RazzaTazz

I'm owned............. By TERMINATOR_FAN!!!!

11948 234582 93 851
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Can a Woman Really Keep Up in the Bat-Family?

Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes.   Everything which he can do he has worked hard to achieve, and in this way he inspires fans as no other hero does.   Every hero needs a supporting cast and a collection of villains to battle against and Batman is no different.   The first real person capable of emulating Batman in the DC universe was the first Robin, Dick Grayson.   Many more have followed, and quite a few of them have been non-powered women – Barbara Gordon, Cassandra Cain, Stephanie Brown, Helena Bertinelli, Katherine Kane as heroes, and Selena Kyle (sometimes) and Lady Shiva as villains.   Does the Bat-universe lose some degree of reality with so many females?   The answer is yes (which doesn’t make me happy as a female fan.)   Women fall behind men in almost every athletic sense and while their minds may be strong, their muscles aren’t.   I will look at a few areas of athleticism to show this.

Running – Women have come a long way in terms of endurance running, so much so that at one point if there yearly gains held up they would be running marathons faster than men by the around the year 2050.   Women’s sprinting is also not lagging too far behind.   The fastest 100 m female runner is only a second or so behind most men.   Still, even with that considered I am not sure if most females could keep up with most men in this regard.   When I was playing high school soccer, the girls team trained hard in running, but when we would train with the boys team they would consistently make us look slow.   It is unrealistic to think that any of the Bat-family would train exclusively in any one area, and so the Bat-women would likely lag behind in this respect.   But running isn’t all that important, I assume that most of the characters are fast and can outrun the common thugs or even most non-powered supervillains.  

Climbing – I used to climb with one of my ex-boyfriends.   He was super keen on trying it and I was game to go along with him.   Something that most people don’t know about climbing is that initially most women are better at it.   The main reason is, generally we aren’t strong enough to lift ourselves with our arms, so we automatically resort to our legs, which is how you have to climb.   Men on the other hand, are just about strong enough with arms, and so for the first few times out climbing, they will come home with sore arms, whereas women if they come home with sore anything, have sore legs.   This all goes to say that if men stick with it and learn the proper technique, they become much stronger climbers.   Of any group of heroes, climbing is probably most important to the Bat-family.   They might not use it all the time, but they definitely use it a lot.   It isn’t always the stairs or elevator that they use to get to the top of buildings.   Still this is a relative non-factor and an area in which the women would be just as effective.

Acrobatics/Gymnastics – This is one facet in which the women might be able to outmatch the men is some respects, though maybe not in the most important ones.   Women are generally more flexible than men, and so doing acrobatic things like swinging from a rope or breaking a fall might be easier, but any pure acrobatic or gymnastic movement requiring strength would still be unmatchable by the women.  

Fighting -   This is the real area where women would be completely outmatched.   Does everyone remember in the Hush storyline when Batman was fighting ?   A not as powerful tries to punch Batman, and Bruce is fast enough to get a few blocks in with his forearms, before commenting that if he does it again they will probably get broken.   Batman is at the height of human conditioning, and his forearms can take a lot of damage.   Women on the other hand would never be able to get as much muscle on their forearms, and the amount of damage they could use in blocking would be far less.   Blocking is a fairly important skill in fighting, and so the women would be at a loss here as well.   I don’t think men have faster reaction times, but the amount of blocking which is possible would be much lower for women.   Another important aspect of fighting is power.   Have you ever watched any sport played by both men and women?   The women’s game seems to be slower with less action.   This essentially comes down to power.   With fewer and weaker muscles we have less to fire when we have to explode onto something.   This includes punches, kicks and so on.   Technique will only get you so far to overcome this as well.   Imagine Huntress fighting Mike Tyson.   She could use all kinds of more advanced moves to hit him, but he will just simply not feel the damage.   His body is trained to take it and not be bothered by it.   A few blocks by would leave her arms bruised and practically useless.        

Theoretically anyone can train themselves as long as they have the willpower, but there are still limits.   Canada’s military counterterrorism unit, as close to being superheroes as anyone in the world I suppose (I meant this about counter terrorism units and not Canadians :P) allows women to apply to join.   Only one time has a women passed selection training (similar to Navy Seal Hell Week) but she wasn’t picked up because she wouldn’t have been able to fireman carry any of her colleagues (which I would say is a valid reason).   She is a triathlete and thus in all around great shape but still was not up to standard.   This is maybe the sad truth of the women is the Bat comics, in reality they might try really hard but would often come up short.   Coming up short in the comic book world isn’t good either, it makes you either a damsel in distress or that your life is constantly in danger.    Whats the point?  Maybe none it is the realm of fantasy after all.  Still to see the Bat-women using their heads more than their hands would be a lot more realistic.  

 

   

67 Comments

67 Comments

Avatar image for sc
SC

18454

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

Edited By SC  Moderator
@Gambler:  I am too lazy (and unskilled to do the separate quote thingy, so I'll... oh actually I'll try lol)

I'm fairly sure I accurately explained what my challenge/disagreement was and what it had to do with the overall point. But I'll explain it again. Here's the opening statement:


Oh sorry, you probably didn't read what I said as rhetorical. Thats on me lol, I'll re-explain likewise. 

I disagree that Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes.


Okay, you assert a bunch of opinions, but nothing to suggest why and how 1000 people would think the same? Your own argument defeats it self.

 The OP is comparing real life to comicbooks and not holding Batman to the same standard.

With the element of relativity. Thats like mega important yet you don't cover this? I am curious why? 

A normal real life man cant dodge bullets

Sure they can. Depends on the context. A blind man shooting bullets from a toy gun I could dodge. Now, I know thats misinterpreting what I think you mean lol, but there's that relativity again (and context). Whose method of dealing with a guy shooting a gun is more realistic and invokes a feeling of relativity more, Batman dodging and weaving using shade and walls, or Silver Surfer tanking and catching bullets. Relativity. Sorry to repeat this word so much, its just extremely important. 

To say the Bat-Verse loses some degree of reality simply because the women are more athletic then their real life counterparts doesnt make a lot of sense when the Bat-Verse itself is far from realistic.

It makes sense unless you view reality in absolute terms. If a writer writes a female character fighting like a male character, thats does affect the degree of reality irrespective about the reality of the surrounding material. Thats how reality works. Colossus is not very realistic, that doesn't mean bullets will hit him and turn into rainbows. Your statements suggest either all. 

Comicfans were mentioned in the OP

The parts we are talking about specifically? 

Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes.  

0_0

I believe if we took a poll of comicfans (again, stated in the OP) the majority would say Cap is more realistic then Batman


0_0

This is still a "this winter was cold so what jackets are the best to wear argument" this winter wasn't cold! All my friends agree with me as well. Well okay, the main point is about jackets? You agree or disagree? 

Further more aren't they more reliable to give an answer based on actual knowledge of the character(s) and not just blurt out the most famous character they know?


Who is looking for an accurate or reliable answer? Its just applying what would probably be the answer given by a lot of people. Lots of people often give the wrong answer lol 

So if we just asked random people off the street, how many of them are answering from only having seen the movies (or drawing from memory) There's only a handful of characters who have made their way to the big screen so wouldn't you say that slants their opinion? 


The thread is not about realism. No one is refuting that those random peoples answers won't be objectively factual. *raises hands* Relativity. 

So your argument is based on the way polled people would be tested? Again, it sounds like your trying to reverse engineer? Do you get what I mean with that? 

But since the OP mentions "Comic Fans" explicitly, and the fact that we are on a Comicbook website makes it fairly easy to assume we're talking about comicfans

Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes. 


Okay, I find this interesting, because now you are asserting this much more now, than in your other post. I don't think comic fans are mentioned explicitly at all. I don't think the fact this is a comicbook website makes it easy to assume at all, I think its making it easier for you to personally assume, hence your stance. I mean, a blog last week was on black pantyhose. I mean, comic website I guess we all wear black pantyhose too? Well I wear red! lol

My pick of Captain America could very well be wrong, never said otherwise.


Never said you did. Just pointing out that sometimes, one needs examples for points. You put yourself in the position of the OP. Who is your example you will use? Lets say I decided to question the use of each word you used to make this an argument of semantics? 

I'm fairly sure

I disagree that you are. I won't offer an alternative though, since it would be easy to then find a hole in my argument, but I'll just disagree and assert that I know something that you don't, which gives my assertion that you aren't fairly sure more validity =p

You're also merging two separate points/arguments into one


Nooo. All I have done is the opposite. 

"Then what does our disagreements/challenges have to do with the overall point here? Its like we are disagreeing with a assertion thats not exactly intended to be an airtight fact, its used as a tool to make another argument"

"Really a tool just needs to be common enough to allow people to grasp a concept and some semblance of accuracy, would you say that in this case its misused?" - that one was not rhetorical either. 

"Then for the second point" 

If anything, you were combining the two. 

The first is whether or not Batman is the most realistic hero in the eyes of the fans (I say fans because thats what the OP states),

Fans is an extremely broad word. Are you applying a narrow application? Can we both agree that this is the less important/relevant of the points *points to my quote above about a tool and its use*

and the second, is whether or not the women being more athletic then their real World counterparts diminishes the realism of the Bat-Verse.


Let me make this one ultra simple. Do you think that the physical and fighting aspect of female characters (Batman female characters) can be improved in comics? Specifically accuracy and realism? Is it possible? This is not a rhetorical. 

The first (as I stated early) isn't important to my argument nor is it something that is a "right or wrong" situation, but a difference in opinion

Indeed, but I covered this in my first reply lol

Nothing Batman does is realistic

Well he breathes and talks. Thats pretty realistic, of course, i know you weren't being absolutely literal. I understood the personalized argument you present. Then my reply "general perception vs individual application" of course with general perception we introduce the matter of subjectivity which opens up a range of accuracy. So not so much about right and wrong, since people will have different criteria. So I already asserted the first argument as not being right or wrong. I am just pointing out your criticism of it is lacking? Not that your wrong or right. Just that your own arguments can be applied back to you, and its fun to have examples. Helps provide a context for other points. I know Captain America though intent is wished to be seen as not going beyond that superhuman barrier. Thats a creative thing. So if I wanted to make a blog about shield physics asking why they are so off, when the intent with Cap is executed proportionately more accurate its not me ignoring the aspects of Cap that aren't realistic. Its an independent. 

However, in regards to the Bat-Verse losing realism because the women are so gifted, I feel I've already proven why this is inaccurate in several posts. What realism is lost because of their abilities?


I disagree about what you have proven ;)

Can realism be gained? One question? Not rhetorical? Now if realism can be gained and you understand that? Surely you understand that by that virtue lack of improvement = lost. No one i saying that realism is totally destroyed. Again, relativity. So not "losing realism" "loses realism" some examples might add a little, or take more, or so on. Fluid. 

By defining/declaring that the women and their abilities diminish the reality of the Bat-Verse I'd say thats exactly what they're doing. What else could it be? If Batman's realism isnt defined then how can said realism be diminished? I direct you to the OP once more

No lol, Ironically your first argument works against your second point. if Batman's realism can be improved, then application of certain aspects would enhance realism, by default show how previously aspects were diminishing. Alternatively you could swap a few words around. One could say various aspects about female gotham characters, enhance the realism of Batman. Depends on the context. 

Realism can be defined because we have two points, which explains the use of part one but not necessarily its intent to be accurate. One doesn't need to define Batman's realism, just put forward another aspect which shows whether something can be improved or diminished. If I have a jug of water, I don't know how big the first jug is, I don't need to know how much water is in that jug, if I see a bigger jug with more water in it. I don't need to know the first jugs value to assert the second jug is bigger. If Jug A is Batman, and Jug B is Realism, and Jug B is poured into Jug A? Jug A is enhanced. Alternatively Pouring Jug A into Jug B, can diminish reality. Cassandra Cain starts shooting out sentient solar systems out her nose each time she says Floozy Floo. Tipping from Jug A into Jug B. Cass by intent, being more evasive and using her weight to enhance her striking as opposed to as using her mass bulk weight to just try and overpower someone like Blob might? Pour some of B into A.

 Its pretty basic no? All this talk about perception and what not is somewhat moot in my opinion. This is the meat of it right here. This is the main point that I'm debating against. As for the martial arts, we dont need to poll fans for this answer. Its written in several issues, several bio's, several Batman character profiles. Its as common as Superman's superstrength. There's no writer interpretation or, they were trying to say this or that. Its like his own superpower and something thats been established over countless years and writers. They dont say or imply he's "Good/Skilled" at martial arts, its as established as the Bat-Cave, the Utility Belt, and Batmobile. Batman is a master of every single form of Martial Arts combat.


Nah, if it were we wouldn't be having this discussion. Then your applying an in comic story explanation. Most comic fans aren't that savvy and when did fans start knowing as much about Batman as you? Or to take your argument, I disagree. Captain America is something something? Why is Karate Kid rated higher than him as well? 

You do realize that good and skilled can also apply at the same time as being a master of every single form? The two are not mutually exclusive in fact being a master of them all, somewhat directly implies he is good and skilled lol So they do imply that with that statement. 

Not sure how I'm applying the wrong context. There's an established realism in the Bat-Verse


Nothing Batman does is realistic.


So to you there are three absolutes? Realism. Batman realism. Then total lack of realism? *scratches head? 

Not sure how I'm applying the wrong context. 


To me it seems your setting things up like above. That there is no in-between values from real life, "Batman realism" which seems to be a very broad banner to you and lack of. 

I am saying the context here is put absolute realism on one side and total lack of realism is on the opposite side. There is no Batman realism, because every actions, character, moments, writer blah blah, will have a relative degree and quantity of realism or lack of. Your saying that because object B (female Bat Girls), doesn't stray away from object A (Bat Realism) nothing is being diminished. I am saying Object A is your artificial construct. I am asserting the context projected is much more complicated and organic. If a small aspect can be expanded upon? Its natural opposite is that its diminished. If realism is expanded and enhanced. Lack of realism is diminished. If lack of realism is enhanced or expanded upon, realism is diminished irrespective of whether it still falls under say someone's discretion that it fits in the tone of say Object A. I mean, of course there is no Object A here. Its fallacious to suggest that say I was not stabbed if the guy beside me was stabbed 3 times. Of course the more I discuss this with you, the more i feel your viewing it as criticism of the female characters of Gotham... maybe? As in they are only following the example Batman sets for them..? Which is a pretty oversimplified context. Diminish is not a negative word after all. 

I dont disagree with this, but I'm not exactly sure what it has to do with our current conversation ;P


Then you don't disagree with me, or this threads point 2 lol just swap in "Batman" for Iron Fist and a female character for Fat Cobra. A writer portraying a powered Blob next week like a powered Toad, diminishes reality. Blob moves a particular way. If the next week, someone with a intimate knowledge of how someone in real life would move if they were exactly like Blob, applied some of that knowledge to try and portray Blob a certain way. reality is enhanced. This thread is about reality enhanced. Not to try and be absolutely realistic. 

I'll leave that there? I can answer the other bits if you want, I feel I would just be repeating myself? 

I'm debating whether or not the achievements of the female characters within the Bat-Verse diminish its realism.

Oh, except this. You realize not solely diminish right? Instead of thinking diminish, maybe try enhance? Or do you think nothing about the realism of these characters can be improved upon? Not should, but could, as it applies to realism? 
Avatar image for the_ghostshell
The_Ghostshell

84302

Forum Posts

11204

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

Edited By The_Ghostshell
@SC said:
"I agree here too, but thats the general perception vs individual application. I am not sure Razzatazz is advocating that he is the most realistic, more so asserting thats his perception, hence 'widely considered' part. Kool Rock-ski is pretty skinny now though... (lol) ^_^ "
I'd hate to see how long your responses to someone you didnt agree with would be ;D
Avatar image for the_ghostshell
The_Ghostshell

84302

Forum Posts

11204

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

Edited By The_Ghostshell

@SC said:

" Okay, you assert a bunch of opinions, but nothing to suggest why and how 1000 people would think the same? Your own argument defeats it self.

In regards to whether or not he's the most realistic of ALL superheroes. I've presented no argument Because its just opinion. I thought I clarified that early on. If you'd like a complete rundown on why I believe this here ya go.
 
  • Is a millionaire child
  • Parents murdered
  • Spends millions if not billions of dollars to fight street-level crime with expensive gadgets and karate

Unlike the other superhero characters, it is not the circumstances which are extraordinary, but the behavior of Batman that shatters our suspension of disbelief.  People’s parents get killed in real life in more dramatic circumstances than Batman’s, and yet no one’s behavior comes close to his.  We can’t identify with his motivations and we can’t relate to any decisions he makes.  Even the basic logic regarding his career choice is ludicrous.  The thing about the suspension of disbelief is that we can accept one or two extraordinary things at a time, but if you pack them all together, or if they become too numerous, the illusion is shattered.  Batman is very guilty of this.

  1. King of Martial Arts - Batman is described as the greatest martial artist in the world, mastering all styles.  Mastering a single martial art takes a lifetime(in most cases), but Batman mastered all of them in the span of a few years.  This isn’t the biggest deal, but combined with all the other amazing things he’s accomplished in that small time and it becomes absurd.  If he was just “Karate Man” and his main skill was martial arts, this would be more acceptable.
  2. World’s Greatest Detective - Batman is often compared to Sherlock Holmes, but while Holmes was a somewhat quirky character with many unusual affectations (the side-effect of his attention to detail), Batman is simply smarter than everyone else and can get out of any jam.  Writing “master detectives” is tricky stuff, because you’re writing a character who is more intelligent than you are, and more intelligent than the reader.  It’s hard to relate to an immense intelligence.  One way to balance this is to give them believable affectations.  Characters like Poirot become more interesting because they’re a little off.  They are extraordinary in a certain way, but like someone who is OCD or autistic, that unique strength comes at a price.  Batman exhibits no such downside to his infallible detective skills.  Also, when did he have time to go to detective school when he was mastering all the martial arts?
  3. He Created His Own Villains - Virtually all of Batman’s more extraordinary enemies are people he instigates.  The Joker, Riddler, etc. behave the way they do because they are psychotically obsessed with Batman’s own crazy behavior.  This is actually a common plot point in Batman, but they always seem to dance around the most obvious conclusion: find a less theatrical way to stop crimes and the Joker will stop gassing the city.  I’m not saying Batman is responsible for these people’s actions, but rather he is incapable of realizing very obvious and easy solutions to uncomplicated problems.
  4. Employs Minors to Draw Gunfire - Arguably the craziest behavior of Batman is his need to employ children.  Even if we accept that a billionaire becomes a master of karate and detecting to fight crime, how can he possibly believe a little kid is qualified to dodge bullets and punch adults in the head?  I don’t care how great the kid is, if he needs a helping hand that bad, surely with his infinite resources he could find a grown man or woman for the job.  The costume’s just icing on the crazy cake.  Batman has to rely on a lot of tricks not to die, like dressing in all black, relying on fear and (as mentioned) being the best at hand-to-hand combat after years of training.  What possessed him to dress up a child in bright clothing and send him out to go be shot at by mobsters after less than a year of Bat-training?
  5. Unlimited, Untraceable Resources - Very few people know who Batman is, and yet he spends billions of dollars on the construction of things like supersonic jets and space stations (the former of which he keeps under his house) without anyone noticing.  I realize there have been plot points in both the comics and films about this problem, but they’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg.  One man couldn’t possibly handle all the financial judo necessary to essentially mask billions upon billions of dollars to fight muggers, which brings me to my biggest complaint:
  6. Billions Spent to Fight Robbers - Despite his apparent genius, Batman invests billions of dollars into a campaign to fight the lowest level crimes in the least efficient way.  On a good night, he may stop one, maybe two crimes, but the cost of operation per night is easily thousands of dollars, if not more.  Flying around in an experimental jet or car, looking for muggers stealing $20 from a purse is a laughable application of resources.  Crime is a symptom of socioeconomic factors like poverty; if he actually cared about the net reduction of crime, he would spend all that space station money on public works programs and education.  Heck, if he still wanted to directly fight crime, he could spend those millions on quintupling the police force so he wouldn’t have to run around looking for muggers.  If he’s worried about corruption and organized crime, he could simply buy out the entire system.  If he has the resources to single-handedly build Superman a space station, he could easily financially overpower crooked lobbyists and mobsters.
 
@SC said:

" With the element of relativity. Thats like mega important yet you don't cover this? I am curious why? "

With or without relativity its still holding and comparing the females to a standard that Batman was not. How can you say the Bat-Girls diminish the realism of the Bat-Universe simply because they dont/arent realistic in the Real World while not judging Batman the same way?

@SC said:

" Sure they can. Depends on the context. A blind man shooting bullets from a toy gun I could dodge. Now, I know thats misinterpreting what I think you mean lol, but there's that relativity again (and context). Whose method of dealing with a guy shooting a gun is more realistic and invokes a feeling of relativity more, Batman dodging and weaving using shade and walls, or Silver Surfer tanking and catching bullets. Relativity. Sorry to repeat this word so much, its just extremely important. "

Except I'm not dodging relativity or ignoring it. I've actually addressed each point in context and in kind. I'm not taking about Batman dodging bullets with cover. I'm talking about Bullet "literally" dodging bullets after they've been fired. Another common feat he's well known for doing (I could dig up scans if need be). Again, I believe I've even said that Batman is more realistic then characters like Superman, and my originally Fat-Boy reference applies here as well. Just because Batman dodging bullets after they've been fired is More realistic then Silver Surfer catching them in no way means its Real Lire realistic. Why do I keep saying "Real Life?" Because thats what the OP compared everything to. There was no attempt to compare or show why the Bat-Girls diminish the realism of the Bat-Verse. A Universe in which a normal human man can outmaneuver speeding bullets. On e could even argue that in a comicbook sense its more realistic for Surfer to catch bullets then it is for Batman to dodge them. At least Surfer has powers and abilities which allow the reader the luxury of Suspension of Disbelief. But Batman is a normal dude doing superhuman things. How is that realistic?

@SC said:

" It makes sense unless you view reality in absolute terms. If a writer writes a female character fighting like a male character, thats does affect the degree of reality irrespective about the reality of the surrounding material. Thats how reality works. Colossus is not very realistic, that doesn't mean bullets will hit him and turn into rainbows. Your statements suggest either all. "


Nah, you dont even have to view it in absolute terms. The terms of Batman's reality and its characters are already set. These female characters Dont fight like their male counterparts, dont go from realistic to unrealistic with different writers. These female characters are well defined, no absolute, but nothing in comics is. However there is a line in which through these characters history and development that isnt crossed because of their own limitations. I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting like men." There are lots of real life ladies who fight like men within their contained sport of MMA. That doesnt diminish reality in real life, why would it in the Bat-Verse? Especially when female martial artists in comics is something fairly common. Martial Arts fighting and hand to hand combat is pretty much what Batman comics are all about (add in some detective work). So characters, male or female, that reflect this only serve to reenforce the theme/reality of the World/Universe Batman operates in.

@SC said:

" The parts we are talking about specifically? "

Were they not? But for the sake of argument lets say we're talking about average everyday people. If you poll 1000 randoms off the street then I'm willing to bet you'll get a mixed bag of answers based not on actual knowledge of characters and how their represented in comics, but on their own self-contained awareness of a small list of characters who they've heard or seen about in regards to the movies or television shows. Can I prove this? Course not. Its speculation on my part. However go back and glance at the OP and see if you feel its addressing/in regards to fans, or random people.

@SC said:

"

Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes.  

0_0

I believe if we took a poll of comicfans (again, stated in the OP) the majority would say Cap is more realistic then Batman



0_0

This is still a "this winter was cold so what jackets are the best to wear argument" this winter wasn't cold! All my friends agree with me as well. Well okay, the main point is about jackets? You agree or disagree? "
Hahaha again, this wasn't my argument. This aspect of the blog was just my point of view with no intent on proving or disproving. Its not even important to my actual argument (I'm repeating myself here lol). But you're response is flawed in the sense that one is opinion while the other is making a direct statement.

"Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes"

By whom? Where did this piece of data come from? Is it opinion or fact? Assumption based on a few blogs and comments here and there or is there a survey someone that substantiates it? Again though, my argument isnt that Cap is more realistic then Batman. I've repeatedly stated that my own stance is that there's no such thing as a realistic superhero. Compared to other characters some are more realistic then others, but when compared to real life, like in the OP, none of em stand up and all defeat their own attempt at realism. Which is the entire point I've been trying to stress. I do enjoy your witty representations of weak arguments though ;P

@SC said:

" Well he breathes and talks. Thats pretty realistic, of course, i know you weren't being absolutely literal. I understood the personalized argument you present. Then my reply "general perception vs individual application" of course with general perception we introduce the matter of subjectivity which opens up a range of accuracy. So not so much about right and wrong, since people will have different criteria. So I already asserted the first argument as not being right or wrong. I am just pointing out your criticism of it is lacking? Not that your wrong or right. Just that your own arguments can be applied back to you, and its fun to have examples. Helps provide a context for other points. I know Captain America though intent is wished to be seen as not going beyond that superhuman barrier. Thats a creative thing. So if I wanted to make a blog about shield physics asking why they are so off, when the intent with Cap is executed proportionately more accurate its not me ignoring the aspects of Cap that aren't realistic. Its an independent. "

The women breath and talk as well, so they have that realistic aspect working for em. When I say nothing Batman does is realistic I mean in terms of feats that define what is and isnt realistic within the set realm of the Bat-Verse reality. Sure he breaths and talks, he also rips car roofs off with his barehands (none of the Bat-Girls do this). Again, its not a matter of Cap vs Bat. But whether or not the ladies of the Bat-verse diminish the reality of said Universe. You've yet to address who, why, when, etc this actually happens. The OP fails to examine when, where, how, this happens. Instead you seem focused on the fact that I dont believe the overriding perception of Batman is that he's the most realistic superhero. So I'll agree that Batman is the most realistic superhero or perceived as such simply so we can focus on the main point :)"




@SC said:

" Who is looking for an accurate or reliable answer? Its just applying what would probably be the answer given by a lot of people. Lots of people often give the wrong answer lol"


I am? Otherwise whats the point? If lots of people answered "Wolevrine is the Most Realistic of All Superheroes" simply because they dont know anyone else then it defeats the purpose of asking them in the first place.

@SC said:

" The thread is not about realism. No one is refuting that those random peoples answers won't be objectively factual. *raises hands* Relativity. 

You're merging arguments again. The thread is about how the Women of the Bat-Verse are diminishing said Universe. Agree? The polling people question was something brought forth by you in response to my opinion about Batman not being the most realistic of all superheroes. So how exactly would polling random people off the street be relative? Are these the same people the author of the OP had in mind when making the statement that Batman is widely considered to be the most realistic of ALL superheroes? If so wouldn't said people need to have knowledge of ALL superheroes (or at least extensive knowledge of a large base) in which to compare him to? If we're polling people off the street then I'd change my previous Cap answer and say Spiderman would win in an overwhelming majority. He's character is easily more relate-able then Batman's.

 Spidey
  • Uses these abilities to make money and become famous
  • Through this selfishness, he loses a loved one and realizes he must use his abilities more responsibly
  • Spiderman is even more believable than Superman, as his personal flaws are much clearer. We see him fail, identify with him, and want him to succeed because we see part of our own insecurities and dreams within this character.
 
 Bats
  • Is a millionaire child
  • Parents murdered in front of him
  • Spends millions if not billions of dollars to fight street-level crime with expensive gadgets and karate
  • Never fails and emerges victories regardless of the situation

@SC said:

"So your argument is based on the way polled people would be tested? Again, it sounds like your trying to reverse engineer? Do you get what I mean with that? "

Huh? My argument is about how the Women of the Bat-Verse...lol I've typed this out a couple times already :P So I'll just say, the poll was something you injected in regards to my opinion that Batman is not widely perceived. There is no right or wrong answer which we've already established so we're going around in circles. Call it what you will but my answers in regard to the poll are confined to that alteration. Its not my argument nor my point. So no, I dont get what you mean lol

@SC said:

" Okay, I find this interesting, because now you are asserting this much more now, than in your other post. I don't think comic fans are mentioned explicitly at all. I don't think the fact this is a comicbook website makes it easy to assume at all, I think its making it easier for you to personally assume, hence your stance. I mean, a blog last week was on black pantyhose. I mean, comic website I guess we all wear black pantyhose too? Well I wear red! lol"


I'll breakdown then ;). Below is the opening sentence of the OP:

 Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes.   Everything which he can do he has worked hard to achieve, and in this way he inspires fans as no other hero does.  

What fans? Sports fans? Nascar Fans? Or Comicbook fans lol. Further more where did you see the blog on Black Panties Hoes? Was it attached to an actual character (like Zatana or Black Canary?) Or was it in the "Off Topic Forum?" If it pertained to a comicbook character then can we not assume when the word "Fan" is used that the author is indeed referring to Comicbook fans? Yes it makes it easier for me to assume because its already implied no? Maybe I didnt expand enough but originally I honestly didn't think I would need to. The blog is posted on Comicvine, a comicbook website. Its posted in a specific character forum (Catwoman, although its probably better suited for the General Discussion Forum) and asks a question about a comic specific subject. So I ask, who is the question directed to and the opening comments/ word fan directed to? Random people off the street? Or comicbook fans? So then why would you introduce an altered variable (polling randoms off the street) into the equation? Not to sound rude, but if anyone is tailoring the discussion to fit their own assumptions it seems like you are...

@SC said:

" Never said you did. Just pointing out that sometimes, one needs examples for points. You put yourself in the position of the OP. Who is your example you will use? Lets say I decided to question the use of each word you used to make this an argument of semantics? "

You seem really defensive about the OP's position, not sure why. If my responses seem attackish then thats my bad. But the questions was asked correct? So when the author presents his/her opinion and then does little to support said opinion stance with actual references they're left open for attack. In all honestly I didnt need to make any points in regards to Batman's perceived  realism as my main point focused on the actual point of the thread, and my opinion on Batman's perceived realism was mentioned briefly in passing. Otherwise I've given you several points as to why the females of the Bat-Verse do not diminish the realism of that Universe.

@SC said:

"

Nooo. All I have done is the opposite. 

"Then what does our disagreements/challenges have to do with the overall point here? Its like we are disagreeing with a assertion thats not exactly intended to be an airtight fact, its used as a tool to make another argument"


"Really a tool just needs to be common enough to allow people to grasp a concept and some semblance of accuracy, would you say that in this case its misused?" - that one was not rhetorical either. 


"Then for the second point" 


If anything, you were combining the two. 
"
There are actually a couple examples of your meshing/merging the two separate points:


 I don't find such a statement misleading, it depends on the context. Your saying Captain America is more realistic when he has knocked out über powerful dragons that Thor has had trouble with, destroyed a room full of powered supernatural creature, turned into a wolf, stared down Thanos, (like eye to eye lol) fought for the security of the multiverse etc etc etc I mean, by the same token, except I recognize the context you could apply to support your assertion, so nothing you say is particularly misleading at all.
 

Here's the beginning of one such merger. I'm not saying Cap is more realistic at all. You brought forth this alternate poll and then asked who I thought people would pick ahead of Batman. But here you began to merge that conversation/points in regards to my breakdown of Batman's realism. Which originally was not in comparison to Cap, but in regards to how his feats and unrealistic day to day activity allow the female characters a wider range of movement in terms of what that can and cant do.

There are a couple more sentences that seem to take responses/explanations I used for why and how the females of the Bat-Verse do not take away/diminish said Universe and are used in responses/regard to the "1000 people polled" question in regards to Batman's perceived realism.

@SC said:

" Fans is an extremely broad word. Are you applying a narrow application? Can we both agree that this is the less important/relevant of the points *points to my quote above about a tool and its use*

"
I find it an important distinction though. Fan in on itself may be a broad word but in the context of the OP is not well defined?

Fan =  an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of (insert genre here). This is important because it clearly defines who the author is referring to in regards to "Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all superheroes." Not by some random people off the street, but by people with actual knowledge of Batman/Comics.

@SC said:

" Let me make this one ultra simple. Do you think that the physical and fighting aspect of female characters (Batman female characters) can be improved in comics? Specifically accuracy and realism? Is it possible? This is not a rhetorical. "

No. I believe (in all honesty) that the fighting and physical displays of the Female Bat-Characters is perfected tailored and accurate for the Universe in which they inhabit. I'm sure you disagree, and I invite you to show me where they could. This is something I believe I touched on in regards to the OP. The author asks (and answers) the question, do the female characters of the Bat-Verse project a loss of reality (as it pertains to the Bat-Universe, that is an important distinction made there). Because he/she then goes on to compare/attempt to solidify their position by comparing these Bat-Verse females and their abilities to real life females, when the distinction/classification was already established.

@SC said:

"

I disagree about what you have proven ;)

Can realism be gained? One question? Not rhetorical? Now if realism can be gained and you understand that? Surely you understand that by that virtue lack of improvement = lost. No one i saying that realism is totally destroyed. Again, relativity. So not "losing realism" "loses realism" some examples might add a little, or take more, or so on. Fluid. "
Hahaha well of course, you seem to have only responded to half of what I posted and centered on conjecture and whether or not Batman's realism to the fans can be proven ;P


You arent presented any examples though correct? You have yet to reference one actual example of these women Not improving Batman's reality. Not that I even subsribe to the notion that Lack of Improvement means lost. That makes no sense at all. If you have $100 dollars on Tuesday and wake up on Wednesday and still have $100 dollars, does that equal loss? Course not. But applying your logic since you failed to improve on that $100 you've lost. Makes no sense. If the Bat-Verse ladies do nothing to improve the reality, but also do nothing to negatively affect it, how does that then translate into them losing realism for the Universe in any degree? How does a female character with an established martial arts track record fighting men (with an exagreted extension of how a real life woman with the same or similar skill sets) lose a degree of reality for a Universe in which dead people come back to life and normal human react faster then bullets? Here, I'll break down even further for you :D Hush was mentioned in the OP so lets revisit some of the fights real quick.

Batman vs Killer Croc. A character who's half man half croc (so we have an established bar of realism already correct?)

No Caption Provided

Fast forward to some Bat-Verse female action:


No Caption Provided

Which fight is more realistic? A fight between two normal females? Or Batman vs a superhuman Crocman? Which one would you say does more to Improve the Reality of the Bat-Verse and which one does more to take away from it?

Lets keep going. I dont want to seem unfair so I'll post the Huntress vs a bunch of random street thugs (all male).

No Caption Provided


No Caption Provided


No Caption Provided

Pretty unrealistic when compared to real life. But what about when we compare it to the Bat-Verse? (also notice that she does not use her forearms to block any any punches and kicks and actually uses a weapon which seems like the writers attempt to validate comicbook logic as it pertains to a woman beating a man, or men in this case). She takes a nasty blow to the back of the head but is it unrealistic for her to recover? I'd yes when compared to real life, the manner in which she quickly recovers and kicks ass is unrealistic. But is it in the Bat-Verse? Is what she's doing causing the Bat-Verse to lose a degree of its realism? She's a woman was extensive combat training and a weapon fighting underskilled street thugs. In comics and more importantly the Bat-Verse this is common reality/realism. Now here's Batman again:

No Caption Provided


No Caption Provided


No Caption Provided


No Caption Provided

Armed with a Kryptonite ring he makes Superman look like a kindergartner. True, Superman has a known weakness to Kryptonite, but any Superman fan will tell you that it doesnt immediately cause him to become Joe the Average Numskull. Superman can achieve instantaneous speeds that Batman would not be able to react to regardless of the ring. Yet no superspeed. In the panels leading up to these Batman dodges Superman's heat vision despite that fact that Sups has been shown engulfing moon size planets in his beams. Superman apparently is unable to dodge one single punch from Batman and its explained away as the ring makes it possible. Despite the fact that Superman has tanked Kryptonite infused nuclear missiles and simultaneously defeated 4 of his greatest foes. But behind all that, which is the more realistic battle? Huntress defeating a hand full of grown men, or Batman fighting a defeating an Alien from another Galaxy/World?

Normal Humans, Aliens...which does more to improve the realism of the Bat-Verse?

@SC said:

" No lol, Ironically your first argument works against your second point. if Batman's realism can be improved, then application of certain aspects would enhance realism, by default show how previously aspects were diminishing. Alternatively you could swap a few words around. One could say various aspects about female gotham characters, enhance the realism of Batman. Depends on the context."

It only works against my argument if misrepresented in a distorted context. The OP clearly implies that there's a certain set perception of the Bat-Verses realism, and that because of the females unrealistic actions that they are taking away degrees of said realism. But neither one of you have shown how this is actually happen or if it even is. Which is what I'm debating. The lack of Batman's own realism within his own set reality does not then mean the women by default are also accountable for the diminishing realism. You both seem to be under the assumption that there was ever a degree of realism to lose. If there is what is it and how are the females taking away from it? Up above I've given you just two examples from one arc in which (at least to me anyway) it appears that the females are the only ones improving any semblance of realism. Here's a quick glance at some points that make Batman real(ish)

  • No Powers
  • Human (not a mutant, robot, experiment, etc)
  • Lives in a ordinary city (Gotham). By that I mean its not a floating Island, its not someother Planet, etc.
  • He bleeds, sleeps, eats, etc (does the things that ordinary real life people do more or less like breating ;)

Of course there are more but you get my point yes? These same bulletpoints apply to the women of the Bat-Verse. Further more, they fight people within their immediate range as it pertains to established character abilities. Batman does not. You say that because the women fight like men, and beat men, that its taking away in degrees the realism of the Bat-Verse. But when compared to the fact that Batman routinely beats characters weeeeeeeeelllllllll outside of his labeled abilities and normal human statues, not only do they Not take away from the realism, they are the realism.

@SC said:

" Realism can be defined because we have two points, which explains the use of part one but not necessarily its intent to be accurate. One doesn't need to define Batman's realism, just put forward another aspect which shows whether something can be improved or diminished. If I have a jug of water, I don't know how big the first jug is, I don't need to know how much water is in that jug, if I see a bigger jug with more water in it. I don't need to know the first jugs value to assert the second jug is bigger. If Jug A is Batman, and Jug B is Realism, and Jug B is poured into Jug A? Jug A is enhanced. Alternatively Pouring Jug A into Jug B, can diminish reality. Cassandra Cain starts shooting out sentient solar systems out her nose each time she says Floozy Floo. Tipping from Jug A into Jug B. Cass by intent, being more evasive and using her weight to enhance her striking as opposed to as using her mass bulk weight to just try and overpower someone like Blob might? Pour some of B into A."

Again, you keep resorting/returning to real life explanations when comicbook refrenses is whats called for here. I'm establishing Batman's realism because A: its essential when the OP/Author states that said Bat-Realism is lost in degrees because of (insert cause here). How else would one determine something is taking away from another if we dont first establish a level or point in which to point to? How can you say the females are taking away the Bat-Verse realism if the level of Batman's realism is never established in the first place? Sorry dude, but your Jug of Water/point here holds no water at all. Do you notice your sentence is filled with "If?" If this and if that? We dont need the ifs. We have on panel documentation and resources. Show me were the female Bat-Verse women's feat have emptied Jug A of Bat-Verse realism. Show me were any of the normal human Bat-Verse girls suddenly go from human to solar system busting snot bubbles or even the potential of such a move. Show me Cass attempting to out-muscle a stronger opponent as opposed to using skill, speed, and technique. If you're argument is now that the women are Enhancing the Reality/Realism of the Bat-Verse then arent you creating a separate topic? Its not one or the other. Its not "They're taking away from the realism or they're adding to it." There is an established grey area in which to play with. What is considered realistic in the Bat-Verse has been established over years of comicbook continuity. There's room from the female's to achieve certain feats without going over (taking away realism) or going under (adding realism). You dont have to pour one or the other. There is a medium/middle ground. Show me otherwise with actual Bat-Verse female feats and I'll concede.

@SC said:

"Nah, if it were we wouldn't be having this discussion. Then your applying an in comic story explanation. Most comic fans aren't that savvy and when did fans start knowing as much about Batman as you? Or to take your argument, I disagree. Captain America is something something? Why is Karate Kid rated higher than him as well? 


You do realize that good and skilled can also apply at the same time as being a master of every single form? The two are not mutually exclusive in fact being a master of them all, somewhat directly implies he is good and skilled lol So they do imply that with that statement. 
"
Of course its an in comic explanation. What else would we be using? This is something that we can visually verify on panel. Whats to dispute? Fans do not need to know as much as me in order to know that Batman is a master of all forms of martial arts. Like I said, its common knowledge. Captain America is also slated as being a master of all forms of hand to hand combat ;) Karate Kid is rated higher because he's master every form of martial arts in the Universe leading up to his future existence (he lives in the future and has mastered all forms leading up and into the future). Do you understand what I'm saying about Karate Kid? Batman's mastered all of the forms past and present up to his point in history. Karate Kid has mastered all of those plus styles that have yet to be invented in Batman's time. Not only that, he's mastered styles from other Universes and Planets (but interestingly enough, Batman beat him before lol) Granted he was sick and dying so.... Batman One Million is the greatest martial artist ever though.

I'm not saying the two are "mutually" exclusive but rather showing you that its not just a writers attempt at conveying to the reader that Batman is a good fighter. Its an actual ability/statment/ recognized fact ;)

(Quite possible the greatest Martial Artist alive)

No Caption Provided

(Learned from the Manhunters and Martial Artists, Mastering every fighting style)

No Caption Provided

@SC said:

" So to you there are three absolutes? Realism. Batman realism. Then total lack of realism? *scratches head? "

Hahaha come on dude, I know you understand what I'm saying but I'll do it all over again lol. There's Comicbook realism (do you need me to clarify define what this is?) Bat-Verse realism would fall into this catagory (note that the term Bat-Verse realism/reality was authenticated/ first established by the author. I simply worked off from that). This is a reality that is exaggerated with varying degrees of realism. There's Real Life realism (realism of the actual World you and I live in). When I said nothing Batman did was realistic I was referring to his feats and overall methods in which he operates. I assumed (wrongly apparently) that breathing, walking, eating , etc etc were implied and that I in no way was literally saying he does nothing realistically. But I've already given you a list up above of the things that are not realistic/make him unrealistic. And how those unrealistic points have shaped the Bat-Verse and why the Bat-Females and what they do then fall into that Universes reality. The things that Batman "does" do that make him realistic are the same things that apply to the women. So obviously normal details such as scratching ones head, breathing, drinking liquid, etc shouldnt need clarification since the OP is self-explanatory and sets its sights on the specifics of physical comparison in terms of ability. Correct?

@SC said:

" To me it seems your setting things up like above. That there is no in-between values from real life, "Batman realism" which seems to be a very broad banner to you and lack of. 

lol I'm not setting anything up that drifts outside of the parameters clearly defined in the OP. Here it is again:

"Does the Bat-universe lose some degree of reality with so many females? "

What am I missing here? I believe its fairly simple and clearly defined as its own Universe with its own reality as per the OP. Sorry.

@SC said:
" I am saying the context here is put absolute realism on one side and total lack of realism is on the opposite side. There is no Batman realism, because every actions, character, moments, writer blah blah, will have a relative degree and quantity of realism or lack of. Your saying that because object B (female Bat Girls), doesn't stray away from object A (Bat Realism) nothing is being diminished. I am saying Object A is your artificial construct. I am asserting the context projected is much more complicated and organic. If a small aspect can be expanded upon? Its natural opposite is that its diminished. If realism is expanded and enhanced. Lack of realism is diminished. If lack of realism is enhanced or expanded upon, realism is diminished irrespective of whether it still falls under say someone's discretion that it fits in the tone of say Object A. I mean, of course there is no Object A here. Its fallacious to suggest that say I was not stabbed if the guy beside me was stabbed 3 times. Of course the more I discuss this with you, the more i feel your viewing it as criticism of the female characters of Gotham... maybe? As in they are only following the example Batman sets for them..? Which is a pretty oversimplified context. Diminish is not a negative word after all."
How is it "My" artificial construct when it was established in the OP by someone other then myself? You seem to have it twisted around. You've created this "Absolute Realism" in an effort to strengthen your position. While I on the other hand of consistently maintained a dialog reflective of the OP's wording and defined line of a different reality (the Bat Reality). You seem to not be following along with the concept that there are in fact two separate realities here. The real world reality and comicbook reality, IE Batman Reality. Present me with your lack of realism (I've asked this before).  I'm not viewing your posts as criticism of the Gotham ladies, cause you've yet to present any thing resembling proof that they've dimished anything regardless of what you interpret to be the opposite of advancement. Hahhaha oversimplified? The topic is simplified. Are the Bat-Girls diminish the reality/realism of the Bat-Verse? If yes show me how. Not with water jug theories or Ifs ands or buts. Just show me on panel or with actual comicbook references where this is taking place. Its that simple.

Batman's realism compared to other superheroes with actual powers is like a 7 (arbitrary number not really important just a gauge like your water jugs lol). The females through their actions help maintain that number regardless of different interpretations. It doesnt mean it diminished anything simply because it didnt enhance it, it simply means they're part of a larger realism picture and help maintain that set level of realism. Yup, diminish is not a negative word, but you've still yet to show me how exactly the females diminishes are even lessen the Bat-Verse realism.....

@SC said:
" Then you don't disagree with me, or this threads point 2 lol just swap in "Batman" for Iron Fist and a female character for Fat Cobra. A writer portraying a powered Blob next week like a powered Toad, diminishes reality. Blob moves a particular way. If the next week, someone with a intimate knowledge of how someone in real life would move if they were exactly like Blob, applied some of that knowledge to try and portray Blob a certain way. reality is enhanced. This thread is about reality enhanced. Not to try and be absolutely realistic."
Who said anything about the females being portrayed in such drastically different lights? I must have misunderstood your post. Again, why use Iron Fist as opposed to Batman in your original reference? Seems to have caused some confusion. The realism established within Iron Fists comics do not apply to those obtained within Batman's. Writers have set guide of parameters in which to depict characters their predecessors have established. A common component of all fighters in comics is dialog. What I mean by that is this, Lady Shiva is refered to continuously throughout her career/creation as one of if not thee best martial artists in the World (this is a term used for alot of characters in the bat-verse) and what it does is allow room for different writers to depict her different ways while still maintaining the established realism of not only the character, but the Universe in which they inhabit. So when someone with limited knowledge of how a body or authentic martial artists moves writes a panel, they dont need to have intricate know how in order to maintain the realism of the character. When someone with extensively more knowledge writes her it doesnt enhance reality it simply reaffirms the realism that was already established through other means or dialog.

Your last statment makes my entire point for me lol. I've been saying its about exaggerated (in your words enhanced) reality. So why then is it being compared to real life? Real life is not enhanced reality, its reality.

@SC said:
" Oh, except this. You realize not solely diminish right? Instead of thinking diminish, maybe try enhance? Or do you think nothing about the realism of these characters can be improved upon? Not should, but could, as it applies to realism?  "
No, I dont (answered this above). I think within the context of the established Bat-Verse these female characters are as real as can be. In fact their more real then the Batman ;)
Avatar image for mercy_
Mercy_

94955

Forum Posts

83653

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 15

Edited By Mercy_

O_o SC met somebody who can match his post length and effectively counter arguments? This'll be interesting.

Avatar image for entropy_aegis
entropy_aegis

21789

Forum Posts

420

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By entropy_aegis

ZOMG so many long responses for something so obvious,Batman is not realistic and never will be.It's not just the females who do all the ridiculous stuff.Deadshot and Bane are "ordinary humans" who have both fought Batman and they go around hitting targets blindfolded and ripping off people's heads with their bare hands.

Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

Edited By RazzaTazz

I think this whole argument about realism is ridiculous.  You guys are just arguing semantics.  My point is not that Batman is realistic, its that he is the most realistic.  For instance if you were looking at Star Wars you could say that Han Solo is more realistic than Darth Vader because he is not half robot nor does he have force abilities.  But from saying that my claim is not that Han Solo is realistic.  

Avatar image for entropy_aegis
entropy_aegis

21789

Forum Posts

420

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By entropy_aegis
@RazzaTazz:
Disagreed,Punisher,Bane etc are much more realistic than Batman.
Avatar image for razzatazz
RazzaTazz

11948

Forum Posts

234582

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1887

User Lists: 79

Edited By RazzaTazz


@entropy_aegis

 

Sure those are other characters meant to be portrayed as realistic, I don't disagree with that.  My original point is that the bat women are portrayed as being realistic, when in fact they are not.  It is completley conceivable that one man exists like Batman in a comic book world, but when Sasha Bordeaux throws on a costume because she was hired to protect Bruce Wayne in all his personas, thats where it starts to fall apart for me. 

Avatar image for entropy_aegis
entropy_aegis

21789

Forum Posts

420

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By entropy_aegis
@RazzaTazz: Sasha was a trained agent though.
Avatar image for the_ghostshell
The_Ghostshell

84302

Forum Posts

11204

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

Edited By The_Ghostshell

I give up lol

Avatar image for sc
SC

18454

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

Edited By SC  Moderator
@Gambler:  Oh, feel free to skip this reply, i mean, if you are out of this thread, I just remembered this thread also after I forgot for a few days! So sorry for late reply, plus I raged like a raging bull after I wrote half the reply and my computer crashed (probably because of my long reply probably lulz) so no harm or foul if you don't even choose to read this response. Up to your discretion. Plus most peoples replies are for their own sake, and I made this reply, into 4 sections. In section 4 I explain why my reply is so long, well why I made it so long if anyone else is wondering. lol and yes I needed to make sections. Section 1, is my point wrapped up as succinctly and concisely as possible. Section 2, Is more like, and not intended as "you don't know these words so I need to explain them", but more, I use these terms so much, I want to just talk about what they mean, and how and why I apply them so often. Sorta like a glossary. Section 3 is a longer form of Section 1, with some discussion on why and how I think this thread got so complicated. Section 4 is where I actually reply to you. That is the bulk of my reply, your reply was long so naturally mine will too.  

Anyway, gratuitously long my reply is, and delayed so I apology in advance regardless if you reply or even read, Like I say above, somewhere in Section 4 I explain why I wrote all this (and I am crazy and stubborn, also being factors lol)  (plus I was pretty snarkey, but only in the way a drunk bored cousin is erm?) - (so sorry if I was too snarky, but feel free to be as equally condescending and patronizing if you wish, I had fun with this, I am assuming you did with your reply and your likely good nature here if you want to reply) 

1. If I could sum up this thread in its most artificially oversimplified way, I would say to look at it like this. A thread about ways characters realism as per fighting can be improved. Female characters from the Batman family. To place focus on anything else is to not grasp the premise of the thread. Its not about whether the current standard of female bat characters depictions, the realism of them being real? Adequate, or appropriate. Nor is it trying to explain that Batman is the most realistic superhero and so these female characters need to step up. To read the words and come to alternative conclusions is understandable, but essentially misrepresents the point. Which is different from disagreeing with the point. Disagreeing is okay, but how and why are generally important. 


2. This part is really for my own benefit. Well, a lot of my replies to your points, they really repeat themselves over and over for a few reasons, and I am sure you probably know these terms, but I wanted to cover each one in their own little section, just to clarify what they are, and why I refer to them, or state, or bring them up. 

Straw Man argument - This is when you create a flawed version of an argument. You argue someone's point, but the point you argue is not the actual point of the person you are arguing, its just very similar, so similar that many complications can arise. 

Generalization/Generalized point. Generally (pun intended) they are meant to be broad enough to allow for generous subjective interpretation. Violence is bad. Cake is good. These aren't intended to be absolute facts or regarded as such. Anyone could expand or specify an aspect of either notion and delve into them to point out how either might be good in some instances or likewise bad, that violence can be exciting and therefore a source of entertainment and if two people are consenting then a little bit of physical injury, is expected and so can be good in some contexts, likewise cake being bad/negative as well. Of course its applying a specific point to a general idea, to try and criticize a general point with a specific point is sort of a flawed and disingenuous (well unless the person applying a generalized idea, statements is intending it to be absolute - like taking the life of another should always be punished by death - then applying a specific argument...) but anyway. Usually generalized points, ideas are used for one very handy and common use. Efficiency. Even raising such a generalized idea as a notion, a person doesn't even have to believe the idea, its just an tool which helps convey ideas. 

Relativity. Talking about Batman's realism is not an argument about whether he is real or not. Realism can be applied and naturally is relative. (In fiction) It can therefore be enhanced or diminished without actually indicating whether the subject discussed is or isn't real or the direct opposite. Just relatively may be described as either all. A character with no powers is more realistic than a character with no powers who is 7 foot tall and a billion dollars, is more realistic than a character who has super thick bones, super eyesight and three billion dollars is more realistic than a character that shoots cows out his eyes, that turn into diamonds with trillions of dollars and every hour their feet float off and turn into rainbows that are infinitely big. Progressive states of realism referred to here. Most of them aren't that real relative to real life peoples abilities/status from the outset. Use in stories can either enhance the realism or more likely divorce from it 

Context. Arguing who is more real between Batman and Spiderman with another, when one person is arguing from the context of powers? No powers vs fling fluid from wrists and throwing a car and a special sense, and... and the other person is arguing from the context of who is more relatable, or more common, say in life status? Its futile. Its like two people arguing whether cake is better than a crowbar, one person arguing in the context of eating, and the other person in the context of killing a Batman sidekick. Being aware of the context the person you go to argue, therefore becomes pretty important. (also relates to strawman argument) 

Objectivity/Subjectivity. Some things are more about opinion than fact, interpretation, understanding, than err fact. lol Batman's feats? Do they make him a more realistic character than Silver Surfer? In one context, granted that we accept Silver Surfer as a character, his feats could very well be considered consistent and there quite realistic, for a guy imbued with cosmic power. This could err towards subjectivity since there are a lot of factors at play here. Something like intent? Who is designed to be, by the writers as more realistic, Batman or Thor? Well intent can be like height. more objective than subjective (but context, relativity play a part here too) 


3. Okay before I get to the main bulk of text, I just wanted to throw out something else. There are various ways of disagreeing with another, but I wanted to look at two specifically, to try and identify which one you would more likely fall under, in your opinion? Is that okay? You can feel free to ask me similar or what have you. I do this because replies will keep getting longer. This is mainly because I notice you have a habit of misinterpreting very clear (at least what I consider very clear, and what I consider a misinterpretation) statements and arguments. Like if I say enhancing reality, you will change this to enhanced reality. You must know the incredibly huge difference this makes yes or no? 


So is this here, are you trying to look for possible ways to misinterpret to better present someone's argument as flawed? Instead of taking their actual argument? Or do you feel that your argument has been misrepresented as in your actually seeking that point where both sides arguments are understood genuinely and not necessarily agreed upon, but just understood? Or as how criticism has been applied to your understanding of the argument? 


Since essentially the way this discussion has risen, is that I felt you made a straw man argument. As in you misinterpreted (naturally or consciously) the point someone was making and created your own flawed argument for yourself to answer. Its incredibly easy to make a straw man argument, its very popular with.... everyone and you don't need to be smart to make one. As in I could make 5 for every sentence you post and your reply therein after. Do you understand this part? The thing about this tactic, is this gets no one anywhere. Its more about trying to either disingenuously interpret an argument as more flawed than it actually is as a defense for criticism or its about not understanding the initial argument and so applying a flawed understanding. 


4. This could be important (3.) because this could dramatically shorten the length of our replies to each other. As in by me applying criticism of your statements, was your natural reaction to try and insert criticism as a defense at the same as clarify why your criticism was valid? I am not sure if you have noticed, but most of what I have been aiming for in this discussion is clarification. Not always, but thats my main goal. Reach an understanding? It could be pretty easy to apply fallacious arguments to your statements, (and I have in earlier posts jokingly) but this would basically create a merry go round effect. So I am just curious as to what your priority here is? Clarity of positions or defense of your statements? 

I'd hate to see how long your responses to someone you didnt agree with would be ;D

Well we don't really disagree, its really more about context and applying the right one. You understanding the flaw in presenting a specific argument to a generalized point and a generalized argument to a specific point? Thats much more complicated because it means delving into the complex nature asserting an opinion or asserting an argument and how those two things interact with each other. Also touches on how people can either do two things when they come across an opinion or argument thats contrary to their own understandings. As in above, do you affirm your own perspective? Or do you deconstruct their perspective? Then there is the age old saying, Do You Smell What The Rock Is Cooking? Do you even understand the perspective genuinely or is your understanding flawed and impaired whether because of how their idea is presented or how you chose to interpret. For the record, without even touching on your ideas and stance, I am saying you are interpreting a flawed understanding, probably genuinely? I am curious if you have the ability to interpret the statements more substantially? In real life this is a general necessity really given how people communicate. The concern is that if you did apply a less flawed understanding of the (a) idea or argument that it might not be the one intended by the person that put forward the argument or idea, but thats a basic choice everyone really has. I am curious as to your understanding of this and whether you even if you don't believe the idea or argument is sound, whether you can interpret it as such, though your own critical ability? I mean naturally I could with your various arguments, but for me this is clarity of the initial idea and argument, your stance mutates that argument into something flawed and that is where we disagree right? You think you are interpreting it correctly yes, as its intent and by extension your understanding? 


In regards to whether or not he's the most realistic of ALL superheroes.

So your talking to yourself? Thats an objective statement, no one has made any assertions on this level, no specific argument, a generalized one, huge difference. So this is a misunderstanding created and perpetuated by yourself. This statement is essentially redundant (even with its extension. 

I've presented no argument Because its just opinion. I thought I clarified that early on. If you'd like a complete rundown on why I believe this here ya go.

Here you misunderstand the application of the word argument. You have asserted disagreement yes? Then you have justified your reasoning with following statements? Yes? Argument, no which argument? That is what relevant here. This is what makes me wonder if you even understand the argument or are just arguing defensively. I am well aware that you have not tried present an argument on Batman's realism, I thought i had clarified this multiple times, and clarified that I know that you weren't in that context. In fact I had thought you had realized that that argument was redundant and that you were starting to understand how no one is arguing that Batman is the most realistic superhero but how as a generalized argument its fairly sound and we definitely know that writer and writers intent emphasis realism. That realism is a running theme. Yet despite it being a redundant argument you present a large portion of your post on this... why? lol I will reply out of courtesy okay? 


Also are you under some illusion that there is an argument about Batman's realism? Like above, no one is asserting that, the argument is specifically here with you, is who do you think would be a better example, not an accurate example, as a lead in to point two? The arguments are different, but they are linked on purpose, point one aids point two, neither are inherently linked. 


Coincidentally I should add, that when I 'correct' you, its never to do with an opinion or stance you hold, but a presumption I feel you have made or an assumption you are holding, so no, I am not looking for a complete rundown. 
Is a millionaire child
Parents murdered
Spends millions if not billions of dollars to fight street-level crime with expensive gadgets and karate




So you arguing relativity as opposed to realism? No rich people have ever had children? Olsen twins are illusions? (Possibly...) 
Parents have never been murdered? 
I spend billions of dollars doing those things, you don't? =p  

You do know the differences between likelihood and realism yes? 

Unlike the other superhero characters, it is not the circumstances which are extraordinary, but the behavior of Batman that shatters our suspension of disbelief. 

So you cherry picking but don't realize you are? Introducing and projecting your own application of suspension of belief and what is more relevant? 

People’s parents get killed in real life in more dramatic circumstances than Batman’s, and yet no one’s behavior comes close to his.


Which is a generalized point. You must understand this? You must know I understand the difference? So your... being redundant? 

The thing about the suspension of disbelief is that we can accept one or two extraordinary things at a time, but if you pack them all together, or if they become too numerous, the illusion is shattered.  Batman is very guilty of this.

If your arguing if Batman is real or not, not relatively real. There is no shatter and non shatter. So again your aren't applying the correct context. 


Do you know what relativity is? I don't keep mentioning it because its my favorite word (cause its not lol) 


All characters are guilty of this to a relative degree. Let me put it this way? If I kept telling you liked to punch babies, but you told me no... you didn't, but then I said you still liked to punch babies... what would your reply be? Especially if I was being genuine with my assertion lol. Maybe that I didn't understand you? For he record i am not saying you are insisting Captain America is the most realistic superhero either, but we are arguing a point we both consider redundant point (except I don't think you understand why it was invoked right?)


1. STUNNING HANDSOMENESS - Steve Rogers has a jawbone that could chisel stuff out of Marble
2. WORLDS GREATEST PATRIOT - Steve Rogers craps stars 
3. RIGHT HOOK - Has knocked out the Hulk
4. IS FRIENDS WITH THOR - Both have blond hair
5. SENTIENT SHIELD - Self explanatory. 

With or without relativity its still holding and comparing the females to a standard that Batman was not. How can you say the Bat-Girls diminish the realism of the Bat-Universe simply because they dont/arent realistic in the Real World while not judging Batman the same way? 


What makes you think that? About the Batman standard? Did anyone assert that Batman was the most realistic? Again I think you have failed to understand the very basic idea of why he and realism was mentioned. and its not don't aren't. Realism is not a switch. Its relative. Relative. R with the E to the L, add an A, throw in a T, flip an I, swing a V, push the E Relative. There is intent with Batman, same intent applied with him and females and anything can be improved. 

Except I'm not dodging relativity or ignoring it. I've actually addressed each point in context and in kind.

Except everything with your wording demonstrates that you are not lol like above, its not "because they don't/aren't" it should be "because they don't/aren't as" as introduces relativity. Lack of doesn't. So its either ignorance or straw man arguments. 

I'm not taking about Batman dodging bullets with cover. I'm talking about Bullet "literally" dodging bullets after they've been fired

Yes, everyone understands that, but I am doing exactly what you are doing with this thread, misrepresenting your argument by applying a different context, in which your argument is now flawed. As your argument stands originally its perfectly valid and I agree. If I misunderstand it though and apply a different context... you just might end up having a very long disagreement me with me about how I am not getting what you are talking about lol

I mean, I hope you can get what i mean now right? 

Another common feat he's well known for doing (I could dig up scans if need be).

Please do! (thats a joke by the way ~ we are arguing two different things lol)

Again, I believe I've even said that Batman is more realistic then characters like Superman, and my originally Fat-Boy reference applies here as well. Just because Batman dodging bullets after they've been fired is More realistic then Silver Surfer catching them in no way means its Real Lire realistic.

So... your staying that women and children deserve to be shot? (also known as, you didn't actually say women and children deserve to be shot, you have not said that at all, but I'll just argue that they don't anyway? OR Also known as where did anyone point out that Batman is real life realistic?)

If you think that Batman is more realistic than Superman, you can buy the notion that other people might think that too right? Why do you think is one of the reasons this is? Could it be intent? (you said more, that is so awesome, cause thats relativity! If you could apply that elsewhere....)

Why do I keep saying "Real Life?" Because thats what the OP compared everything to.

No. Your understanding is incorrect. Even if they used those specific words, their applications has various contexts, Your choosing to interpret them in a way which automatically creates several flaws. Sort of like me interpreting what you said above about the women and children deserve to be shot thing, except my example was quite clearly disingenuous, you seem to have been genuine with your misunderstanding but your insistence on it being right... (even if it was, can you not see how they are other ways to interpret this?)

There was no attempt to compare or show why the Bat-Girls diminish the realism of the Bat-Verse.

Then you must not understand how the word diminish can be applied? If an aspect can be enhanced then its former state was diminished. Especially as it applied to things in fluid and dynamic motion, IE the complicated nature of reality and realism and how it pertains to fictional characters in fictional settings and all their actions and narratives and yabba dabba... oh wait yadda yadda. 

So by shown how areas could be enhanced that is showing how as aspect is diminished. Wait for it? Relatively. 

A Universe in which a normal human man can outmaneuver speeding bullets. 

Static context. So wrong context. Can a normal human in on general survive with his head ripped off by Doomsday? No magic or tech, and by normal I mean normal, and by head ripped off i mean decapitated cleanly? If so, one would be even less realistic? Guess which one? Reality would be diminished even further. Except I have not seen that happen yet. So on the relative scale of things, a norman human man dodging bullets diminishes reality, but not by much, and in some contexts it could be considered on the more realistic side of things (more realistic does not mean real by the way just to make sure thats clear)

On e could even argue that in a comicbook sense its more realistic for Surfer to catch bullets then it is for Batman to dodge them

No its not. No being over 5 would call them self the Surfer especially if they carried one around. At least you are applying relativity here though. 

At least Surfer has powers and abilities which allow the reader the luxury of Suspension of Disbelief. But Batman is a normal dude doing superhuman things. How is that realistic? 

 What? Batman is not normal, he's the Goddamn Batman =D



If Batman was dodging planets... reality would be diminished relativity more so than if he dodged bullets. So if a writer took the bullet dodging Batman and had those planets hitting each other and exploding and killing all normal humans Batman included (with out ways he might survive) BUT... Batman did a back flip off the planet, held his breath, landed on the moon...? If a writer took that Batman, and only had him die there instead of backflip? OR just had Batman dodge bullets instead, he hasn't made Batman real or realistic absolute context. He did objectively enhance Batman and the character's realism, in that specific context, action. So the former's reality in that context was diminished. 

Nah, you dont even have to view it in absolute terms. 

I am saying you are with your applied points and use of words. 

The terms of Batman's reality and its characters are already set.

No. Unless your applying some narrative context, in which again you misunderstanding the point. 

These female characters Dont fight like their male counterparts

Batman is not a women. He is a man (in order words who said they were? So why state the obvious and therefore redundant, unless you think that someone has made that argument?)

dont go from realistic to unrealistic with different writers

Sure they can. Depends on what your criteria is. Yours sounds overtly simple and overgeneralized. What's more realistic for a comic character? Standing and talking? Or dodging bullets? Both can happen in a comic and each action can be gauged. 

These female characters are well defined, no absolute, but nothing in comics is.

You just tried applying an absolute lol (with above)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting like men."

If you don't, then why are you being so insistent with your answers and asserting your following statements? 

There are lots of real life ladies who fight like men within their contained sport of MMA.

You definitely don't know what I mean lol 

That doesnt diminish reality in real life, why would it in the Bat-Verse?

Of course given your understanding. You are asserting a pretty generalized understanding. Think more specific. Can the smallest (or weakest) female professional fighter, lift as much weight as the biggest (or strongest) male professional fighter? ((Also note, this isn't the argument as it pertains to the comics, this is a hyper exaggerated example to try and explain the point to you))


I mean, potentially if she did, it wouldn't diminish reality it would become reality. Lets say she doesn't though? Will reality have been broken because to paraphrase 

There are lots of real life ladies who can lift as much weight as men


This is true, generally. I know girls at gyms who lift more than lots of guys. Just because they can generally doesn't mean they all can absolutely, and not more or less, but the exact same amount. Its an obviously fallacious argument. 


Lets take your statement 

There are lots of real life ladies who fight like men within their contained sport of MMA

And would you agree that there are lots of real life men who fight differently to each other? Of course (I hope you don't mind me answering for you) If we apply specifics, we can tell that Fedor fights very differently to Bob Sapp. Now if we had two comics that had those two characters in it, as comic characters? One comic was by Greg Land, and he traced over video screen shots of Fedor vs Sapp. and another was by a 10 year old who had never been in a fight, seen a fight or a even hell, its my hypothetical, people. Besides the guy who brings him food. Lets call him Danny Devito. Same characters, different level of realism. Neither obviously in a strict sense is reality (2-D characters) one would show a difference in style between Fedor and Sapp that would be realistic ((not real))  (because it was directly referencing reality) one other could be deemed realistic? Two guys fighting each other? The 10 year old might have Fedor and Sapp the same height? Not realistic, but some people in real life are close in height. If he has a character punch another, well thats realistic as in that sole action. If it was bob Sapp and he knocked out Fedor = Unrealistic (lol) But only relatively so, since Fedor should win. Its not impossible he can't be knocked out.. So we just got pretty heavy their with specifics. 


Were they not? But for the sake of argument lets say we're talking about average everyday people. If you poll 1000 randoms off the street then I'm willing to bet you'll get a mixed bag of answers based not on actual knowledge of characters and how their represented in comics,



No. And for your argument you are still inserting your own criteria. You realize this? So you aren't saying for the sake of the argument, your saying for the sake of the argument BUT... then altering the argument again. 

Its speculation on my part.


Their part too. Pretty solid speculation though, you can't even mention names for example? See if you threw out some suggestions I could tear into them as to why Batman is a better example. Not because Batman is the most realistic superhero, but because not many superhero characters are, Batman is one of the, if not the most famous, and we know intent is there by writers and he neatly ties into Gotham. So speculation, all round. Now who do you think is a better example? Can't be Cap. He knocks out Super Dragons and Dat Jaw (but more candidly, Caps a pretty good choice, especially with his movie out soon, I mean Barry Bonds factor too) 

However go back and glance at the OP and see if you feel its addressing/in regards to fans, or random people.




Its okay, eidetic memory. *taps forehead* Owwhl why did I tap my head so hard!!!!!!!!! I know and stand firm. lol ^_^

Hahaha again, this wasn't my argument.


ar·gu·ment


1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views


2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong


"Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes"


"I believe if we took a poll of comicfans (again, stated in the OP) the majority would say Cap is more realistic then Batman"



I know its not your personalized argument obv' I am still explaining it as a flawed argument. I was applying as it relates to this specifically. 

Comicfans were mentioned in the OP

So you gathered the comic fans part elsewhere somewhere in the blog, and applied it to the part that is most relevant? You don't see how that creates a situation where you are assuming quite precariously? You know that saying about assume right? As Su Me. Chinese Proverb. 


"If a man goes fishing in the words, and that man catches a fish, that man is either very good, or he is making up stories to tell his friends" 

Its not even important to my actual argument (I'm repeating myself here lol). 


Yet you keep bringing it up... lol It does play into one of my arguments, and thats the one where I am saying you are not understanding the original or initial argument, you are not interpreting it as intended and so inserting your own flawed arguments which no (exaggeration) person would ever make. Its okay, I am repeating myself too ;)

But you're response is flawed in the sense that one is opinion while the other is making a direct statement. 

Its flawed because you either don't understand or you do, but like these long chats and hey... I do, so I won't blame you for that. Just as time goes on I will sound more and more repetitive. 

By whom?


People. I know some that think Batman is. I find it very possible that if 1000 random people were asked who is the most realistic superhero Batman would the one. Lets say I didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if I turned out to be wrong. Who are some other examples I could think of, contenders in this generalized census. Punisher? Maybe not well known enough... Captain America? Maybe... Kickass is a type of reality many people i could see viewing and interpreting as making that character more realistic... not sure if he is that well known... you change the whom by the way, you change the answer. Of course identifying the whom the OP means is most important, because its their idea and argument. Under some applications. If the whom was say people from my country Maui might be the right answer. It probably won't be the right answer but for someone in France it could be Tin Tin. Depends on how you interpret whom and if you are following the point being made, or making your own. In which cause the answer could be a lot of things. Depending on your criteria and the criteria of the "whom"


Where did this piece of data come from?

 
Me a few posts ago. 

Its a notion.



Your reply 

I understand its a notion


Do you understand though? Now your not only misinterpreting and misunderstanding the OP, but you are disagreeing with yourself!!!!?!?!?! (above two places) I was very specific to you the other day, that I would defend you in threads *points* So hence I will.... don't you go disagreeing with Gambler now... lol


Notion and date are very different things for a reason. 

Is it opinion or fact?

What rhymes with ocean? And what rhymes with... 


M _ T I _ : Hi... could i buy a vowel? An O. 


PS . Its not Locomotion. 

Assumption based on a few blogs and comments here and there or is there a survey someone that substantiates it?

No. 

Again though, my argument isnt that Cap is more realistic then Batman. I've repeatedly stated that my own stance is that there's no such thing as a realistic superhero.

You know I know? Question? Your arguments are easy to grasp. You realize no one is arguing that you are saying Cap is. There is an argument that without you providing an alternative (a good alternative) you are failing to understand why an example of a widely considered realistic (relative use of the term) was used. You own stance is your own. Writers have been pretty specific that realism is a tool of writing. Some characters use it more than others, some characters its a selling point even. All this neutralizes your stance as subjective and applicable to individuals but not the vice versa, Batman is a more realistic superhero to me than Abomination. I could assert that with facts in multiple contexts. Would you like me to? Its fairly easy. I would assume that you would not disagree because for me to think you would disagree would be a straw man argument. Since your context does make sense in its own limited way. I understand what you mean. I set out a different criteria and alter wording, as to make what I said compatible with what you said. Now next go, lets see if you can do the same? Yeah? No? This would be a straw man argument? 


"SC, Batman dodges bullets, Abomination is not a real superhero and Batman isn't a real superhero. They are not real. Not real = real. You said real you can only mean this in static reference" 


Okay now see how that argument is flawed? 

Compared to other characters some are more realistic then others, but when compared to real life, like in the OP

No. Not like the OP. Thats you misunderstanding again lol No one is comparing this to real life lol. Are you comparing this to Jerry Springer? I think you are, I mean, if i pretended you were, it would make this discussion way easy for me. Who cares about candidness right? In fact I spoke to the OP, and they are quite clear and clarified to me what they meant, and like I assumed off the bat they weren't speaking of the limited absolute application. 


So the question here simply is, do you know you created a straw man argument? Or you accidentally applied a straw man argument? It can pretty much only be those two things? 


For the record, I hope you realize I have applied several straw man arguments against you....? Still like my outline at the top, my goal is still more about clarification. 

none of em stand up and all defeat their own attempt at realism

Of course, they are characters. lol They can't do jack with out a penciler. 

Which is the entire point I've been trying to stress

I know. I always have, I am your father, Okay two out of three is not bad. 


I know your point. Now if I said my entire point was - Gambler Shooting innocent women and children is wrong? What would your reply be? lol


One possible reply could be that my statement lacks relevancy and doesn't have any bearing on your statements. Its probably I have misunderstood your point and that I have misrepresented it? AKA What I am telling you what you have done. 

I do enjoy your witty representations of weak arguments though ;P

Thanks! Sorry if I sound overly snarky or condescending. I like to pretend i am Emma Frost in longer than usual disagreements. I have taken the liberty of removing all her idiosyncrasies. I mean its weird enough i am wearing a white leather bra without calling people darhling right? 


0_0


Your arguments aren't weak either, they are just misapplied. They are either redundant or lacking relevancy. Now your arguments against what I just said there? They might be weak, because you'll be applying a fallacious argument appealing to false authority. As in the OP. Like where you bolded their name. its funny because you attribute a flawed argument towards them, where as I applied an argument that is valid. I could have applied a flawed argument, but my natural reaction, my genuine reaction was to understand it in a way I think is valid. You could do this to, seeing as I think you are being genuine, you would call this a devils advocate position. 


You should try it? Want to try it? Won't take long. Can you apply a devils advocate argument here? 


The women breath and talk as well, so they have that realistic aspect working for em. When I say nothing Batman does is realistic I mean in terms of feats that define what is and isnt realistic within the set realm of the Bat-Verse reality.



So you mean you ignore the OP and invent your own criteria? You realize I could do that with your statements right? That would make me a bad man though. Naught. Not very nice. Insincere. 


Sure he breaths and talks, he also rips car roofs off with his barehands 



Wow, impressive. I bet he has breakfast in the morning. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. lol


Okay I am going to skip all your next parts, because the principle of ignoring the OP to definite and establish your own criteria of the definitions of realism are here. By doing that you void any criticism of their use and application, which is okay, its just pointless disagreeing with someone when you change the nature of the game. Its like if i started typing gibberish but then said that you were wrong for not having telepathy and getting the altered meaning I assigned to my gibberish. 


Alternatively, if you can't grasp the idea and argument of someone else (and I believe you tried sincerely) then what is the use of applying sincerity to your arguments which I would otherwise agree with, but could apply strawman arguments to as a defensive measure. After all many of what you write . 

Parents murdered in front of him

See I agree with that. Who would disagree? 


I'll pick up on new points though like... 


You've yet to address who, why, when, etc this actually happens



General point was applied, plus i believe...  ah here 


"Realism can be defined because we have two points, which explains the use of part one but not necessarily its intent to be accurate. One doesn't need to define Batman's realism, just put forward another aspect which shows whether something can be improved or diminished. If I have a jug of water, I don't know how big the first jug is, I don't need to know how much water is in that jug, if I see a bigger jug with more water in it. I don't need to know the first jugs value to assert the second jug is bigger. If Jug A is Batman, and Jug B is Realism, and Jug B is poured into Jug A? Jug A is enhanced. Alternatively Pouring Jug A into Jug B, can diminish reality. Cassandra Cain starts shooting out sentient solar systems out her nose each time she says Floozy Floo. Tipping from Jug A into Jug B. Cass by intent, being more evasive and using her weight to enhance her striking as opposed to as using her mass bulk weight to just try and overpower someone like Blob might? Pour some of B into A."


Its being addressed you either don't understand or do, but choose to ignore. 

The OP fails to examine when, where, how, this happens

No, they do, you just don't understand when, where, and how, (because there is no when, where and how, its a general argument, not a specific argument) so you applied a different and flawed context. 

Instead you seem focused on the fact that I dont believe the overriding perception of Batman is that he's the most realistic superhero

Focused on that? What are these? 


"Can realism be gained? One question? Not rhetorical? Now if realism can be gained and you understand that? Surely you understand that by that virtue lack of improvement = lost. No one i saying that realism is totally destroyed. Again, relativity. So not "losing realism" "loses realism" some examples might add a little, or take more, or so on. Fluid. 


No lol, Ironically your first argument works against your second point. if Batman's realism can be improved, then application of certain aspects would enhance realism, by default show how previously aspects were diminishing. Alternatively you could swap a few words around. One could say various aspects about female gotham characters, enhance the realism of Batman. Depends on the context. 

Realism can be defined because we have two points, which explains the use of part one but not necessarily its intent to be accurate. One doesn't need to define Batman's realism, just put forward another aspect which shows whether something can be improved or diminished. If I have a jug of water, I don't know how big the first jug is, I don't need to know how much water is in that jug, if I see a bigger jug with more water in it. I don't need to know the first jugs value to assert the second jug is bigger. If Jug A is Batman, and Jug B is Realism, and Jug B is poured into Jug A? Jug A is enhanced. Alternatively Pouring Jug A into Jug B, can diminish reality. Cassandra Cain starts shooting out sentient solar systems out her nose each time she says Floozy Floo. Tipping from Jug A into Jug B. Cass by intent, being more evasive and using her weight to enhance her striking as opposed to as using her mass bulk weight to just try and overpower someone like Blob might? Pour some of B into A."



Arguments are not made by length. This is not a who writes the most competition. 

So I'll agree that Batman is the most realistic superhero or perceived as such simply so we can focus on the main point :)"

No, relatively. You don't have to agree thats the default we have established. No alternative has been given that is credible. Only misapplication of arguments has been applied by you so forth. In other words you are offering the same counter points as someone who doesn't understand the argument by disagrees out of defensiveness, boredom or misunderstanding, 

You're merging arguments again. The thread is about how the Women of the Bat-Verse are diminishing said Universe. Agree?

No. Its not that static as your words could potentially apply with such a broad open ended statement. This thread asserts realism as an important factor with Batman. I would guess intent. Actually I don't need to guess, at this stage I know. We know that writers use realism as a tool with Batman, its not the most important factor, nor is their attempt to make Batman real. Just relative realism. Batman won't be catching machine gun bullets with his teeth and hands. Then from that looking at some of his supporting characters, the females, and how there might be a disparity there with intent and emphasis on realism. Not absolute realism. Relative realism. Can Batman's realism, that aspect of the character be improved? You think he unrealistically dodges bullets? So I would consider you would agree potentially that aspect of the character could be improved? Same applies with the female characters. Except this thread asserts that relative to the emphasis on Batman's realism, (which to clarify unless you don't get it yet isn't intended as absolute) is more than it is for some of the females. So its diminished generally. Other aspects could be focused on as well, whether they have an enhancing effect or a diminishing effect. Plus as far as generalizations, some female specific will aid or enhance realism, others will diminish. 


So I can't agree here. Your statement is so broad the opportunity for massive misinterpretation is rife as then demonstrated by you again lol 

The polling people question was something brought forth by you in response to my opinion about Batman not being the most realistic of all superheroes. So how exactly would polling random people off the street be relative?

The random people part of course. 1000 random people one day, could give a different answer to a 1000 random people the next day and the day after. The answer depends on the people polled. Comprendre?

Are these the same people the author of the OP had in mind when making the statement that Batman is widely considered to be the most realistic of ALL superheroes?


Notion. Presumably. "Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes" not "Batman is known as the most realistic of all super-heroes" 

If so wouldn't said people need to have knowledge of ALL superheroes (or at least extensive knowledge of a large base) in which to compare him to?

Of course not. People have opinions and knowledge they will apply without knowing everything about a subject. Look at you and your understanding of this thread? You felt you have enough info to disagree with statements, I know factually your knowledge of the OP is lacking compared to mine, I could pose the same question to you "Wouldn't you need to have a knowledge of what the OP is asserting to which to agree or disagree with them?" Your answer suggests you think you have enough. Peoples answers would suggest they feel they would have enough. 


Its logical to think that some people will say that don't know if asked a question about the most realistic superhero otherwise they would just go with what they do know, which is generally accepted by all people. Its just an informal street poll. What do they have to lose from being wrong? Same applies to our discussion here lol 


Relatable and realism are two different things. I thought you agreed this was redundant? *shrugs* 


Spider-man 
- Made a deal with a being considered by many as the devil. A being as powerful as the devil. 
- Has ripped a woman's face off. 
- Married a supermodel 
- Is friends with the guy that invented Beer. 


Batman 
- Has no powers
- Looks good in black. 
- Likes to dress up kinky at night. 
- Likes making lists. 


*shrugs* To borrow you line, I am not making this argument. I would not be shocked if Spider-man won this poll. I would not be shocked if Batman did. Spider-man's ability to be relatable is an aspect emphasized with the character, doesn't necessarily mean he is the most relatable superhero.Of course a person who knows anything about the character could apply the idea that writers emphasis on making Spider-man more relatively relatable than his supporting characters... hmmm, sounds familiar. 

Huh? My argument is about how the Women of the Bat-Verse

1. Know its not? Your arguing about whether Oreo milkshakes are delicious or racist? Or aka I know, its just a misapplied argument. 

lol I've typed this out a couple times already :P 

I know, so have I =p------------? (a question mark is hanging out my mouth... strange right....)

There is no right or wrong answer which we've already established so we're going around in circles.


There is a right or wrong interpretation. An opinion can't be wrong by virtue of being an opinion. A justification of an opinion can be. No one is strictly saying there is a right answer. However your understanding... 

 So no, I dont get what you mean lol

You have perceived that you have understood an argument and idea. With that, you assert how the original idea and argument is non compatible with your views for various reasons. Could be argument, but you seem to misinterpret what is meant there so I'll have to be careful. Of course if you misunderstood the original idea you can't build an argument or disagreement from there, so you have reverse engineered the argument making the original point flawed so your criticism still stands. The same criticism I applied criticism to by pointing out how you... misunderstood the context. You seem to be drawing a lot of bizarre flawed arguments really. Its quite inspiring. If your genuine of course. 

What fans? Sports fans? Nascar Fans? Or Comicbook fans lol.

Fans of the characters. You don't have to be fans of comics to be fans of comic book characters. My sister was a fan of Batman and Elektra before she could read. So beside your first question. No. No. Non. 

because its already implied no?

no. 

Not to sound rude, but if anyone is tailoring the discussion to fit their own assumptions it seems like you are...



Thats okay, you don't. but alternatively, I am not the one here trying to assert an argument, more clarify. I don't need to tailor the discussion. You need to. My assumptions aren't even assumptions at this point. 

You seem really defensive about the OP's position, not sure why.

I am "defensive" about flawed arguments. Especially straw man arguments. Among many fallacious arguments. These arguments can be pretty cool things to recognize because they are applied everywhere with far far more important reasons and discussions than Batman. They are applied to racism, sexism, poverty, gender identity, war, love, everything. Hence I enjoy, I really enjoy when two people disagree why and how. 


I find the OP's position very, easy to understand. The fact the I find you have misinterpreted it, not disagreed with it, but misinterpreted it? Fascinating. Disagreeing is okay. Healthy. Encouraged. People are different, not everyone should agree all the time. Not knowing why and how you disagree with someone? Thats more complicated. Communication as it applies to real life is very important. 


You know why now? 

If my responses seem attackish then thats my bad.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. Well, I don;t think they were attackish, most importantly by intent. I think you are applying straw man attack though which is often used as an attack. In politics usually lol So totally not your bad. I worry my replies are way to snarky but if I took the time to be less blunt well... does CV have a word limit? 0_0

But the questions was asked correct?

Some. 

So when the author presents his/her opinion and then does little to support said opinion stance with actual references they're left open for attack.

There was enough to support definition of stance. So people could get the idea, and this is not the first time people have disagreed or challenged statements. Notice how I did not attempt to clarify with those posts though? Milage will vary though too. ALL stances are open to straw man arguments and attacks, and I am asserting that is what is happening here with your initial post. That evolved into an argument of semantics though, most likely to your candidness and genuineness. (so my almost patronizing tone with pointing out differences and clarifying context as in the intended contexts, which contexts make more sense, regardless of a persons stance (do if you applied a devils advocate stance etc)

Otherwise I've given you several points as to why the females of the Bat-Verse do not diminish the realism of that Universe. 

Except you don't because you don't understand the application of the term diminish and how its being applied. Why have you answered like hardly any of my questions lol They are not rhetorical. The females of Bat-verse do not diminish the realism in ALL contexts. It works both ways. No one is asserting they diminish them in ways you suggest because we don't know, we aren't applying specifics, some, but not as specifically as you (I have read on)

There are actually a couple examples of your meshing/merging the two separate points:

Where its relevant naturally. I have applied the points in multiple contexts as intended. This is one blog not two. 

 I'm not saying Cap is more realistic at all. 

I know lol, I am applying a straw man argument with this particular statement you reply to. 


I was hoping your would understand this because I criticize my own paragraph "except I recognize the context you could apply to support your assertion, so nothing you say is particularly misleading at all" 


I state I recognize your not saying Cap is more realistic and that you just nominated him as a potential candidate earlier on in the thread, lol lol So I am not merging the argument at all. I criticize your ability to understand arguments and application of arguments. How could you ignore that I make a statement then state how its flawed? This makes me think you are not actually thinking about this argument consciously by reading each line or sentence or statement and then defending your argument without even realizing what you are defending. Ironically I just used an argument you have been using on you... but then I criticized myself, but you didn't realized I criticized my own argument lol 

There are a couple more sentences that seem to take responses/explanations I used for why 



Are ya sure you understood them? 

I find it an important distinction though. Fan in on itself may be a broad word but in the context of the OP is not well defined? 

Of course it is. So where do you ask the OP? In the context of the OP you and me clearly disagree. Given the OP has just clarified we are having an argument of semantics? We either both misunderstand, or you misunderstand. 

Fan =  an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of (insert genre here). This is important because it clearly defines who the author is referring to in regards to "Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all superheroes." Not by some random people off the street, but by people with actual knowledge of Batman/Comics.

I hope your grammar isn't that bad... you realize that comma separates admirer right? So a fan can clearly be defined as someone who just admires something but they do absolutely not have to have actual knowledge of Batman/Comics. I am a fan... of Pan Arabic Pop Music. Was on a World Radio Show about 6 years ago. loved it, I know almost nothing about it. Name of the song? Lyrics? Who sung the song? When it was sung? What its considered Pan Arabic Pop? I am a fan though, and technically so. As clearly defined. So you are shooting your own argument in the foot. Also sorta speaks of your ability to discern the finer details in arguments at this level. The semantics level. Where word definitions are kings and small twists change entire arguments. *Law and Order music starts playing*


Yikes, 4 am? Can I stop there? Anyway You just disagreed with the your own dictionary definition lol 

No. I believe (in all honesty) that the fighting and physical displays of the Female Bat-Characters is perfected tailored and accurate for the Universe in which they inhabit. 

So do I, but that does not answer the question, Your answer introduces two different concepts. Accuracy and particularity. Which is different from accuracy and realism. Key emphasis on realism. Did you not criticize Batman for his ability to dodge bullets? That can be improved. Nothing about any interpretation or display from Female Bat-Girls could be improved with regards to realism? Forget the larger argument. I want so Haha like Nelson if you think it can be obviously improved (it might be at the expense of the entertainment value for example) this is more of a matter of clarity. 

and I invite you to show me where they could

Has more than one artist ever drawn the character? Any female character? Visual discrepancy. In real life people generally don't start looking as dramatically different as comic book characters can and usually do. So if there was one very good artist who specialized in consistency and ultra realism, they would dramatically enhance the visual consistency of any character, Bat Females included this enhancing their realism. In this case, I would wager the entertainment value of the character would be dramatically diminished. I could do this 100 times over. I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you couldn't. Its pretty easy. (fights are visual obviously by the way  if I have to clarify that and it applies to all characters, but intent varies. Thor and Mojo fight isn't intended to be as accurate in the same way Cass Cain and Batman is)  I could get more specific too but OP already does. 


The author asks (and answers) the question, do the female characters of the Bat-Verse project a loss of reality (as it pertains to the Bat-Universe, that is an important distinction made there).


I am not sure you understand the intent and relativity angle yet, Not that Batman is realistic but why. After all he is not real, he doesn't get to decide. So its an important distinction by are you applying loss of reality as in relatively or absolutely like you indicate (with the words you use in many places) in all of above? Essentially do you understand why its an important distinction? 

Because he/she then goes on to compare/attempt to solidify their position by comparing these Bat-Verse females and their abilities to real life females, when the distinction/classification was already established.

Not solidify their position. Gives examples of ways things could improve generally. They could mention ways it could be diminished as well, now this is important since this is a mirror argument? Do you think reality can be diminished? If it can it obviously can be improved. Understand how your premise is flawed yet? 

Hahaha well of course, you seem to have only responded to half of what I posted and centered on conjecture and whether or not Batman's realism to the fans can be proven ;P


i think you'll find  I have been very thorough. 

You arent presented any examples though correct?

You know the fallacy of applying a generalized argument to a specific point and vice versa right? 

 Not that I even subsribe to the notion that Lack of Improvement means lost. That makes no sense at all

Because your understanding is oversimplified. Ignorance is not an argument. I mean, what if I just said all your words make no sense? I am right? Can I finish now? Your words make no sense I am right? Uh, but then dammit logic, you can do the same to me, and say I make no sense and you are right and then we can go back and forward. OR... *points above* I can do all that. I am a bit tired now though, so I'll try and wrap up. 

If you have $100 dollars on Tuesday and wake up on Wednesday and still have $100 dollars does that equal loss?

Static context vs fluid context. Does the plot of Batman repeat each issue, or does it stay the same? If you buy a 10 dollar burger on Tuesday night, then the next day wake up with $100 dollars then yes, that equals loss. If you don't have the burger no loss. Is Batman standing still every issue? Standing is pretty realistic but even then, Batman should be able to stand straight than Huntress lol so even her trying to be as realistic as possible by performing a realistic action risks diminishing aspects of realism lol, then again moving might enhance it, Further more on Thursday I wake up with extra $500 dollars weird huh? Enhancement? Does that equal lack of enhancement? 

If the Bat-Verse ladies do nothing to improve the reality, but also do nothing to negatively affect it,


No, they can do both potentially. You misunderstand again. (again)

How does a female character with an established martial arts track record fighting men (with an exagreted extension of how a real life woman with the same or similar skill sets) lose a degree of reality for a Universe in which dead people come back to life and normal human react faster then bullets? 

Intent is one easy way. You just applied a generalization and will now go on to compare it with specifics lol Except your lack of understanding of fallacious arguments means you think there is no inconsistency. 


Okay your scans.

Which fight is more realistic? A fight between two normal females? Or Batman vs a superhuman Crocman? Which one would you say does more to Improve the Reality of the Bat-Verse and which one does more to take away from it?

Depends is the short answer. I could write a few pages despite this being a specific argument compared to a generalized point. So let me ask you questions since you still don't understand how reality is applied to Batman in the specified context *points above* 


What are sound effects? 
What are word bubbles? 
Why does Lady Shiva have four arms in one panel?
Then why does she have only two in the next?
What is the intent of each of above? 

Is what she's doing causing the Bat-Verse to lose a degree of its realism?



Depends what context do you mean? Do I need to say it again? Yeah, your applying the wrong context again. Its like you only perceive one context and thats the one that makes sense to you. I'll try one more time. 

See Huntresses first kick? The emphasis by intent is going to be a combination of aesthetics, cheesecake, realism, movement, dynamic/motioning, narrative progression, action, lots more as well. You can change things. All those aspects can be downplayed or amplified by degrees. Some of them can be eliminated completely, some can be diminished, some of these could happen independently of each other, others will alter another aspect. Depends. All of above being altered can reduce those things as factors relatively. Add subjectivity, relativity and realism lost, by a degree or added by a degree, can be improved and diminished. (an easier more objective trait to observe could be cheesecake. Add a matt no latex material = less, diminish shorts to a thong = more. Does what she is doing cause the Bat-verse to lose a degree of its cheesecakeness? Potentially and potentially the other way depending on what you compare it to. Generally a hypothetical comparison with the hypothetical example being matt black pants, then no, the actual example does a good job at maintaining cheesecake levels lol 

Pretty unrealistic when compared to real life

Pretty realistic compared to what it could have been. 

She takes a nasty blow to the back of the head but is it unrealistic for her to recover?

If she increased her mass by about 300 pounds? 

 I'd yes when compared to real life

Of course if you compared to real life, but if you compared it to what's possible on both sides of the fictional comic book spectrum? 

the manner in which she quickly recovers and kicks ass is unrealistic.

Yes strangely its more realistic than if she shattered into ice reformed inside the other peoples head and kicked ass that way? 

But is it in the Bat-Verse? Is what she's doing causing the Bat-Verse to lose a degree of its realism? 

So to you everything in the batverse is and always will be identical? 

Armed with a Kryptonite ring he makes Superman look like a kindergartner.

Sure, but its the Bat-verse right? 

True, Superman has a known weakness to Kryptonite, but any Superman fan will tell you that it doesnt immediately cause him to become Joe the Average Numskull.


Out of the Batverse, but inside the Bat-verse... 

Superman can achieve instantaneous speeds that Batman would not be able to react to regardless of the ring.

I am sure he could grab two tons of hubba bubba and blow the worlds biggest bubble and then eye laser it to look like Kim Kardashian, of course capability and actuality... in the Bat-verse! 

But behind all that, which is the more realistic battle? Huntress defeating a hand full of grown men, or Batman fighting a defeating an Alien from another Galaxy/World? 

In the Bat-verse? They are both as real as each other. Away from the Bat-verse? Neither, since they are 2D,m they defy reality? I think I understand what you are saying now... 

Normal Humans, Aliens...which does more to improve the realism of the Bat-Verse?

Aha! Trick question... is the answer... Stephen Fry standing in Alan Carr's Garden? 

The OP clearly implies that there's a certain set perception of the Bat-Verses realism

No. Take out the set and ah, there you have it. No set, fluid relative perception. What's with the clearly part? Can anyone add clearly to help aid a point? You clearly owe me a dozen beers. *waits* 

It only works against my argument if misrepresented in a distorted context.

Who would do such a thing! =D

and that because of the females unrealistic actions that they are taking away degrees of said realism. But neither one of you have shown how this is actually happen or if it even is.

Sure, I have lots, so have you but with Batman lol and not the Batverse realism, just general realism. We know intent is there valuing realism but its application can be uneven. 

Which is what I'm debating.


To yourself. 

The lack of Batman's own realism within his own set reality does not then mean the women by default are also accountable for the diminishing realism.


Batman's realism is not fixed. No one is also saying the women are accountable for maintaining it. Its R.E.S.P.E.C.T... oh no wait sorry, its R.E.L.A.T.IV.E, no wait, is it give it to me, or suck it to me? I have not watched Blues Brothers in aaaaaages! 

You both seem to be under the assumption that there was ever a degree of realism to lose

Not quite. You both (you and that guy over there in the corner) seem to be under the assumption that we are under the assumption that there was ever a degree of realism to lose, where as we are looking much, much closer and applying a scale of degree to realism and how it is injected into the various characters and actions. 

it appears that the females are the only ones improving any semblance of realism

Indeed, so if there was a little scale, that measured the instances of improved realism, the scale would be pushed along gently, and still have room to be pushed along. Now if Huntress caught a nuke with her teeth whilst doing a backflip then little scale would go the other direction. Cool eh? Of course obvious way more panels happen, and in various contexts so there are many more little scales going back and forward like crazy. 
No Powers
Human (not a mutant, robot, experiment, etc)
Lives in a ordinary city (Gotham). By that I mean its not a floating Island, its not someother Planet, etc.
He bleeds, sleeps, eats, etc (does the things that ordinary real life people do more or less like breating ;)
Also he has 2 arms, instead of 87 
He had parents
Thought Sanjaya looked stupid. 
Breating? Is that like breasting? =p

Of course there are more but you get my point yes?

Wait a minute... is that your point? Are you sure? I thought that was Batman's point? Isn't that everyones point? Are you claiming you recognized these traits first as being a part of Batman? No I kid, but you get my point? 

These same bulletpoints apply to the women of the Bat-Verse

Batman has male genitalia as well. Does this bullet point apply to the women as well? Surely you are not arguing... this is a weak induction. Oh I get your point you are trying to make, but see what happens when someone tries to circumvent your general argument by applying a specific counter point thats more specific? So your broader argument, these things can be considered a strong induction. So do I still have to point out how you applied a more specific argument for a broader point sort of missing the point sort of how I just missed your point, with above? 

Again, you keep resorting/returning to real life explanations when comicbook refrenses is whats called for here


Thats because I actually understood the intended context lol I don't disagree with your context, but its not the one applied. 

How else would one determine something is taking away from another if we dont first establish a level or point in which to point to?

By understanding what improve and diminish means, then taking a point, whether it be fixed, floating, dynamic or fluid, or variable and applying those two previous words. We could do it your way too, we could do it lots of ways. 

How can you say the females are taking away the Bat-Verse realism if the level of Batman's realism is never established in the first place?

Sure it was. (established) Almost everyone else in the thread seemed too, even the ones that disagreed or applied criticism to the examples, you just assumed a more objective fixed point for some reason?!?! 

Sorry dude, but your Jug of Water/point here holds no water at all

Thats because you don't understand, sorry dude. 

Do you notice your sentence is filled with "If?" If this and if that?

Indeed. I like the I looks like it is sneaking up on the F. 

Well, that and I am applying a different context to you. 

We dont need the ifs

We choose ifs. We aren't looking for solid answers. 

We have on panel documentation and resources. 

Those might give limited solid answers, but essentially they'll be flawed in only this context, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What could happen on panel, but doesn't is infinitely greater in scope that what does happen. Somewhere in that infinity is a finer tuned realism as well as the opposite. So again, we choose the ifs, for its a much more complicated, but rewarding journey. You a big Richard 

Show me were the female Bat-Verse women's feat have emptied Jug A of Bat-Verse realism

Emptied? No, your arguing emptied. I see emptied as impossible almost. Pour. Relativity. No absolutes. What is the most unrealistic thing you can think of? Are you sure it will be? Bob Marley riding a red, green, and black dragon into Jimmi Hendrix's afro where it explodes into a new type of energy drink... wait... that should be a crime to not be a tiny bit possible... 

Show me were any of the normal human Bat-Verse girls suddenly go from human to solar system busting snot bubbles or even the potential of such a move



Human and Normal and Real 
Human and Normal and Real 



 Solar System Busting Snot Bubble
 Solar System Busting Snot Bubble


If you're argument is now that the women are Enhancing the Reality/Realism of the Bat-Verse then arent you creating a separate topic? I


No, that would be you understanding the original intent just worded differently after being expanded upon so you understand. Also that would always have been the argument, not "now"

 Its not one or the other.

Its relative. Its both. When you drink out of a jug, if you have more of the contents inside you? Is the same amount in the jug? Or less? 

What is considered realistic in the Bat-Verse has been established over years of comicbook continuity.


By who? You assume again. Its relative. 

There's room from the female's to achieve certain feats without going over (taking away realism) or going under (adding realism).


Under your understanding, which is static. For others, each action can do both to various degrees. 

Show me otherwise with actual Bat-Verse female feats and I'll concede. 

You can just look at your own examples. Except don't think feats. "Feats" is the VS boards style thinking most ignorant understanding of reality and argumentation. Think like a scientist. Oh you don't have to concede, you are yet to understand. 

Captain America is also slated as being a master of all forms of hand to hand combat ;) 

Actually if you talk to any of the writers that write the handbook's they'll explain virtually all known conventional styles (actually I think he might have been downgraded?!?!) but thats what 7 is. So Marvel has some conflicting statements out there or... not so much conflicted, but expanded upon info. 

What that means is all comic info can be expanded upon. Your context is static again.

Then your understanding of the words and definitions of quiet possibly demonstrate my point rather than prove yours. Every fighting style is every fighting style is every fighting style. Not every fighting style right now and not the future, so there is either ambiguity in their statement ambiguity leading to my point, or your explanation about Karate Kid flips and falls on its face. 

There's Comicbook realism (do you need me to clarify define what this is?) Bat-Verse realism would fall into this catagory (note that the term Bat-Verse realism/reality was authenticated/ first established by the author. I simply worked off from that)

Fallacious argument. Appealing to a false authority. Your injecting your understanding based on writer's words into a situation which is looking at the characters differently. You don't need to explain anything to me, you have to learn what broad definition is. 

So obviously normal details such as scratching ones head, breathing, drinking liquid, etc shouldnt need clarification since the OP is self-explanatory and sets its sights on the specifics of physical comparison in terms of ability. Correct?

Not correct. lol 

lol I'm not setting anything up that drifts outside of the parameters clearly defined in the OP. Here it is again:

Except we know per the OP you misunderstood quite a lot. 

What am I missing here? 

A lot. Most of the details are above. 

 I believe

I can fly! i believe I can touch the sky... but if I do, that means I am so unrealistic I can't be real unless i invent my own reality and apply it in absolutes right? 

Sorry.

Its okay, I am sure the dog knows you didn't mean to kick it. 

You've created this "Absolute Realism" in an effort to strengthen your position

When you use words like middle ground between two points, with no in-between's you set up on one side, absolute realism on one side, and absolute unrealism on the other. Actual words you have use, demonstrate. What you could say is that I misunderstood your intent, but in that case it would be ironic because thats.. ah yes, what you have done here. Except I would say your use of words are more poorly chosen than the OP's. 

While I on the other hand of consistently maintained a dialog reflective of the OP's wording

Crazy toddlers can do that as well. Or as in their understanding of anyone. Their interpretation. 

You seem to not be following along with the concept that there are in fact two separate realities here.

No, I am asserting that there are more than two, and that to look at it as just two, is too oversimplify the thread. 

The topic is simplified

Your understanding of it it should be pointed out. 

Your last statment makes my entire point for me lol. I've been saying its about exaggerated (in your words enhanced) reality. So why then is it being compared to real life? Real life is not enhanced reality, its reality.


Enhanced relatively. By degrees. Not as in your context. Exaggerated is not enhanced either under this definition. Realism can be enhanced, exaggeration would be the opposite in this context. You entire statement makes my point for me, you still don't understand lol (enhanced = improved upon . Exaggeration = alter beyond normal) 

No, I dont (answered this above). I think within the context of the established Bat-Verse these female characters are as real as can be. In fact their more real then the Batman ;)


Don't you mean as real within the context of the comic and Bat-verse Universe? Now remove that context like this thread is asking (its not really asking, but your inserting because of misunderstanding). And your answer finally is? 
Avatar image for sc
SC

18454

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

Edited By SC  Moderator
@The Dark Huntress said:
" O_o SC met somebody who can match his post length and effectively counter arguments? This'll be interesting. "

I know right? Isn't it awesome! ^_^ 

Look how long it took me to reply!! Tardy! My next reply will be quicker though! (I chose to draw Helena for you BTW in my examples lol)
Avatar image for thewalkingman
TheWalkingman

11

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheWalkingman

most of you what is spot on HOWEVER when it comes to fighting it s not about who is faster or stronger but about who has the better technique. Now this is some thing that most people either don't know or don't believe is that no matter what hell of training you put yourself through there are things you JUST CAN'T overcome most importantly the join ts and vitals. One well place shot to the knee and anyone will go down.  So don' t con t women out so easy.

Avatar image for cosmo111687
cosmo111687

1583

Forum Posts

3311

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 15

Edited By cosmo111687

Whatever the Bat-women lack, physically, they can more than compensate for with intellect, gadgetry, body armor, and mastery of fighting skills and weaponry, I think. In so long as they are courageous and have the will, I see no reason why they should be excluded while all the boys have the fun. :)

Avatar image for cosmo111687
cosmo111687

1583

Forum Posts

3311

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 15

Edited By cosmo111687

Oh, not to reignite an old debate, but I think that Batman is the most believable fantasy (which is what I think is implied by "realistic") of what a real, human super hero requires in order to survive, and arise victorious, against the challenges that a typical comic book super hero would have to face on a regular basis. And he not only deals with the practical difficulties, but also the many of the moral and philosophical ones, all while remaining awesome (and setting a good example for audiences aged 8-12).

Avatar image for lp
LP

683

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By LP

THIS ARTICLE IS THE REASON I WISH MORE WOMEN WOULD WRITE COMICS. THANK YOU.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ab1ccc482197
deactivated-5ab1ccc482197

3669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Gambler said:
@RazzaTazz said:
"Batman is widely considered the most realistic of all super-heroes."  
That's like saying Kool Rock-ski was the skinniest Fat Boy. Nothing Batman does is realistic. He easily achieves feats that should be reserved for characters with actual superpowers. This happens so often its birthed the phrase, "Bat-Factor." Batman can do whatever whenever and it doesn't surprise anyone. Love your blogs. But when you look at the super-powered things Batman does despite not having any powers of his own, seeing women perform above and beyond their real World counterparts doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
Agreed.
 
@RazzaTazz said:
My point is not that Batman is realistic, its that he is the most realistic.
As what's been pointed out. This is not true. The guy is far from being the most realistic character.

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2