|
This is a thread that is dedicated to discussing One Piece. Do not read this thread if you are not currently caught up as there are spoilers in here.
If an episode or a chapter has already been officially released, then it is not necessary to post using spoilers.
If you have knowledge on a chapter that has not been officially released yet, do NOT post it in this thread. Ignoring this public note will result in a mod action. |
On September 14 2014 15:11 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:11 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:
[quote]
Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women? Because it's the exception. How does being the exception test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the rule?
I just explained it numerous times, if you don't get it by now then you just won't get it no matter how many more times I explain it.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 14 2014 15:13 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:11 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:11 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:
[quote]
So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women? Because it's the exception. How does being the exception test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the rule? I just explained it numerous times, if you don't get it by now then you just won't get it no matter how many more times I explain it.
Actually, you haven't even explained it once. How does an exception existing test the truth of a rule/generalization?
User was warned for this post
|
On September 14 2014 15:14 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:13 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:11 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:11 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:
[quote]
Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women? Because it's the exception. How does being the exception test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the rule? I just explained it numerous times, if you don't get it by now then you just won't get it no matter how many more times I explain it. Actually, you haven't even explained it once. How does an exception existing test the truth of a rule/generalization?
Yes I did.
|
On September 14 2014 15:16 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:14 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:13 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:11 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:11 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women? Because it's the exception. How does being the exception test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the rule? I just explained it numerous times, if you don't get it by now then you just won't get it no matter how many more times I explain it. Actually, you haven't even explained it once. How does an exception existing test the truth of a rule/generalization? Yes I did.
Copy/paste it for me, since I must have missed you explaining how an exception existing proves a generalization to be true.
|
The phrase "an exception to prove the rule" is based on the acknowledgement that something is an exception. So if you accept that a woman weightlifter is an exception, then you are also implicitly accepting that there is a general rule that men are stronger than women.
If you don't accept that a woman weightlifter is an exception, then you are rejecting the premise that men are stronger than women and therefore it is not an exception to prove the rule. It works for strict rules as well as rules of thumb. However, it's really in the eye of the beholder. So the argument is moot and can we please move on?
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Dragon has Haki. His father has massive Haki, so does his son. He has a massive bounty, which is a good indicator of power (but could potentially only be for political reasons). He is likely the one who taught Sabo the "Dragon Claw" technique, which seems to be haki based (or else something even more powerful). Smoker completely backed down when confronted by Dragon, which would be odd for a logia against someone who didn't have haki.
There is certainly a lot of evidence, but no conclusive proof yet. I think it's a good assumption that Dragon has Haki (and probably Conqueror's haki), but it's still just an assumption. I think it's a strong enough assumption that we can discuss Dragon with that assumption in mind because making that very likely assumption helps understand the characters a little better.
It's not like it's just some wild speculation.
|
On September 14 2014 15:13 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:11 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:11 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:
[quote]
So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women? Because it's the exception. How does being the exception test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the rule? I just explained it numerous times, if you don't get it by now then you just won't get it no matter how many more times I explain it.
Its like your argument that it is impossible that Dragon does not have haki. Because you've explained it a lot of times and everyone disagrees with you, you assume everyone fails to see your argument. We all see it and think its bad.
Also WTF is this conversation; its barely tangentially related to One Piece.
|
Take it to PMs if you guys want to continue
|
Well my subscribed threads page showed 67 unread posts. Little did I know =/
|
one piece thread is amazing
|
And another one for our anecdotes.
We will say "remember that time when there was an argument about Dragon's haki rule?" and then the next guy will replay "I preferred the rokushiki is haki debate, it was longer and funnier."
edit:
And about rules: Rules come from authority.
In One Piece that means
Oda or a character in the manga has to say it, for it to be a rule.
I could say all strong people have a straw hat and point to Gol D. Roger, Shanks and Luffy. All other people are just exceptions.
(This is obviously nonsense)
I wonder if Luffy will break his rule of never punching the bad guy in the face again. Luffy never punches the bad guy, unless he decides to it anyway.
|
Austria24417 Posts
This is the best thread on all of TL
|
Saw 3+ new pages in this thread, thought Oda published a freebie chapter or something. Silly me, if that had happened we'd have had way more than just 3 new pages.
|
On September 14 2014 22:08 Incognoto wrote:
Saw 3+ new pages in this thread, thought Oda published a freebie chapter or something. Silly me, if that had happened we'd have had way more than just 3 new pages.
Hahaha.
That's priceless.
If more than 2 days after chapter release there are 50+ new posts, it's some kind of discussion.
One Piece discussions are still more interesting than any other series discussions on TL I know of. :D
|
On September 14 2014 16:41 vndestiny wrote:
Well my subscribed threads page showed 67 unread posts. Little did I know =/
Not even any Enel 
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Some dictionary.com stuff up in here
|
Not to press the whole dragon haki thing but smoker here looks a little roughed up and even if he didn't try to fight dragon there would be a reason to feel threatened... he can hit logia therefore haki.
|
Dragon should have a Haki. It seems odd if one of the powerful fighters in the world does not have haki.
|
Most wanted man in the world
Can't use Haki.
come off it
|
France7248 Posts
|
Four things TL OP thread taught to you:
1.Rokushiki is Haki.
2.Enel is the strongest OP character.
3.Franky is stronger than Sanji.
4.Dragon can't use haki.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4142
1238
127
EPT
