Let me post again what I've already posted a hundred times now because apparently that's what we're doing in this thread, making circular arguments.
The statement from mask is: "A villain shall die by a hero's beam of light"
According to the statement, one could say that the attack is called a light beam. Now let's look at the particular requirement it needs to satisfy, which all light beams need to satisfy in order to pass for the speed of light.
Quoting the light beam dodging page:
- Therefore, lasers/light beams are only accepted as real if they meet, at a minimum, a few of these criteria:
We already consider that the attack in question is a light beam, and it additionally needs to fulfill the following requirement:
- It is stated to be composed/consisting of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source.
In one of the threads, we had concluded that this standard exists because not every "laser" or "light beam" is real light. Hence, we need reliable info that states that the attack is composed of photons/light.
In a previous thread, we also concluded that being called "beam of light" can fulfill this requirement, but under the conditions that this statement has to be reliable.
(Note that the conclusion of this thread was never reflected or applied in the standards page, so in a way, it is still not concluded. We need to conclude that properly.)
Quoting DontTalkDT from said thread:
I mean, that's ok I guess, although it weighs much less in favour of it than a scientific description such as "consists of photons".
One also needs to consider that the statement needs to be reliable, which in case of such a description is more of an issue. A random person might describe any glowing energy beam as a "beam of light", as that's their subjective impression of it and what's the closest thing they know to what they have witnessed, not because they know what it actually is and are trying to give an accurate description.
The source and context play an important role in determining reliability. As DT said, simply being called "beam of light" is not enough without looking at the context. In the example he gave, a random user can describe any glowing energy as a beam of light as per their subjective impression.
An acceptable case of a reliable statement having the words "beam of light", would be a scientist or a reliable source going into detail about said attack: "this energy attack is a beam of light that has certain effects yada yada yada".
And this is where the misunderstanding is. People seem to think that any mention of "beam of light" fulfills the standard, something that was not accepted in the thread.
That's all for explaining the standards. Now let's take a look at this particular case.
Mask said: "The villain shall die by a hero's beam of light".
Just with a look, you can discern that this statement is not stated in a matter-of-fact way. This is not an elaborate explanation of the attack that informs us what it does or what it's made of. The purpose of this statement is to tell a character that he is going to die at the hand of Mask, with a "beam of light" phrase added without further context.
More importantly, let's take a look at Mask's character, since he is the person speaking.
Something to know about Mask is he has a habit of adding flair to his language. He calls his attacks "punches and headbutts of justice", he refers to himself as a "star", that his "soul is burning up with justice". All of these are hyperboles.
Let's look at the statement again after taking the into account that Mask has a habit of adding flair and using hyperboles: "The villain shall die by a hero's beam of light".
The way this statement is delivered with the usage of terms like "villain" and "hero", it can easily be interpreted as something symbolic.
Like villains, who are linked with darkness, shall perish at the hands of a hero, who spread light. All the talk about "justice this and justice that", this flowery language perfectly fits Mask. You can see the similarities between
"headbutt of justice" and "hero's beam of light". Both justice and light are spread by the heroes in the world.
Let's recap:
- There is a misunderstanding as to what was accepted in the previous thread (since it was never applied on the page).
- Misunderstanding is that any mention of "beam of light", with no context whatsoever, is enough to fulfill the fourth requirement.
- The reality is that it's not enough, context is important. "Beam of light" or "light beam" is already taken into account which additionally needs to fulfill the fourth requirement.
- A mention of "beam of light" will only fulfill the requirement under the conditions that the statement is highly reliable, delivered in a matter-of-fact way, by a reliable source.
- Mask's statement only has a good old "beam of light" which could refer to anything that glows, and still be true. Unless it is expanded upon with more information in a reliable manner, keeping the above point in mind, it's not fulfilling the requirement.
- Mask also has a history of using such flowery language like "headbutt of justice" and all the stuff about heroes and villains, and "hero's beam of light" is very likely a part of that, which puts even more dent on the statement's reliability.
