User blog comment:MilitaryBrat/Hal Jordan vs Darth Vader/@comment-1683193-20131028175901/@comment-422690-20131031140353

"Please just stop GL auto-shielding works even when they are taken by surprise. You know a cheap shot from behind and the like. Its not a proper construct rather it seems to be a fail safe built into the Ring. So creativity won't have much to with it."

Source. What Pach is saying is more in line with the other abilities of the ring as presented.

"I have no idea what you're blubbering about. How did I disrepect these iconic characters? By pointing out the power disparity between them? Look you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops and bend over backwards for Robin to take out Doomsday too, but saying so in no way disrepects either character they are simply at different power levels."

Missing Pach's point. You're disrespecting them by belligerently dismissing other peoples arguments about the characters.

"Before I go any further perhaps I should ask do you know what the idiot ball, pis/cis, and SMvsFL are?"

We read TvTropes here too, you know.

"So you think he's cool to kill the 10s of thousands of crew members on the Stardestroyer, but would have to arrest Vader?"

Psychologically, yes. He won't have a problem with that because they're abstract - he just sees the Star Destroyer. I'm not familiar with Green Lantern, so that may be different for Hal, but it's still a well known psychological theory.

"Also either you don't think he's gonna get tagged by the hundreds of long range weapons on the Destroyer or that his shields/construct can soak them. Either way he's to fast and or to well protected for Vader to do anything to him."

Irrelevant, missing the point of Pach's statement.

"Relax 'Paco."

This is nitpicky, but we call him Pach.

"Yes their are lots of Green Lantern, but its phrasing that in these sorts of situation generaly applies to certain group of them, like the one you mentioned."

Wrong. You made a blanket statement about all GLs without any qualifiers to limit it.

Given the context of our conversation, your self riotious indignation, I'm sure even you can see that. In fact given the context you'd probably been safe to assume I meant Hal himself. Who by the way you did just admit was in Supermans weight class, by the way. Just remember that, we'll get back to it.

"Truth is I said Green Lanterns mostley"

No, you didn't.

"your nit pickery of said wording is no more usefull then say me derailing the conversation by pointing out that what time period you pull Vader from will effect his performance."

So, very useful? Pointing out valid flaws in an argument is far from being useless or derailing a conversation.

"Really? Seriously? We are going to have a conversation about personalities when we are dealing with this kind of power differential? Let me posit a question or few."

Yes, personalities and morals matter; how they use their power is as important as the power itself.

"Caveman vs an SAS squad?

Caveman vs Spetnaz team?

Caveman vs a Delta Force A-Team?

Caveman vs SWAT team?

Who wins? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you sided against the caveman in all of the above and I doubt very much that you factored in morals and personailty when you did so. Even though the SAS, Spetsnaz, Delta Force, and SWAT are very different groups with different training and missions."

Reducto ad absurdum. Invalid argument.

"Lets back track though. Realising that ABC logic isn't perfect I'm still curious. You said Hal is a match for Superman and Luke takes on Vader in movies. Why then do you scoff at Luke vs Supes, but are okay with Hal vs Anni?"

Because, as stated, those are two completely different fights.

"As for Hal and Clark's personalities* being a factor what is the difference in said personalities that makes you think they would fair radically different vs a Force user?"

Missing Pach's point, again. The point is that you're using a completely separate battle to try and justify why this one is unfair.

"Note I realize others have worn the mantle of Superman, but I am assuming you meant Clark Kent as well. How ever if you didn't and you won't to go off on a heated diatribe about how persumptious and rude it was off me to forgot the others. Please don't, 'cause these are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS so I am not going to offend them, you do realize they are fictional right?"

Ad hominem, and missing the point once again.