First, the appeal of Superman is his heart more than his strength. There's one comic where he fights a giant robot and stops a runaway train, but the scene everyone remembers is when he talked someone down from the edge of a building.
Second, Superman may be invincible, but Lois Lane isn't. It's easy to defeat a villain, but much harder to defeat them while also keeping Lois safe. And she actively invites danger, so it's always tricky keeping her safe.
Third, not every problem can be punched. Luthor's greatest weapon against Superman isn't kryptonite; it's Public Relations. You can punch a monster, but that won't help you stop a smear campaign.
You're not one for applicability, are you? That same metaphor can be used for voting for Brexit, or voting down healthcare, or any number of spiteful acts. Trying to ruin society is like shitting your own bed: no matter why you did it, you still have to live in it.
And to answer your question, pretty well. I literally went to bed straight after writing that. It had no shit in it.
Imagine you're in a hotel where the bedsheets are a little too itchy for your liking. So you decide to protest these sheets by pissing all over them. And it's a foul pee, absolutely reeks and probably reflects an unchecked medical issue. That'll punish the hotel for the sin of uncomfortable sheets.
Except it's a 4 night stay, and you still need to sleep in that bed. And the shower isn't as effective as you might have hoped.
That's what voting for Trump to punish stupidity is like.
You've mistaken "first hand" with "verified". What you're describing is "unverified first hand sources". Hardly matters, because third party sources DID verify it.
Despite the massive block of rambling, semi-relevant text, I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer the question I asked you. What evidence would you need?
No, that audio and that person are first hand sources. There was no hand between them and the thing that happened. You, having heard of what happened from them, are now the second hand. If you disagree, what do you think is the first hand source?
For a moment, consider the fact you are an imperfect being capable of fault, and you may not know everything that is or was. In this situation, where you are capable of being wrong, is there any hypothetical piece of evidence that could exist that would prove to you if it happened or not? What would it take to change your mind?
Second-hand? We have a fucking video. The people who were there wrote fucking books. We have the fucking capsule they returned in. We took souveniers. There's a flag on the surface of the moon. If that's second-hand, what do you count as first-hand? Do you need to be physically on the moon before you admit we went there?
It's not that the soviets had no reason to. It's that they had EVERY reason to, and didn't. They could win the space race and break public trust in the USA with one good piece of evidence, so long as that evidence existed. If there was any actual proof that it was fake, the soviets would have done everything possible to find it.
You honestly expect me to believe that:
The USA created a fake video of the moon that could pass for real in the 1960s;
They were able to stick a flag upright into the moon without manually positioning it;
They were able to synthesise a moon rock that could pass for real in the 1960s, when studying that rock progressed our science significantly;
They could create rockets, shuttles and capsules capable of taking people to the moon that we can see today in museums, complete with blueprints, and didn't use them;
They were able to cover up this secret so well that every engineer, scientist, set designer, cinematographer and government official kept the secret for 55 years;
They were able to do this 6 more times in the next 4 years;
Not one shred of evidence of any of this has been found, despite spies and sceptics looking for half a century;
...All while the president can't fuck a secretary without people finding out? That seems less likely than the US being able to go to a moon in that moon rocket they built.
The moon landing happened. It's obvious. Even without the evidence that it happened (which we have in abundance), there's the fact that the soviet union didn't even try to claim it was fake (when they had every incentive to do so).
If you claim to not believe in the moon landing, you're either a troll or an idiot. You were banned for trolling because they were being kind in their interpretation of you.
Well, that's a clear sign you haven't seen Pacific Rim. It's a dumb ability to have without using up until that point, especially given everything that led to it. But it's fucking awesome, so I rebuilt my willing sense of disbelief just to enjoy it some more.
You said you dislike it when you're reminded you're in a theatre. Intermission is the story literally just saying "you're in a theatre, go do something else for a few minutes and come back later." The play isn't good because you're unable to leave. It's good because you DO come back later.
I remember my reaction to the sword moment in Pacific Rim the first time I saw it: This is dumb and I don't care. I was taken out of the story, but it was so cool that I pulled myself back into it.
With TV shows, they don't want to trap you, they want you to come back later to hear more. It's rare for someone to read an entire novel in one sitting, but a good story is one you'll pick up again later. With theatre, they give you an intermission so you don't pee on the seats. That used to be the case with movies, too.
Do you think he was flying around the earth for kicks? No, he was using a gravitational slingshot to build speed. Granted, they could have explained it better, so I guess a line like "we need to use the turn of the world to speed up our satilites, and we still can't match his velocity. Imagine how fast he'd be." But less clunky, of course.
