How can we come to any sort of conclusion when your are IGNORING the details and aspects that derail your arguement in order to make it fit into the 'concept archtype' that you want it to fit in?
Basically, in order for me to accept that Superman is more realistic than Batman, I have to forget EVERYTHING I know about them bar the barest gist of a storyline?
That's ridiculous IMO.
How does that even make sense?
This has nothing to do with recommendation. I wouldn't recommend anyone try and be Batman. I never even said it was definitely feasible. Just MORE likely than becoming Superman.
I have literally lost the plot with you here... what Superman ideology are you referring too... cause I can't see what your commenting on, let alone whether it makes sense... it might help if you actually quoted what your talking about
If you did a normal distribution of people in society and the events leading to a batman and a superman... both would come back zero...
So i'm not allowed to go into story specifics when i'm point out Superman's unrealistic qualities, but you are with Batman?
I am only doing what you are doing. Boiling down the character to it's barest elements and providing a vague analogy.
And now you are doing what I was doing... pointing out how much more complicated the story is than those elements account for.
Which is precisely why your arguement is contradicting itself!
I have highlighted a few of the 'story details' that you are getting hung up on so you can see your own hypocrasy.
You are commenting on the details of Batman's story being what makes him unrealistic, but claiming Superman realistic without addressing any of the details.
As I said before, Double Standard.
No one is argueing that Superman doesn't fit into that 'trope'.
I'm just argueing that it doesn't make him more realistic or believable because he does.