VS Battles Wiki Forum

No, I saw it, but that's just an interpretation of the feat with no particular reason to take it over mine. Like I said, if there's a statement that supports it- something like, a character goes to space, or the moon, or what have you, and the miasma is not present, then that is acceptable imo.

How are 2 direct statements from knowledgable characters about Makai being a dimension filled with miasma just an interpretation ?

Why should we see something so specific when We have a litteral statement from a knowledgable character ?

So we have 2 counter arguments being:
Sky just means terrestrial atmosphere (not in japanese)
Miasma being a planet ranged gas (contradicted directly by a knowledgeable character)

Also it would be useless to see a character in space seeking for miasma.
If miasma was still there light would be blocked.

Also it’s stated that there is « no miasma AT ALL »

You're misreading me. I don't doubt Makai being filled with miasma nor the size of the place, I doubt that the statement is concrete enough to assume it wiped out the miasma far off.

There is no miasma at all... insofar as the characters can see and confirm. Unless the narrator is omniscient, I don't think it is sound enough.

The narrator of the light novel is Nakaba himself pretty omniscient when you are the author.

So going with your POV we should assume that what’s said is wrong despite being an author statement.

And despite the characters stating that they can’t even feel it’s presence ?

And despite the fact that the sky is « endlessly golden » ?

it seems like a lot of assumptions to convince someone that the narration is wrong.

I think it would be a better way to contradict the author to find miasma in the movie (There is 0 trace)

Not every narrator, even nameless, is omniscient, though. That's a fairly major point in literary works.

Do the characters have senses that can detect such things at cosmic distances?

This point about the sky I've addressed.

I am generally in favor of conservative estimates. I don't see a good enough reason to not take that approach here.

The Narrator of the CBL novel is Nakaba himself not another character telling a tale.

After the dimension path was opened Meliodas could sense cheat hope while being in britannia.

I am generally in favor of avoiding headcanons and going with what’s stated.

In this case we have a black on white statement about miasma complete disappearance.

Your approach is basically trying to ignore a statement by saying the narrator (Nakaba in this case) is wrong.
A better approach would be SHOWING that he is wrong.

I don’t see why we should ignore context without providing proof about the narration being wrong in this case.

To clarify: you have a statement from this work that, with concrete language, states that all miasma is gone everywhere, not just from the position of the characters? Because the bit about there not being any sign of the miasma, is not that.

« The four of them held their breath as they passed through the curtain that covered the entrance to the demon world. The sky of the demon world, which should have been dark regardless of day or night, was filled with a strange golden light. no miasma at all »

Click to expand...

The sky is FILLED with the light and contains no miasma AT ALL
If it contained miasma still Makai would be dark

And I have mentioned my doubts about whether these can reliably be applied to space as well. The sky itself, sure, but what of beyond?

Dude the sky isn’t just the athmosphere.
You shouldn’t look at this from the English POV.

Here is what 空 mean in Japanese:

« The sky, also known as the celestial dome, commonly refers to everything that lies a certain distance above the surface of Earth, INCLUDING the atmosphere and the REST of OUTER SPACE. In the field of astronomy, the sky is also called the celestial sphere. This is an imaginary dome where the sun, stars, planets, and the moon are seen to be traveling. The celestial sphere is divided into regions called constellations. Usually, the term sky is used from the point of view of the Earth's surface. »

The sky is endlessly golden, with NO MIASMA AT ALL, a demon soldier (witness) confirmed Dahlia and Dubs cleared it in the movie.

If you agree with them clearing the sky you basically concede my point.

According to google what you just presented to me was a Chinese character, not a Japanese one.

According to Japanese it’s… a Japanese character meaning Sky

you should give this up but I’ll never (…)

Also the peak luminosity of a normal sun is 120k lumens not 100k Aether will add 120k end

You've done an excellent job convincing me to not bother listening to another NNT request. I stand by my assessment, have a nice day, please do get off my wall.

I mean you asked for proofs but okay

Are you just totally unaware that the imgur link you sent is not the character you sent to me lol

That's not proof, man. You've only proven yourself wrong. Either way, I am done- you've implied you won't give up until I do, so I just... don't really care.

It is the same the typography is just different on Jisho and in here.

Your point changed lots of times throughout that conversation and your last one was just based on you not understanding what Sky is in Japanese.

The « won’t give up » thing was a joke (made it pretty obvious using a rickroll link)

We went through all of this:
Makai being a dimension (You conceded)
Makai being filled with miasma (You conceded)
Miasma being only cleared partially (Narrator not being omniscient as an argument despite direct concrete statement about Makai having « No miasma at all »)
« Sky » meaning it was only cleared in the atmosphere (Which is wrong on every possible lvl even going with the base definition)

I don’t think blaming me is a solution your role on this wiki is to give correct evaluations on calcs mine is to give translations, context and keys to help your understanding of a situation

Sorry for bothering you.

There is a Chinese character that fits it identically. I'm realizing now that this seems to be a case of shared characters, but the specific one you typed up is slightly different from the Japanese character you've linked to.

No, it hasn't, I've just made multiple points.

I didn't even notice the rickroll link.

Yep, you've claimed some of that as true when the statements do not necessarily support it. Here are, for example, some other definitions of the character I have found:

• "To make empty" (Convenient)
• "To leave empty; to leave blank"
• "Vacant, unoccupied, available" (Convenient)
• "Empty space" (Convenient)

...as Japanese is a highly contextual language, to my limited knowledge, I cannot trust this exact translation you've provided. It is contextless.

I'm blaming you because you continue to pester me in a circular discussion and expect me to cede to a point I do not believe, otherwise labeling it as incorrect. My duties on this wiki are manifold- wasting time on a verse trying to gain a specific outcome is not one of those duties. I have done my job in regards to your calc- I have rejected the basis because I do not think the evidence is strong enough to support what you believe it does. It is not in my interest to give undue time to this verse- it is a verse that has already spammed my wall with some regularity in the past, and now spams my wall in a new way. It is greatly frustrating.

Aye, cheers.

It’s not « slightly different » as I said it’s the copy pasted Kanji in a different typography

None of the definition you have fits contextually with the statement…

We use « Sky » cause the author talks about the Sky.
Not to insult you but I’m a multilingual member I think I’m able to see how to treat a simple Japanese sentence.

As you said Japanese is highly based on context

I expected you to change your stance on the calc because you jumped to conclusions without having a full understanding of the feat it’s the base of how debating work the goal is to convince.

As I said sorry for bothering you.

It is slightly different. The reason for that is irrelevant- the point is that the copied kanji comes out as the Chinese symbol, hence the confusion.

It very well could, actually. Those convenient ones could definitely be contextually viable.

Not to insult you, but I have been here a long time, and this would not be the first time I was told a particular translation to achieve a particular result by a particularly determined fan of a particular verse.

Good day.

I see.

They could not, the prior statement is not about emptiness or anything else being dark regardless of day or night

It’s not contextually viable.
Sky is.

Not to insult you but it seems like they didn’t really know what they were talking about.

As I said your stance changed a lot and you asked for loads of proofs.