Demon slayer, possible Calc issue

[ShadowWhoWalks]

The very first argument was "the stone could have just fallen apart a bit after being cut", which is not relevant to verse consistency.

You have yet to address my rebuttal from the consistency of the relevant features of the boulder. So awaiting substantiation of the existence of 'minor art mistake' that gets constantly repeated unintentionally (which is again different from an outlier) before the point can be put forward. Claiming the existence of art mistakes should be based on evidence, not headcanon.

Stonewalling is ignoring valid points. I am actively engaging and countering specific points.
Claiming everyone disagrees is gaslighting; though I am the only one actively participating. Claiming that disagreement while engaging, providing evidence, and addressing rebuttals is stonewalling is simply abuse of the rules.

 

[Chariot190]

the same character says the name of the technique like a schizophrenic,

Ah yes, the tell sign of schizophrenia, saying your anime moves aloud.

 

[Armorchompy]

You have yet to address my rebuttal from the consistency of the relevant features of the boulder. So awaiting substantiation of the existence of 'minor art mistake' that gets constantly repeated unintentionally (which is again different from an outlier) before the point can be put forward. Claiming the existence of art mistakes should be based on evidence, not headcanon.

The author clearly says the sword was split. There's no other case in the series where such destruction is caused by a cut. This is more than enough to override what the art shows. And it has been discussed more than enough already.

Claiming everyone disagrees is gaslighting; though I am the only one actively participating.

Nobody else has voiced their agreement with you except for maybe Arceus while several people have voiced their disagreement. This is fact. If others agree but haven't voiced it, then as things are their agreement counts for absolutely nothing.

Claiming that disagreement while engaging, providing evidence, and addressing rebuttals is stonewalling is simply abuse of the rules.

You are constantly repeating the same arguments, showing the same scans and overall running in circles.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

You can see that the rock has tilted. The "diameter" changes depending on the position. So yes, the rock tilted regardless of what happens. The author simply did not raciciniate right

 

[ShadowWhoWalks]

She helped, she taught him to reinforce physical strength and showed him how to fight. It's like Tanjiro says

• Makomo points out the detecta in my style. She corrects my unnecessary movements and bad habits.

She in this scene explains the bad moves Tanjiro was making in the fight against Sabito. So much so that there is no "Bad Moves" when the goal is to break a rock with a single strike. And you know, one of the characteristics of Kimetsu is that when a character uses a breathing technique the same character says the name of the technique like a schizophrenic, which did not happen in the scene where Tanjiro cuts the rock. Tanjiro himself says that what Makomo taught him the most was to know when to attack the opponent at the right moment, with a thread indicating the movement

Tanjiro stated that he was practicing what Urokodaki taught him, including the forms, daily. Getting to the next level in Breathing Technique should only enhance his training regime. The Final Selection was shortly after splitting the boulder, and Tanjiro was already proficient in using the forms with the Breathing Techniques (including knowing what happens when using Twisting Whirpool underwater).

Sword Forms are different from Breathing Technique. Yoriichi taught the Demon Slayer Corps different Breathing Techniques that fits their different sword forms/styles. So it is possible to use Breathing Techniques without a specific sword technique/form.

The question is: Why?

Tanjiro woke up to find himself standing in front of a boulder and splitting it. There is a dichotomy between what he experienced in his dream and what happened in reality.

---

The author clearly says the sword was split. There's no other case in the series where such destruction is caused by a cut. This is more than enough to override what the art shows. And it has been discussed more than enough already.

Sounds like you are conceding that it is an art mistake, is this correct? If not, then substantiate the claim before diverging into other points.

I agree that the boulder was split, so mentioning this is not a point.

I doubt you believe these slashing attacks cause a microscopic cut.

In-verse, what makes these feats possible while making Tanjiro's feat impossible?

You are constantly repeating the same arguments, showing the same scans and overall running in circles.

Repeating similar rebuttal to similar arguments that were repeated later perhaps. But if the rebuttal was addressed, engagement necessitates that the response would be different.

---

You can see that the rock has tilted. The "diameter" changes depending on the position. So yes, the rock tilted regardless of what happens. The author simply did not raciciniate right

Then why is it smaller at the top according to your theory? It doesn't make sense for the fracture to shrink both up and down, meaning that the perspective just makes the center appear larger.



Remember that a tilted rock should be several times larger at the top than it is at the bottom, which would be obvious regardless of perspective, and is clearly not the case here.
Also, as mentioned, it is physically impossible for the boulder to tilt without phasing into the ground or being lifted, since its base is too flat and wide.

 

[KingTempest]

What manner of stonewalling is this?

Bro I'm agreeing with everyone else, this is definitely just a cut

 

[Armorchompy]

Sounds like you are conceding that it is an art mistake, is this correct? If not, then substantiate the claim before diverging into other points.

I am absolutely not conceding. If an author repeatedly says the stone was split and shows much cleaner destruction (with slices at least) in the rest of the manga, then if the art shows a slightly different case they clearly didn't know how to convey the feat, or misunderstood how the feat would appear.

I agree that the boulder was split, so mentioning this is not a point.

Destroying the middle part of something is not "splitting" by most interpretations of the word "split", you have already been told this.

I doubt you believe these slashing attacks cause a microscopic cut.

In-verse, what makes these feats possible while making Tanjiro's feat impossible?

I have already explained to you multiple times that elaborate wind techniques meant for AOE are absolutely not a comparable case.

Repeating similar rebuttal to similar arguments that were repeated later perhaps. But if the rebuttal was addressed, engagement necessitates that the response would be different.

That's the opposite, you're making the same arguments even though they've been addressed in the past and refusing to acknowledge that they've been addressed.

Also, as mentioned, it is physically impossible for the boulder to tilt without phasing into the ground or being lifted, since its base is too flat and wide.

Also, as mentioned, the boulder's base isn't completely flat so it could definitely tilt by a few degrees.

 

[Arceus0x]

I'mma be honest i generally disagree with the 22cm cut cause that does make less sense. I am more interested in the panel where Tanjirou cuts the rock and we see the part of the slashed rock that hasn't been reached by the sword yet which is probably like 3cm or so.
My main issue before was more that a whole scheme drawn out to explain an opinion got so easily denied in sentences with not enough context.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think the implication there is that Tanjiro raised his sword a bit after completing the slash.

 

[ShadowWhoWalks]

What manner of stonewalling is this?

Bro I'm agreeing with everyone else, this is definitely just a cut

A 22 cm cut, with agreement that tilting visibly did not occur and that the boulder too stable to allow it. The main counter argument is that the author exaggerated the feat as an art mistake.

---

I am absolutely not conceding. If an author repeatedly says the stone was split and shows much cleaner destruction (with slices at least) in the rest of the manga, then if the art shows a slightly different case they clearly didn't know how to convey the feat, or misunderstood how the feat would appear.

Yes the stone was visibly split by 22 cm. Claiming that the author corrected how cutting ought to be done is saying that the feat is retconned and should be dismissed, which is lacking in evidence; there should be complete incompatibility before we take this step but there isn't.
An argument from consistency is different from an argument from an art mistake; this is more akin to arguing that we should dismiss Roshi blowing up the moon because the author didn't understand the implication or abide by consistency, than arguing that the author drew something unintentionally.

Destroying the middle part of something is not "splitting" by most interpretations of the word "split", you have already been told this.

Separating an object into two parts through a fissure is splitting, how big the fissure is variable; while 22 cm is not microscopic it is still narrow compared to the boulder; so yes the description is accurate. We should look at the feat in order to understand the correct interpretation. We shouldn't retcon canon in order to enforce a pre-conceived notion.

I have already explained to you multiple times that elaborate wind techniques meant for AOE are absolutely not a comparable case.

Actually the only time you addressed this is:

And all of those wacky weird attacks result in clean cuts.

So you are creating a new objection, and have a skewed perspective on the novelty of arguments.

I say that they are comparable in a specific relevant aspect, and that is: they are possible in-verse and don't contradict the logic of the verse. Tanjiro split the rock instinctively not necessarily using a particular technique.

Also, as mentioned, the boulder's base isn't completely flat so it could definitely tilt by a few degrees.

The boulder is wider than a human with the base taking a sizable portion, even a few degrees is too much, and what is possible is way too insignificant to produce anything close to ~20 cm fissures near the bottom.

 

[Armorchompy]

You've literally been told to stop by a thread mod my guy, how many more times do you need to be told? Arguments Ad Nauseam don't work here, and literally nobody is agreeing with you now.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

This is literally a circular debate lol

 

[Armorchompy]

Over such a straightforward feat too.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

For now, I am accepting the thread. Shadow, you're in the clear minority, you're free to make an argument later but your current objections are noted but overruled.

 

[Armorchompy]

Hopefully that wraps this up. if we're all on the same page about the calc being 9-B, I think we can continue this talk on the CRT.