Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #81
Okay. I know this. I mentioned most of this in my original post. A type 3 concept can fit all of these; These traits do not inherently make something type 2. Do you understand that?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Massive Source Downgrades (Maou Gakuin)
- Thread starter Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- maou gakuin
- Status
- 1,436
- 859
And that's exactly what makes something a Type 2 concept, because the name has none of that at all, it's just Type 3, because the font is all those things, it's a Type 2 concept.
You who are taking words like "reality" and "specific object" the wrong way, everyone has a specific area, whether big or small, the area doesn't change anything; "reality" is already made obvious in the explanations as the area that the concept governs, not a universal reality.
"1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in"
"2. Dependent Concepts: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence."
"3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon."
No explanation dictates "all reality", but only the "reality" that the concept governs.
The name only governs one's identity, affecting it will not affect the person; Already the source, and a fundamental abstract concept of existence, destroying or erasing it will destroy or erase the fundamental abstract concept of a being's existence, also affecting body, mind and soul, but affecting body, mind and soul does not affect the source.
Affecting a font will only affect the font itself, as the fonts are separate and unique concepts, no different than why affecting the concepts of universe A will not affect the concepts of universe B, because both are different concepts, which participate in different areas.
If the source only governs one specific thing (like just the body), it would be CM type 3, but since the source governs and exists deeper than soul, mind and body, and is not affected even if it affects all 3 at the same time, while all 3 are affected if the source is affected, which makes it at least CM type 2.
You who are taking words like "reality" and "specific object" the wrong way, everyone has a specific area, whether big or small, the area doesn't change anything; "reality" is already made obvious in the explanations as the area that the concept governs, not a universal reality.
"1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in"
"2. Dependent Concepts: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence."
"3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon."
No explanation dictates "all reality", but only the "reality" that the concept governs.
The name only governs one's identity, affecting it will not affect the person; Already the source, and a fundamental abstract concept of existence, destroying or erasing it will destroy or erase the fundamental abstract concept of a being's existence, also affecting body, mind and soul, but affecting body, mind and soul does not affect the source.
Affecting a font will only affect the font itself, as the fonts are separate and unique concepts, no different than why affecting the concepts of universe A will not affect the concepts of universe B, because both are different concepts, which participate in different areas.
If the source only governs one specific thing (like just the body), it would be CM type 3, but since the source governs and exists deeper than soul, mind and body, and is not affected even if it affects all 3 at the same time, while all 3 are affected if the source is affected, which makes it at least CM type 2.
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #83
You could've just said "no" and that also would've answered my question. Type 3 concepts are, by definition, limited to specific concepts like those that govern individual objects or people. Do you understand this? Yes or no? Don't make me talk down to you more than I already have to.
- 1,436
- 859
Regardless of what answer you wanted, I responded with the refutation.
Moreover, your question is wrong, you say that doesn't make font a type 2 concept, and I said the reason why that makes font a type 2 concept, you just don't accept it.
- 20,084
- 10,871
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #86
Sources control the concept of one's personal existence; This includes all aspects of the self, mind and soul included. However, the concept of an individual's existence is still just one thing by itself, even if it is composed of other things; Like how the concept of a single apple wouldn't be type 2 just because it also includes the apple's stem, core, and so on.
- 1,436
- 859
2. Dependent Concepts: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself. These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract dependent concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality.
1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern, except maybe of other concepts of this nature. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts.
Are you the administrator who cannot understand the obvious...? Lmao. In all, they say that it is a "part of the reality of the govern", "area of influence", and even it is said "THE object of the concept", all make it clear that it is not the reality itself (as a universe), and yesthe governing "part of reality", or "influenced area" (and even mentions of a single object), the explanation on the page is against you.
- 20,084
- 10,871
How about you read the page before you tell me the explanation is against me.
- 32,835
- 38,108
- 1,436
- 859
"one thing in itself" means one thing, and the source is not like that.
The source governs reality (reality = area of influence = governing part = body, mind and soul), existing deeper than the "reality" it governs, affecting it will affect all of "reality" (reality = area of influence = governing part = body, mind and soul), thus destroying "reality" and the concept, but, affecting reality (reality = area of influence = governing part = body, mind and soul) does not affect the concept itself, which puts it as type 1; And what makes it type 2, is the fact that it governs reality (reality = area of influence = part that governs = body, mind and soul), while type 3 (like the name for example), governs nothing, and affecting the type 3 concept will not affect the person, which it should, while affecting the type 2 concept will affect the concept and all the reality it governs, which in the case of the source, the reality would be the body, mind and soul.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #91
"3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question"
come on man
- 1,436
- 859
govern all reality within their area of influence.
These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept.
These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence
Seriously admin? Do I trim explanations to make it sound like I'm lying? fufufu what a low blow for an admin.
- 15,467
- 22,550
Neutral, leaning towards agreeing with the OP.
- 12,457
- 5,641
glassman isnt even an admin ffs
stop talking about that
- 1,436
- 859
This would be a thing that governs only a single object, the type 3 concept is not necessary for the person's existence, while the type 2 is an object that governs everything about the person, and affecting the CM type 2 object will affect the whole "reality" that it governs, while this does not happen with CM type 3, this is an obvious example of the difference between CM type 3 and type 2.
- 1,436
- 859
This is still a low blow, he manipulates and clips messages to make it look like I'm wrong, and I'm the villain? All is well then.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #97
Where are you getting the "type 3 concept is not necessary for existence" bullshit from? It may or may not be, depending on what the verse says. Everything you've said so far would still be true if sources are type 3 concepts.
To clarify, type 3 isn't so much about what can and cannot be governed and is more about the scope of what's being governed; Type 2 and 3 concepts control the same things, but type 2 is on a universal scale while type 3 isn't.
- 1,436
- 859
The picture above doesn't say that.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #100
Aside from the "all of reality" stuff you seem keen on ignoring, the fact remains that type 2 concepts do in fact govern things on a broader scale than type 3 concepts. My point remains about what they govern not being relevant.
- 1,436
- 859
"shape all reality within their area of the influence"
"govern all reality within their area of the influence"
Are you sure I'm the one ignoring something...? I even specified that part to make my point clear, but the only one who ignored the words was you, are you sure you want to argue using the sentence that proves one of my points?
3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2
That's not what it says either...if it were that simple, the explanation would be something like "Same thing as concept type 1 and type 2, just influences in a smaller area", there's definitely nothing saying that.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #102
One of the standards for types 1 and 2 is the scope of what they influence being beyond a single object or person. Since type 3's scope is far smaller, it cannot qualify. Type 3 concepts are quite literally defined by how small in scope they are; Why, exactly, do you think the description mentions "personal concepts" and "a more specific scale"?
- 1,436
- 859
"or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon".
All it has a specific area, and the type 2 concept itself is said to be bound by the object of the concept:
"These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept."
The type 3 concept is "more specific" than the type 2 concept and type 1 concept, but, type 2 is already said to be "limited by the object in question", which means, that the "more specific scale" does not deals with area, in addition to the fact that type 2 is said to be almost the same thing, type 2 is also already accepted in numerous verses as a "concept of existence" regardless of the area that it reaches, the name of Yhwach was excluded from everyone who knew the name Yhwach, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one specific person who knew Yhwach, which totally refutes the "the type 2 concept and the type 1 concept must have an area greater than the area of the type 3 concept".
The difference, and that as the wiki itself says, is a "more specific" concept, and as we already know that this does not speak of a smaller area, it means that these are abstract and complex concepts, since it is also said:
"or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon."
The source is a more elaborate and complex concept, and it also governs the body, mind and soul, therefore is one type 2 concept.
in addition to the source not only governing an object/person, it governs the body, mind and soul, the source is more complex, more elaborate, and also governs more than simply "the person", this already makes it a type 2 concept .
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #104
What does ANY of this have to do with what I just said? What does "or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon" have to do with scale? Why are you assuming the "These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept" quote in the type 2 description is what's being referenced in type 3's description, when it's more likely about the two quotes about the scale on which the concepts function? Yhwach isn't a good example, since it still only governed his existence and his existence alone. Everyone forgetting the name is just a byproduct of it not existing anymore.
This is just stonewalling at this point. Glass is free to debate you if he wants, but I'll just wait for @Everything12 or @DontTalkDT to show up. We're basically at an impasse in votes anyways.
- 1,436
- 859
Why is one of the reasons the concept is type 3?
That it is not elaborated could be one of the reasons for it being type 3, and if with "scale" you are talking about the area that it affects, my arguments that are in the photo have already refuted that.
I never said it's being referenced, I said both are basically the same thing, both in one object.
"concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon."
"These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept."
Type 3 CM just says it's "more specific", which makes it pretty obvious that it's not about somply a single object, as even Type 2 CM can be limited to the concept object, while Type 3 is just a more specific object, but, the source is declared as a fundamental concept, it is abstract (it is said that type 2 is also an abstract concept, and if you know enough about physics to know what abstract concepts are, you will realize that the source and one), and specified, elaborate, and governs the body, mind, and soul.
Both speak of one object, the scale, area or the like is no different.
And that's why it's a type 3 CM, it doesn't govern anything, destroying or erasing this CM won't destroy or erase the person.
Last edited:
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #106
What do you think the words "personal" and "scale" mean, Dog? You're ignoring very direct statements on the CM page just so you can headcanon your own definition of the ability.
hey dog can you tell me what this says please (im having a hard time reading it so i need your superior intellect to help)
- 1,436
- 859
Is that some kind of bland repetition?What do you think the words "personal" and "scale" mean, Dog? You're ignoring very direct statements on the CM page just so you can headcanon your own definition of the ability.
hey dog can you tell me what this says please (im having a hard time reading it so i need your superior intellect to help)
First: The first photo just proves one person it's just one person, how does that go against what I argued in the photo? CM type 2 also mentions ONE object.
Second: Funny, I don't remember saying that scale and size are something different, both CM type 3 and CM type 2 talk about ONE object, CM type 3 talks about a "more specific scale", but CM type 2 also says ONE object, which would also be a specific scale.
Third: I'm talking about it not governing anything fundamental, the name is not something fundamental and does not govern a "reality", affecting the name does not affect the person in question, he continues to exist normally.
Source governs the body, mind and soul, this is the "reality" that the source governs, if the source is destroyed, the body, mind and soul are destroyed, if the body, mind and soul are destroyed, the source remains intact and unchanged, and also described as a fundamental concept, and is also and abstract.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #108
i legitimately dont know how to respond to you anymore, i feel like if i try to simplify things any further id have to start talking to you like i would to a preschooler
@Theglassman12 save me from this hell
@Theglassman12 save me from this hell
- 1,436
- 859
Okay, okay, and just don't answer, you don't have to call the person who tried to crop the text to say I'm wrong.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #110
"Crop the text" you mean reading the goddamn page?
- 1,436
- 859
govern all reality within their area of influence.
These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept.
These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence
No, I know well what I said.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #113
"Fire Dew: A visualization of the laws affecting the "Source" of the earth".
So sources are visualizations of the laws affecting the sources? Can you perhaps see what is wrong with the conclusion that fire dew = sources?
- 1,436
- 859
????
the dew of fire is not even a law, but an order.
although its nature fits both, but what do you mean by "affect the source"?
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #115
Did you uh... read the scans you posted? The second one clearly says "Fire Dew: A visualization of the laws affecting the "Source" of the earth". So how can this be true if fire dew is the same as the source? There are two contradictory statements you need to reconcile.
- 1,436
- 859
...you don't even know what you're talking about, say what you think this statement is saying.
Last edited:
- 12,457
- 5,641
nice argument
- 1,436
- 859
This is not one argument
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,453
- Thread starter
- #119
I don't know what the statement is saying. However, I know it is impossible for fire dew to simultaneously be the source AND the visualization of the laws/order affecting the source. So I would like an explanation on which statement is supposed to be correct here, as they contradict each other. The entire reason I don't know what it's saying is because the whole thing contradicts itself :v
If you think I'm making this up, here's a screenshot of the quote I'm referring to.
If you think I'm making this up, here's a screenshot of the quote I'm referring to.
- 5,796
- 3,264
This says it all.
- Status
