- 19,151
- 6,446
Agree with Kep.
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 someone has to prove that they can use that same energy for destruction that they use for creation?Andytrenom said:I mean, burden of proof is on the person saying "X exists" so if someone says "A relationship exists which makes creation feats automatically scalable to destrucive ability" then that's obviously who the burden of proof is on
The person against it doesn't have to say "it's this specific reason that makes creation feats unusable for the user's destructive ability" just an absence of proof for the aforementioned relationship is enough for them to not accept such a conclusion
Plenty of characters can use more energy than they can withstand, just look at Raphtalia, almost any reality warper (e.g. Franklin Richards, Monika) or even psychics like Shigeo Kageyama.Calaca Vs said:Not necessarily.
Take this into consideration:
X character created a city-worthy construction, so he gets City level energy. Said energy is something he can use and comes directly from his body.
Then Y character comes and Falcon Punches X character, almost killing him.
So, if X character can use his own energy with no harm but Y character's strike could harm him, that means Y character packs more energy.
The rest is legit, tho. That's how powerscaling works when applying Newton's Third Law.
On the contrary, I was in active discussion of that with you and Agnaa before both went silent for months.SomebodyData said:Still waiting for you to prove that, actually.
I was making an example to show how our standards being so loose have allowed the same exact feats in different verses to be treated under different unwritten standards.Dragonmasterxyz said:@Dargoo
Let's not start bringing to PMMM stuff here. That's more likely to cause turmoil and distract from the actual point seeing as at this point your basically attacking the series' ratings when we are trying to deal with a more general problem.
Way to isolate a single example and ignore the rest of my argument.Dragonmasterxyz said:Sounded more like "I disagree with this verse's ratings and so we should be stricter" instead of making a point on the general topic as you failed to detail the comparison other than saying "they are the same". Basically, you could have made your point a lot better than putting PMMM on blast without truly explaining anything just to point out you find the reasonings they came up with to be in your own words "laughable".
Smaller than what we would typically use Gravitational Binding Energy to quantify.Dragonmasterxyz said:What exactly do you mean, below celestial bodies?
My point:Dragonmasterxyz said:Your argument was that we need to be stricter, yet you fail to go in depth with your examples. You list them, and then proceed to go after PMMM while giving no context.
Expanded reasoning behind my point:Dargoo Faust said:I honestly think our creation standards should be much more stringent for stuff that's below the level of celestial bodies; where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability.
I clearly outlined this in two different posts. What do you want me to "go in depth" on again?Dargoo Faust said:I honestly don't think we should even allow for creation feats below celestial bodies with specific exceptions for verses that make a clear connection between the creation/pocket realities and the strength of direct attacks. The verses that actually treat them as feats are far outnumbered by verses where there's no significant connection.
Once celestial bodies come into play, we have more reliable methods for looking and quantifying them; and they're often treated as 'feats' in the verses themselves.
And we proceed to go on the tangent about my PMMM example. It was an aside, and the only point I was trying to prove with it is that we don't have a consistent standard as it stands; which is honestly self-evident.Dragonmasterxyz said:Except the examples you use to prove this, you do not go into detail with. Basically, a listen and believe scenario. Then you go on a PMMM tirade which is what I noted to have an issue with that was overall pointless as your previous points are never expanded upon. How are SK and Fate's feats handled?. What exactly makes them NOT AP based? How are PMMM's feats similar to them? How do these examples make you point a rule and not a simple generalization or exception? None of that is explored in your initial comment, which mind you is the comment I had issues with. Your second comment is irrelevant to the initial issues I addressed with your comment..
It sounds like you're making up points I never touched on. Again, you're pulling this "authorial intent" point I supposedly made out of thin air and I'm not entirely sure why.SomebodyData said:It sounds like you're assuming celestial body feats = author sees as ap and non celestial body feats = authors sees as unrelated, both fallacies appealing to intent, both unknowable to begin with without context.
Are you grouping my points in this "99%"? If you are, I... honestly don't think you're reading any of the more recent discussions; unless this is just more of a joke. Not everyone here is arguing "creations is or isn't treated as AP", including myself.Kepekley23 said:99% of the whole "creation isn't treated as AP" arguments are pretty much "because I said so!".
Text length has nothing to do with significance to an argument. This is why many philosophical discussions 'cut away' fluff like that to isolate claims and evidence.Dragonmasterxyz said:That was one hell of an aside when most of you initial comment was about that. But no, it's just an aside. Let's ignore the rest of your comment had no context and was mostly a "because I said so" matter. You csn't understand my argument because you choose not to. I can't falsly attach anything when I am literally going by your comment. But nope, I am falsely attaching stuff.
Except I'm not? PMMM's individual ratings is unrelated to my point.SomebodyData said:You're the one arguing it as a point
You're doing a poor job, mainly because you're trying to relate the example to another point I was making.SomebodyData said:We're just pointing out its really not a good one, even if you ignore the fact that its showing some pretty apparent flack
Putting more words in my mouth. I didn't say most verses treat it as an exotic ability, I said that was the case for stuff below celestial bodies.SomebodyData said:If that is too general of a question, then how is "most verses treat it as an exotic ability" not just as general? I'm trying to point out your overgeneralization of verses on something you haven't even shown evidence for.
They... don't. And I didn't say they did? I'm talking about context from in the verse, not statements from the author.SomebodyData said:As far as I'm aware, most verses don't say "Oh, this pocket reality doesn't count as a power feat" so the "treatment of feats in the verses" is just just you assuming the author didn't intend to treat it as an AP feat.
Ah, because 'fiction' is equivalent to 'author'.SomebodyData said:"where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability."" < You, Regarding non-celestial feats.
Still looking for when I mentioned Authorial Intent. Perhaps it's hiding behind the quote that makes no mention of it you gave me?SomebodyData said:"they're often treated as 'feats' in the verses themselves." < You, Regarding Celestial Feats
I've already explained my point though; I'm not even going to bother an requote myself a second time and just say go to comment #65.Dragonmasterxyz said:Your post was not significant as you failed to even explain your point but decided to go on a PMMM tirade.
By "could not make sense" I meant in the logical sense, as in, your claim doesn't follow any premise since you were arguing something based on claims I didn't make.Dragonmasterxyz said:You literally said you could not make sense of my argument Dargoo.
Okay. Can you either quote your response to my general arguments or write out arguments that aren't based on my PMMM comment? Perhaps I missed something, feel free to correct me.Dragonmasterxyz said:I have explained to you clesrly my issues with your post.
I agree. Hence why we should cease talking about the PMMM comment, and just speak of the general discussion/point I made.Schnee One said:Guys.
Chill. Out.
Seriously, all this shit about "Putting words in my mouth" or "Strawman" needs to stop.