Because you're trying to use logic when there really isn't any. At least for the space thing, he isn't trying to kill people and I imagine a lot of the stronger villains could survive in space as well.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Logic" doesn't generally mean what you're trying to say here. Well written stories and fictional universes have consistent reasonable logic that only differs from our own wirh intentional changes like "magic is real" or narrative biases like "we would have told this story a different way if the hero lost."

A better term for what comic book stories with a mish-mash of power definitions and unexplained characterization lack is consistency.

(But, as with "literally", the inaccurate and informal usage you probably mean to decry the medium's unrealistic conventions is probably in the dictionary already, thanks to the cryoto-Jewish space-elves of a certain fun but overrated television show)

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Consistency is a problem as well, but that is not what I meant. Logic is the correct term. Inconsistency would be him sometimes breathing in space and/or not breathing on Earth. Which is probably also inconsistent. The general rule is, breathes on earth and not in space. Logically, you either need to breathe or you don't. If you need to breathe, how do you survive in space? If you don't need to breathe, why do you breathe at all?

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pure logic does not include axioms like "you need to breathe or you don't", nor does logic lead from the axioms "not all beings need to breathe" and "you can't breathe in space" to conclusions such as either "all creatures who breathe cannot survive in space" or "no beings who can survive in space are able to breathe."

A and not-B does not lead to if-not-B-then-A.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That's a much better argument to make.