Thor Abstract Existence and Conceptual Manipulation

[Eficiente]

Agree​

Ultima_Reality (Planned to cover this in-depth in the future)​

Maverick_Zero_X​

Sir_Ovens​

Executor_N0​

No Vote​

Firestorm808​

Antvasima​

Disagree​

Eficiente (Prefers Multilocation and Empowerment)​

Well, I actually agree with it for Greek gods and the ones Moon Knight deals with. For the rest, I'm open-minded about it if better evidence is shown.

As we know, it's not "either Multilocation & Empowerment, or TP 2 AE." They could all hypothetically have TP 2 AE, and other powers like Multilocation and Empowerment would still be more powers they have. Sir Ovens disagrees with the former for now, but we will see if he maintains that position.

 

[Antvasima]

who wants to add AE 2 on Thor's profile

@Sir_Ovens

 

[Antvasima]

who wants to add AE 2 on Thor's profile

@Maverick_Zero_X @Firestorm808

 

[Firestorm808]

@Maverick_Zero_X @Firestorm808

Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it.

• Examples: Kratos (God of War), Sakanashi (Sousei no Onmyouji), Kishin Asura (Soul Eater)

Sounds about right.

When Thor dies, it's not a conventional death, yeah?

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

@Maverick_Zero_X @Firestorm808

I’ll add it soon.

Edit: I’ve done so.

 

[Eficiente]

When I saw that added I was expecting for the discussion to have advanced in my absence, but it didn't. This is notably unprofessional, @Maverick_Zero_X , you have no idea what you're doing here. Do I need to explain how so by repeating myself or can I expect you to be part of the discussion & reply to my issues of what you added?

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

When I saw that added I was expecting for the discussion to have advanced in my absence, but it didn't. This is notably unprofessional, @Maverick_Zero_X ,

“Unprofessional”? You were outvoted, I was pinged to add AE to his page, so I did.

you have no idea what you're doing here.

Considering you’re talking down to me I have no interest in engaging with you, sorry.

You really need to drop your habit of taking a passive aggressive tone towards people that don’t share your viewpoints. It’s extremely unbecoming given your position.

 

[DarkGrath]

When I saw that added I was expecting for the discussion to have advanced in my absence, but it didn't. This is notably unprofessional, Maverick_Zero_X, you have no idea what you're doing here. Do I need to explain how so by repeating myself or can I expect you to be part of the discussion & reply to my issues of what you added?

Kindly refrain from any such demeaning comments towards your fellow staff members of this sort in the future. You are a thread moderator. You should start acting like one.

 

[KLOL506]

So, is there anything else left to do here, now that edits have been applied?

 

[Eficiente]

“Unprofessional”? You were outvoted, I was pinged to add AE to his page, so I did.

Professionally, I would expect a topic to be explained on how it is that it's wrong on its lastest arguments against it (unless it became circular) and that there is a consensus on the discussion being over when that happens, preferably with the word of the users making the arguments against the topic (that way we know they have nothing more to say). Not just a stance being outvoted and that's it. More importantly, I would expect the people in the thread voting to understand the things said about the topic in the thread. And around 10 people showed to not be aware of this when given the chance:

gods are stated to be extradimensional representations of abstract concepts.

No, no. The kid's clearly talking about Nightmare there. They said "You will fight Nightmare", Nightmare said "I will attack you", and then the kid said that.

Hercules is being mentioned around but, come on.

Which new comments talk about as well:

Yes and? Nightmare is a God like Thor and the other Pantheon Gods are. Again, prove that Nightmare specifically is different from the other Gods and therefore should have aspects of his Godhood be unique to only him.

Just to clarify Nightmare is not a god. He is a fear lord different race.

Ok yeah Amadeus was directly referring to Nightmare. That scan can't be used as evidence for Gods.

As someone who has read 400+ Doctor Strange comics yeah Nightmare is absolutely not a God, he's something else entirely and thus can't be used.

For example, he is stated twice to be of similar abstract nature as Eternity, once by himself and once in a Scarlet Witch comic.

But I still agree with the OP.

Yet you added this to Thor's profile.

Considering you’re talking down to me I have no interest in engaging with you, sorry.

You really need to drop your habit of taking a passive aggressive tone towards people that don’t share your viewpoints. It’s extremely unbecoming given your position.

You literally had no idea what you were doing in that instance, it's taking down because you made a mistake, not something you should react to by having no interest in engaging with me when considering what I said. That's petty. I would have not taken that into consideration, Sir Ovens talked down to me in this thread more than that because of how wrong he sees me but I didn't consider a reason to engage with him, I'm fine with his comments.

If you're not engaging with me, then logically you would not know if I view you as "people that don’t share [my] viewpoints." You're throwing that out there because it's a narrative thrown around, not because you have a reason to apply it here. If anything it's unbecoming to fall into biases like that that easily.

And that wasn't a "passive aggressive tone," you're projecting based on said narrative. Telling someone who did something very wrong that they have no idea what they're doing is pretty common, it's not something poetic that oversells what they did or praises them in sarcasm, it doesn't express negative feelings, it just talks about their work or actions.

Kindly refrain from any such demeaning comments towards your fellow staff members of this sort in the future. You are a thread moderator. You should start acting like one.

Ok so what what do we define as "demeaning" in this context? I can tell users that they did something wrong if they did something wrong, I can tell them that they did something very wrong if they did something very wrong, and you can technically call that "demeaning," but it's unreasonable to ask others to not do that. If you mean like an insult to them, oversell what they did wrong or sarcasm then I agree that's that's bad.

{Accusation towards another staff member not related to the topic of the thread edited out by Agnaa, for more info read this post}

----

And I have other issues with what was added, but it's not as clear to see as that and I don't have the energy to go over it. I already talk about it in the thread itself. I kinda don't want to participate in the thread anymore after seeing this, respectfully, it gives me bad faith about what will be agreed on in interpretable things when this happens with objective things, and it removes my motivation & makes me tired.

Edit: To be perfectly clear (bc it suddenly came to me the minor fear that the last bit may be misunderstood), that's a stance I'm free to take and comment on. It doesn't objectively mean that anyone will be wrong, but that I personally wouldn't feel well in the process of the discussion.

 

[Eseseso]

Professionally, I would expect a topic to be explained on how it is that it's wrong on its lastest arguments against it (unless it became circular) and that there is a consensus on the discussion being over when that happens, preferably with the word of the users making the arguments against the topic (that way we know they have nothing more to say). Not just a stance being outvoted and that's it. More importantly, I would expect the people in the thread voting to understand the things said about the topic in the thread. And around 10 people showed to not be aware of this when given the chance:


Which new comments talk about as well:




Yet you added this to Thor's profile.

You literally had no idea what you were doing in that instance, it's taking down because you made a mistake, not something you should react to by having no interest in engaging with me when considering what I said. That's petty. I would have not taken that into consideration, Sir Ovens talked down to me in this thread more than that because of how wrong he sees me but I didn't consider a reason to engage with him, I'm fine with his comments.

If you're not engaging with me, then logically you would not know if I view you as "people that don’t share [my] viewpoints." You're throwing that out there because it's a narrative thrown around, not because you have a reason to apply it here. If anything it's unbecoming to fall into biases like that that easily.

And that wasn't a "passive aggressive tone," you're projecting based on said narrative. Telling someone who did something very wrong that they have no idea what they're doing is pretty common, it's not something poetic that oversells what they did or praises them in sarcasm, it doesn't express negative feelings, it just talks about their work or actions.

Ok so what what do we define as "demeaning" in this context? I can tell users that they did something wrong if they did something wrong, I can tell them that they did something very wrong if they did something very wrong, and you can technically call that "demeaning," but it's unreasonable to ask others to not do that. If you mean like an insult to them, oversell what they did wrong or sarcasm then I agree that's that's bad.

{Accusation towards another staff member not related to the topic of the thread edited out by Agnaa, for more info read this post}

----

And I have other issues with what was added, but it's not as clear to see as that and I don't have the energy to go over it. I already talk about it in the thread itself. I kinda don't want to participate in the thread anymore after seeing this, respectfully, it gives me bad faith about what will be agreed on in interpretable things when this happens with objective, and it removes my motivation & makes me tired.

Why did you quote me, I did literally nothing

 

[Robo432343]

wtf why was i pinged

 

[Agnaa]

As per the Site Rules

If staff members have a problem with each other, it is strongly advised that they take up the issue directly via polite private messages, instead of chastising each other publicly.

I'm going to edit out and delete posts that have done so, without being directly related to the topic of the thread, both in recent messages, and any further messages, due to the derailment that's come from it.

I'd also note that you do not have to engage with other staff members if you believe them unwilling to shape up; you can simply report them to HR group members.

 

[Eficiente]

If the comments were to be edited, do we have a registration of how they used to look like? I might need them years into the future for serious stuff.

 

[Agnaa]

If the comments were to be edited, do we have a registration of how they used to look like? I might need them years into the future for serious stuff.

Yes, admins (and possibly thread mods too?) can view the history of a post, going back a few dozen edits.

 

[Deagonx]

(and possibly thread mods too?) can view the history of a post

This is correct, we can view the "history" of a comment/post as well.

 

[Eficiente]

What do you think of my comment in regards to the thread itself?

 

[Agnaa]

What do you think of my comment in regards to the thread itself?

I currently have 68 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

 

[CloverDragon03]

(I was wondering why my post was just sitting there for a moment when everything else got deleted, but now it's deleted so... nice)

Anyways, since I'm here, I decided to take a look at the proposal which was hard to find because the OP didn't initially specify a proposal. I'd say the evidence presented seems to qualify for Type 2 Abstract Existence, so I agree with that addition

 

[Eficiente]

Have you seen my disagreements? Would you like to address them?

 

[CloverDragon03]

The one that stood out to me was the one about gods that can just straight up die, which would be a legitimate anti-feat. However, scrolling a bit further, I found Ultima's response - which includes this scan, showing deceased gods resurrecting because "they're more than just physical bodies. They are potent myths woven into collective reality." Immediately after, it's stated that Zeus and the other gods are born again, which fits perfectly into Abstract Existence. Sure, you can temporarily put them down, but they're not truly gone - they'll keep coming back so long as their abstractions exist.

Now, my knowledge of Marvel isn't the greatest, so I'm relying solely on the evidence provided. As such, I'm also concerned about commenting too much as an outside party, but I felt it wouldn't be right to just come in and comment without actually giving my opinion on the thread itself. (It's not as if I'm burned out on the verse or anything, for instance)

 

[Eficiente]

I have said this about it in other comments:

Correct. However, we can pinpoint this to be due to Olympians being "potent myths" and because the universe isn't "ready to let them go yet," rather than because all myths can do the same, are just as potent, and are as wanted by the universe.

"Potent myths" can be in a contrast to less potent myths. Asgardians are shown to die and not revive like this, therefore it's not the same.

In any other context like this, I wouldn't assume that "a potent group of X able to do something" refers to all groups of X being able to do the same, even if they're not said to be potent next to those other groups.

Well, I actually agree with it [AE TP 2] for Greek gods and the ones Moon Knight deals with. For the rest, I'm open-minded about it if better evidence is shown.

What do you think?

 

[Robo432343]

I agree because of this statement

what do you guys think of these statements

 

[Deagonx]

I think Eficiente has valid concerns about the extent to which we assume that what is said about the Olympians must also apply to Asgardians, but regardless of that, for me this phrase is sufficient for AE type 2: "As long as there is belief or knowledge of a God, he will live."

Eficiente characterized this as empowerment, but the phrase "he will live" is not so easily discarded. A lot of people know about Thor, he's one of the most famous and memorable Gods, so he will continue to live. This is endorsed further by this scan where it is theorized that erasing knowledge of Thor would erase him from existence.

Concept Manipulation I am less sold on. We get the idea through a lot of these scans that the gods are more like the manifestations of the abstraction. This is stated somewhat explicitly in the Doctor Nemesis scan and hinted at within others, so these manifestations fighting is not really "concept manipulation" and I don't see great evidence for that in these scans necessarily.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I have said this about it in other comments:
What do you think?

Generally speaking, they don't really change my viewpoint - though at the very least, I can better understand where you're coming from.

Still, the reason they don't is because of other scans presented. I mean, the one Robo just referred back to is a good example. Gods as a whole are ideas that turn beliefs into power. So, physiologically speaking, gods are ideas. That adds onto the whole "more than their physical bodies" thing that was referring to the gods of Olympus initially. If you yourself exist as an idea, then it would be a similar case, as killing the idea would be necessary to kill you.

As far as the Asgardians one goes, I have zero context and zero scans to judge any of this on.

 

[Robo432343]

i think this thread can be closed now

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Closing.