• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Anos is Back, and so are Maou Gakuin Downgrades

Status
Not open for further replies.
Technically it's an entirely different verse and Anos so yea it is up to a downgrade thread to change it.
The light novels straight up use the same scans the old pages did for saying sources are concepts, and the light novels have even LESS content to support type 1 since there's a lot less content.
 
I will make my instance...

I agree with yeeting Info 2, it was already discussed and I'm fine with it.

I will agree to go back to type 3 if in fact personal concepts despite being textbook type 1 can't be type 1 due to being "personal concepts"

I disagree with downgrading immo negation, since Evansmana was created to permanently kill Anos with no chance to regenerate, resurrect or anything related.

I disagree with downgrading AE, Oblivion and I already gave all the necessary proofs and the OP simply has no basis in debunk and the only thing she says is that their statements contradicts themselves but her contradiction becomes useless when the whole plot is against her (I won't explain in depth because I already did).
 
Yeah i just remember in that CRT some people say universal concept is must affect actual reality, not understand reality in here is just the thing that being govern
Not some people saying, that was the entire reasoning of it which DT has refuted
 
I will make my instance...

I agree with yeeting Info 2, it was already discussed and I'm fine with it.

I will agree to go back to type 3 if in fact personal concepts despite being textbook type 1 can't be type 1 due to being "personal concepts"

I disagree with downgrading immo negation, since Evansmana was created to permanently kill Anos with no chance to regenerate, resurrect or anything related.
Do you agree with Venuzdonoa losing immortality negation? It's for similar reasons, though afaik it isn't a similar case to Evansmana.
 
I will agree to go back to type 3 if in fact personal concepts despite being textbook type 1 can't be type 1 due to being "personal concepts"
It isn't even a personal concept. Personal concepts only govern a specific thing in their area of influence.

Anos source area of influence is Anos. The source defines everything about Anos, Anos cannot exist without his source, his source can exist even if he is erased.

A personal concept will only govern something specific about Anos like his body, soul, mind, emotions etc
 
It isn't even a personal concept. Personal concepts only govern a specific thing in their area of influence.

Anos source area of influence is Anos. The source defines everything about Anos, Anos cannot exist without his source, his source can exist even if he is erased.

A personal concept will only govern something specific about Anos like his body, soul, mind, emotions etc
Not how personal concepts work. A concept will inherently govern all component parts of what it governs, even if it's a personal concept. If it didn't work that way, then every concept on the wiki would be type 2.
 
Do you agree with Venuzdonoa losing immortality negation? It's for similar reasons, though afaik it isn't a similar case to Evansmana.
Hmm, no. Venuzdonoa simply destroys the logic/reason of anything, if you can regenerate after the destruction of your source, then venuzdonoa will simply destroy that logic/reason making it impossible for you to regenerate, like Eugo fused with Ivis who was said to be a simple immortal immutable and other than that was able to regenerate after his destruction, venuzdonoa destroyed that logic/reason making regeneration and immortality useless.
 
That's a headcanon with nothing substantiating it. In fact, where's the evidence that that passage means "embodiment = literal existential state of" and not the other way around? Going by your logic, both should be equally valid.
When they get damaged, or affected in general, not even killed, the thing they are the concept of also begins to get affected as with Nousgalia, if they were simply just manifestations of the concept rather than being the concept themselves, by your own argument, them being affected would do nothing to the concept and the resulting object, as you are saying that they only sustain the concept with their life, which is clearly not the case.
 
Hmm, no. Venuzdonoa simply destroys the logic/reason of anything, if you can regenerate after the destruction of your source, then venuzdonoa will simply destroy that logic/reason making it impossible for you to regenerate, like Eugo fused with Ivis who was said to be a simple immortal immutable and other than that was able to regenerate after his destruction, venuzdonoa destroyed that logic/reason making regeneration and immortality useless.
...That feels like a massive NLF. Perhaps Venuzdonoa requires a closer look for the next thread.

When they get damaged, or affected in general, not even killed, the thing they are the concept of also begins to get affected as with Nousgalia, if they were simply just manifestations of the concept rather than being the concept themselves, by your own argument, them being affected would do nothing to the concept and the resulting object, as you are saying that they only sustain the concept with their life, which is clearly not the case.
Name one other verse where a character dies, something else gets destroyed, and we assume the character and the thing that got destroyed are one and the same. You can't, because we never ******* assume that, and it's insane that Maou Gakuin is suddenly an exception.
 
Cool. That doesn't mean we inherently give it immortality negation. This is just the "they can warp reality so they can use every power on the wiki" NLF rehashed with a lot more words.
No, in the LN it is always said that venuzdonoa destroyed the reason for X thing, it is further clarified when he destroyed the reason that graham's nothingness could not be destroyed.

Like all these feats in the old profile that were listed and referenced and accepted. Venuzdonoa explicit said to destroy the reason in each feat.
 
Not how personal concepts work. A concept will inherently govern all component parts of what it governs, even if it's a personal concept. If it didn't work that way, then every concept on the wiki would be type 2.
What does that have to do with the source? Go tell that to DT and Deceived.

A concept need only govern an object in it's area of influence. The scope, range of that area of influence being limited to a single object, individual doesn't stop it from being type 1/2
 
No, in the LN it is always said that venuzdonoa destroyed the reason for X thing, it is further clarified when he destroyed the reason that graham's nothingness could not be destroyed.

Like all these feats in the old profile that were listed and referenced and accepted. Venuzdonoa explicit said to destroy the reason in each feat.
Literally none of this is immortality negation, though... You're just giving it powers it has never been shown to have because "reason lol". Also, why the hell are you using feats from the old profile??
 
Name one other verse where a character dies, something else gets destroyed, and we assume the character and the thing that got destroyed are one and the same. You can't, because we never ******* assume that, and it's insane that Maou Gakuin is suddenly an exception.
Well it is a good thing the examples I'm bringing up aren't just people being killed, Nousgalia gets brought down to 10% of his source and the world goes to shit, this is not killed, this is simply just damaged, Aberneyu didn't even get harmed but instead got turned into a castle and turned lethargic and the order of destruction was affected, these are not the gods being killed, just them simply being affected caused the orders, which are the type 1 concepts, to be affected, if it was simply just that they sustained the orders with their life and were not the orders themselves, this should not happen, but it is, so they by default must be.

Also please dismiss your arguments of the source being a personal concept because it simply only covers one person, because Sasha and Misha, two entirely separate people with different minds, souls, and bodies share one source among them.
 
Literally none of this is immortality negation, though... You're just giving it powers it has never been shown to have because "reason lol". Also, why the hell are you using feats from the old profile??
I am not saying that those feats are to prove Immo negation, I am only proving to you the feats that indicate that it is not NLF as you say, and what I provide according to you is NLF and that is why I gave you the evidence that indicates that it is not NLF:
Hmm, no. Venuzdonoa simply destroys the logic/reason of anything, if you can regenerate after the destruction of your source, then venuzdonoa will simply destroy that logic/reason making it impossible for you to regenerate, like Eugo fused with Ivis who was said to be a simple immortal immutable and other than that was able to regenerate after his destruction, venuzdonoa destroyed that logic/reason making regeneration and immortality useless.
 
I am not saying that those feats are to prove Immo negation, I am only proving to you the feats that indicate that it is not NLF as you say, and what I provide according to you is NLF and that is why I gave you the evidence that indicates that it is not NLF:
Let me simplify this: Does Venuzdonoa have any direct feats or statements of negating immortality? Yes or no?

Well it is a good thing the examples I'm bringing up aren't just people being killed, Nousgalia gets brought down to 10% of his source and the world goes to shit, this is not killed, this is simply just damaged, Aberneyu didn't even get harmed but instead got turned into a castle and turned lethargic and the order of destruction was affected, these are not the gods being killed, just them simply being affected caused the orders, which are the type 1 concepts, to be affected, if it was simply just that they sustained the orders with their life and were not the orders themselves, this should not happen, but it is, so they by default must be.
...The exact same logic applies though, just because your existence is intrinsically linked to a thing does not mean you are literally, physically that thing. If you cut down a tree, the apples on it will be affected, but does that mean the tree is an apple? No, ******* of course not. Gods are what govern order, so of course order collapses without them. That doesn't mean they ARE order.
 
Let me simplify this: Does Venuzdonoa have any direct feats or statements of negating immortality? Yes or no?


...The exact same logic applies though, just because your existence is intrinsically linked to a thing does not mean you are literally, physically that thing. If you cut down a tree, the apples on it will be affected, but does that mean the tree is an apple? No, ******* of course not. Gods are what govern order, so of course order collapses without them. That doesn't mean they ARE order.
Gods don't govern order. That is not said anywhere. Gods are Order.

How does a Concept get sustained by something physical? That would make it type 2/3 when it is in fact proven to be type 1
 
The source is the concept of an individual that makes people what they're (the individual is what it governs, that's it's sphere of influence).

The source governs the individual as no one can exist without a source and the source does not require the individual to exist to for it to exist as when a person dies or is erased, their source remains allowing them to either resurrect or reincarnate.

Mundane matters: Stuff like curses target the source. When the source is destroyed, the effect of the curse on the person disappears.

Dividing a source into two splits an individual into two- down to their mind and soul.

A person can easily be restored even if erased as long as the source remains etc
Assuming this is all true, just for the sake of argument, then i can see an argument for Sources being Type 1 Concepts.

I'll explain why later.
 
You cannot embody something and also be that thing. It's inherently contradictory.

Anyways, remind me why this shit is even relevant?
I'm pretty sure it might just mean they embody the concept and are the concept.
I don't know much about the series but I think it might be like this, for example
-Is death, like literally just death
-Also has a physical form that embodies death
They would embody it and be it technically.. Or somn like that..
 
You cannot embody something and also be that thing. It's inherently contradictory.
Where does it say it is contradictory? And why do you assume that only then embody is correct here when we already provided the necessary feats for AE 1 and where it is said that they are order, what you say that they are not order and their whole existence is order.

In the case of Aberneyu, she embodies destruction, she was destruction, her whole existence was destruction, the same she said to Anos that her existence was only destruction and everything was destroyed around her.
 
I'm pretty sure it might just mean they embody the concept and are the concept.
I don't know much about the series but I think it might be like this, for example
-Is death, like literally just death
-Also has a physical form that embodies death
They would embody it and be it technically.. Or somn like that..
I mean, that'd require for there to be some sort of avatar/true form shit going on, which doesn't seem to be the case here. To embody something is to represent it in a bodily or material fashion. So you cannot simultaneously physically be a concept, and be the physical manifestation of that concept, because that'd require being within two contradictory states of being at the same time. You can't be physical and non-physical simultaneously.
 
I mean, that'd require for there to be some sort of avatar/true form shit going on, which doesn't seem to be the case here. To embody something is to represent it in a bodily or material fashion. So you cannot simultaneously physically be a concept, and be the physical manifestation of that concept, because that'd require being within two contradictory states of being at the same time. You can't be physical and non-physical simultaneously.
Yeah alright buddy
 
I mean, that'd require for there to be some sort of avatar/true form shit going on, which doesn't seem to be the case here. To embody something is to represent it in a bodily or material fashion. So you cannot simultaneously physically be a concept, and be the physical manifestation of that concept, because that'd require being within two contradictory states of being at the same time. You can't be physical and non-physical simultaneously.
Embodiment doesn't need physical body or have to be physical. There are many characters who are concepts (living concepts) in our profiles. And after all that, I don't see why it's contradictory. A concept of beauty by definition embodies of all beauty.
 
Embodiment doesn't need physical body or have to be physical. There are many characters who are concepts (living concepts) in our profiles. And after all that, I don't see why it's contradictory. A concept of beauty by definition embodies of all beauty.
Yes, and that's what makes them type 1. However, MG gods are stated to embody order. This cannot be the same as being order. Even if the body isn't physical, it's still just a manifestation of a concept, and not the concept itself. You're assuming "embody" exclusively refers to literally being a concept when that's just... objectively not true, and I can point to many examples of characters only getting type 2 AE from embodying concepts.

Also, why the **** is this even relevant?
 
It's on you to prove that embodiment means something different here, which you have not done.
Google what is embodiment and see if you think it contradicts to be the same as others because in English definition there is nothing of this.

You are really discarding a Canon statement to be a contradiction because you are using a vsbw terminology instead it's original?

What is this counter-argument?
 
Google what is embodiment and see if you think it contradicts to be the same as others because in English definition there is nothing of this.

You are really discarding a Canon statement to be a contradiction because you are using a vsbw terminology instead it's original?

What is this counter-argument?
uh huh. yeah, okay.
image.png
 
Yes, and that's what makes them type 1. However, MG gods are stated to embody order. This cannot be the same as being order. Even if the body isn't physical, it's still just a manifestation of a concept, and not the concept itself. You're assuming "embody" exclusively refers to literally being a concept when that's just... objectively not true, and I can point to many examples of characters only getting type 2 AE from embodying concepts.
If they're stated to be an order and embody order then that's that. As smth that embodies beauty is not necessarily a concept but a concept of beauty embodies all of beauty, wether it's the beauty w.r.t humans, lions, aliens or whatever. Concept of beauty embodies all beauty within itself.

Also, materialisation is not same as embodiment. They can be used synonymicall but that's all. Embodiment can mean idea, quality, feeling, etc.
 
If they're stated to be an order and embody order then that's that. As smth that embodies beauty is not necessarily a concept but a concept of beauty embodies all of beauty, wether it's the beauty w.r.t humans, lions, aliens or whatever. Concept of beauty embodies all beauty within itself.

Also, materialisation is not same as embodiment. They can be used synonymicall but that's all. Embodiment can mean idea, quality, feeling, etc.
You cannot be a representation of something you are. Otherwise you'd be saying that order isn't order, but just a representation of order (which is actually order, because order embodies order, which is embodied by order, which is governed and controlled by order, and if order is destroyed then order collapses), even though order (the representation of order) is literally order (which is embodied by order) despite being the representation of order.

Now read that out loud and tell me if maybe you realize how little ******* sense this makes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top