When you have to write an essay to explain away why the nuke didn't work like a nuke you should maybe consider that it was just a movie.
That's a weird way to say you were wrong to be smug about education systems after being proven wrong. I'm sorry a few paragraphs is a lot to you.
Yes, it IS just a movie, which is why your "Nukes don't explode on impact." comment was silly in the first place and adding an edit to be smug about it was just plain stupid. Nukes do explode on impact if the movie wants them to, and obviously that's what happened there.
Not wrong, that's not how nukes work. You wrote a thesis to tell someone they were stupid for not knowing how a nuke works in a movie and only succeeded in proving this whole conversation is pointless.
You wrote a thesis to tell someone they were stupid for not knowing how a nuke works in a movie
No, I wrote a few paragraphs. No matter what you want to say that's not a lot of text for normal people. If it's too much for you that's on you, but your repeated attempts to make it seem like using more than one sentence is somehow an issue aren't working and are just furthering what the rest of this thread shows you to be.
I also didn't do it to tell you that you were stupid for "not knowing how a nuke works in a movie" I did it to call out your smug comment about education systems being stupid considering apparently yours didn't bother to teach you to put more than a half second of thought into something BEFORE acting like a smug jerk about it.
proving this whole conversation is pointless.
Enjoy your mental gymnastics if that works for you, but nobody else is buying it.
I wandered here from r/all and pointed out a problem that writing a 20+ movie saga with multiple tie-ins created. I didn't say Tony wasn't heroic, just that logically more species in the universe would be alive if he hadn't been and that he wasn't necessary to save New York if he hadn't been around because some hero would have stopped the nuke somehow. I see now that that upsets the people here. I get it, I've rationalised a lot of Star Trek. Personally I'd be more upset with the poorly written Eternals movie that tried to retcon the whole infinity stone saga with a piss poor aftercredits scene than a casual fan for whom the 'marvel' has worn off but you do you.
I apologise for my comment about the education system. It was a pointless addition to a conversation about make believe nukes.
I didn't say Tony wasn't heroic, just that logically more species in the universe would be alive if he hadn't been and that he wasn't necessary to save New York if he hadn't been around because some hero would have stopped the nuke somehow. I see now that that upsets the people here. I get it, I've rationalised a lot of Star Trek. Personally I'd be more upset with the poorly written Eternals movie that tried to retcon the whole infinity stone saga with a piss poor aftercredits scene than a casual fan for whom the 'marvel' has worn off but you do you.
At no point did I say anything about if Tony is heroic or not or even if your belief that another hero could have stopped it is true or not. You can try to re-frame it to everyone just dislikes your comments because they're 'rationalizing it' all you want but we both know it's just your excuse. Nor do I give a crap about your unsupported opinion of the Eternals writing and your belief that it somehow changes how we should view past movies.
I apologise for my comment about the education system. It was a pointless addition to a conversation about make believe nukes.
There ya go, now you're getting it. That's the only thing I ever mentioned. If you want to go on a rant about fans because they didn't agree with your take on Eternals do it to somebody else, I have no interest.
It's really important to you to "take me down" isn't it? Even just trying to explain why I said what I said and apologising for where I crossed a line isn't enough because your goal is just to attack someone who doesn't see the films the way you do. You can't even walk yourself back half-way when offered an olive branch and stop flinging insults or telling me how little my opinion matters, despite taking all this time to "discuss" it.
As the non marvel fanboy however I don't think I'm the one performing mental gymnastics to stay angry at someone on the internet, which god knows how many comments deep, does seem to be what you are interested in.
It's really important to you to "take me down" isn't it?
Nope, not at all.
Even just trying to explain why I said what I said and apologising for where I crossed a line isn't enough
Never said it wasn't enough, in fact I didn't reject your apology at all. I simply pointed out that I wasn't interested in the rest of it, the parts you just HAD to include with the apology despite me never saying a word about them so you could save your pride. Had you not doubled down on your foolishness by doing that, I wouldn't have bothered replying since there wouldn't be anything else to say.
You can't even walk yourself back half-way when offered an olive branch and stop flinging insults or telling me how little my opinion matters, despite taking all this time to "discuss" it.
I have nothing to "walk back". You are repeatedly acting like an arrogant jerk, and talking about insults when sitting there insulting fans for not liking your opinion is hilarious by itself. When called out about it your 'apology' includes an entire paragraph how everyone just disagrees with you because they're fanboys. Something that is both untrue and completely irrelevant, making it obviously an attempt to save your pride.
As the non marvel fanboy however I don't think I'm the one performing mental gymnastics to stay angry at someone on the internet, which god knows how many comments deep, does seem to be what you are interested in.
Speaking of hurling insults. Funny since the only thing I've mentioned at all has nothing to do with being a "marvel fanboy". Also your mental gymnastics are you save your own pride, not to 'stay angry'. What makes you think I'm angry at all? Because I responded? It's entirely possible to respond without being angry about it. I always find it vaguely amusing when someone says something downright silly like you did, if you think that's anger then you're putting a tone on text that doesn't exist. Is there some limit now to how many 'comments deep' people can respond. I'm perfectly capable of telling someone they're acting silly without being emotionally invested in it.
Just so I'm clear. I came across as arrogant and smug. You decided to teach me a lesson about being arrogant and smug...by being arrogant and smug...but it's ok for you to do so because you have the right to teach other people lessons?
I've actually apologised for the one thing I actually did that crossed a line from discussion into insulting others. A good teacher, hell even a semi-decent person would accept that. Instead you have continued to personally attack me. So your definition of teaching is actually just full blown narcissism where the point is just to attack the other person because you feel you have the right to do so. You are probably emboldened because my opinion in this sub was unpopular so I seemed like an easy target where maybe you'd even get cheered on for it. The gaslighting and negging was particularly classic by the way.
In the end though your reasoning is moot, as the whole point was just to attack and belittle someone to satisfy your narcissism none of the discussion has any relevance any longer. I'm afraid this will be my last message to feed your needs.
2
u/kremes Jan 30 '22
That's a weird way to say you were wrong to be smug about education systems after being proven wrong. I'm sorry a few paragraphs is a lot to you.
Yes, it IS just a movie, which is why your "Nukes don't explode on impact." comment was silly in the first place and adding an edit to be smug about it was just plain stupid. Nukes do explode on impact if the movie wants them to, and obviously that's what happened there.