Whis vs "The Dog" (SCP-1739)

[Goku_Blacc]

Obligatory scaling chain for DBS Low 2-Cs

Grand Priest > Whis > SSB Gogeta > LSS1 Broly > SS1 Gogeta >= SS1 Broly > Limit Break Jiren > Full Power Base Jiren > Third UIS Goku >= Beerus > Post-ToP SSB Goku >= Post-ToP SSB Vegeta > Ikari Broly > Hint of true power Jiren > SSBE Vegeta > GoD Toppo > Post-2nd UIS SSBKK Goku > LSS2 Kefla > Second UIS Goku > Post-ToP SSG Goku > Anilaza > Post-2nd UIS SSB Goku > Casual Jiren > First UIS Goku > Infinite Zamasu (Baseline)

There's zero proof that Broly is stronger than limit breaker Jiren.

 

[GyroNutz]

He was called the strongest enemy a couple of times, iirc

 

[Akreious]

Obligatory scaling chain for DBS Low 2-Cs

Grand Priest > Whis > SSB Gogeta > LSS1 Broly > SS1 Gogeta >= SS1 Broly > Limit Break Jiren > Full Power Base Jiren > Third UIS Goku >= Beerus > Post-ToP SSB Goku >= Post-ToP SSB Vegeta > Ikari Broly > Hint of true power Jiren > SSBE Vegeta > GoD Toppo > Post-2nd UIS SSBKK Goku > LSS2 Kefla > Second UIS Goku > Post-ToP SSG Goku > Anilaza > Post-2nd UIS SSB Goku > Casual Jiren > First UIS Goku > Infinite Zamasu (Baseline)

There's zero proof that Broly is stronger than limit breaker Jiren.

When referring to Super Saiyan Broly, several magazines refer to him as the "Strongest opponent Goku has ever faced" (Or some variation; the meaning is the same). This somewhat makes sense in the scaling because while SS1 Broly still got his arse kicked against SSB Gogeta, he still got in *some* decent hits and didn't completely die to him. That and along with the fact that this site considers SSB Gogeta to be > MUI Goku, it makes sense scaling-wise.

Edit: Anyways, still solidly going for Whis here. Literally the only way for 1739 to win here is to take his METAPHORICAL feat literally. Which, in all good wisdom, shouldn't be how one interprets it. At best we can consider it to be unquantifiably higher than his Computer state and strong enough to destroy Timelines in it's presence. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't know how it did it, if it's an ability, or if it's the presence that's doing the busting or a literal shadow.

 

[SunDaGamer]

Whis FRA

 

[ABoogieYesSir]

Good grof

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Dog fra

 

[ABoogieYesSir]

Doggy FRA

 

[Dragopentling]

Creepy Doge FRA

 

[Cropfist]

1739 for reasons above.

 

[Warren_Valion]

What were the reasons for 1739?

From what I remember, the only thing being argued was an AP advantage, and I am pretty sure that was wrong as the only feat that SCP-1739 has is unquantifiable Low 2-C feat.

While Whis in unquantifiably but immensely stronger than MUI Goku who has a large ass scaling chain which ends in Infinite Zamasu, a being who is slightly above baseline.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

That is the only reason. The argument for the SCP having an AP advantage is because a baseline is compared to his shadow. This was then debunked multiple times because a shadow has nothing to do with AP.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I interpreted your words in two ways - the literal and metaphorical:
In the metaphorical, I explained that you can't literally make the comparison between a person and their shadow when the metaphor just means the difference is really big.

The difference between a drop of water and an ocean being a common example of a similar metaphor. It just means that there is a large discrepancy in power, but not a literally numerical difference between a drop of water and the ocean - the same can be said for The Dog and its shadow. You can't take the comparison literally, its a metaphor.


In the literal, I told you that the comparison is meaningless because a shadow, or whatever equivalent of a shadow that this being has, isn't what is causing the destruction of the timeline - because that's not how shadows work unless they were magical or something, which you explicitly said it wasn't. Shadows don't cause anything, they are the lack of light, they are the lack of a cause.


I literally broke down the two ways you told us to think about this, and you say I am making assumptions and am misconstrued on the nature of The Dog's shadow. How am I reading my interpretation when I am going off of what you said?


Also, what are you talking about, shadows and darkness are the total or partial absence of light.

They aren't 2-D objects cast upon by higher beings. Shadows aren't an object or a thing, they are the lack of a thing or object - light.

No, you can. Its a metaphor, but the difference bbetween the 2 is quite clear. Since this was written in an actual scientific document from a viable in universe source, the difference is clear but not quantifiable.

If a character meant it in that sense, then sure, but they didn't. The comparison was meant literally.

That's how they work in our universe, but the same can not be said for others. Shadows could cause destruction to a thing equally as meaningless in our world, if they existed. Shadows can distort and absorb other shadows, but that is rather beside the point.

Because I did not say it only in those ways. The dog does not literally have a shadow, it is his equivolent of it, but the metaphor is meant to demonstrate the difference in power. In our world, shadows are meaningless, but not in others.

Perhaps in our world, but we have already used "the difference between a shadow and a higher being" to quantify power before. I think you basically answered your own question here. What is the difference between a baseline and the dog? The baseline might as well not even exist.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, i kinda forgot about this thread

 

[Warren_Valion]

No, you can not.

A metaphor is exactly that, a metaphor. It's "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." That's the definition, plain and simple

You can not take the qualitative difference in a metaphor literally - that's preposterous.

Using the metaphor, "the difference was like a man and his shadow" just means that difference between the two (The Dog and its shadow in this context) is an enormously large difference, not that the difference in strength is literally the quantitative difference between a person and their shadow.


You can't take metaphors literally, that defeats the purpose of using a metaphor.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

This would be like using the metaphor "The difference between them was like Heaven and Earth" and then trying to find a way to calucate the mathematical distance in between Heaven and Earth to find a solid number for how big of a strength gap there was between the two.

 

[Jackythejack]

I kind of take it to mean that he can just destroy a universe by like

being next to it but maybe that's just me

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Simply going back and forth won't solve it, you know my views. I won't repeat myself.

The point of the metaphor is akin to saying that the Hadou gods have snakes or use fire or anything like that. While it is not literally his shadow, it is his equivolent. That is one definition of a metaphor, but as you could tell from the way I was using it, it was not the definition that I was using. The difference between the dog and his equivolent of a shadow, that is literal.

Appealing to the absurd is not a valid response. Do you have another?

See this, this is what I mean when I say you are reading your interpretation into it. The scientific nature of the document makes it clear that it is meant to be literal, at least in so far as the understanding of the thing ultimately beyond our understanding can be conveyed.


Depends on the metaphor. When you use them as an analogy, they can be. While you are right that it is not literally his shadow, it is his equivolent of it, and his "shadow" has the difference between me or you and our shadow.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

But there is no literal meaning in this. There's no difference in physical capabilities between you and your shadow because your shadow has no physical capabilities. The only way I could see this being taken literally was if they were refering to how a shadow is 2D and a human is 3D.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

But there is no literal meaning in this. There's no difference in physical capabilities between you and your shadow because your shadow has no physical capabilities. The only way I could see this being taken literally was if they were refering to how a shadow is 2D and a human is 3D.

Yes, there is. The difference between you and your shadow is so great that the latter basically doesn't even ******* exist. Or, as you said, maybe even a dimensional difference.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

Okay, but then using that dimensional difference, The dog would be a 4D or 5D being.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

He is undoubtedly 4D, and 5D is indeed a reasonable high ball, yes

 

[DragonEmperor23]

wait isn't being 4D standard for destroying universes?

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

So long as that includes the dimension of time itself, yes. His shadow alone is 4D. I think I am gonna go talk with weekly about potentially upgrading him

 

[DragonEmperor23]

:thumbsupemoji:

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Beerus is not 2-B. And why you're quoting your own deleted comment?

 

[Shubham_Sonsurkar]

Beerus is not 2-B. And why you're quoting your own deleted comment?

Sorry happened by mistake