- 20,084
- 10,871
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.
So, is type 1 good to stay or are you still in favor of type 2? Idk if I included this in my original post, but gods (which are nameless) are stated to be "nothing", so would that help prove that namelessness = nothingness?I feel most of the evidence presented is just type 2. With the existence-nonexistence being the only thing for Type 1.
But as a note the scan the OP provided would still go against Type 1. There wasn't nothing and then something, there was chaos and then definition to chaos. It's still probably Type 1 but it's not because they predate anything.
In my view it looks more like Type 2, but I really don't know much about the verse to say much.So, is type 1 good to stay or are you still in favor of type 2?
Nothingness isn't Type 1, since there were things before nothing in this universe. Nothingness is only Type 1 if there was a nothing before everything and still a nothing after everything, rather than a diametrically opposed concept of existence like there is here.would that help prove that namelessness = nothingness?
Alright then, I'll keep you in the agree category.In my view it looks more like Type 2, but I really don't know much about the verse to say much.
That wasn't really my point. You just said that reality wasn't nonexistent, just in a state of "chaos", so I posted that as proof that reality genuinely was nonexistent prior to the gods giving everything names.Nothingness isn't Type 1, since there were things before nothing in this universe. Nothingness is only Type 1 if there was a nothing before everything and still a nothing after everything, rather than a diametrically opposed concept of existence like there is here.
Nah it looks like you want to be put in Twitter news feed.Take your love life elsewhere lol, else we'll be both committing war crimes and I'll be posting Chelsea vs Real
They gave name to things that already existed to separate them. Which isn't a Type 1 justification.That wasn't really my point. You just said that reality wasn't nonexistent, just in a state of "chaos", so I posted that as proof that reality genuinely was nonexistent prior to the gods giving everything
Awwwwwwwww, salty that Real will shitcan Graham Potter's Farmer's League team without Kante?Nah it looks like you want to be put in Twitter news feed.
I don't care for neither sides but I know the war. So this is ******* pointlessAwwwwwwwww, salty that Real will shitcan Graham Potter's Farmer's League team without Kante?
If I can have a TLDR summary, then perhaps.@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa Would you be kind enough to respond to OP and Fuji's rebuttal? And Dread's response, as well as Fuji's response to Dread?
If I can have a TLDR summary, then perhaps.
Well my full rebuttal with scans and such is here, but for a TL;DR:If I can have a TLDR summary, then perhaps.
Scan ain't working, but if it's what I'm thinking of, I don't recall this being related to gods or names (pretty sure it was about the power used to stop the night in Imperishable Night).
Yes it's in Imperishable Night (Alice/Marisa route) I'll just quote it thenScan ain't working, but if it's what I'm thinking of, I don't recall this being related to gods or names (pretty sure it was about the power used to stop the night in Imperishable Night).
Conflicted tbh, the disagree part has required it's condition so by all mean this thread has been rejectedAgree: @Qawsedf234
Disagree: @Duedate8898, @KLOL506, @Theglassman12, @Elizhaa
Neutral: @Planck69, @DarkDragonMedeus
Is this enough to close the thread, or should we wait a little longer?
a refutation follows, reiner. You creates an argument, you got response from it. You can't rush the thread and close and not let the person who wanted to respond, has no chance to respond.But I assume all the refutation has been given, dread. What has been accepted has been, what has been rejected has been.
I didn't rush the thread. We had 4 staff disagreements (and even @Qawsedf234 disagrees with type 3), that is more than enough input for a thread to be closed. You can't just keep indefinitely stalling threads just because you didn't like the outcome.a refutation follows, reiner. You creates an argument, you got response from it. You can't rush the thread and close and not let the person who wanted to respond, has no chance to respond.
There is no grace period for a rejected thread. The votes were clearly in favor of keeping type 1, so we closed the thread based on that. Just admit the arguments used weren't very good and move on, christ.the thread was not even a day, it was rushed the moment you spam vote tally. Also, why are you arguing? Keep civil. Qawsed disagreed with type 1 as well.
True but only God's gave name to something that governs reality as a whole. and people naming God's is only affecting an aspect of those Gods and such making them only express those aspect they got named on. A Few cases like Yukari for being able to control boundary would only actually fall under Type 1 or 2 for Concept hax due to the extent of what her boundary covers and can do. Others like Cirno (I Like Cirno) do not exhibit nor is shown capable of making name for such a concept that would govern an entire reality at best it is personal concept born from their powers.Again, none of those examples are why names are type 1. You're taking the end result (all names being type 1) and assuming that's my evidence, when it's not (the real reason is that names created all of reality, including other type 1 concepts, and predate that reality as a result).
It's the exact same power though. If gods have type 1, then so do the non-gods who also use names. Keep in mind non-gods are stated to be able to give names to gods, which affects ideas spread across reality, so this isn't even right.
Exactly they are making those concepts but those concept doesn't automatically default to Type 1 just because it is created by Type 1 concept. Although the Type 1 concept have feats of creating another Type 1 concept (Like Boundary like you argued as much as i disagree with that) that doesn't mean everything it creates is a Type 1 Concept.Except they're not just manipulating stuff that was created by those concepts. They're the ones making the concepts to begin with. You clearly do not even understand why Touhou's CM is a thing.
This is for another thread buddy.Snip
not literally, bec Fuji did not even address spell cards at all.This is for another thread buddy.
TitleThis is for another thread buddy.
Anyway if another thread needed nothing else would be changed except continuation. So its better to finish off things here.Touhou Project Conceptual Manipulation Downgrade