- 441
- 256
I agree with OP's stated.
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.
Just for consistency sake, do you hold the position that an objectively solid object, that's stated to be a solid object, could, by its sheer constitution, interact with other solid objects, or do you hold the position that would be illogical assumption to make?.I don't see this as necessarily being the case if such a function isn't actually demonstrated. I don't share this assumption.
Yeah, a spiritual object, by its very nature, can interact with other spiritual objects because both exist on the same fundamental level as each other, similar how a physical object can interact with another physical object since both objects are material/physical in nature.Where is the NPI coming from? The reasoning above?
....Infact, it was specifically noted that they couldn't simply cut through kidomaru's webs
Sasuke made that statment that a blade cant cut it. He had no knowledge on the totska blade. Also itachi dident want to accedently hit kabuto with that big ass sword and seal him. He was trying to ultimately undo the reanimation.Come on, it's a sword that seals whatever it pierces, no where does it neg durability
Infact, it was specifically noted that they couldn't simply cut through kidomaru's webs
Then itachi went after the bones while Sasuke used enton on the webs, so no, there isn't anything like durability negation here.
When itachi stabbed orochimaru, he assumed it was just a regular sword, until it started sealing him, THAT'S when he knew what it was. The totsuka is a powerful blade that seals what it pierces, it doesn't negate durability
It being a spirit weapon in Naruto does not in any case mean it directly attacks souls or what not, there is literally an entire array of techniques that are based off spiritual manipulation known as YIN RELEASE.
This is a real reach to try and claim durability negation. Its a sword that seals what it pierces
the sword directly interacts with Nagato's soul which is why it's able to trap him inside it.I don't see this as necessarily being the case if such a function isn't actually demonstrated. I don't share this assumption.
Where is the NPI coming from? The reasoning above?
the sword directly interacts with Nagato's soul which is why it's able to trap him inside it.
souls dont suddenly become physical once they inside a body, otherwise we wouldn't need to separate souls from bodies in the first place.It didn't interact with an intangible soul though; it had to strike Nagato's physical body. There's no knowing if it would work if the sword was waved through a soul by itself.
Damage, you literally don't know if it had to damage his physical body to interact with his soul, that's you extrapolating an assumption from the events we're given, that's not a known, concrete fact, it's entirely your interpretation. It's entirely as possible, if not even more so that since the sword does, by its very nature, interact with both the physical and spiritual, the consequence of that would be the sword physically damaging Nagato if he's attacked with the sword, alongside it damaging his soul.
If Nagato exist purely as an intangible soul, than the Totsuka Blade would most likely interact with it since it's also a spiritual object, y'all aren't addressing this argument in any actual, meaningful manner, y'all are only obfuscating the question by asserting inherent weaknesses that aren't even provable, or are inherently counter intuitive to the very nature of the sword itself.
No, it doesn't exactly apply to what i'm saying since my argument has actual precedence while yours doesn't, objects which have the same fundamental constitution, by nature, can interact with objects of equal constitution, like a solid object interacting with another solid object. The onus would be on you to disprove the precedence, which you are incapable of doing since it would require you to assert we shouldn't assume physical objects can interact with other physical objects with the same composition because of the lack of direct feats, and (or) statements.The same thing you're objecting to applies exactly to what you're saying; you don't know that it being a "spiritual object" means that it would interact with an intangible soul.
And I wasn't asserting a weakness; I just said "There's no knowing if it would work if the sword was waved through a soul by itself."
Allow me to ammend my "It had to strike Nagato's body" to "It did strike Nagato's body."
Souls are by definition not tangible things, they exist within people outside of their physical forms, the entire description of what a soul is hinges on it not being a material thing. sure there some exceptions to this rule but they are exceptions that prove the rule. this argument is the equivalent of saying organs are not physical unless proven.a "spiritual object" means that it would interact with an intangible soul.
That's an assumption on your part that I don't agree with, sorry.No, it doesn't exactly apply to what i'm saying since my argument has actual precedence while yours doesn't, objects which have the same fundamental constitution, by nature, can interact with objects of equal constitution, like a solid object interacting with another solid object. The onus would be on you to disprove the precedence, which you are incapable of doing since it would require you to assert we shouldn't assume physical objects can interact with other physical objects with the same composition because of the lack of direct feats, and (or) statements.
You are, that's the logical consequence of your assertion Damage.
Cool, doesn't disprove anything we are asserting, it's just useless conjecture.
Soul Manipulation, I don't have a problem with.Why is this being dragged out guys? Absolutely no reason to try to discount the blade's npi feats and soul manip.
How can u agree to soul manip but not to npi? The ability to soul manip requires npi,Soul Manipulation, I don't have a problem with.
It's the NPI and Durability Negation that I don't think is explicit.
That's not true as far as I understand it. You can manipulate the soul in various ways without physically touching it. One ability does not require the other.How can u agree to soul manip but not to npi? The ability to soul manip requires npi,
And I mean cmon we already give Susanoo users npi lmao, why is totska blade being treated differently now?
But in this instance the sword is targeting the soul itself, sucking it in, that's npi.That's not true as far as I understand it. You can manipulate the soul in various ways without physically touching it. One ability does not require the other.
the totska blade is a variant of the kusanagi bladeWhen has Itachi ever sealed anyone's soul? He's only used the Totsuka Blade to seal people not the Kusanagi Blade.
Isn't the kusanagi blade used by Orochimaru though or is it 2 blades with the same name one with itachi and one with orochimaru?the totska blade is a variant of the kusanagi blade
The blade Itachi uses is a variant of the kusangi bladeIsn't the kusanagi blade used by Orochimaru though or is it 2 blades with the same name one with itachi and one with orochimaru?
I know.The blade Itachi uses is a variant of the kusangi blade
yes soul manipulation works that way too but the totsuka blade is said to be spiritual anyway and originally in a physical pattern like a yata mirror can enter a solid or an energy pattern for physical attacksThat's not true as far as I understand it. You can manipulate the soul in various ways without physically touching it. One ability does not require the other.
1-soul manipulationIf we look at the sum total for totsuka blade and yata mirror, by manipulating the chakra can absorb various nature transformations energy manipulation, lack of any form incorporeality, ability to be in spiritual pattern abstraction, can interact with and absorb spirits non-physical interaction, traps souls in genjutsu soul manipulation?
If others agree I have no problem with adding some of those1-soul manipulation
2-npı
3-energy manipulation
4-abstraction
5-incorporeality
sorry sometimes the translation doesn't express what i want i'm talking about abstractness because of the concept of soulWhat do u mean by abstraction?
excel has your opinion changed at all or are u still nuetralNeutral till other staffs gives input
Not necessarily. It can deal physical damage, yet carry a sealing component to it (which is what is straight up shown, no extrapolation needed). So I disagree on it ignoring durability.It should still ignore durability to an extent where it was able to seal souls though.
Deceive's
I agreeexcel has your opinion changed at all or are u still nuetral
Wait so do you agree with the op because of decieves reasons or just npi. Npi wasn't originally apart of the proposal but i can add it for sureNot necessarily. It can deal physical damage, yet carry a sealing component to it (which is what is straight up shown, no extrapolation needed). So I disagree on it ignoring durability.
Edit: I do agree with NPI, for Deceive's reasons