|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 26, 2018 13:42:09 GMT
Man, I am so disappointed this is the hill you are going to die on. I was hoping for a more enthusiastic, original troll. Not this banal tack. Really why? DC-Fan is far from original, he's a parrot who simply restates others issues without understanding the actual context of them, this is why when you challenge his argument he can do nothing but regurgitate the same flaccid argument over and over ad nauseam, to expect more is to expect a dog not to lick it's own scrotum, in either case they both bring about the same amount of class and decorum to a civilised argument. He is the boards Resident Troll. If he's going to do it then I'd rather have him be good at it. I think with some constructive criticism and the support from the members he could be passable at it. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 19:49:02 GMT
The US settles their leadership disputes by peaceful methods and don't settle their leadership disputes by barbaric and savage bloodshed and taking of human life like Wakanda does. I guess that’s how Jackie Kennedy ended up with her husband’s brains in her lap. Very peacefully. And who became POTUS after JFK was assassinated? LBJ And did LBJ have to fight in barbaric and savage mortal combat to gain the Presidency? Or was the transfer of power to LBJ done by a peaceful transition without barbaric and savage mortal combat like Wakanda did after their King was assassinated? Thanks for proving once again that I'm 100% correct. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 19:51:58 GMT
Except where in the film was the taking of a life a requirement to take control? Killmonger was recognised as king despite T'Challa still being alive, T'Challa specifically asked and allowed M'Baku to yield in their fight, T'Challa even asked that Killmonger allow him to save his life, meaning T'Challa won and Killmonger didn't need to die, killing can occur but it's not a necessity, so by saying they resort to it is a lie, a factual statement would be "This is the 21st century and technologically advanced nations in the 21st century don't to for single combat where the taking of human life can in extreme circumstances occur to be used to settle leadership disputes like Wakanda does.".
It’s a challenge that will end when one person yields or IF death occurs. It’s not intended to be a fight to the death. "IF death occurs"? So it's a challenge that could end IF someone isn't incapacitated to the point that they're still able to yield or it ends in death. So it IS intended to be a fight to the death. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 19:52:33 GMT
Really why? DC-Fan is far from original, he's a parrot who simply restates others issues without understanding the actual context of them, this is why when you challenge his argument he can do nothing but regurgitate the same flaccid argument over and over ad nauseam, to expect more is to expect a dog not to lick it's own scrotum, in either case they both bring about the same amount of class and decorum to a civilised argument. He is the boards Resident Troll. I'm not a troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 26, 2018 19:53:27 GMT
I guess that’s how Jackie Kennedy ended up with her husband’s brains in her lap. Very peacefully. And who became POTUS after JFK was assassinated? LBJ And did LBJ have to fight in barbaric and savage mortal combat to gain the Presidency? Or was the transfer of power to LBJ done by a peaceful transition without barbaric and savage mortal combat like Wakanda did after their King was assassinated? Thanks for proving once again that I'm 100% correct. That particular transition of power was precipitated by a violent and bloodthirsty act. A leader was shot to death so that another could take his place. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 26, 2018 19:55:51 GMT
It’s a challenge that will end when one person yields or IF death occurs. It’s not intended to be a fight to the death. "IF death occurs"? So it's a challenge that could end IF someone isn't incapacitated to the point that they're still able to yield or it ends in death. So it IS intended to be a fight to the death. Is is not meant to be a fight to the death. The clause simply stated that the challenge will end if one or both challengers happen to die. Either may yield or quit whenever they choose. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 20:03:19 GMT
"IF death occurs"? So it's a challenge that could end IF someone isn't incapacitated to the point that they're still able to yield or it ends in death. So it IS intended to be a fight to the death. Either may yield or quit whenever they choose. And when a combatant is too incapacitated to choose to yield or quit, then it's a fight to the death. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 26, 2018 20:12:31 GMT
Either may yield or quit whenever they choose. And when a combatant is too incapacitated to choose to yield or quit, then it's a fight to the death. No the fighter is offered an opportunity to yield verbally - so that all may hear it. If the fighter answers in the affirmative, the trial ends. If the answer is no, the trial continues. If the losing fighter is incapacitated to the point that they are unable to answer, the fight automatically also ends. The only reference to death is that it is mentioned as a possible outcome of the match - like a disclaimer. That’s more warning than you get at an MMA matchup. Even after the challenge is issued, up until the moment you can back out and still save face. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 20:19:18 GMT
And when a combatant is too incapacitated to choose to yield or quit, then it's a fight to the death. No the fighter is offered an opportunity to yield verbally - so that all may hear it. If the fighter answers in the affirmative, the trial ends. If the answer is no, the trial continues. If the losing fighter is incapacitated to the point that they are unable to answer, the fight automatically also ends. The only reference to death is that it is mentioned as a possible outcome of the match - like a disclaimer. That’s more warning than you get at an MMA matchup. Even after the challenge is issued, up until the moment you can back out and still save face. You're wrong again. 1st, they said nothing about incapacitating a combatant. They said it's a fight to the death. If someone is incapacitated and unable to yield or fight back, then they're going to be killed. 2nd, comparing it to MMA is a bad comparison. MMA doesn't allow the use of deadly weapons. Moreover, MMA actually has a referee who can and will stop the fight if he sees that a combatant isn't able to continue. That's what happened to Ronda Rousey when she got her ass kicked. She didn't yield or submit, mainly because she was too dizzy from the kick to the head to even know where she was. But lucky for her, the ref saw that she couldn't continue so the ref stopped the fight before she got beaten down even further. 3rd. MMA does give plenty of warning to their fighters. It's in the contract that each fighter signs. They don't need to read out loud the contract word-for-word before every fight, but it's in the contract for all the fighters and their agents/lawyers to read before the fight. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 26, 2018 20:23:27 GMT
Either may yield or quit whenever they choose. And when a combatant is too incapacitated to choose to yield or quit, then it's a fight to the death. And? no one is arguing death is a risk to the trial by combat all anyone else is saying you as usual are purposely misrepresenting facts to support a bullshit argument because you are too stupid to argue a point with the facts at hand you fucking retard.
Any fight has the risk of being one to a death, boxing, MMA, street fights even pillow fights can result in a death all it takes is for the right participant and wrong circumstances and they dead, but a fight to the death is specifically one in which the only way to win is to kill the opponent, as either participant can yield, even after sustaining life threatening injuries and accept aid means it is not a fight to the death but a fight that carries the risk of death which as stated all fights have.
Using other combat sports as an example in MMA a fight can end via stoppage, knock out, TKO, DQ or submission, but that does not mean every fight is a submission match as it has other ways to end, hell in pro wrestling you can win by pin, submission, count out, DQ or knock out, but only when specified means of winning are implemented do they get called other things, KO only = Last Man Standing Match, submission only = I Quit or Submission match, first to bleed = First Blood, KO after being pinned = Texas Deathmatch, a fight to the death match means the only way to win is via killing otherwise it isn't a fight to the death as both participants can survive but a winner be crowned.
Do you comprehend this you spastic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 26, 2018 20:33:29 GMT
No the fighter is offered an opportunity to yield verbally - so that all may hear it. If the fighter answers in the affirmative, the trial ends. If the answer is no, the trial continues. If the losing fighter is incapacitated to the point that they are unable to answer, the fight automatically also ends. The only reference to death is that it is mentioned as a possible outcome of the match - like a disclaimer. That’s more warning than you get at an MMA matchup. Even after the challenge is issued, up until the moment you can back out and still save face. You're wrong again. 1st, they said nothing about incapacitating a combatant. They said it's a fight to the death. If someone is incapacitated and unable to yield or fight back, then they're going to be killed. 2nd, comparing it to MMA is a bad comparison. MMA doesn't allow the use of deadly weapons. Moreover, MMA actually has a referee who can and will stop the fight if he sees that a combatant isn't able to continue. That's what happened to Ronda Rousey when she got her ass kicked. She didn't yield or submit, mainly because she was too dizzy from the kick to the head to even know where she was. But lucky for her, the ref saw that she couldn't continue so the ref stopped the fight before she got beaten down even further. 3rd. MMA does give plenty of warning to their fighters. It's in the contract that each fighter signs. They don't need to read out loud the contract word-for-word before every fight, but it's in the contract for all the fighters and their agents/lawyers to read before the fight. A verbal warning is far more sportsmanlike than a contract in a potential life or death situation. Wakandan’s also have referees in the form of the priests. If your opponent is incapacitated during the fight the fight is over and you won. You can’t fight an incapacitated person. You can only kill them. You’re are not OBLIGATED to kill him or her even though you’re within your right to do so. It’s not a fight to the death. It’s ritual combat. NO ONE dies in either of the challenges in the film and, furthermore, no one had challenged the Black Panther for power in centuries prior to the Jabari’s challenge at the begging of the film. How can you be “blood thirsty” if your challenges only occur every couple centuries? |
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Feb 26, 2018 20:34:35 GMT
And when a combatant is too incapacitated to choose to yield or quit, then it's a fight to the death. And? no one is arguing death is a risk to the trial by combat all anyone else is saying you as usual are purposely misrepresenting facts to support a bullshit argument because you are too stupid to argue a point with the facts at hand you fucking retard.
Any fight has the risk of being one to a death, boxing, MMA, street fights even pillow fights can result in a death all it takes is for the right participant and wrong circumstances and they dead, but a fight to the death is specifically one in which the only way to win is to kill the opponent, as either participant can yield, even after sustaining life threatening injuries and accept aid means it is not a fight to the death but a fight that carries the risk of death which as stated all fights have.
Using other combat sports as an example in MMA a fight can end via stoppage, knock out, TKO, DQ or submission, but that does not mean every fight is a submission match as it has other ways to end, hell in pro wrestling you can win by pin, submission, count out, DQ or knock out, but only when specified means of winning are implemented do they get called other things, KO only = Last Man Standing Match, submission only = I Quit or Submission match, first to bleed = First Blood, KO after being pinned = Texas Deathmatch, a fight to the death match means the only way to win is via killing otherwise it isn't a fight to the death as both participants can survive but a winner be crowned.
Do you comprehend this you spastic?
You've been reported, take a chill pill |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 26, 2018 20:40:38 GMT
And? no one is arguing death is a risk to the trial by combat all anyone else is saying you as usual are purposely misrepresenting facts to support a bullshit argument because you are too stupid to argue a point with the facts at hand you fucking retard.
Any fight has the risk of being one to a death, boxing, MMA, street fights even pillow fights can result in a death all it takes is for the right participant and wrong circumstances and they dead, but a fight to the death is specifically one in which the only way to win is to kill the opponent, as either participant can yield, even after sustaining life threatening injuries and accept aid means it is not a fight to the death but a fight that carries the risk of death which as stated all fights have.
Using other combat sports as an example in MMA a fight can end via stoppage, knock out, TKO, DQ or submission, but that does not mean every fight is a submission match as it has other ways to end, hell in pro wrestling you can win by pin, submission, count out, DQ or knock out, but only when specified means of winning are implemented do they get called other things, KO only = Last Man Standing Match, submission only = I Quit or Submission match, first to bleed = First Blood, KO after being pinned = Texas Deathmatch, a fight to the death match means the only way to win is via killing otherwise it isn't a fight to the death as both participants can survive but a winner be crowned.
Do you comprehend this you spastic?
You've been reported, take a chill pill blow me |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 20:44:12 GMT
You're wrong again. 1st, they said nothing about incapacitating a combatant. They said it's a fight to the death. If someone is incapacitated and unable to yield or fight back, then they're going to be killed. 2nd, comparing it to MMA is a bad comparison. MMA doesn't allow the use of deadly weapons. Moreover, MMA actually has a referee who can and will stop the fight if he sees that a combatant isn't able to continue. That's what happened to Ronda Rousey when she got her ass kicked. She didn't yield or submit, mainly because she was too dizzy from the kick to the head to even know where she was. But lucky for her, the ref saw that she couldn't continue so the ref stopped the fight before she got beaten down even further. 3rd. MMA does give plenty of warning to their fighters. It's in the contract that each fighter signs. They don't need to read out loud the contract word-for-word before every fight, but it's in the contract for all the fighters and their agents/lawyers to read before the fight. NO ONE dies in either of the challenges in the film T'Challa was thrown off the edge of a waterfall and it was just a lucky fluke that he didn't die and was found (although the movie never explains how he was found in the mountains with no river around when he was thrown off the edge of a waterfall). no one had challenged the Black Panther for power in centuries prior to the Jabari’s challenge at the begging of the film. That's never stated in the movie so you can't assume that. The only thing that's known for sure in the movie is that such a barbaric and savage ritual of choosing a King by bloodshed and mortal combat is part of Wakandan law and is normal for Wakandans. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 26, 2018 20:54:41 GMT
NO ONE dies in either of the challenges in the film T'Challa was thrown off the edge of a waterfall and it was just a lucky fluke that he didn't die and was found (although the movie never explains how he was found in the mountains with no river around when he was thrown off the edge of a waterfall). no one had challenged the Black Panther for power in centuries prior to the Jabari’s challenge at the begging of the film. That's never stated in the movie so you can't assume that. The only thing that's known for sure in the movie is that such a barbaric and savage ritual of choosing a King by bloodshed and mortal combat is part of Wakandan law and is normal for Wakandans. Be that as it may, he still didn’t die. I didn’t hear anyone in the film say that a challenge had a occurred recently. So it’s inconclusive how frequently anyone challenges or dies in the process of the challenge. Can’t assume either way. Also,M’Baku said the Jibari had not seen a king in centuries. How could they challenge a king if they hadn’t seen one in centuries? Since no one dies by challenge in the film, your claim to Wakandan bloodlust is seriously flawed. You’ll need to produce an example of a Wakandan dying by trial to substantiate your claim that they are bloodthirsty. They are thirsty for box office dollars and they’re very well fed in that regard, unlike some starving Amazons. A school full of children was just shot up in Florida. Seems more bloodthirsty to me than ritual combat. Do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 26, 2018 20:56:31 GMT
NO ONE dies in either of the challenges in the film T'Challa was thrown off the edge of a waterfall and it was just a lucky fluke that he didn't die and was found (although the movie never explains how he was found in the mountains with no river around when he was thrown off the edge of a waterfall).no one had challenged the Black Panther for power in centuries prior to the Jabari’s challenge at the begging of the film. That's never stated in the movie so you can't assume that. The only thing that's known for sure in the movie is that such a barbaric and savage ritual of choosing a King by bloodshed and mortal combat is part of Wakandan law and is normal for Wakandans. This is a valid criticism to the film, use more of these things to moan about, to some it's trivial but atleast it is a fair point, same for why doesn't T'Challa shut down Killmonger's BS about Klaue by pointing out Killmonger was the one who broke Klaue free from them, seeing how Killmonger turns up with the same ring T'Challa saw and wearing the same get up sans mask as he was wearing in said breakout, hell why does W'Kabi yield rather than fight Okoye at the end of the fight when he was ordering his men to crush the Dora Milaje using their shields prior to M'Baku's arrival, he has no qualms killing her then but now he does?
The film is not without issues so why the hell do you choose to hang your hat on such stupid crap like that in this thread? or the assumptive crap of your "plot hole" thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Feb 26, 2018 20:58:12 GMT
And? no one is arguing death is a risk to the trial by combat all anyone else is saying you as usual are purposely misrepresenting facts to support a bullshit argument because you are too stupid to argue a point with the facts at hand you fucking retard.
Any fight has the risk of being one to a death, boxing, MMA, street fights even pillow fights can result in a death all it takes is for the right participant and wrong circumstances and they dead, but a fight to the death is specifically one in which the only way to win is to kill the opponent, as either participant can yield, even after sustaining life threatening injuries and accept aid means it is not a fight to the death but a fight that carries the risk of death which as stated all fights have.
Using other combat sports as an example in MMA a fight can end via stoppage, knock out, TKO, DQ or submission, but that does not mean every fight is a submission match as it has other ways to end, hell in pro wrestling you can win by pin, submission, count out, DQ or knock out, but only when specified means of winning are implemented do they get called other things, KO only = Last Man Standing Match, submission only = I Quit or Submission match, first to bleed = First Blood, KO after being pinned = Texas Deathmatch, a fight to the death match means the only way to win is via killing otherwise it isn't a fight to the death as both participants can survive but a winner be crowned.
Do you comprehend this you spastic?
You've been reported, take a chill pill Puss puss puss puss puss. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 26, 2018 21:09:45 GMT
T'Challa was thrown off the edge of a waterfall and it was just a lucky fluke that he didn't die and was found (although the movie never explains how he was found in the mountains with no river around when he was thrown off the edge of a waterfall).That's never stated in the movie so you can't assume that. The only thing that's known for sure in the movie is that such a barbaric and savage ritual of choosing a King by bloodshed and mortal combat is part of Wakandan law and is normal for Wakandans. This is a valid criticism to the film, use more of these things to moan about, to some it's trivial but atleast it is a fair point, same for why doesn't T'Challa shut down Killmonger's BS about Klaue by pointing out Killmonger was the one who broke Klaue free from them, seeing how Killmonger turns up with the same ring T'Challa saw and wearing the same get up sans mask as he was wearing in said breakout, hell why does W'Kabi yield rather than fight Okoye at the end of the fight when he was ordering his men to crush the Dora Milaje using their shields prior to M'Baku's arrival, he has no qualms killing her then but now he does?
Also this: Killmonger: "I'm your long-lost cousin whom none of you have heard from in 25 years and I've here to challenge for the throne of this country that I've never been in before today." T'Challa: "OK. Even though you've never been to Wakanda and probably don't give a shit about Wakanda or its people, you can challenge for the throne. We'll just take your word for it that you're my uncle's long-lost son. No DNA test needed." |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 26, 2018 21:27:42 GMT
He had a valid war dog tattoo and his father’s ceremonial ring. Zuri also confirmed his existence by admitting his culpability in the Prince’s murder by T’Chaka.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 26, 2018 21:42:04 GMT
He is the boards Resident Troll. I'm not a troll. Good, when confronted directly you are supposed to deny, deny, deny. You did right this time. Keep up the good work. Guys he's really trying. |
|
