- 21,468
- 30,790
Someone give me a small TLDR about both sides of the arguments.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone give me a small TLDR about both sides of the arguments.
Gimme a phat second boss man.Someone give me a small TLDR about both sides of the arguments.
basedI agree with the OP... Ok that's it
Imma leave now
ProSomeone give me a small TLDR about both sides of the arguments.
Never did I once say apply the name literally. That’s a name association fallacy. What Zoro said sums it up perfectly, even techniques/abilities/weapons can function drastically differently depending on the name.
Yumichika’s Zanpakuto gains a whole ass new ability when called by its real name.
Renji’s Bankai completely changes forms and gets new abilities when called by it’s true name.
Byakuya has numerous named techniques that despite just being his petals arranged in shapes can hit massively above his normal weight class because they have unique names.
Star Flash and Star Flash Supernova are inherently different techniques because they are separate named techniques within Bleach.
And regardless Star Flash Supernova is not an anti feat for Star Flash. One is a beam technique the other is a movement technique that summons a massive exploding laser.
Stop comparing separate attacks, because by your logic then any laser in Bleach is light speed because it “looks like Star Flash”, every attack on Bleach must be of equal power while we are at it because everyone uses spiritual energy to battle.
Your “naming techniques doesn’t mean anything” argument is a blatant admission to your lack of understanding of the source material.
It should be noted that damage has stated in thread that he can "give us the beam of light" point, so it's really just AKM.
We see it reflect and it quite literally is stated to have been reflected. You not being sold doesn't matter when we see and are told it does.I'm also not sold by the reflection argument.
Thanks for commenting.Welp, the laser is LS in my eyes
Would you even accept that? Giving a "At least MHS+, possibly FTL" rating to 30+ characters?So is "possibly" not an option at all?
There are like 3 staff members in agreement so far so I think it's pretty clear there is enough evidence to at least support a "possibly".
No currently 3 staff accept flat out FTL, wherein two don't.So is "possibly" not an option at all?
There are like 3 staff members in agreement so far so I think it's pretty clear there is enough evidence to at least support a "possibly".
And since you disagreeWould you even accept that? Giving a "At least MHS+, possibly FTL" rating to 30+ characters?
30+ characters?Would you even accept that? Giving a "At least MHS+, possibly FTL" rating to 30+ characters?
I'll come back to this thread on the morning.And since you disagree
you really wouldn't mind giving us logical reason that made you Conclude such decision right?
Whether or not the ratings are suitable / an outlier or not is a separate topic to the actual validity of the feat. I've got points to make on that when we get to that point.Our speed ratings for a majority of the verse are based on like two calcs, a lowballed as possible Orihime explosion calc and Gin's Zanpakuto. So, I don't want to hear you cry "it's so much higher than what we currently rate them".
Better comeback with an actual respondI'll come back to this thread on the morning.
No taunting bro, cmon nowBetter comeback with an actual respond
1) It visibly reflects off a Zanpakuto, Mask backs this up saying his laser was deflected.
2) It's called a beam of light by Mask. Mask having 100s to 1000s of years to familiarize himself with his techniques + having "daten" from Yhwach on Quincy techniques = reliable source.
And no, I am not going back on my word. From the first viewing of this topic, I have repeatedly voiced my concerns about how the statement is not delivered in a matter-of-fact way. Extravagant use of language when it was delivered indicates it's not meant to be taken literally, but symbolically. The statement has been delivered, and it's not a reliable one, and nothing is going to change that until we have new evidence. We can go back and forth according to how "oh this makes complete sense, it's totally meant literally, the character is very reliable yada yada" and "insert opposite argument here", it's not going to change.
I don't see any outlier here and it feels deep down even damage knows star flash is light speed but refuses to admit it
Unfortunately no. If it does not fulfill the standards, it does not fulfill the standards.So is "possibly" not an option at all?
I dont know where it does not fulfill the standard, the standard mentions that being made by light is also a valid point of a beam being made by lightUnfortunately no. If it does not fulfill the standards, it does not fulfill the standards.
The standards are specific that they want a "clear" statement regarding the beam's composition
Yeah, thisThere was a thread so that "made of light" is now accepted as clearing the 4th requirement, so it does fulfill the requirements, you not liking it is another story.
Not gonna lie, idk why your opinions alone is so set in stone when there’s like 3 or 4 other staff members that agree with this. Better get a reality check man. Your not the most important person in the world manUnfortunately no. If it does not fulfill the standards, it does not fulfill the standards.
The standards are specific that they want a "clear" statement regarding the beam's composition, and it is put into place exactly because simply being called light beam in any context is not clear enough. There should be no two ways to interpret a reliable statement, that's what reliability means. It can only be interpreted with clarity. "Prove it's not clear, it's clear to me" no. The positive has to be proven beyond doubt, not the other way around. That's basic debating.
It does not matter how many people agree with this (although, I am going to call for more input), it goes against the very standards, and until that changes, no amount of agreement will get this accepted. I'm sorry.
This is uncalled for. Disagreeing with a staff member's judgement does not mean belittling them.Not gonna lie, idk why your opinions alone is so set in stone when there’s like 3 or 4 other staff members that agree with this. Better get a reality check man. Your not the most important person in the world man
Sorry, it’s just his earlier comment about making a discussion rule when this thread has literally been brought up like 3 times in total is completely unnecessary. One time to apply it, one time to reject it, and one time to reapply it since standards changed. So forgive me for being a little hostile when he’s coming in full guns blazing with his attempt at being the whole justifier of this thing like it’s his sole opinion that mattersThis is uncalled for. Disagreeing with a staff member's judgement does not mean belittling them.
2 timesSorry, it’s just his earlier comment about making a discussion rule when this thread has literally been brought up like 3 times in total is completely unnecessary. One time to apply it, one time to reject it, and one time to reapply it since standards changed. So forgive me for being a little hostile when he’s coming in full guns blazing with his attempt at being the whole justifier of this thing like it’s his sole opinion that matters