I mean it is never been, "transcending time and space" like I said before is something tricky since it is often ended as flowery words in fictions such as for dimensional travel, time travel, being unbound by time and space, being outside linear time, being as strong as spacetime, capable to control the spacetime. and etc etc.
However, if the context is regarding a higher plane of reality, which said plane has showing of superiority over the lower spacetime, it should be adequate.
Thats true but here if transcending space and time is referring to surpassing the space and time with some degree of transcendence like in case of higher to lower level reality then according to the FAQ page of tiering system,it can qualify for Low 1-C.
And we're back to you bastardizing information again, swell. I'll address this point in specific later, but this reply was in context to their insinuation that the scans regarding it being a higher plane wouldn't specifically boost its dimensionality.
“and ur scan to the characters not being able to see doesnt means nothing, because we directly can see that they are exactly on the same place as the grandfather, which can justify that when someone reaches the chaos force, they become abstract, or maybe even less than it, but none of these things justify a Low 1-C argument, and the context of it pretty much is similar to Stands being able to affect with people but people can't affect/interact with stands”
Their comparison to Madoka Magica makes that pretty self-evident too. "Higher Planes" like spiritual ones don't just innately transcend space and time. You even conceded to such when you said it would make them higher into 4D (though this is a minimalistic approach at this point). You're defending a point from someone that actively is contradicting what you said, so I'm not sure why you reply on behalf of them. Then again, that would make sense for why you again decided to not refute based on the relevant context.
There is no "bastardizing information" again,that is just your own again false claims which cant be proven,you actually focus more on making random unproven accusations instead of actual rebuttal as its showing but moving on yes,it being on higher plane of reality doesn't equate to higher dimension.
Not sure why you quoted her statement,I simply dont see the point of quoting her statement then attempting to tell me something I already know.I wasn't even talking about spiritual one,I was literally talking about higher plane of reality no matter the context which by no means on their own is anything higher than the x tier depending on the context.She didn't say that it wouldn't amount to anything so I again dont see the point of this comment.I am replying the comments which goes against my proposed side and I refute them whether they are addressing me or not.Also funny because I refuted your comment based on the relavant context so thats again you throwing the empty claims here which amounts to nothing.
A couple things.
1.) The source you're quoting from isn't the one I linked even, lol.
2.) How outside is going to be used in the second definition is obviously contextually dependent. In that instance, it very obviously wouldn't be the direct idea of transcendence. Add the idea of space-time and how you would have to interpret it is different. Beyond the scope and limits of space-time = above it, it's just that simple. Words aren't static and become richer based on the greater structure of the sentence, that is basic linguistics. What you quoted is more akin to the first definition "situated or moving beyond the confines or boundaries of," not the second one.
1) Maybe next time check the sources which you link? The one I quoted is the example of the 2nd prepositional usage of outside which is exactly what your source link led me to
2) Contextually dependent sure but its meaning doesn't take 180 degree otherwise there would have been 3 usage of outside under preposition which there isn't.It isn't direct idea of transcendence because the 2nd prepositional usage of outside doesn't refer to transcendence lol.Literally adding space and time there and it doesn't change anything and ignoring the fact that 1st prepositional usage would apply for chaos force case not 2nd which would invalidate your argument entirely but lets ignore it for argument sake.Being beyond the space and time is being above it which only refers to surpassing it and not to its position being beyond the structure of space and time.I know how statement meaning in English works,dont have to tell me that.The meaning of 2nd usage is similar to the 1st one just used under a different context.Still doesn't help your point
Okay, if it's vague on "the degree of transcendence," then that's something they need to clarify. If you say something is vague without any clarification, then the default assumption would be you're referring to the general material. That'd be obviously incorrect as I've explained, and it would be them trying to dog whistle to the people uncertain on their position right now. Dog whistling to harbor disagreement is dishonesty at its finest. And yeah, that's kind of what a dog whistle is. It's something you can easily deny but was most definitely intentional in signaling an idea.
You're repeating your argument based on the first definition of outside, which we've already been over why it's contextually the second. We're going back to arguments in ad nauseum. People already posted how we handle transcendence on the site in terms of the FAQ for how it fits the requirements. You're literally beating a dead horse of a point, yet again
I suppose she could explain why the scans are being vague as it could be intepreted differently.You haven't explained at that time how she was exactly dog whistling to people uncertain of their position,you just threw a random accusation.She didn't dog whistle,she started arguing for disagreement
after I posted my reasons as to why I disagree with Low 1-C,if she did it before me then you would have a point.
And no we have not been over why its 2nd,in fact you haven't even explained or argued why 2nd usage would be used over the 1st one,it is you simply inventing a new event in the debate which didn't happen previously in order to support your "ad naesum" point.Disagreement over the same points doesn't equate to ad naesum.Yet you actually started beating this dead horse by replying to me before I started to think that Low 1-C standards might have changed.
t appears as repetition because that's literally what it is. Ex.: People explain the ideas of scans, "No that's wrong because higher plane isn't Low 1-C," people explain it's part of greater context and how it contributes, "Okay but being a higher plane still doesn't show Low 1-C," and it goes on, rinse and repeat. Not sure what you're insinuating by me not mentioning your specifically favorable interpretation of events that you like to put you in a holy light, not my problem it's not realistic.
Evidence like this has always been fine for Low 1-C. Radiant Historia literally got a possibly for the fact it viewed timelines as flat and beneath and that it transcended an infinite multiverse. Just because you're unnecessarily upping the standards based on your own personal view isn't anyone else's problem. It's just been more of an unspoken rule before the page was created last month.
“ad nau·se·am
/ad ˈnôzēəm/
adverb
referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.”
So repeating the same idea over and over and over again isn't as nauseum? Do tell on how an official definition is wrong.
I didn't say literally everything being said was a non-argument, what. I said arguments like "It would affect X verse" is a non-argument. What verses you could possibly extend this to should literally have no impact on this thread. If you actually think that's a good reason to deny something, I'm sorry because there's not much I can do for you there. That's just common sense and something the site would reject as a valid reason.
Except it isn't because I have been addressing multiple people who are arguing the same point which are then combined into 1 comment which appears as repetition if viewed under a single comment.And there is no "not mentioning
your specifically favorable interpretation of events which you like to put you in holy light,not my problem that its not realistic" because there is no my specific favorable interpretation of the events,its how the events go.Again another empty claim made and hypocritical at that considering that your inserting your interpretation here by explaining the events under your own light.
Evidence like this has never been fine for like 1 to 2 years.Go give me 5 examples of the characters or the verses which were upgraded to Low 1-C on basis of simply surpassing the time with degree of transcendence being unknown.Also you started on the wrong foot by giving a example which doesn't support your point because it has
it viewing the infinite timelines as flat(which is just another form of reality-fiction transcendence as fiction is flat for us) and transcending multiverse becomes supporting evidence which as to what I have said before would be enough for Low 1-C.I didn't "upped" the standards,the standards were this upped for 1 to 2 years,so not my problem if you weren't aware how the site operated in the past and merely are commenting on the current state.Unspoken rule which perhaps changed maybe? Ever thought about that?
Repeating the same idea because I am replying to others over the same points made by them isn't repeating the point until it becomes tiresome or others give up so hence its not ad naesum.You dont have to just quote the fallacy definition you have to
understand how they are used within the debates as well.
or using non-arguments as a way to deny something that most people agree is straightforward.
This is what you quoted.Am I supposed to magically know that by this vague statement that you are refering to "it makes x verse this!"?Finally a claim which makes sense.Also site can reject it for non valid reason but anyways.
Okay My area, tell me where in any of these first few quotes from Bern do you see where she actually says anything that isn't "Higher plane doesn't mean Low 1-C" or "Outside doesn't mean Low 1-C". I'll wait.
1.) “Higher planes aren't enough to Low 1-C, Madoka Magica is a example of it, and ur scan to the characters not being able to see doesnt means nothing, because we directly can see that they are exactly on the same place as the grandfather, which can justify that when someone reaches the chaos force, they become abstract, or maybe even less than it, but none of these things justify a Low 1-C argument, and the context of it pretty much is similar to Stands being able to affect with people but people can't affect/interact with stands”
2.) “I can't see possibly low 1-C on it, I just agree some hours ago cuz I like Sonic verse, and if I said No, they will ask the reasons, so, to avoid it, I just agree, but after the comments, I feel that I needed to answer it”
3.) “Outside space and time its different than Transcend it”
4.) “It need, in the same way that 3-D beings like IRL humans see fictional verses as 2-D, to be 5-D, u need RF in comparison to 4-D things, and vague things like Beyond space and time aren't enough to it, because the scans are also vague, and as I showed previously, it does not meet the things enough to 5-D”
We're four comments in quoted disagreements and there's nothing actually addressing OP. It's just them replying to limited ideas from it and discussing these two topics secularly. It's even worse because it's them looking at the topics in isolation, or else they'd realize how some of the scans posted clearly would make the CF of a degree of higher dimensionality, as you've even noted yourself. Once again, I wouldn't suggest stanning the arguments of someone clearly arguing different ideas than you and not doing it as you are. Legitimately, you've misrepresented numerous counterarguments based on what you were arguing when they were aimed at other people.
That is literally what the counters for the upgrade can be summarized into,you are asking her to make more counters of something which can only be countered under few points.Those comments do address OP scans which has outside space and time and then higher plane of reality contained in 1 scan,you thinking it doesn't address op doesn't mean it doesn't address it.She did address them at once and then arguing it seperately as the arguments went towards discussing specific points.I didn't even agree with degree of higher dimensionality,I only agreed if the site standards for Low 1-C has changed.I mean she and I were disagreeing Low 1-C Archie Sonic verse based on similar arguments though I was responding to other people comments directed at other people because their refute is also refuting my stance.
Not a fact, just your butchered interpretation. That's the definition of the first usage, not the second. If you looked at the link you'd realize that. The fact that it's called a "higher plane" contextually supports the idea of being above space-time in that usage of outside versus your unfounded, superfluously conservative interpretation of the text. No one said manifestation by itself directly proves infinite transcendence, it's a supporting point to the overall idea of higher-dimensionality. Can you go a single counterargument without segregating scans from the greater idea of something? Like seriously, this is something you've done in nearly all of your refutes.
Too bad its still a fact,your claim of my interpretation being butchered really doesn't mean anything because thats again claim made out of your own bias,not actual fact.And the definition of the second usage is very similar to 1st but applied in different context,I looked at the link hence I refuted you while you were saying the example weren't from same source means you haven't properly looked at the source.It being called higher plane means its above space and time by unknown degree,still doesn't prove infinite transcendence.Supporting points are meant to
support the main argument not just exist to make the text larger which what your irrelevent mentioned claim did.It doesn't and I refuted as to how it doesn't explain higher dimension.My refutes were done addressing all of the relevant scans used to picture one whole idea with other comments refuting separate points.That literally wasn't me refuting seperate scans and ignore the big picture.Again a useless claim.
As its been shown here,you wasted more time addressing claims which is outside the purpose of CRT and less on actual counters pertaining to the topic of the CRT and just dodge them by labelling it as ad hominem which is just dishonest.
So far Ploz responded to My Area, who I guess should be given a chance to respond back.
Thanks for giving the chance but our argument at this point isn't even relevant to the topic in hand so you can just ignore that.I am just waiting for someone to elaborate on Low 1-C standard before I voice in my agreement because my point entirely hinges on Low 1-C standards of this site
