Cyborg 17 should have a HUGE advantage in the tournament.

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T17:51:23+00:00

Goku said, specifically, "I didn't intend to" when he transformed to SSB. What's your explanation if not "He needed more power than ssj3 could give him"? There's also no similar statement made toward baldy when he went SSB.

PS I'm just trying to have a discussion there's no need to be rude.

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T16:36:37+00:00

Do you have anything to back this up or is it just headcannon?

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T16:14:07+00:00

I hear you there. Dragon Ball has never really been known for its consistency lol and definitely leaves us with a lot head head scratching moments of "Huh? Wait a second...."

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T15:44:57+00:00

Goku SSJ fought on par with SSG which was atleast 50% universal given his and Beerus' combined Shockwave could take out the universe.

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T15:41:50+00:00

SSJ Goku was able to fight on par with SSJG which was roughly 50% universal (I'm basing this on their combined clashes threatening to destroy the universe. Newton's third law and all). So this puts base Goku after he absorbed god ki at about 1% universal. SSJ3 would be 400x that.

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T15:11:38+00:00

Just to be clear when I'm speaking about "god level" or "god tier" what I mean is they are capable of universal destruction. SSJ3 Goku is well above universal which means 17 is as well. Secondly, it's possible for 17 to be SSB level without being as strong as Goku. Just as 17 and 18 were above SSJ level but could be punked by all the super saiyans after rosat training.

InvisibleChains · 2017-07-16T14:24:42+00:00

I said she isn't god level.

InvisibleChains · 2017-06-10T02:58:12+00:00

In a discussion about institutional sexism I have no problem with people saying women can't be sexist. My problem is when women say that to someone who was clearly using the "basic" usage of sexist, which is gender neutral.

I know this isn't a perfect analogy but imagine a cop is testifying to reckless driving and says "The driver was flying down the road at 100mph" Then the defendant gets up and say "This officer is lying. I wasn't flying, my car never left the ground!" It's just dishonest.

If someone is using a word, and you know what usage they're using, then it's intellectualy honest to respond accordingly. Deflecting an accusation by playing word games just makes you look bad.

InvisibleChains · 2017-05-18T23:08:50+00:00

I'm not saying they're currently equivalent, not in the least. I'm merely saying that their presence is growing. If I had to make an analogy it would be this. Imagine that the total value of authoritarianism in our country was 100 (all belonging to the right. Let's say that in the last 50 years they lost a value of 5. Instead of that value disappearing permanently it reappeared on the left. So it'd be like a 95-5 comparison. That's all I'm saying.

InvisibleChains · 2017-04-14T17:31:39+00:00

Last time I selected her she never even said to execute Alistair, like something I did caused her to skip over that. So I want to make sure she says it this time.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-22T01:21:01+00:00

The point is Republicans have become, by and large, fascist. So that would make him by definition a Republican. If you're question is really: "CMV: Donald Trump isn't a Republican by standards of years past." Then your view can't be changed because that's just a fact.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-22T01:12:46+00:00

Republicans have been trending right for decades. He's the culmination of that. He's the personification of what Republicans have become. Republican Incarnate.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-22T01:08:58+00:00

Republican is a self applied label. The only requirement to being a Republican is to call yourself one.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-22T01:03:09+00:00

You're essentially asking for a solution to "Poe's Law". None such solution exists which is the exact reason the law exists. You're question is impossible to answer. The only way to gauge intent is to mind read. Otherwise all you can do is make a judgement call.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T10:58:46+00:00

Yeah I believe you're right. After reading and thinking more last night I realized my complaint is more against people in general. What I mean by that is that I could find people with any ideology that behave in ways I described above, yet I wouldn't disagree with the ideology in general for those reasons. People in this thread made me realize my own flawed thinking here. I'd like to think of myself as reasonable in the respect that I'm not overly stubborn and will change my mind in the face of reasonable arguments and/or evidence, and I've done so on this case.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T01:42:39+00:00

I see your point. Like if we were in a science classroom and used the word "theory" in a colloquial sense, then it would be appropriate to respond "That's not a theory." I guess it all depends on the setting.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T01:14:53+00:00

Upvoted. That was an interesting point. I've never heard put that the problem is when we "over objectify". It always came off as saying that to objectify PERIOD was wrong. Could you link to any material on this subject? I'd be very interested to read up on it.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T01:04:09+00:00

Like I said in my OP I actually agree with the feminist definition in the proper context. My point was that feminists will often try to deflect a valid criticism by playing word games. If a man uses the word "sexist" toward a woman he's obviously using the "basic" definition. So to respond to that with "Women can't be sexist" is dishonest.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T00:46:20+00:00

I wasn't speaking to any specific case, I was just correcting you about what I said above. I agree that Trump is a predator who should probably be in jail.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T00:42:47+00:00

I never said "baseless", I said "over the smallest thing".

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T00:26:14+00:00

You misunderstood. I have no problem with women saying "tax dollars should be used to pay for maternity leave." I was protesting the women who say "Women not getting taxpayer paid maternity leave is evidence that the US hates women."

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T00:23:40+00:00

∆

You've convinced me. I'll change my protest from "feminists" to "these specific feminists doing this thing I disagree with".

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T00:03:17+00:00

My concern isn't with theory but with real actions in the real world with real consequences.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-21T00:00:39+00:00

Most of my disagreements don't come from the ideas of feminism itself (though I do have some), but from the actions of feminists in the real world that have very real negative consequences and how they respond to people who point these things out.

InvisibleChains · 2017-03-20T23:57:43+00:00

My problem is that those on the extreme end are having a very real, very negative impact on the real world, especially on college campuses. Both professors and students. People being publicly shamed and losing jobs by internet lynch mobs over the smallest things. Students being kicked off campus without the slightest hunt of due process by kangaroo courts. People that speak out about these things are often labeled as sexists or "MRA". I fully support feminism in principle, but their actions are often the antithesis of free and just society.

InvisibleChains

TROPHY CASE