Whis' resurrection

[Akreious]

So apparently people are saying Whis is flat out INCAPABLE of reviving himself like he did with Freeza. What is preventing Whis from doing this same phenomena on himself? All the arguments against this is "Hes never done it so he cant, period. Bring me better evidence".

We know that Angels can do resurrection utmost casually too, so its not like its some super special technique that is hard on even angels. Whats the difference between Vados using her staff to revive whis and whis just pointing his own staff to his own face and using the exact same ability? I'd understand if they said it could only be used on other people but the ability is just flat out "Point and Resurrect".

 

[AKM sama]

Well we know mortals go to the afterlife after dying, and some of them can keep their bodies.

We also know that the Kais stay on their respective planets when they die with their bodies intact.

But we don't know what happens to the angles. If the angels keep their bodies, they probably can resurrect themselves. But do they keep their bodies after dying?

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Well we know mortals go to the afterlife after dying, and some of them can keep their bodies.
We also know that the Kais stay on their respective planets when they die with their bodies intact.

But we don't know what happens to the angles. If the angels keep their bodies, they probably can resurrect themselves. But do they keep their bodies after dying?

well.. if north kai did.. and frieza (somehow?) Still had his (still questioning if that's a retcon or inconsistency) then with Angels presumably being higher ranked then a normal kai (being a kind of safe guard agenst a god of destruction destroying too much) they probably should? (Or if frieze was a retcon and people just are like that in the afterlife now it wouldn't make a difference)

 

[Akreious]

Bump.

@AKM sama

People in the SCP 2117 vs Whis thread are saying "For simplicity, Whis never showed he can use it on himself and therefore can't" and when I brought up the concept of a "Benefit of a doubt", someone said there is none.

@Darkmon cns

That was also one of my arguments, that he'd retain his body since he's technically higher ranked than the Kais.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We shouldn't assume Whis can do anything we haven't seen him already do. AKM is right, we don't know how Angels interact with the afterlife, so we shouldn't tack anything on and assume the least. Which wouldn't be keeping their bodies.

Also, ressurecting others does not make you cabable of ressurecting yourself. Although, as stated before, he just wouldn't have a body to do that with.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'd understand if they said it could only be used on other people but the ability is just flat out "Point and Resurrect".

You don't need to disprove that it can be used on themselves.

You need to prove it. We have the Fallacy page specifically for this, see Burden of Proof.

It's basic logic, it's why people have been responding with it to you so often.

 

[Akreious]

"we don't know how Angels interact with the afterlife"

Except this is again, ignoring how the afterlife works in Dragon Ball. Whis, by all accounts, should definitely be higher ranked than King Kai and therefore be able to keep his body. Keeping your God of Destruction who can blow up the universe in check definitely sounds like a bigger responsibility than making planets, since... no universe, no planets.

"AKM is right"

I'm assuming you didn't see the " If the angels keep their bodies, they probably can resurrect themselves" bit.

"so we shouldn't tack anything on and assume the least."

Assuming the least would include...

Angels are lower in rank than the Kais and that Whis' powers somehow doesn't work in the afterlife despite everyone else being able to use theirs without limit.

Doesn't make... much sense in the context of the show.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Nope. That doesn't explain what would happen after he dies. Again, you're making assumptions. Not ignoring anything, I just don't want to add anything that doesn't make sense.

Nah, I'm agreeing only with his point on how we don't know how Angels would be in the afterlife.

Makes me wonder why people want you to give proof for your claims.

 

[Akreious]

"Nope. That doesn't explain what would happen after he dies. Again, you're making assumptions. Not ignoring anything, I just don't want to add anything that doesn't make sense.

Nah, I'm agreeing only with his point on how we don't know how Angels would be in the afterlife."

Dude, you yourself aren't making sense in this case. I hope you know that disembodied souls in DB are incapable of speech and very little action. That would equate to a completely unregulated God of Destruction. It'd make much more sense if the Angel kept their bodies so that they can at least communicate to their GoD. PLUS, we know that the angel are in fact the GoD's caretakers that also regulate their actions.

Again, he should outrank the Kais who retain their bodies after death. Making sure there is a universe is more important than creating a planet. If you want something that "Makes sense", the path with assumptions makes more sense than what you're suggesting.

"Makes me wonder why people want you to give proof for your claims."

I sense some hostility, but not the point. We assume things on this site all the time, I don't get why you're all uppity about it now.

When something makes sense but is an assumption, we give it the Possibly/Likely label. Not flat out disregard it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

What we don't know is what happens when they die.

So, we shouldn't assume anything lest we give them powers or abilities they might not have.

Ergo, we shouldn't assume more than the bare minumum, which should be a disembodied soul.

Not even worth a Possibly. This isn't "he might have a power", this is "he might meet some condition that might give him a power we don't really know would apply to himself, but we don't know what happens when he goes to meet that condition"

I have no intention of coming off as hostile. I'm genuinely curious as to why you're confused when people ask you for evidence, as clearly it is necessary here.

 

[Akreious]

So we assume that when an Angel dies, the God of Destruction is completely unregulated and should they be too immature to handle things on their own (Likely with the majority of the Gods of Destruction), the universe is left to a likely painful and explosive death at the whim of the God of Destruction.

It'd also mean that should the thing that killed the Angel be an even stronger being, the Angel would be completely incapable of helping their attending GoD, leaving the universe to a fate of death yet again to a being superior to an angel, who can stomp a GoD.

That is... actually what you're suggesting right now.

" I'm geniuinly curious as to why you're confused when people ask you for evidence, as clearly it is necessary here."

Because the assumptions I'm making makes complete sense in the context of the Verse proper. I know people likes hard defined evidence and proof, but assuming otherwise would make no sense in the verse either. This is why I keep bringing up the benefit of the doubt, as these assumptions makes the most logical sense. The simplest assumption is to assume that he simply can't do these things, but that also leaves any consideration about the verse that the character is from out of the equation.

Also, I'm not confused don't worry. I hear you guys loud and clear. It's just a different viewpoint, not confusion. I'm good in the reading comprehension.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah, because we don't know what happens when an Angel dies. The baseline for death is disembodied, so we use that when no other evidence is there.

You're trying to fill in blanks with stuff you have no evidence for. It's like me trying to push a fan theory on something that isn't explained because it somewhat fits in with lore. At the best you're making up a narrative to add abilities he doesn't have.

Your assumptions aren't correct, as they lack the basic foundation of knowing what happens upon the death of an Angel. Your assumption is an imaginary situation we have never seen played out.

You can't just write out something that fits in where there is nothing, that's not how we work. We don't know what happens, so we don't try and assume what happens. We have a baseline assumption here, so we use that.

 

[JackJoyce]

The Angels probably has Type 1 Immortality. I mean they never retire from their role unlike Hakaishins

 

[Akreious]

Bump

 

[Akreious]

Buuuuuuuump

 

[Akreious]

 

[JackJoyce]

I'm stealing this OVO

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I agree with Type 1, as long as Jack can provide a scan of the statement that they never retire.