Talk:Firebending/@comment-110.55.0.205-20120213161225/@comment-76.24.189.176-20120219033610

All you are saying is based on your view that each element is defined by a single characteristic. Unfortunately for your theory, not just one characteristic applies to each element. The elements have multiple characteristics that make them unique, particularly with those having to do with science. Also, it's not so simple to define elements by a single adjective as those adjectives can apply to multiple elements, especially when you consider how much it depends on the person bending them. For example, I'll explain why your innovative characteristic doesn't apply to firebending anymore than the other elements. Innovative:

1.   (of a product, idea, etc.) Featuring new methods; advanced and original.

2.  (of a person) Introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking: "an innovative thinker".

It is an adjective and that's what it means. I'm sure you knew that already, but the point is that ALL the elements have an equal capacity for creativity, originality, etc. It all depends on the bender wielding the element and how they choose to do so. THE ELEMENTS ALL HAVE EQUAL POSSIBILITY TO BE INNOVATIVE, THE POSSIBILITIES ARE JUST DIFFERENT BASED ON THE PROPERTIES OF EACH ELEMENT. I don't know how many ways I've worded that, but that's the simple truth. It seems to me that you either can't understand or simply don't want to. I'm not the one who decided that things were this way. The creators themselves decided all elements would be equal with equal opportunity, but the obviously opportunity would simply be different for each element based on the differing properties of each. Anyways, the ideas, methods, etc. involving EACH element are vast, so the innovative possibilities involving EVERY element is vast. The possibilities are EQUALLY vast for each element and not just fire. Obviously you have simply thought of more ways to use fire. But I assure you there are plenty of ways to use the other elements that you probably haven't thought of.

The bottom line:

No one element can be more innovative then the next because it's the people bending them who provide the innovation, not the element itself.