanna be. hulk fought buch of sky fathers when he was on is way fighting zeus. The In-Betweener, who went toe to toe with Galactus in Silver Surfer 18. One of THE most powerful entities in the MU. Skyfather level. How many are there in DC? Nekron, Anti-Monitor, not many. In-Betweener splits into his two parts, Chaos and Order. As stated by Doctor Strange. Then we see Hulk being restrained and on the next page Choas states "I do not know what to do with him expect waste energy restraining him. He is pure anger and force. I takes nearly everything I have.". Then he lets him go and states "At least I have regained most of my power"

Nearly everything I have for someone who went toe to toe with Galactus. It's an astonishing feat of strength. That he's split in two makes no difference, that's still half a Galactus level being

Ok First, did you even read what i writte?

  • There isn't even a skyfather in DC universe, how can you tell that?
  • If you are saying this bc he beat Darkseid in 3 puches Darkseid isn't even as strong as Thanos and he can't fight the power of a skyfather.

I'm talking about Doomsday not Hulk and besides Zeus, Hulk hasn't figted a Sky-Father lv in a one at one. He fought other Gods in his way to fight Zeus with Sky-father power, nothing more. And Zeus beat him with pure strength alone.

BTW In-Betweener was holding the hulk so he don't create destruction. Just that he wasn't trying to defeat him while is true that he was using almost all his power as he says to hold him back. But hulk wasn't nearly close to brake lose.

You realize Hulk's power is limitless right? Hulk had the Inbetweener struggling and he wasn't at his limit since Hulk doesn't have any limits.

And in Hulk's fight with Zeus he didn't try to fight back and he wasn't even knocked out. He let himself be captured and tortured so Zeus would help his family out with his magic powers.

Zeus is Odin-level in power. Galactus is more powerful and inbtweener is Galactus' equal.

Odin shakes galaxies and destroys planets:

Despite being very weakened Odin during his fight with Seth, destroyed entire galaxies and certainly much of the universe, fighting simultaneously on every plane of existence, shaking the entire universe, tearing even the very fabric of reality Multiverse! Threatening to destroy even the space / time continuum!.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164560-7833786863-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164564-2878047342-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164572-0278173721-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164576-9278053106-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164578-2280747259-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164581-3307971063-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164584-6452385841-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164589-5075303608-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164591-1449852289-Odin_.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/13/136540/3164594-7702543918-Odin_.jpg

Surtur has the power to destroy galaxies:

#8 Posted by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk has better feats, period. DD is only getting a nod from posters from ABC logic.

truth.

#9 Posted by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

@conner_wolf said:

@deathsdoor726: But it was still a plan, and he's shown many others, if Superman is such a strategist, let's see his brilliant plans.

sorry I took so long I have been super busy when I find the time I'll look for some scans

Interesting.

#10 Posted by dum529001 (1722 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk FTW. He generally owns the FF in every fight. As for the people complaining about the WWH storyline, it wasn't PlS it made more sense when you thought about it. However, people are butthurt when their fave heroes lose right?

@veitha said:

@iconrocket123 said:

Hulk FTW. He generally owns the FF in every fight. As for the people complaining about the WWH storyline, it wasn't PlS it made more sense when you thought about it. However, people are butthurt when their fave heroes lose right?

it was PIS most of the time. They just overpowered him giving him any kind of resistance. For example, when Kitty phased him through the ground, he got his hands out, while his atoms should have melted with the ground. He got atom melting immunity lol

And also magic immunity and the ability to interact with astral forms! Writers were giving him any power necessary to beat heroes. No one even tried to BFR him away lol

And Sue didn't even try to fight him, considering all she could have done(check the current FF run).

@veitha: He's always been able to interact with astral forms. It's a natural ability of his. The magic immunity, during the storyline, the only magic used was to summon Zom, who mystically powered, beat the crap out of the Hulk until Strange realized his mistake by endangering innocents. Then the Hulk beat on him until he was down. Also, current Sue is messed up in the head, her Malice persona is coming back. That's the only reason why she's acting out of character. She wouldn't have done those things to him, besides he heal, but it truly depends on how severe the damage is.

@veitha said:

@iconrocket123 said:

@veitha: He's always been able to interact with astral forms. It's a natural ability of his. The magic immunity, during the storyline, the only magic used was to summon Zom, who mystically powered, beat the crap out of the Hulk until Strange realized his mistake by endangering innocents. Then the Hulk beat on him until he was down. Also, current Sue is messed up in the head, her Malice persona is coming back. That's the only reason why she's acting out of character. She wouldn't have done those things to him, besides he heal, but it truly depends on how severe the damage is.

And Strange stopping like that was PIS, without considering that there would have been easier ways to defeat him using magic such as BFR or transmutation, which he didn't even consider.

Sue's fight the Avengers was triggered by Malice, but her abilities are still those. While in her fight with Doom she used raw strenght, in the fight with the Avengers she used her skills to defeat them all(also displaying great multitasking). She's off morals currently most of the times, but she's still got these powers. And BFR or suffucation aren't something that require morals(she's already suffucated the Hulk before, she knows he'll get better eventually, and she's done that even to Ben while possessed).

@veitha said:

And Strange stopping like that was PIS, without considering that there would have been easier ways to defeat him using magic such as BFR or transmutation, which he didn't even consider.

Are you kidding me? BFR is what got them into the whole mess in World War Hulk. Strange has BFR'd him twice, only for Hulk to return PISSED and causing mass destruction. In fact Strange covers this in Word War Hulk. Me thinks you haven't read it.

@veitha said:

@green_skaar said:

@veitha said:

And Strange stopping like that was PIS, without considering that there would have been easier ways to defeat him using magic such as BFR or transmutation, which he didn't even consider.

Are you kidding me? BFR is what got them into the whole mess in World War Hulk. Strange has BFR'd him twice, only for Hulk to return PISSED and causing mass destruction. In fact Strange covers this in Word War Hulk. Me thinks you haven't read it.

I read it, some years ago but I did. And BFRing him into another dimension should have worked. It's not like magicians don't do that(ask Magik)

Strange ALREADY BFR'd to another dimension, and he caused untold damage to infinite (yes straight from that comic) number of other dimensions since it was the cross roads. BFR'ing Hulk is not historically a successful solution for Strange, in fact it worked 0-2.

@green_skaar: He hasn't just like every other WWH PIS whiner out there, most of the PIS has been debunked anyway so just let them whine. Kitty fused him with the ground she did not melt away his hands/feet, Hulk has OP levels of healing but of course that doesn't count it must be PIS!!! I don't like it, it was PIS it didn't go down like it would on a battle forum it's PIS... they all had morals = PIS, PIS, PIS!!!

Truth.