Well... A. 78% of people probably aren't arguing about Hulk or Superman, they are arguing about themselves and why they are better than other people contrary to what life has told them so far and having a fictional avatar to fight their battles is a lot easier than doing stuff in real life. It makes details easier to blur over and naturally its a lot more personal without sounding personal, hence really strong opinions.
B. They are fictional characters, which means they have no hard set values. As an example if the Superman character could just throw Hulk up in to space why doesn't he do that to other characters like Doomsday? Even characters who can fly Superman would benefit from getting them away from Earth to minimize collateral damage, and give him more tactical options.
C. Superman is a fictional character, he can lift twenty billion Earths with his left knee and so can Aunt May, depending on a writer and other factors. If a person thinks that one story example of Superman doing something means anything substantial? Like sets a standard on what he should be able to do? Then I am not sure that person understands how fiction works or consistency, or facts or science or set standards are. Sure it may demonstrate consistency, as in a relative subjective value, but its not an absolute nor will many writers really care (prioritize) about such details.
D. Ego. Fairness. Challenge. Bragging rights. Superman could possibly do that, but people will still argue because the Earth doesn't have arms that punch back at Superman's face when he tries to lift it. Also many fans would prefer believing Superman doesn't need to resort to throwing the Hulk away, to some fans that may sound cowardly. They would prefer Superman demonstrate superiority fist to fist with the Hulk so the idea of throwing the Hulk would only elicit a shrug.
Log in to comment