• 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.

Bill's 2-A Downgrade II: Electric Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except those have actually context going against them. I'm rather sure nobody stated being a threat to an infinite Multiverse automatically makes you 2-A, it was because of the greater context behind it that we assumed as such when it came to Destruction. His Ridley example was already covered, the Dragon Ball one was covered, and I don't know the case with Samus one, but I'm rather sure it was Dark Samus-related, but the Phazon don't have destructive-based statements to that level, it only references them copying other beings from what I can remember about Metroid. Regardless, the overall point should be those were false equivalences.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I'm sorry Flowery, but that argument, I simply cannot get behind it. We are debating about the powers of a 2d dorito with an eye. Let's not go down that road too far. Burden of Proof is a good rule of thumb to go by, but we must aslo remember to give verses a suspension of belief as that is one of the basic requirements for fiction.
Click to expand...
But... there is absolutely zero reason to do that here specifically.

Yeah, if there was just some random contradiction at a random point, that can easily be handwaves away, which we are already doing for Bill abbundantly.

The reason I refuse to do that here is because the contradiction to the 2-A interpretation comes from the very statement on which 2-A is based on.


If this was for, say, Mab3l dimension being unaffected by Bill's destruction, that would hardly be an argument. But here you are using the same statement that claims that a dimension is completely safe against Bill as a reason to say he destroys every dimension.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
Except those have actual context going against them.
Same with Bill.
Click to expand...
I already told you once again on the last thread those statements are destruction-based in of the structure in its entirety. Ridley threatening the galaxy applies to him attacking anywhere throughout it. Again, quite literally a false equivalency.
 
FloweryAlex said:
Because the very line you use for the assumption saying that the Parallel dimension is safe from Bill isn't?
Click to expand...
Yeah, this was precisely my problem, people jumping to make other replies on the other thread to a response that wasn't even to them. It makes actually arguing hard because all that happens is when one response is made, multiple users jump in and start complaining that their point hasn't been addressed and act like it is humanly possible to make multiple replies at once.
 
Inverted Tempest said:
Yeah, this was precisely my problem, people jumping to make other replies on the other thread to a response that wasn't even to them.
Click to expand...
I was refuting your point. Who you were responding to doesn't change that.
 
I already told you once again on the last thread those statements are destruction-based in of the structure in its entirety. Ridley threatening the galaxy applies to him attacking anywhere throughout it. Again, quite literally a false equivalency.

And I told you that destruction would only apply to one universe, which is Low 2-C. It does not prove 2-A at all.
 
FloweryAlex said:
I was refuting your point. Who you were responding to doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand at all, I'm saying you trying to jump a response that wasn't made to you makes replying an objective problem. Not only will Shadow reply, but you're buddying on as well. I'm not saying you're not making contributions, but it doesn't change this is a prime example of the problem.
 
Inverted Tempest said:
I don't think you understand at all, I'm saying you trying to jump a response that wasn't made to you makes replying an objective problem. Not only will Shadow reply, but you're buddying on as well. I'm not saying you're not making contributions, but it doesn't change this is a prime example of the problem.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the limitation of computers. Not exactly anything you can do about it, but I don't find arguing more than one person incredibly difficult. As long as you qoute, it's clear what you are answering.
 
Inverted Tempest said:
I already told you once again on the last thread those statements are destruction-based in of the structure in its entirety. Ridley threatening the galaxy applies to him attacking anywhere throughout it. Again, quite literally a false equivalency.
Click to expand...
What does that have anything to do with this?

The only reason 2-A is being assumed is that Bill is a threat to an infinite reality, which means he'd destroy the multiverse. Apparently the previous lines imply destruction (I don't see how), problem is that the statement goes as "Altough his dimension was safe from Bill, he understood the threat Bill posed to the wider multiverse". There is absolutely no way Bill is destroying all of the multiverse, and I see no reason why he'd destroy a percentage of it either.

On the other hand, my X guy exemple still works with this.
 
So in short, the guys arguing for 2A are trying to argue for something in the context of "less than or equal to", when it's still just physically "less than"....just because it's "part of infinity, and thus equal to that infinity as well. I'm not sure well the logic of that is.

For example, a FINITE part of infinity (a single universe destroyed) is x, while the actual infinity (the multiverse threatened) is yx.

the 2A claim would be trying to claim that x</yx or x=yx, but overlooking the value of y and why it's there.

I hope I stated that correctly, and if I didn't, I apologize beforehand.
 
Using your XY thing, the idea would be that:

Y is the multiverse.

X is the parallel dimension.

Bill poses a threat to the Multiverse, but we know for a fact that he can't destroy all of it, since at least the parallel world is completely safe from it.

But since Y-X is sill infinite, Bill remains 2-A.


However, my problem is that there is no reason to assume Bill can destroy the multiverse period, as the very statement contradicts it.
 
"A very fast TL;DR to your point about why being a threat to the multiverse doesn't mean 2-A AP is:

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. X has the power to kill one human, period. Doesn't matter what they do, whomever he wishes to die, dies. This is still, however, limited to one person.

X is a threat to all humans, and by extension to all of humanity, because he can inflict death upon any member of it. Whether there are 1 billion, seven billion or infinite humans, X still poses a threat to each one of them.

Bill's ability to travel between dimension trough the "foam between dimensions" that the nightmare realm is puts him in this exact situation."

That X character is not a threat to humanity. A threat to humanity would be something that completely changes the way of life of humans, destroys all social groupings (family, ethncity, nationality) and has the potential to make humanity extinct. (IE a meteor from outerspace, zombie apocalypse, global warming, nuclear war, a plague).

X is a threat to individual humans like how a black widow spider is a threat to individual elderly and kids.
 
I'm just going to say I reluctantly agree with the Low 2-C thing. I've already made my stance clear and I think the people against it have already. But the majority is rolling with it so again, I'll just say I agree with the downgrade.

tl;dr this thread is too aggressive and everyone is doggypiling on like one person as soon as even one thing is said so I'll unfollow from here and say the downgrade's fine I guess.
 
FloweryAlex said:
Using your XY thing, the idea would be that:
Y is the multiverse.

X is the parallel dimension.

Bill poses a threat to the Multiverse, but we know for a fact that he can't destroy all of it, since at least the parallel world is completely safe from it.

But since Y-X is sill infinite, Bill remains 2-A.


However, my problem is that there is no reason to assume Bill can destroy the multiverse period, as the very statement contradicts it.
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention that Bill has only be shown to achieve "x", not the "xy" value.
 
I mean we could just consider the possibility that said dimension is safe because it might take Bill an extended period of time to do it, but that would still be 2-A. Also, alternate Fiddleford had the source of power which was capable of erasing Bill from existence so it makes sense it would be safe if so.
 
The dimension could have properties that keep Bill's power st bat, like the weirdness of gravity falls or the unicorn magic.
 
PikabluTwo said:
I mean we could just consider the possibility that said dimension is safe because it might take Bill an extended period of time to do it, but that would still be 2-A. Also, alternate Fiddleford had the source of power which was capable of erasing Bill from existence so it makes sense it would be safe if so.
Click to expand...
We could. We definitly could. But why would we? The only point that implies it is this one danger statement.

Not really, no. Ford had it too and he wasn't safe at all. That alone wouldn't stop Bill from wrecking havoc over his dimension.And if Bill could destroy the Multiverse... then he would not be able to do anything to Bill after he rose to power because his universe would be destroyed from several dimensions away regardless. The statement says that Bill would rise to power but the dimension would still be safe, so that makes no sense.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
The dimension could have properties that keep Bill's power st bat, like the weirdness of gravity falls or the unicorn magic.
Click to expand...
The Quantum Destabilizer, the only thing that could beat Bill, was powered by something from that dimension. Bill's rip is implied to be a threat over an extended period of time regardless so that would just mean the world possibly already has a source of defense against Bill.
 
Bill threatens dimensions one-by-one, shown when he "liberated" his home dimension and then entered the mainstream universe. Also the scan where he says "I've got places to be and alternate realities to tamper with."

Said it before and I'll say it again, if Bill was 2-A then why would he need to hop from one dimension to another? A 2-A would be able to do that kind of stuff without having to physically travel to other universes.
 
It's not a baseless assumption. We've already been shown several examples of power that inherently can stop bill. It is not a leap to believe that a dimension that would be safe from his power would also have a similar power.
 
He had a weapon crafted based on the source that would be in that dimension. They had the actual relative source vs Ford just having himself to shoot a weapon that would be capable of doing so, those are two different situations.

It would stop him from destroying that universe if they logically had something that can destroy his existence.
 
Bill only messes around with the realities, but his rip poses a threat beyond the dimension by collapsing all of existence.
 
Bill only messes around with the realities, but his rip poses a threat beyond the dimension by collapsing all of existence.

The rip being 2-A was already debunked.
 
The rip is what is 2-A about Bill. His threat comes from it, not that he is 2-A without it.

No because "fabric of existence" is Low 2-C.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
No because "fabric of existence" is Low 2-C.
Click to expand...
They make a difference between dimension and existence, so does Bill. It's far more likely the rip is what is 2-A.
 
They don't. Time Baby's projection shows a quasar with dots (distant galaxies) in the background.

Bill also "existence is upside down as I reign supreme." Yet he only refers to the dimension.
 
You still seem to be missing my point. The statement about danger doesn't imply destruction.

The point is that Fiddleford understands that while he's own Dimension is safe from bill, the greater multiverse isn't safe against Bill. The "wider" isn't to say the infinite, but that compared to one dimension, the infinite dimension's aren't safe from here.

Long story short, the "wider" in the "wider multiverse" is comparative, comparing it to the singular dimension. Threat stands for the fact that opposed to Fiddledord's dimension, the other dimensions aren't safe from him.


None of it implies that he just busts all of it.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
They don't. Time Baby's projection shows a quasar with dots (distant galaxies) in the background.
Bill also "existence is upside down as I reign supreme." Yet he only refers to the dimension.
Click to expand...
A visual projection doesn't demean anything, that's a very weak point against it when it refers to what happens to the current dimension. Bill is a threat to the multiverse according to Ford with his rip and even excluding one universe would still make it 2-A.

Existence would refer to what he does after he leaves the confines of Gravity Falls to set sights on other realities.
 
Bill is needed for the rip to continue to destroy the multiverse, in which they have a source that could destroy Bill if needed so that's why it's safe lol, that should be obvious.

Wider is used in reference that his threat isn't contained to one reality, that should be very obvious. It would make no sense for it to apply to an infinitesmal fraction of the multiverse that wouldn't be significant in the long run.

He's not destroying it himself, the rip is lmfao. That should be obvious again.
 
Ogbunabali said:
I have to say, so far the only reason for 2-A I see, is headcanon.
Click to expand...
The only thing headcanon is people saying Bill does it by himself, the rip does it, not him.
 
According to Ford? Ford not once mentions the rip, only time baby does.

Wait, actually he does. He says that someone gave it to Bill, but why would he..? Oh, right! He didn't make the rip, the portal di (which is the whole plot, he gets ford to make a portal exactly for that). All he did was fusing a dimension with the nightmare realm... That isn't 2-A at all. You'll just get the 2-A chain reaction at most through that.
 
Bill is required for the rip. Him entering their reality posed a threat to the multiverse with the rip. The dimension could defend because they have something against Bill which is why it's safe. The rip doesn't apply to his physical AP, he's just 2-A with it.
 
The rip can very much existwithout Bill were it not contain, I have no idea where you get the idea that it can't. He just fuses the nightmare realm through it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ShadowWarrior1999
  • Locked
Debunking Bill Cipher's 2-A tier + Axolotl downgrade
11 12 13
Replies
494
Views
13K
Wokistan
Wokistan
Back
Top