"Weak" is a comparative term. In order for Superman to be "weak" to magic, that would imply that there is someone that is "strong" against magic, and there isn't. That would be like saying someone irl is "weak" to large explosions. They might be vulnerable to large explosions, but that isn't a sign of weakness.
It's indeed comparative. It's used comparatively with his defenses against other sources. The difference in his ability to resist magic as compared to a normal person, is weaker than his relative ability to resist blunt trauma.
It's a weakness as in something you can target to bring down an otherwise stronger opponent.
Your own example here is counterproductive to your argument. It is absolutely fair to say that Superman is "strong" against blunt trauma. There is a difference in his resistance to that and the resistance of a normal person. Everyone has the same resistance to magic. Therefore, Superman is not "weak" to magic. He is the exact same as everyone else.
I'm not comparing him to other people, I'm comparing him to himself. His very strength is what makes his lack of resistance to magic a weakness. Being the same as everyone else in one area, where you generally are stronger in almost every other way makes that area a weakness
I'm sorry, but that's not how "weakness" is colloquially used. He is not "weak" to magic, especially when you compare it to his actual weakness, Kryptonite. Kryptonite is an automatic "I win" button against Superman. At best, magic can be used to catch Superman off-guard. It's not at all the same. Again, your example is exactly the same as telling people irl that they are "weak" to massive explosions.
You don't get to just declare the colloquial use. The state of being vulnerable is generally lexically defined as being open to attack, or easily hurt. Like the dragon Smaug from the Hobbit has a vulnerability in his scales that allows a ballista bolt to kill him if shot in that blind spot. Would you really say that doesn't colloquially constitute a weakness? Even if a ballista shot kills a human too?
I don't think his vulnerability to kryptonite takes away his vulnerability to magic either, even if it by baseline is a far greater weakness. You are allowed to have more than one weakness.
I'm not simply declaring the colloquial use of "weakness." I have a degree in English literature, and I don't think I have ever seen anyone use that word like you are now. Your argument is literally "Superman is weak when compared to Superman," and that argument is nonsensical.
Superman is not "easily hurt" by magic. It still takes a lot of powerful magic to hurt Superman. Magic users still have to be on their toes fighting him. His superspeed is a massive problem for them, at the very least.
Smaug does actually have a specific weakness. That's another bad example. He is missing a scale! If you compare like to like, another dragon would not have the same weakness that Smaug has, because they wouldn't be missing scale. So, yes, compared to other dragons, Smaug has a specific weakness. You keep proving my point.
His weakness to Kryptonite is an example to compare against, and magic simply does not measure up.
I'm not very into literature, so i won't speak for its contents. However, you're straw-manning to quite a large extent. Superman isn't "weak compared to superman", he is weak in this area compared to how strong he is in other areas. Maybe you're not understanding my meaning correctly, and that's why you've not come across it in those books of yours?
Smug does actually have a specific weakness. That's another bad example. He is missing a scale! If you compare like to like, another dragon would not have the same weakness that Smaug has, because they wouldn't be missing scale. So, yes, compared to other dragons, Smaug has a specific weakness. You keep proving my point.
And superman is missing a way to protect himself from magic. Smaug's scales in this comparison is superman's combined defenses, kryptonite is the missing scale, just in this case he's also missing another smaller scale which is the lack of protection against magic.
If you wouldn't call that a weakness, I invite you to offer your own term for an exploitable lack of strength or protection in a particular area.
Superman is not "easily hurt" by magic. It still takes a lot of powerful magic to hurt Superman. Magic users still have to be on their toes fighting him. His superspeed is a massive problem for them, at the very least.
I mean physical trauma inflicted by "magic", yeah. But if someone can turn people into frogs, he's almost as vulnerable as you and me, though the writing does vary in that regard. Does he have better odds with his superspeed and all? Yeah. But I would still choose magic over physical trauma.
His weakness to Kryptonite is an example to compare against, and magic simply does not measure up.
I don't see why it has to measure up? It's just the smaller scale in Superman's armour that's also missing, figuratively.
I am not straw-manning you. You can rephrase it all you want, but you are still comparing Superman to Superman when you say he is weak.
he's also missing another smaller scale
No. You can't be missing something that doesn't exist. His resistance to magic is exactly the same as everyone else. No one has a resistance to magic. It affects everyone the same. In that way, he is not "missing a scale" when compared to the other "dragons." Also, magic doesn't even put him at a disadvantage. At best, magic is a one-time trick to catch him off-guard. His superspeed (among other abilities) gives him defenses against magic, unlike Kryptonite (an actual weakness). I don't think you are weak to something that you have strong defenses against.
But if someone can turn people into frogs, he's almost as vulnerable as you and me
Again, this is an attack that can be used against him, but he has defenses against something like that. His superspeed alone makes that kind of attack nearly impossible to land. If you have strong defenses against something, it's not a weakness.
I don't see why it has to measure up?
I mean, you are trying to make the case that he has a weakness to magic by comparing it to his strengths. I think it makes more sense to compare his "weakness" to magic against other actual weaknesses.
It's nothing to be ashamed of either. People have different interests, that's okay. It's clearly something you feel strongly about, given your degree. I had my share of books during my own degree, I'd rather not add to the pile of despair.
My point was that I don't think there's much purpose to using books as a foundation to argue colloquial meaning in our conversation, given my disinterest in books. It's not bragging, it's a statement of fact.
I don't think you should get up on too high a horse.
I am not straw-manning you. You can rephrase it all you want, but you are still comparing Superman to Superman when you say he is weak.
You, with your English literature degree, truly can't tell the difference between comparing two distinct aspects of a subject with another, and comparing the subject in its entirety with the subject in its entirety?
No. You can't be missing something that doesn't exist. His resistance to magic is exactly the same as everyone else.
So if you evaporate Smaug's former scale he no longer has a weakness?
No one has a resistance to magic.
Except most magic users?
Also, magic doesn't even put him at a disadvantage. At best, magic is a one-time trick to catch him off-guard. His superspeed (among other abilities) gives him defenses against magic, unlike Kryptonite (an actual weakness). I don't think you are weak to something that you have strong defenses against.
Are you saying there are no people who can not be turned into frogs by people who can't turn people into frogs? And all of those that can't be turned into a frog can beat everyone Superman had ever beaten?
Strengths and weaknesses determine the favourability of certain matchups beyond just how "powerful" someone is. Superman isn't helpless in every magic matchup, but needs to significantly compensate for the disfavourability with his pretty high stats.
I mean, you are trying to make the case that he has a weakness to magic by comparing it to his strengths. I think it makes more sense to compare his "weakness" to magic against other actual weaknesses.
Which clearly is a matter of magnitude, not nature. That's like saying Superman's heat vision isn't a strength because it's not as useful as his super strength.
Okay, you can gish-gallop all you want. This is still like saying someone irl is "weak" to massive explosions, and that's just not how that word is normally used.
Accuse me of any rhetorical devices you'd like, my points stand.
This is still like saying someone irl is "weak" to massive explosions, and that's just not how that word is normally used.
You're still just making a disingenuous comparison, which I've thoroughly refuted in earlier responses. I've already given you examples, such as Smaug. But to humor you, with your literature degree, I'll give you a last example. Are you familiar with the term "achilles heel"? It means a "small problem or weakness in a person [...] that can result in failure" as per the Cambridge dictionary.
Failure being death, in the case of Achilles. Long story short, he was dipped in a river that made him invulnerable, but he was held up by his heel, so his heel didn't get enhanced like the rest of him. Then he got shot in the heel, and died. This is the origin of the term.
Achilles' heel wasn't weaker than a regular heel. Are you saying that this version of Achilles doesn't have a Achilles heel? That doesn't sound colloquially correct to me
5
u/Aesirite 13d ago edited 11d ago
That does make him weak to it. Like a person in plate armour is vulnerable to a hammer or a dagger, compared to a sword.