# Hancock vs Thor (Marvel Comics)



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Bloodlust - Yes.

battle takes place on earth.

Who wins?


----------



## Kuya (Jul 9, 2008)

Thor shits on him.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 9, 2008)

Either Hancock isn't truely invulnerable in which case Thor smashes his head in, or he is Classic Juggernaut level and he gets teleported to some crappy dimension.


----------



## Vault (Jul 9, 2008)

if he's truely immortal thor seals him away somewhere


----------



## Enclave (Jul 9, 2008)

Since this is the OBD and thus we rely on feats more than anything and maintain that you cannot use a no limits fallacy then this means that Ironman > Hancock.

Now, since Thor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ironman it's pretty clear that he would stomp Hancock with ease.


----------



## Vault (Jul 9, 2008)

using no limits 

thor stomps this easy


----------



## Jinibea (Jul 9, 2008)

Thor wins with ease.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 9, 2008)

> Since this is the OBD and thus we rely on feats more than anything and maintain that you cannot use a no limits fallacy then this means that Ironman > Hancock.


The problem is that makes assumptions without evidence as well.  When trying to find out what is most likely the case, which is what we do here, we have to make lots of assumptions.  We find the ones that are most reasonable and apply them given all the knowledge available.  Since we were told the actual god made him to be the invulnerable protector of Earth assuming he is < Iron Man just because he was never tested isn't assuming what is most likely true.  Going purely be feats when you have such little battle information about the character is not going towards to most accurate answer we can come across.  We have never seen a battle which tested Hancock's durability, so cutting it off at the max shown while comparing it to Iron Man's actual maximum is unfair, or Thor's.  I know the no limit fallacy is in place so we can't say "they said he is invulnerable therefore he is," but we can say "he is most likely tougher than Iron Man because of blah blah blah."

Fallacies are used to stop people from making definite statements, but in a debate using such limited resources we can't ever use any definite statements and fallacies are more flexable when making estimations.


----------



## TonyG416 (Jul 9, 2008)

thor wins.


----------



## Enclave (Jul 9, 2008)

Thing is though as I recall from the movie it isn't stated that some allmighty god created them, even they are unsure as to their origins and people just periodically think that it is some god that made them.  For instance, they have been called angels before, but they weren't always called angels, different religions have called them different things.

We can only reasonably go by what feats they have shown.  It is unreasonable to think that their durability is so much more super than the rest of their attributes.  Even claiming them to have Ironman level durability is likely being generous considering we haven't seen them take anything on the level that Ironman can take.  The best we can do is just make estimations based on feats.


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Jul 9, 2008)

Enclave said:


> Thing is though as I recall from the movie it isn't stated that some allmighty god created them, even they are unsure as to their origins and people just periodically think that it is some god that made them.  For instance, they have been called angels before, but they weren't always called angels, different religions have called them different things.



It was said that they where built to be the protectors of earth. They did not mention god or the divine but how she worded it makes it appear that one would think the "Divine" has created them. 



I go by facts really. In such comparisons, though honestly I usually stay away from this side of the forums because it gets so personal over here its not even funny. 

One statement we do know that based off the movie and how hancock is, he is immortal, super strong, extremely fast, and his durability is like no other.

However, people will try to turn other peoples words around and try to make them fit there conclusions more. I know I should not have come back to the OB


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

How can Thor win with ease?

WTF can Thor do to Hancock that will hurt him?


----------



## Enclave (Jul 9, 2008)

> It was said that they where built to be the protectors of earth.



There are plenty of characters in comics who are protectors of the earth, even beings created by even more powerful beings.  Being built to be a protector of the earth doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things and doesn't confer any particularly extraordinary abilities when compared to other super powered people.



Ssj3_Goku said:


> One statement we do know that based off the movie and how hancock is, he is immortal, super strong, extremely fast, and his durability is like no other.



He was being compared to regular humans.  It's not like they have people with super powers in their society regularly.  Do you REALLY think he's so super when compared to likes of Superman or Thor?  No, he isn't, there is nothing to suggest that he is THAT super.


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Jul 9, 2008)

^ In the time frame that hancock was placed in super man and all that where already out and in comics, so I really do not see your point how he was compared to "Regular humans". The time setting he was in they darn knew about super man, etc.

also in my first statement you quoted, you did not read the rest which really just makes my other statement stand out to "Why" people (I'm not saying he was or not, just saying that people would say that he was built by god just on there beliefs of that line) say that they where built by god / the divine. 

this is one reason why I do not come here when people just pick out single sentences and try to turn it around without reading the full statement.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 9, 2008)

> Thing is though as I recall from the movie it isn't stated that some allmighty god created them, even they are unsure as to their origins and people just periodically think that it is some god that made them. For instance, they have been called angels before, but they weren't always called angels, different religions have called them different things.
> 
> We can only reasonably go by what feats they have shown. It is unreasonable to think that their durability is so much more super than the rest of their attributes. Even claiming them to have Ironman level durability is likely being generous considering we haven't seen them take anything on the level that Ironman can take. The best we can do is just make estimations based on feats.


Look at the Brit.  Also, look at Juggernaut.  His durability is way above his strength, and he doesn't have any speed or flight.  In the movie we also saw one of Hancock's peirs try and hurt him to no avail even after he was weakened, so we do know his durability is _much _higher than his strength. 

When they made Hancock they didn't think about having his powers balance, or think about how he would stack up to Superman. It really isn't unreasonable to think they wanted him to actually be invulnerable, not the normal comic definition but the real one.  "Invulnerability" in comics means "super durability" because plotwise they need the characters to be able to hurt each other without grabbing Kryptonite every single time.  In Hancock there is no plot need to nerf the definition of the word.

They said he was invulnerable, and there is no reason I can think of to doubt it other than "in comics usually when people say that they mean something else."  However, since we can't be sure that is why I gave two possible outcomes of the fight.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> How can Thor win with ease?
> 
> WTF can Thor do to Hancock that will hurt him?


Super strength can hurt a person whit durability  if the strength is higher than the oponent durability.


----------



## atom (Jul 9, 2008)

Why can't people understand that Hancock is invulnerable to damage? Not durable.. but invulnerable. It's pretty obvious that they wanted him to be that, the only time he is not is when the invulnerability is shut down when he starts loses his powers due to being near his "opposite"

That being said, Thor doesn't need to kill Hancock, he can just immobilize him.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Linkdarkside said:


> Super strength can hurt a person whit durability  if the strength is higher than the oponent durability.


Hancock is fucking invunerable to damage.

get that through your thick skull.

Thor can't hurt him.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 9, 2008)

> Why can't people understand that Hancock is invulnerable to damage? Not durable.. but invulnerable. It's pretty obvious that they wanted him to be that, the only time he is not is when the invulnerability is shut down when he starts loses his powers due to being near his "opposite"
> 
> That being said, Thor doesn't need to kill Hancock, he can just immobilize him.


I think it is only kind of obvious.  The problem is they said that, but they never _really _tested it.  Maybe if he got nuked a dozen times and was fine then we'd have an open and shut case.  However his feats weren't _that _impressive compared to some of the stuff we see in comics.


----------



## atom (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Hancock is fucking invunerable to damage.
> 
> get that through your thick skull.
> 
> Thor can't hurt him.


Except Thor has many ways to immobilize/seal/ Hancock?



> I think it is only kind of obvious. The problem is they said that, but they never really tested it. Maybe if he got nuked a dozen times and was fine then we'd have an open and shut case. However his feats weren't that impressive compared to some of the stuff we see in comics.


I suppose thats true.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

atom said:


> Except Thor has many ways to immobilize/seal/ Hancock?


Like what?


----------



## atom (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Like what?


Are you sure you know who Thor is again?


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Jul 9, 2008)

Gooba said:


> I think it is only kind of obvious.  The problem is they said that, but they never _really _tested it.  Maybe if he got nuked a dozen times and was fine then we'd have an open and shut case.  However his feats weren't _that _impressive compared to some of the stuff we see in comics.



That's true but your comparing a 2 hour movie to comics that been in production for how many years? So obviously you would not have that many feats in a 2 hour flick =/

I agree with your statement before this one about the invulnerability part. Hancock is the definition of it and the directors even said it.


----------



## Antitard (Jul 9, 2008)

Okay first Thor can literally rip his head off and throw it to the moon, throw his legs in the middle of the ocean for sharks to eat, and burry his arms in the center of the earth. If that is not enough he simply blasts him to oblivion or teleports him to teletubbies verse where Hancock goes insane.


----------



## atom (Jul 9, 2008)

Antitard said:


> Okay first Thor can literally rip his head off and throw it to the moon, throw his legs in the middle of the ocean for sharks to eat, and burry his arms in the center of the earth. If that is not enough he simply blasts him to oblivion or teleports him to teletubbies verse where Hancock goes insane.


Though the first half of your post is a joke... he can't actually do those things... or so I hope you don't think that.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Alright I changed the post, Thor cannot teleport him to another universe.

who wins?


----------



## Taleran (Jul 9, 2008)

Thors hammer has the power to TRAVEL THROUGH TIME

also heavily depends on which Thor


----------



## Enclave (Jul 9, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Look at the Brit.  Also, look at Juggernaut.  His durability is way above his strength, and he doesn't have any speed or flight.  In the movie we also saw one of Hancock's peirs try and hurt him to no avail even after he was weakened, so we do know his durability is _much _higher than his strength.



You bring up Juggs as an example?!  The same Juggs who can match strength with a fairly pissed off Hulk?  Not a good example man.  Also note, it IS possible to overcome even Juggs invulnerability, it involves being able to over-power Cyttorak, difficult but not impossible.



> When they made Hancock they didn't think about having his powers balance, or think about how he would stack up to Superman. It really isn't unreasonable to think they wanted him to actually be invulnerable, not the normal comic definition but the real one.  "Invulnerability" in comics means "super durability" because plotwise they need the characters to be able to hurt each other without grabbing Kryptonite every single time.  In Hancock there is no plot need to nerf the definition of the word.



There's also no need to grant total and complete invulnerability when all he will ever interact with are humans  Anyways, it's clear that his invulnerability is taken care of in the OBD rules regarding no limits fallacies.



> They said he was invulnerable, and there is no reason I can think of to doubt it other than "in comics usually when people say that they mean something else."  However, since we can't be sure that is why I gave two possible outcomes of the fight.



True, we cannot be 100% sure, however the rule regarding no limits fallacies in the OBD makes the decision for us.  Hancock isn't totally invulnerable, claiming he is is a no limits fallacy, this is exactly why that rule was made.

It just seems overly ridiculous to believe that somebody who has shown lesser feats than the likes of Ironman would have a higher durability than the likes of Superman or Thor.  We have no reason to believe that his durability is THAT high based on the feats he has shown.


----------



## Taleran (Jul 9, 2008)

atom said:


> Though the first half of your post is a joke... he can't actually do those things... or so I hope you don't think that.



oh ye of little faith


he Ripped the World Serpent off of the Earth while it was grabbing on


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Enclave said:


> You bring up Juggs as an example?!  The same Juggs who can match strength with a fairly pissed off Hulk?  Not a good example man.  Also note, it IS possible to overcome even Juggs invulnerability, it involves being able to over-power Cyttorak, difficult but not impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hancock is invulnerable to damage.

he doesn't have high durability.

*he. is. invulnerable. to. damage.*

Say it with me

"Hancock is invulnerable to damage."


----------



## Enclave (Jul 9, 2008)

And we can take such a statement as fact how?  It's only been said that they were invulnerable because they had never been hurt before.  However nothing ever did the kind of extreme damage to him that he would be encountering in a battle against the likes of Thor, not even close.  Think about it, if they never encountered anything that could hurt them but also never encountered anything close to a punch capable of outputting 100+ tonnes of force, hell or even a punch capable of outputting 50 tonnes of force then it's understandable that they considered themselves invulnerable to damage, because as far as they knew they were invulnerable.

It's like in Dragonball when Vegeta had stated that Saiyans have infinite potential, well in the final saga of the series that was finally proved to be incorrect as Vegeta had actually hit his full potential and required a magical power up to get past it and then later Gohan himself received a power up from the old kai that brought him up to his maximum power.  So both Gohan and Vegeta had reached their limits in the series (Gohans happened to be far higher than anybody elses), so much for that statement back in the Frieza saga about Saiyans having infinite potential eh?


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Enclave said:


> And we can take such a statement as fact how?  It's only been said that they were invulnerable because they had never been hurt before.  However nothing ever did the kind of extreme damage to him that he would be encountering in a battle against the likes of Thor, not even close.  Think about it, if they never encountered anything that could hurt them but also never encountered anything close to a punch capable of outputting 100+ tonnes of force, hell or even a punch capable of outputting 50 tonnes of force then it's understandable that they considered themselves invulnerable to damage, because as far as they knew they were invulnerable.
> 
> It's like in Dragonball when Vegeta had stated that Saiyans have infinite potential, well in the final saga of the series that was finally proved to be incorrect as Vegeta had actually hit his full potential and required a magical power up to get past it and then later Gohan himself received a power up from the old kai that brought him up to his maximum power.  So both Gohan and Vegeta had reached their limits in the series (Gohans happened to be far higher than anybody elses), so much for that statement back in the Frieza saga about Saiyans having infinite potential eh?


If they ever make a Hancock 2 (which they probably will).

and he encounters some sort of Villain that is able to hurt him than I was wrong and you are right.

But until then.

Hancock is invulnerable to any type of damage.

deal with it.


----------



## Taleran (Jul 9, 2008)

Welcome to the wonderful world of a No Limits Fallacy


----------



## Antitard (Jul 9, 2008)

atom said:


> Though the first half of your post is a joke... he can't actually do those things... or so I hope you don't think that.



Without his belt of strength Thor was able to lift a giant serpent that engulfed the earth. Yeah, Thor can literally rip his head off and throw it to the moon


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Antitard said:


> Without his belt of strength Thor was able to lift a giant serpent that engulfed the earth. Yeah, Thor can literally rip his head off and throw it to the moon


He could try.

But it won't work.

deal with it.


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Jul 9, 2008)

Antitard said:


> Without his belt of strength Thor was able to lift a giant serpent that engulfed the earth. Yeah, Thor can literally rip his head off and throw it to the moon




Your Point? he is immortal, he had his skull crushed (well part of it going by the movie) and he healed it back.  Immortals can have there heads taken off and still grow it back. Thing about immortals is the fact they DO NOT DIE.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> He could try.
> 
> But it won't work.
> 
> deal with it.



It doesn't really matter even IF Hancock is invulnerable to all damage.

Any being who has the ability to dump Hancock in a blackhole before he has time to react beats him.  His speed is not great enough to escape the blackhole.  Even if it doesn't hurt him he still will be incapacitated forever and won't be able to continue fighting, meaning his opponent wins.

Now, I don't know much about Thor, but I am fairly certain he is capable of doing that.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Snake Plissken said:


> It doesn't really matter even IF Hancock is invulnerable to all damage.
> 
> Any being who has the ability to dump Hancock in a blackhole before he has time to react beats him.  His speed is not great enough to escape the blackhole.  Even if it doesn't hurt him he still will be incapacitated forever and won't be able to continue fighting, meaning his opponent wins.
> 
> Now, I don't know much about Thor, but I am fairly certain he is capable of doing that.


The fight is taking place on earth.

It would take millions of years for Thor to find a black hole to dump Hancock in.


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Jul 9, 2008)

@Snake Plissken
 Yea but imo if you need to do that, you know its your last resort and you cannot beat him any other way. Honestly that's not winning and that's just a stalemate. Well I know I would not count that as a victory if I had to because the guy is still alive (that's my personal opinion on it).


----------



## atom (Jul 9, 2008)

Taleran said:


> oh ye of little faith
> 
> 
> he Ripped the World Serpent off of the Earth while it was grabbing on


How can the rip the head of an invulnerable being? Though, it really doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> The fight is taking place on earth.
> 
> It would take millions of years for Thor to find a black hole to dump Hancock in.



This is enough to show everyone how little you know about Thor.
And stop abusing no limits fallacy


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

Hancock's anus
Meet magical hammer of unus.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> This is enough to show everyone how little you know about Thor.
> And stop abusing no limits fallacy


Really, I don't know nothing about Thor.

I just thought he might be able to beat Hancock.

Does he have super speed or something?

he can teleport to the nearest black hole?

what?


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

He has above lightspeed and he can teleport anywhere in any universe


----------



## soupnazi235 (Jul 9, 2008)

this
Link removed

I'd be more specific, but I'm entirely too lazy


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> He has above lightspeed and he can teleport anywhere in any universe


Still, the battle is taking place on earth, not another dimension, not in space.

On earth.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Jul 9, 2008)

Dude, just because the battle starts on Earth doesn't mean it's going to stay on Earth.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> Dude, just because the battle starts on Earth doesn't mean it's going to stay on Earth.


That's why I said the battle takes place on Earth.

Thor cannot teleport or whatever to another dimension or anywhere in space.

It takes place on Earth and only Earth.

Who wins?


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

Well, thor grabs his neck with all of his planetbusting level strentgth, opens up a portal to hell and throws him in it.
If that's not possible, oh well,
Planetbusting thor FTW


----------



## atom (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Well, thor grabs his neck with all of his planetbusting level strentgth, opens up a portal to hell and throws him in it.
> If that's not possible, oh well,
> Planetbusting thor FTW


Pretty much.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Well, thor grabs his neck with all of his planetbusting level strentgth, opens up a portal to hell and throws him in it.


Does Thor resort to doing shit like that in every fight he's in?

Because if he does.

Thor. Is. A. ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## soupnazi235 (Jul 9, 2008)

Now you're just trolling, dude. 
And you're still ignoring NO LIMITS FALLACY


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

You mean crush his enemies with whatever strength he finds necessary to?
Yes, he does.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> You mean crush his enemies with whatever strength he finds necessary to?
> Yes, he does.


He couldn't crush Hancock though.

He'd have to be a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and open up a portal to Hell and throw him in.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

He has surpassed in power the guy that busts galaxys when he's having fun in a fight.
You think he's gonna have trouble with a Henne's cock?


----------



## Apollo (Jul 9, 2008)

Thor could always just transmute Hancock.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> He has surpassed in power the guy that busts galaxys when he's having fun in a fight.
> You think he's gonna have trouble with a Henne's cock?


Thor would not be able to damage Hancock at all.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

*Spoiler*: _I see I'm gonna have to make this as clear and simple as possible_ 






Hunter x One Piece said:


> Thor


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> would


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> not


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> be


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> able


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> to


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> damage


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> Hancock


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> at


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK





> all.


MJOLNIR BUSTS THE PLANET AND SQUASHES THE HENNE'S COCK


----------



## Shadow Replication 1480 (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Thor would not be able to damage Hancock at all.


If Hancock fights Superman-level beings and doesn't get hurt, then you can claim that Thor might not hurt him. Til then, Thor whips that ass hardcore.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> *Spoiler*: _I see I'm gonna have to make this as clear and simple as possible_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: _I see I'm gonna have to make this as clear and simple as possible_ 



Are Planet's invulnerable to damage?

No.

Is Hancock?

Yes.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Shadow Replication 1480 said:


> If Hancock fights Superman-level beings and doesn't get hurt, then you can claim that Thor might not hurt him. Til then, Thor whips that ass hardcore.


Is it so fucking hard to believe that Hancock is invulnerable to damage?

God created Hancock to be invulnerable to damage. 

Therefore he is.

cry about it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

Is it on the god's underweat this issue lies?
Because good thing he's fighting the strongest god of them all then


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Is it on the god's underweat this issue lies?
> Because good thing he's fighting the strongest god of them all then


Can't you just accept that Thor could not damage Hancock and have to be a pussy and throw him in a portal.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Can't you just accept that Thor could not damage Hancock and have to be a pussy and throw him in a portal.



How is that being a pussy?  Thor defeats him.  It doesn't really matter how.  You should take a page out of Machiavelli's book.  The end justifies the means.

Thor beats Hancock, get the hell over it.


----------



## Shadow Replication 1480 (Jul 9, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Is it so fucking hard to believe that Hancock is invulnerable to damage?
> 
> God created Hancock to be invulnerable to damage.
> 
> ...




Dude, Thor is a fucking god himself and he's fought other gods. When Hancock fights someone on his level, then I'll buy the hype. Til then, it's a damn no-limits fallacy.

Hell, even if it was possible for him not to be hurt by Thor, Thor could always transmute him like Apollo mentioned eariler and Hancock would be fucked.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

Hmmm.. It seems I can only neg for three green bars


Ad Hominem fallacy and the thread is resolved
My Mod-Senses tell he this thread is moments away from the axe.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Hmmm.. It seems I can only neg for three green bars
> 
> 
> Ad Hominem fallacy and the thread is resolved
> My Mod-Senses tell he this thread is moments away from the axe.



Let us hope so.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 9, 2008)

I understand, Thor beats Hancock.

But he did not do any damage to him.


----------



## Orion (Jul 9, 2008)

Cant do damage to him because...omg a bus hit him?wtf is with all this hancock wank jesus christ,when hancock gets a planet busting hammer dropped on his dome piece and isnt hurt lemme know.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 9, 2008)

unless it's fourth of july


Odin help us then.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Jul 9, 2008)

Stop trolling and flaming, dude. It's not legit. 
Anyway, you keep dodging the no limits fallacy thing. What exactly is your response to this?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Stop all the flaming and debate this rationally.

Yes it is a no limits fallacy to say Hancock definitely _is _invincible.

It is also an abuse of the no limits fallacy to say Hancock definitely _isn't_ invincible.

It makes sense given the context of the movie and the little we saw for Hancock to be invincible, but given what we know of that word being thrown around in comics he might not be.  To be definite either way is wrong, it requires more information.



> Dude, Thor is a fucking god himself and he's fought other gods.


Thor is a "god" God is a "God."  If the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God really did make him then that is a completely different than Thor's type of god.  He wasn't even able to beat Juggernaut meaning he is a lower god than Cytorrak.  



> You bring up Juggs as an example?! The same Juggs who can match strength with a fairly pissed off Hulk? Not a good example man. Also note, it IS possible to overcome even Juggs invulnerability, it involves being able to over-power Cyttorak, difficult but not impossible.


It is a good example because while he is strong his durability is a lot better than his strength.  





> if they never encountered anything that could hurt them but also never encountered anything close to a punch capable of outputting 100+ tonnes of force, hell or even a punch capable of outputting 50 tonnes of force then it's understandable that they considered themselves invulnerable to damage, because as far as they knew they were invulnerable.


Actually a train of that size weighs far more than 100 tons, and so to stop it in nearly 0 time takes way more force than a 100 ton punch based on F=MA.


----------



## Apollo (Jul 10, 2008)

Just wanted to point out that Juggs can do much more than match strength with a fairly pissed off Hulk, he was fighting WWH and appeared to have the upperhand until he was tripped.


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> That guy deserved to be flamed.
> 
> Anyways, what the fuck ever.
> 
> ...



Hey you, yeah you with the 125 post count. Why don't you stick around for a few months before you decide wither or not someone deserves to get flamed.

To be honest though the feeling I get from you is that is a Dupe account and that you where probably banned for flaming and yet here you are, not even 200 posts into your new account and your out flaming again.

I have a better idea, why don't you just leave, because at this rate your just going to keep on getting banned until you either give up or get bored with trying to make repeated dupe accounts that keep getting banned.


----------



## KazeYama (Jul 10, 2008)

Couldn't Thor with Odin Force just erase him from existence or something? Just because he is invulnerable to physical damage doesn't mean he can't be beat by magic, a godblast, teleportation into a star or something else.


----------



## Enclave (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Thor is a "god" God is a "God."  If the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God really did make him then that is a completely different than Thor's type of god.  He wasn't even able to beat Juggernaut meaning he is a lower god than Cytorrak.



Actually, it was classic Thor who couldn't do too much to Juggernaut, current Thor, well that would be interesting to see.

Oh and just to let ya know, even Classic Thor was capable of removing Juggernauts invincibility, it would just force him to go the rest of the fight without his hammer.  Imagine current Thor.



> It is a good example because while he is strong his durability is a lot better than his strength.  Actually a train of that size weighs far more than 100 tons, and so to stop it in nearly 0 time takes way more force than a 100 ton punch based on F=MA.



I'd actually forgotten about the Train scene.  Alright then, he has a higher durability than Ironman, still though that's nothing compared to what most class 100 people can output.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> I'd actually forgotten about the Train scene. Alright then, he has a higher durability than Ironman, still though that's nothing compared to what most class 100 people can output.


Yea, I'm not saying it is proof that he can handle planet busting, but it is the best evidence towards to true invincibility based on feats.  I mean, it didn't even do _anything_ to him.  



> Actually, it was classic Thor who couldn't do too much to Juggernaut, current Thor, well that would be interesting to see.
> 
> Oh and just to let ya know, even Classic Thor was capable of removing Juggernauts invincibility, it would just force him to go the rest of the fight without his hammer. Imagine current Thor.


Yea, I've seen those fights.  I was more referring to the Godforce Blast that Juggernaut shrugged off, although I think it pushed him back a little which was impressive.  But still that is besides the point since his god is much weaker than the one I assume made Hancock.  I know we don't have proof that the Yaweh made him, but Occam's Razor makes me think it is the most likely.  Why would they introduce a completely separate creator god which they never mention or bring up when there is one just sitting there that 99% of religious America believes in?


----------



## zackaroth (Jul 10, 2008)

Why does everyone think immortal beings can't die? I always though Immortal meant you never aged and never died a natural death but could die by other means. Vampires are immortal. They never age and die of old age but as we know they can be killed.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

zackaroth said:


> Why does everyone think immortal beings can't die? I always though Immortal meant you never aged and never died a natural death but could die by other means. Vampires are immortal. They never age and die of old age but as we know they can be killed.


Not only is he Immortal but he's invulnerable to damage.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 10, 2008)

funny, so is thor, but he's got herald level blasts on his belt


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Well, we've all seen Thor bleed, we have never seen Hancock prime scratched.


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 10, 2008)

LoL Why is this thread not locked,we have Hangcock with his no limits fallacy and zero feats to even scratch Thor


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 10, 2008)

wiesmann said:


> LoL Why is this thread not locked,we have Hangcock with his no limits fallacy and *zero feats to even scratch Thor*



yeah, lol, thats true. what is hancock going to do to thor? even if he truly invinicble.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Except Hancock isn't invincible.

Thor uses Odinforce to travel back in time and erase Hancock from existence or blasts away the galaxy with Hancock with one of his Hammer's god-blasts.


----------



## Stan Lee (Jul 10, 2008)

Thor /topic.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> *Except Hancock isn't invincible.*
> 
> Thor uses Odinforce to travel back in time and erase Hancock from existence or blasts away the galaxy with Hancock with one of his Hammer's god-blasts.


Like Gooba said, saying Hancock isn't invincible is abuse of the no limits fallacy.


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Like Gooba said, saying Hancock isn't invincible is abuse of the no limits fallacy.



No limits fallacy = BS :/ every braindead monkey knows this lol


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Like Gooba said, saying Hancock isn't invincible is abuse of the no limits fallacy.



Look up what no limits fallacy is.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

I know what a no limits fallacy is and to say that Hancock isn't invincible is abuse of it.



Hancock is invincible.

Go cry because your fav. comic book superhero can't do any damage to an alcoholic bum.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> I know what a no limits fallacy is and to say that Hancock isn't invincible is abuse of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah sadly it doesn't work that way. Try again.


----------



## maximilyan (Jul 10, 2008)

Thor is too over powered for will smith.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Well, we've all seen Thor bleed, we have never seen Hancock prime scratched.



To be fair, we've never seen Hancock hit by 1/10000 of the force we've seen Thor hit with though.

I've never broken a bone, does that mean my bones can't be broken?

The movie only gives us the concept that _compared to normal humans_ Hancock is invincible.  This is not to say that Hancock can survive any amount of damage.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> I've never broken a bone, does that mean my bones can't be broken?


Maybe, but probably not since all evidence points to you being a normal human and we have seen normal human bones broken.



> The movie only gives us the concept that compared to normal humans Hancock is invincible. This is not to say that Hancock can survive any amount of damage.


They didn't use that disclaimer in the movie, so we can't be sure if that is what they meant or if they meant actual invulnerability which is possible since they might have been made by an actual omnipotent.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

There were no omnipotents in Hancock.

Where are you getting this from?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Christian/Muslim/Jewish god, which is why I assumed she meant when she said they were created.  It makes more sense than assuming she meant there was some mad scientist who never came up, or other god.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> They didn't use that disclaimer in the movie, so we can't be sure if that is what they meant or if they meant actual invulnerability which is possible since they might have been made by an actual omnipotent.



You have to remember that she was using the context of comparing Hancock/her life to normal humans (we live forever, we can't be hurt, etc).

But that aside, in an absence of evidence you suggest we take the most extreme interpretation as the legitimate one?

Neko-Ranma is stated by Cologne (a paramount authority on Chi techniques) as being "invincible."  He's never defeated or even harmed in that form, would Neko-Ranma vs. Hancock be a good matchup?  Thor?  Galactus?

Even if we accept her statement as factual from her point of view, that would limit it to damage she has experience with to comprehend.  Which would be nuclear explosions?  City-destroying events?  Pretty low on the power-scale really.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Christian/Muslim/Jewish god, which is why I assumed she meant when she said they were created.  It makes more sense than assuming she meant there was some mad scientist who never came up, or other god.



They could've been created by aliens for all we know, and she was referencing human mythology to the unknown, not actual deities in the literal sense from what I gathered.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> But that aside, in an absence of evidence you suggest we take the most extreme interpretation as the legitimate one?


As a possible one, to be tempered by the other evidence presented to us.  If all we get is that statement by someone whose motives are up in the air the best we can do is say they might be, or they might not be.



> Neko-Ranma is stated by Cologne (a paramount authority on Chi techniques) as being "invincible." He's never defeated or even harmed in that form, would Neko-Ranma vs. Hancock be a good matchup? Thor? Galactus?


No idea, I don't know any other evidence than that statement.

I should probably merge the Radditz discussion into this one since it is the same thing.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

I don't know why you guys find it so hard to believe that he is invincible.

I guess it's because you all read too much comics?


----------



## soupnazi235 (Jul 10, 2008)

^
I'm having a little difficulty understanding how the point you're bringing up actually helps your argument.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> As a possible one, to be tempered by the other evidence presented to us.  If all we get is that statement by someone whose motives are up in the air the best we can do is say they might be, or they might not be.


As a possible one?  Sure.  But if we're going to be judging we need to have a more concrete level to draw the line at.

We have a fictional character that the strongest hit they've taken is on the order of building destruction and a statement that they're "invincible."  That's it.

If Hiko from Kenshin had made the statement that he was "all powerful" at some point, would you argue he could fight Superman based on his showings in the Manga?




Gooba said:


> No idea, I don't know any other evidence than that statement.
> 
> I should probably merge the Radditz discussion into this one since it is the same thing.



Ranma fought several of the strongest characters in the Manga (including Cologne herself) in the Neko form.  He's never injured in the slightest while in this form and no defense or substance ever provides any resistance to the attack other than dodging.

Given that would you assume that Neko-Ranma can cleave through true Adamantium despite the fact that nothing on this level was present in the Ranma 1/2 manga?

No, you'd assume that (at best) he is a match for anyone in the Ranma 1/2 manga, or more likely a match for anyone Cologne personally has experience with.

Now lets apply that to the Hancock movie.  Lets assume that Mary is being 100% literal from her experiences.  We know that for the last 80 years or so Mary has been keeping a low profile.  

That pretty much rules out her facing nuclear explosions directly (though perhaps you could argue she is aware of the damage potential from a scientific standpoint and isn't worried).

Judging from the fight that we saw between the two "gods" we have "damage to concrete" level offenses.  No skyscrapers were knocked over, the city still stands, and no sizable craters were made in the ground.

This is a very weak grounds for a defense of "invincible" in an absolute sense.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

EvilMoogle said:


> As a possible one?  Sure.  But if we're going to be judging we need to have a more concrete level to draw the line at.
> 
> We have a fictional character that the strongest hit they've taken is on the order of building destruction and a statement that they're "invincible."  That's it.
> 
> ...


Mary has been around for thousands of years.

And what fight?

That was hardly a fight.


Hancock makes your fav. superhero bend over and take it in the ass.

Of course he can't beat Thor as Thor would just do something cheap when he realizes he can't damage him.

But he can beat Raditz.


----------------
Now playing: 
via


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Can anything be done about this flame-baiting dupe?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> As a possible one? Sure. But if we're going to be judging we need to have a more concrete level to draw the line at.


Then we can't be judging, because we don't have a concrete level.  Through all this I haven't been judging, just trying to come up with the best guess as to who is most likely to win because that is all we can do with the very poor evidence we have to draw from.  If we do something like Wolverine vs Captain America where we have decades of comic books to grab feats from we can make judgments since we have actual bench pressing figures and stuff like that.  For Hancock we have such a small pool we have to be flexible and we will never be able to accurately judge the winner.

I really don't know enough about any manga besides Naruto to comment much, other than to say probably not just going on how you are asking.



> This is a very weak grounds for a defense of "invincible" in an absolute sense.


That is why I haven't been dealing in absolutes, and been spending all my time fighting against the absolute claim that he "can't."


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Can anything be done about this flame-baiting dupe?


I'm not a dupe/alias.

Seriously.

this is my first account.

on the other forum I used to post on we were allowed to flame.

so when I do it, I don't even realize it.

I think that No Limit Fallacy and Burden Of Proof is bullshit.

When Hancock 2 comes out and if he takes any damage from someone who's not mary and mary isn't in the vicinity I'll apologize.

But until then, IMO, Hancock is fucking invincible and makes your fav. superhero bendover and take it in the ass.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter, I suggest you tone it down quite a bit or someone will be forced to section ban you.  Keep the debate to the topic and don't make statements like 





> Hancock is fucking invincible and makes your fav. superhero bendover and take it in the ass.


which are designed to piss people off.

Oh, I guess I do have something to say about the manga.  Claims like that are all analog.  Invincibility might not be an analog claim.  We are trained by comics to think it is because they always just mean super durable.  The actual term invincible is binary, either you are or you aren't.  That isn't the same as saying "I'm the best there is at what I do," or whatever.  With that it is an analog dial which could always get turned up a little more by someone else.  Invincibility in this case might be like pregnancy, you either are or you aren't.  If in Ranma they said they were actually invincible to all damage then maybe they meant it like that where yes, I'd think they could take a planet buster.  However given the tiny bit I know of it they probably just meant "unbeatable because overall she is just so good."  With Hancock it could be that "invincible" just means durable.  But it could mean actually invincible kind of like how he doesn't age.  He doesn't age slowly, he just doesn't.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 11, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Oh, I guess I do have something to say about the manga.  Claims like that are all analog.  Invincibility might not be an analog claim.



How is it "invincible" is binary, but "unbeatable" is not?  Both imply an explicit ultimate ability.

For a comics example, imagine the current "Invincible Iron Man" showed up in a 1960's Spider-man comic.  Nothing that happened in that comic would hurt or even phase Iron Man.  But we both know that Iron Man isn't really Invincible.

Hancock lives in a world where (other than Mary) everyone else is a normal human.  To them, he's quite clearly impervious to harm.  But that's never been tested to any decent level so we can't really accept it as an absolute.

All we can say with any degree of certainty is that whatever the strongest hit he took in the movie was wasn't enough to visibly harm him.  However in the context of this thread, Thor hits several orders of magnitude harder than that, so we really have no idea how Hancock would fare.  In the absence of evidence the only assumption we can really make is that he'd go down.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 11, 2008)

> How is it "invincible" is binary, but "unbeatable" is not? Both imply an explicit ultimate ability.


Because of what unbeatable means.  It is used to mean the person is too skilled for anyone, or too durable (it might mean actually invincible, it might not), or some other analog characteristic being too high.  Someone could always come along with a higher one, but if there isn't he is right for the time being.  Invincibility could be a binary thing where his cells really can't be harmed period.  Comics have abused and misused the word invincible for decades now, but there is no evidence that they did in Hancock.  Iron Man abused the term horribly, but we only know that because we've seen him damaged.  If he went around calling himself invinicible and everything in the comic did 0 damage then I would argue the same point here.  Probably not as strongly since I'd know it was a suit made by a man so it is probably not invincible, but in this case I think he was made by an actual omnipotent specifically to be the invincible protector of Earth when he is alone, so true invincibility is actually on the table.



> In the absence of evidence the only assumption we can really make is that he'd go down.


There is evidence, it just isn't feat evidence, and so that isn't the only assumption we could make.  We have to assume he might or might not, because it is totally consistant with all the information we have that he could not be affected by Thor's best Godblast.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 12, 2008)

If Hancock is immortal/invincibility, then Thor would just seal him away. If Thor gets the invincibility to go away, the he'll smash his head...


----------



## ZenGamr (Jul 13, 2008)

Hancock sure is popular around here now a days, isn't he?


----------

