Durakken

I am talking about comic time. He's not 29.

Where are you getting that?

He is officially at least 12 years older than when he debuted which means he can't be 29... unless he traveled around the world and graduated from college before he was 17. It is literally impossible with official published time lines and such, even if you ignore all dating within the comics themselves and only pay attention to official time lines.

Yeeeeeeeaaaah... No.

2000 was the last official DCU timeline and that + the few years needed for certain stories put him no younger than that later 30s at best.

Unless they are trying to argue that he was like 14 when he made his debut as Superman (not Superboy) That'd be kinda funny.

On New Earth Clark Kent is like 44 years old in terms of years he has been around on Earth... It is unknown of whether whether there was a relative time thing which could technical put him thousands of years old and his physical age is supposedly in his late 20s early 30s.




To me people are spazzing over TDKR Batman not acting like New Earth Batman and Nazi Superman not acting like New Earth Superman... the criticism is just off.

They should be criticizing say, the bad writing or the crappy deformed art...

You didn't because someone got banned for posting something about them for a month >.>


As far as looking at this as an elseworlds tale... Congratulations, you win. IT IS AN ELSEWORLDS TALE.

That is why it is called Earth-1. Earth-1 is not the prime DC universe. The prime DC universe is "New Earth" or "Earth-0". A number of other elseworld tales are also other universes... such as the TDKR universe which has it's own numbered universe.

She is generalizing. You are generalizing in saying that this is how Liberals view conservatives... instead of understanding that this is how SHE views Liberals.

Which by the way is an idiotic term. Just about everyone in the world is a liberal (for freedom) in some way. I wish politics wouldn't mess with words.


I do more than one thing at once so I may have missed the part where Lois was all like "oooh I'm going to take this thing somehow that I have already been told what it is and then forget what it is" If that happened ok, I missed it and you have a point.

However, that's not what I saw. One presumes that Ollie or Carter let her borrow it for pictures or something and didn't tell anyone and then your mistaking the admiration scene for her going "What's this?"

Cat is an idiot, why wouldn't she say that?

You are projecting the character of Cat onto all conservatives and making a mistake that is far too common among all people with a hasty generalization.

Lois gets in trouble a lot, because she puts herself into trouble or her stories lead her there. She was doing a story, had the necklace, she's the one that got possessed. Pretty easy to understand. The banshee episode the story was more forced than anything and would have worked the same with Chloe or Lois being the one that ends up possessed...

Actually

Ollie is projecting with his with his speech, believing that those who simply speak their mind aren't doing enough or anything at all, but I would point out that making your voice heard is an action in and of itself. He'd say that though because he both has the means to go out and be a vigilante the way he is, which is a point that in a number of incarnation Batman brings up. The difference between Batman, etc, and them is they are not gambling, but rather taking calculated risks. Ollie obviously doesn't see that, and might be considered a flaw in character and shows that he is more of the cliche than...

Darkseid's lackey is saying that vigilantes are evil. He'd say that...what's the problem?

Or Cat who has experienced a traumatic event and is lashing out against those she feels is at fault, seduced by Darkseid's Lackey...


So both sides are equally written correctly. If you don't like what the characters are coming off in their political views when they are being properly written then it might have more to do with your affiliations and not with the writers affiliations.


As far as the other side would be up in arms over such a thing directed at them. It depends... I would support such things in some cases while not in others. When one side refuses to speak honestly and reasonably ridicule becomes the best way to deal with that group, however, ridicule by that other side is often the first tactic used while making fallacious arguments.

In other words....
Reasonable discourse that degenerates into ridicule do to one side = Alright
Ridicule from the outset = Bad

This is what is so often confused...similar to trolls actually ^.^


But I fail to see how this all has anything to do with writing for the purposes of entertainment. No where does it say that you have to be fair in your portrayal/commentary in any work. If that were the case, I don't think anyone could watch TV since a majority of people are portrayed unfairly on most shows.

“Ridicule is the best test of truth” ~ Lord Chesterfield

“Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.” ~ Louisa May Alcott

“Ridicule is like a wolf: it only destroys those who fear it”

“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” ~ Frederick Douglass

“The greatest height of heroism to which an individual, like a people, can attain is to know how to face ridicule” ~ Miguel de Unamuno

To name a few good quotes about that ^.^

The episode clinched it that it wasn't time travelers... Time travelers would not want to mess with time which Thomas does.