Since I am being accused of “bad faith”, I will try to clarify my stance here:
(at least, now I have access to my PC)
Alright, we all agree that there are no feats, but rather a collective of statements to support the universal level (at least; being argued for one). I will comment on each one:
First link
- He reached Nirvana (enlightenment in short), let's say – (since this is referenced to Buddhism context), he is freed of all worldly attachments and desires (as the next phrase suggested at least with “Ties being cut”)
- He is being left with two choices:
- They can either return to the universe as a spiritual and all-powerful being, implying a sense of responsibility to maintain balance and harmony in the universe,
- or they can choose to stay beyond Nirvana and become a Buddha.
- I will skip
"Becoming a Buddha" because the way I understand, he picked the first option. But mostly, I think it is a fully enlightened being who has attained perfect wisdom and compassion. Buddhas are revered figures who guide others towards enlightenment.
The way I interpret it here, since he selected the first option, he is now responsible to maintain balance and harmony in the universe. I understand that the argument that this should relate to “AP” because he is
all-powerful spiritual, but this is not the reason, this is the cause. It doesn't necessarily specify the nature of their power, but rather more abstract spiritual, suggesting a high level of enlightenment, wisdom, and
possibly supernatural abilities.
Since this Buddhist reference – being a "spirit and all-powerful being" would likely refer to spiritual strength, wisdom, and the ability to guide and influence others positively. The emphasis is often on inner strength, compassion, and understanding rather than physical or aggressive power.
So, in this context, Mori's power is more aligned with their spiritual enlightenment and ability to maintain balance and harmony in the universe rather than physical strength or attack potency.
Second Link
I won't deceive you; I genuinely fail to comprehend the connection between this and attack potency or physical strength. I can't find any explanation that even remotely suggests their correlation.
Third link (the new translated one)
and
other one (which I highly think they both are too interconnected and convey one message)
Like the way I understand this, or at least I interpret it, implies a sense of universal governance and control, where those who reach Nirvana has the ability to rule over all universes and creation. It proposes a supreme and all-encompassing authority over the cosmos.
While the language used indicates a high degree of power, it doesn't necessarily imply physical strength or attack potency in the conventional sense. Instead, it aligns more with the idea of spiritual or cosmic power, where the individual possesses a profound understanding of the universe, its workings, and the interconnectedness of all things. This power is rooted in wisdom, enlightenment, and spiritual insight rather than brute physical force.
And since this is most likely a Buddhist related concept – the concept of universal rule and control often signifies a deep spiritual awareness and a harmonious connection with the cosmos, emphasizing qualities such as compassion, enlightenment, and the ability to guide others on the path to enlightenment. It's a form of power that transcends physicality and materiality, focusing on the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of existence.
You said I made a false equivalence. I am going to elaborate why it is not. A false equivalence occurs when two different things are inaccurately compared as if they are equivalent, leading to a flawed conclusion. In my argument, I am making a valid distinction between governance and attack potency, highlighting that the ability to govern a nation, or in the given context, rule over universes, does not imply possessing physical or destructive power at a corresponding level (such as country-level or universal attack potency).
My comparison draws a clear distinction between two separate concepts: the ability to govern and the ability to exert physical force. Governance involves leadership, administration, and decision-making skills, whereas attack potency relates to the capacity to cause physical harm or destruction (or creation). My argument correctly points out that these are distinct attributes, and one does not automatically imply the other. Therefore, it does not constitute a false equivalence.
My conclusion
The third link (consisting of two statements) and the first link both convey a sense of governance rather than a direct attack potency, aligning well with the Buddhist context.
I don't mind (specifically in response to Setto) being outvoted here. This is a thread where people share their opinions. Even though my opinion doesn't hold much weight in the outcome of the thread, it doesn't give you the right to belittle my stance, even if it's technically correct. The way you're implying that my input is insignificant suggests I should agree with FRA even if I'm not convinced with the thread.
This mindset is exhausting. I've encountered the same attitude from Georr, Shion, and Strym when I respectfully disagreed with their threads. I have the right to dissent. If the thread is only meant for unanimous agreement, there's no real discussion happening. The purpose of the thread would be rendered meaningless. This principle isn't accepted; we're altering the reasoning, which significantly affects the justification and rating. This is still very much up for debate.
