Fezzih_007
He/Him- 7,558
- 2,809
Is kinda vague how is worded in the page, so i can't agree exactly.The energies are considered borderline identical by VSB Standards.
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.
Is kinda vague how is worded in the page, so i can't agree exactly.The energies are considered borderline identical by VSB Standards.
but it is a limit on what you can burn and fight against, being made of fire doesn't make you able to burn everything, in the example you just gave, liquids such as water are a limit to the burning capability of the fire userNo it is not. If I’m fire, and my weakness is water. That doesn’t mean there is a “limit” to how much fire I’m able to produce, that just means water is able to extinguish my fire because I’m “weak” to it.
Those are fundamentally different things especially in discussing a no limits fallacy.
it isn't, at all, the whole point of it is to not get damaged by conventional attacks, that is the very basis of invulnerability, there is nothing on the page saying that higher AP alone can bypass it, it doesn't even make sense, what? does being 1% higher then the invulnerability user makes you able to harm them? if not that how much? 10%? 40%? you are discussing things that are elaborated with rules and guidelines in the page itself, and instead is just supposing how it works while making a stand for everyone to follow it, so unless you give guidelines in a thread and make it applied to the page, then your personal interpretations of the text, which not everyone here agreed with, can not be consideredIt’s literally pointing out the distinction while discussing AP, I don’t need to take an English major or get a semantical argument to determine that this statement is in reference to AP when it is literally discussing AP.
neither does Invulnerability, but don't dodge the point, tell me the difference between the 2 haxes in function for one to work under one rule and the other to notExcept durability negation doesn’t give any warnings a no limits fallacy when using it for “simple attack potency.”
But not limited in how much I can produce or what temperatures? You’re basically saying that I can produce as high as a temperature as I want to with my fire so long as there’s no water around because then there’d be “no limit” to the amount of fire I can make or how hot I can achieve it to be.but it is a limit on what you can burn and fight against, being made of fire doesn't make you able to burn everything, in the example you just gave, liquids such as water are a limit to the burning capability of the fire user
This is when someone states that because something has not demonstrated any limits (or only certain limits) then it has none (or only the ones demonstrated).
This is not my personal interpretation, this is what’s on the page itself. I don’t need to give you a percentage on the page as to the amount of AP that “bypasses” invulnerability since that’s not my job to do or the argument I’m making. The page just says not to employ a NLF in regards to AP for the power of invulnerability. “How much” AP is needed above your opponents to “bypass” it or whatever is irrelevant to my argument since all I’m proving is that the position of AP and invulnerability is there in the page itself. Not the specifics to it.it isn't, at all, the whole point of it is to not get damaged by conventional attacks, that is the very basis of invulnerability, there is nothing on the page saying that higher AP alone can bypass it, it doesn't even make sense, what? does being 1% higher then the invulnerability user makes you able to harm them? if not that how much? 10%? 40%? you are discussing things that are elaborated with rules and guidelines in the page itself, and instead is just supposing how it works while making a stand for everyone to follow it, so unless you give guidelines in a thread and make it applied to the page, then your personal interpretations of the text, which not everyone here agreed with, can not be considered
Well, considering there’s several different types of durability negation ranging from magic all the way to conceptual manipulation, there can be a plethora of differences between the two for one rule to work for one but not for the other just based on that fact alone since the power “invulnerability” doesn’t have these kinds of criteria in which it acts functionally similar to durability negation.neither does Invulnerability, but don't dodge the point, tell me the difference between the 2 haxes in function for one to work under one rule and the other to not
yes it is, if the temperature was high enough, the water would evaporate before touching you, aka your fire limited temperature is your weaknessBut not limited in how much I can produce or what temperatures?
no i am not, this doesn't disprove that the weakness is a limit at all, don't dodge the pointYou’re basically saying that I can produce as high as a temperature as I want to with my fire so long as there’s no water around because then there’d be “no limit” to the amount of fire I can make or how hot I can achieve it to be.
which isn't the case at all since smurf stuff would bypass it, again, the limit you asked was givenEven having only “certain limits” on an ability can still mean you’re using a no limits fallacy onto the power as it literally says on the fallacy page itself.
So again, this would still classify as a no limits fallacy, even if you want to say it’s “limited” only by things like Senjutsu.
nope, i read it, it says to not apply NLF, no one is doing that by giving it limits in the first place and agreeing that 4D levels and up would not be able to be saved by itThis is not my personal interpretation, this is what’s on the page itself.
yes it is if you want to impose something that you are vaguely interpreting from the page, or else the thing you are proposing in flawed in natureI don’t need to give you a percentage on the page as to the amount of AP that “bypasses” invulnerability since that’s not my job to do or the argument I’m making.
it never does that, this is again, you interpreting with your visionThe page just says not to employ a NLF in regards to AP for the power of invulnerability.
you didn't proved ANYTHING you didn't provided the logic behind of it, you didn't formed an concisse argument for it, you are just saying that "it is" without giving a good reason why, so again, why should anyone follow your personal interpretation?“How much” AP is needed above your opponents to “bypass” it or whatever is irrelevant to my argument since all I’m proving is that the position of AP and invulnerability is there in the page itself. Not the specifics to it.
invulnerability quite literally does have the exact same thing, it can be via law hax, or reality warping, or matter manip, or whatever elseWell, considering there’s several different types of durability negation ranging from magic all the way to conceptual manipulation, there can be a plethora of differences between the two for one rule to work for one but not for the other just based on that fact alone since the power “invulnerability” doesn’t have these kinds of criteria in which it acts functionally similar to durability negation.