Solar radiation as a catalyst, you decide ?

[Anubis]

Only if you wear boxers.

 

[Aristotle]

OK, yahman, here's what we're gonna do: As it happens, Superman's cells do not just capture and store solar energy. They are also hyper-efficient at using that energy, on an order of billions. Is that good enough? Can we please stop arguing about it now?

And for the record, I have totally gotten laid with my sense of humor. Once I told a joke so funny a chick came in her panties just hearing it.

 

[Anubis]

I only made a chick pee her pants. I had to pay her though.

 

[yahman]

Actually, I spend lots of time here talking about comics because at work, I have a computer with Internet access, and not a lot to do. So for the seven hours I'm sitting in front of my computer, I can sit around making dick jokes and making fun of losers who think they're oh so clever pulling the "No Life" card while they ignore the fact that, hey, they're here too....talking about fictional characters that run around with their underwear on the outside of their pants....but you know, whatever.

God .... i sooooo want to be you !

When i die and come back, i want to re-incarnated as a guy who spends seven hours a day on a computer, making fun out of other people on a comicbook forum. Why ? Well it really is satisfying mocking people whose life sucks so hard, they have to spend it on the internet. Not to mention how tricky it is to mock such insecure people.
Mann if only I had the life skills to pull off such a cool lifestyle choice.
When does the Autobiography come out ?, cos ill be first in line

I tell you what Anubis; the "No life" card is a lot better than "Im cool becasue i mock geeks on the internet" card !

 

[yahman]

They are also hyper-efficient at using that energy, on an order of billions..

What does that even mean ?

 

[yahman]

In fact NO response could ever do better Justice than this :

Anubis
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Nile Delta
Posts: 26,769

 

[Anubis]

Wow, three hours and that's the best you could do? You can do better than that. You got a big brain.

 

[fifthfiend]

When i die and come back, i want to re-incarnated as a guy who spends seven hours a day on a computer, making fun out of other people on a comicbook forum.

As far as I can tell this already happened.

Maybe next time you should get reincarnated as someone who's better at it?

 

[fifthfiend]

Okay that last bit was a little mean. But seriously, you need to cool it out, dude.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Yes, everyone does. Argue the issue if you want, but keep the personal insults out of it.

 

[fifthfiend]

I don't think anyone actually wants to argue the issue anymore. At this point we're all just in it for the personal insults.

That and the Jurassic Park quotes. I mean, who doesn't love Jurassic Park?

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Whoever made Jurassic Park 2 and 3.

 

[fifthfiend]

They loved it too; they just loved it the way Lenny loved mice and blonde girls.

 

[Aristotle]

What does that even mean ?

I don't know, but it sounds good. But I guess that's kind of the problem here, isn't it? For most of us, superhero comics are fun stories that we have fun reading because they're fun. For you, they're a sinister plot to fool us into thinking science isn't real.

 

[fifthfiend]

Everyone knows that's the Catholic Church's job.

 

[fifthfiend]

KIDDING! Just funnin', guys!

 

[Aristotle]

Now that you mention it...the Catholic Church starts with a C! And DC Comics has a C in it too! Of course! How could we have failed to see it all along!

 

[yahman]

I don't know, but it sounds good. But I guess that's kind of the problem here, isn't it? For most of us, superhero comics are fun stories that we have fun reading because they're fun. For you, they're a sinister plot to fool us into thinking science isn't real.

P.S. it sounds no better than my ideas on page 2 and 3.

 

[Aristotle]

I have never said that at any point.

You've also never said why any of this is necessary! This is fiction. We're suspending our disbelief. And since, in terms of real probability, your ideas are no more likely to happen than current DCU canon is, why bother with it?

I find it disheartening that everyone seems to enjoy wallowing in ignorance, however hard i try to lead them to enlightenment. You're basically the fellow prisoners in the cave. (you'll get that Aristotle)

Nobody wants to wallow in ignorance, we just don't think change for the sake of change is a good thing. This is, I suspect, where you and I part ways the most on philosophy: to me, change, progress, science, learning, knowledge, discovery, and so on and so forth are not virtues in and of themselves. To you, I have a feeling they are the ultimate virtues.

You say that's inappropriate to apply reason and science to comics, yet some of the most successful themes and stories have been founded on good science. Im not asking to apply it all the time, just more. IMO You cant really reject this without sounding nostalgic.

I reject it because it does not make the characters any more believable. When we are faced with two competing, mutually exclusive, equally impossible options, I will choose the one with more tradition behind it. It's worth noting that tradition is no more a virtue unto itself than progress is, but Superman's a hell of a tradition, and it's a tradition I believe in until someone can come up with one that is better. You haven't.

Science shouldn't be applied to comics because it will cause to much restriction !

The entire dialectic to follow is flawed, because that was not my argument, and it wasn't anybody else's, either. I'm a continuity freak--there's no way I have a problem with restrictions that help preserve and better a quality shared universe.

If there is situation where real science can be incorporated, what's to stop it being integrated?

If there's a situation in which religion can be incorporated, should it be? I mean, we could just as easily make Superman an archangel of Heaven, or an avatara of Vishnu. Why don't we do that? Because there is no reason to do it! And don't give me any ******** about the superiority of science over philosophy--you were just (erroneously) calling me a positivist a few posts back. No, we do not throw in science and religion wherever they could be inserted. We throw them in where they should be inserted. So we get a lot of pseudo-science, and we get just as much pseudo-religion and pseudo-spirituality. The Spectre is no less a corruption of the Judeo-Christian tradition than Superman is a corruption of the laws of energy conservation.

I don't want this to happen, because things will have to change, and we don't like change.

Don't you know you've lost when you can't make a point without straw men?

You were never arguing in the first place !

Play the ivory-tower intellectual all you want, buddy. I can play it for as long as you can. I don't pepper my language with term-checks quite the way you do, because I don't need to overcompensate for my argumentation. And I don't often go this deep into discourse, because it's usually not necessary. But if you want to be a philosopher and show your big philosophical dick off and *********e your high-and-mightiness all over those of us who just read comics for a good time, trust me, my son, my philosophical dick is just as big.

 

[Aristotle]

P.S. it sounds no better than my ideas on page 2 and 3.

You're right. They all sound pretty faulty and unnecessary.

To be honnest i think my wierd obession with comicbook science, is no more tragic than EVERYONES obsession with continuity consistency.

Flawed continuity inhibits suspension of disbelief. A shared universe depends on consistency. It depends on events mattering. Retcon-happy writers, or worse, lazy no-researching writers damage that consistency. At the very least, a retcon should be done with some sort of internal plausibility, rather than just rewriting history as if it was always this way. Of course, even an internally consistent retcon can epic fail (see One More Day.)

Flawed science may inhibit suspension of disbelief, but as long as that flawed science remains relatively constant across titles and writers, it really shouldn't be that much of a problem. It provides that one layer of disbelief that makes you certain that these events could not and would not ever happen in the real world, but there's nothing wrong with that, especially since there's absolutely no way to truly remove that layer. If there was a way to remove that layer, we'd have superhumans in real life.

 

[fifthfiend]

Now that you mention it...the Catholic Church starts with a C! And DC Comics has a C in it too! Of course! How could we have failed to see it all along!

I always pegged that ****in' Didio for a Papist.

 

[BrianWilly]

They're called exaggerations , they emphasise the absurdity of the explanations.

No, they twist the facts and the semantics to fit into your ludicrous preconceptions.

P.S. if you read the post before carefully you'll see that Superman is BASICALLY a solar panel. You can't get around it. Superman absorbs solar energy, and then stores it to be used in a diffrent form. What else does this ?...... OH yeah a solar panel. The analogy stands. your lack of insight doesn't make it otherwise

Yeah, key word here: analogy. Comparable. Not actual fact. Your problem is that you're treating figurative analogies as literal statements and acting bewildered when everyone tells you that they're not.

The fact of comparing Superman to a solar panel is something you'd do for a joke. Figurative humor. Using it as some kind of foundation for a debate, like it's some kind of super-logical evidence that you can see but no one else can? That's just dumb. I wish there's another way to say it, but it's just dumb.

 

[The Question]

They sound like nothing anyone would ever want to read in a comic book, frankly.

Now, I don't think that's entirely true. I, for one, have no problem with a writer putting a lot of thought into the science or metaphysics or philosophy of what they are writing. If a writer of science fiction or fantasy takes the time to research things like modern technology, archeology, quantum physics, theoretical sciences, chemistry, metaphysics, philosophy, religion, and mystical practices, that just shows that he or she is dedicated to the craft. If a writer comes a long and explains that Superman doesn't simply absorb solar radiation, but the solar energy he absorbs acts as a catalyst for internal cold fusion or whatever the hell yahman's talking about, I think that would be really cool. As long as the keep the solar piece in their, it's not even really bad continuity or a retcon. It's taking time to put a hell of a lot more thought into Superman's powers. If done by the proper writer, that could be very interesting and add a lot of depth to the DCU.

However, that by no means makes it necessary. I think it would be nice if some writer came a long and did something like this well, but if things stayed the same, that would be fine too. It's not a necessity, it's just, I think, a kind of cool idea.

 

[yahman]

Play the ivory-tower intellectual all you want, buddy. I can play it for as long as you can. I don't pepper my language with term-checks quite the way you do, because I don't need to overcompensate for my argumentation. And I don't often go this deep into discourse, because it's usually not necessary. But if you want to be a philosopher and show your big philosophical dick off and *********e your high-and-mightiness all over those of us who just read comics for a good time, trust me, my son, my philosophical dick is just as big.

I don't think any of that was necessary.

At no point have i.

"in and philosopher and show your big philosophical dick off and *********e your high-and-mightiness all over those of us who just read comics for a good time"

In fact philosophy was only brought up because of my incorporation with the meta physical ideas i had for magic, and the green Lanterns.
I've acknowledge your perspective on various occasions, yet you have constantly thrown aggression my way.
In fact the only person I've been particularly patronising to, is Anubis, who threw te threw the first punch any way.

I don't know why you're being so hostile ?, i didn't make you reply to this thread ! If it offends you so much just don't bother replying.

If anything im a bit curious as to why you have become so hot under the collar ? You can't have possibly taken the positivist comment too personally ?, that would just be absurd. I wonder if you are maybe a little intimidated, but i can't for the life of me understand why.

 

[yahman]

Now, I don't think that's entirely true. I, for one, have no problem with a writer putting a lot of thought into the science or metaphysics or philosophy of what they are writing. If a writer of science fiction or fantasy takes the time to research things like modern technology, archeology, quantum physics, theoretical sciences, chemistry, metaphysics, philosophy, religion, and mystical practices, that just shows that he or she is dedicated to the craft. If a writer comes a long and explains that Superman doesn't simply absorb solar radiation, but the solar energy he absorbs acts as a catalyst for internal cold fusion or whatever the hell yahman's talking about, I think that would be really cool. As long as the keep the solar piece in their, it's not even really bad continuity or a retcon. It's taking time to put a hell of a lot more thought into Superman's powers. If done by the proper writer, that could be very interesting and add a lot of depth to the DCU.

However, that by no means makes it necessary. I think it would be nice if some writer came a long and did something like this well, but if things stayed the same, that would be fine too. It's not a necessity, it's just, I think, a kind of cool idea.

Finally, a fellow comic science geek !

May have many children, and spread youre geekyness through out the world !