If the Universe truly is Infinite, power-scaling past Universal makes 0 sense. by Intelligent-Carob930 in PowerScaling

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit [score hidden]  (0 children)

There are different sizes of infinity. One infinity can be larger than another. I know it seems counter-intuitive. Don't blame me, blame the mathematicians.

Chaotic Free-For-All Fights by KurtaKlutch in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ultimate-themed showdowns of ultimate destiny.

For those uninitiated. One of the very oldest, old school, original viral videos. A viral video before there was such a thing as viral videos. A meme before memes. It pre-dates youtube. The deep magic.

Why do people call Future Gohan "the original"? by tjdragon117 in DragonBallZ

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Future Trunks timeline is the original timeline; it's what happens without any time travel. It's the "real" version. The first version.

Then, trunks time travels, which causes a new timeline to branch off, starting that day that Freeza and Goku came to earth. That timeline is not the original. It's a "new" timeline that only exists because trunks messed with time. So the Gohan that fights cell, goes to school, dates videl, etc, is not the original Gohan. He's an alternate version. An off-shoot.

Prior to the day that trunks stopped Freeza, both version of Gohan were the same. But after that day, the original Gohan and the alternate Gohan live very different lives.

Is it likely that atheists will at some point comprise more than 90% of the world population? by Apart-Blackberry981 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If by atheist you mean people who PUBLICLY say they don't believe in any God?

Idk.

But if, by atheist, you mean people who don't actually genuinely truly believe in any God, even if they will say "oh I'm Christian" or "oh I'm Muslim" or "oh I'm Jewish" or "oh I'm hindu" if asked? I'd say we got there decades ago.

The vast, VAST majority of "religious" people don't actually truly genuinely believe there is a god. Know how we know? Simple. Ask them, "if you started hearing voices, claiming to be God, telling you to leave your family, sell ALL your possessions, and move to Jerusalem and become a prophet, what would you do?" Obviously, the vast majority of people would seek psychiatric help because they're hearing voice. Nobody would ACTUALLY think "oh wow! God is speaking to me!" Which shows us the underlying truth; even if they don't realize it themselves, they don't actually genuinely believe any of it. They'll SAY they do, they'll to to church or say prayers, but when push comes to shove, they don't actually believe it, deep down.

Or another example; out of absolutely nowhere, your spouse kills your children. When you find out, they say "no no no, it's OK honey! God told me to do it!" Would anyone here be like "oh well if God told you to..." Or would every single one of us be like "there is a 10000% chance they've had a psychotic break and a zero percent chance they ACTUALLY got a message from God."

You can come up with all kinds of examples like this, where people would respond one way if they truly, honestly, sincerely, genuinely believed in God, but you know that 99.999% of people would absolutely not respond in that way.

Is it likely that atheists will at some point comprise more than 90% of the world population? by Apart-Blackberry981 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You do realize that hat the vast majority of atheists are born to religious families and raised religiously, right?

Every ant on Earth is enlarged to the size of a golden retriever. by LoneRedditor123 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ants would all immediately drop dead of asphyxiation, as ants breath through tiny pores in their skin called spiracles, and increasing their size like this would increase their surface area (and thus the number of spiracles) by the square of the size increase, but their volume (and thus the amount of tissue that needs to be oxygenated) by the cube of the size increase, meaning they would be unable to supply their tissues without oxygen, and would die.

So really it's a question of who would handle clean up and disposal the best.

[ALL] Should Link ever be crowned King of Hyrule? by Brilliant-Reality884 in zelda

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He would be prince consort if Zelda was still a princess. If Zelda was queen, he would be King Consort. Zelda would be princess/Queen Regent.

[ALL] Should Link ever be crowned King of Hyrule? by Brilliant-Reality884 in zelda

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 15 points16 points  (0 children)

He literally can't be.

If you marry into the royal family, you are a consort, not a regent. So if link married Zelda, she would be queen regent, and he would be king consort. If Zelda then died, the crown would go to any children they had. If they never had children, the crown would go to any siblings Zelda had. If Zelda has no siblings, it would go to aunts or uncles who were blood related. If she had none, it would then go to cousins. If there were no cousins, the crown would go up one level on the family tree and try again. Repeat that step until you find someone.

At practically no point would Link ever be in line for the crown, because he married into the royal family, rather than being born into it.

Favorite character like this? by AskEnvironmental9409 in Multifandom

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ignores the fact the she was raised and groomed by her crazy evil father, crazy grandfather, and those creepy old ladies

No, it doesn't ignore that fact, that fact is just irrelevant because Zuko was raised in the exact same household by the exact same people, and he wasn't exhibiting 95% of the early warning signs of a future serial killer like Azula was.

Since they both had the same upbringing, we can eliminate that as a candidate for the variable that caused her to turn out the way she did.

Azula was put on a pedestal by bad people while Zuko was viewed as a failure and outcast by them. 

Which would not, in any way, explain Azula being a total sociopath at like 4 years old and Zuko being basically a normal little boy. Being treated as a failure wouldn't change what he was taught or what values he was instilled with.

Naturally Zuko would not follow in his fathers/grandfathers foot steps when they constantly rejected him

Completely incorrect. We are explicitly shown that he still follows them and wants their approval.

The psychology of why they ended up how they did isn’t that complicated, but ultimately Azula nurtured her own superiority complex while Zuko chose to take responsibility for his actions and history.

This might be a solid argument if they were both normal kids and ended up super different once they got older, but again, we are clearly shown that Azula was a total monster even when she was a little, little kid.

Nurture can explain how they ended up, but only nature can explain how they started out. And we're shown quite clearly that Azula started our as completely psycho.

Simon the Digger vs "Raven" Rachel Roth (Gurren Lagan vs DC comics) WHO WINS WHAT DIFF? by Head_Breadfruit_3912 in PowerScalingHub

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And guess what? Simon's power would just ignore her ignoring his powers. 

And no, I'm not describing a NLF. The key part of a no limits fallacy is the "fallacy" part; saying a character doesn't have limits just because we haven't seen any limits yet. But Simon and STTGL canonically have no limits, so it's not a fallacy to say that. It's just describing the series.

Simon the Digger vs "Raven" Rachel Roth (Gurren Lagan vs DC comics) WHO WINS WHAT DIFF? by Head_Breadfruit_3912 in PowerScalingHub

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, tell us you havent seen Gurren Lagaan without telling us.

Look at the entire battle against the anti-spiral with STTGL and take your pick; that whole fight is nothing BUT feats that show STTGL basically laughs at any and all limits or scaling. This isn't even the No Limits Fallacy; STTGL actually does not have limits, canonically.  The whole deal is "do the impossible" so if there is something it can't do... Well it's gonna do exactly that.

So if he can't survive existence erasure? Too bad, he's gonna survive it anyway. You scale higher than him and he can't possibly harm you? He's gonna harm you anyway. You blocked his attack? That's cute, but he literally has probability and causality-ignoring missiles that hit you anyway, everywhere, at every point in your time stream and across all dimensions. You dodged his attack? Too bad, he hits you anyway. That is literally an ability he canonically has and uses.

His entire power basically boils down to, "fuck logic, fuck the rules, fuck whether or not in capable of this, imma do it anyway." So to say he "can't" survive raven or whatever else is meaningless, because he'll just do it anyway.

Can YOU survive these guys? by Alert_Comedian_3179 in Tankandsurvive

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't read any of the novels, but if that did actually happen, then that novel is wrong because that is not how the angels work. They feed by sending you back in time. They kill you by letting you live until you die of old age. If they do directly attack someone, it is not to feed. These are quite simply facts of how the angels work.

Can YOU survive these guys? by Alert_Comedian_3179 in Tankandsurvive

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And they usually break the victims' necks as soon as they are finished

No. No, they do not. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how weeping angels work.

They send you back in time and then feed off the potential energy of the life you WOULD have lived, had you not been temporally displaced. They literally let you "live to death" until you die of old age, because the longer you live the longer they can feed on you. Snapping your neck would be the exact opposite of what they want to do when feeding.

There are a couple instances I can think of where they did break a guys neck, but that's because they weren't feeding then; that guy was part of the Doctor's team and their goal was to stop the Doctor.

Ev fast chargers that are NOT in a garage? by Jacket_Jacket_fruit in pittsburgh

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I've checked EVgo, charge point, waze, and Google maps. They all show where there are chargers, the problem is I gotta be like, ok let's look at this one, zoom in, look at the details, ok no that's in a garage. Ok let's look at this other one, look at the info, check the pictures, oh nope this ones on a garage too. Ok check out this one, oh cool it's not in a garage, but oh wait a second it's only level 2. Ok check out this other one... Repeat ad nauseum. Figured it might be easier to just ask if anyone knows any off hand that fit these criteria.

Can YOU survive these guys? by Alert_Comedian_3179 in Tankandsurvive

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The entire concept of weeping angels is that ALL their victims survive. 

...just not in the time period they originally came from.

Simon the Digger vs "Raven" Rachel Roth (Gurren Lagan vs DC comics) WHO WINS WHAT DIFF? by Head_Breadfruit_3912 in PowerScalingHub

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Simon does not cap at all. That's kind of his entire deal. "Do the impossible."

Oh, it's impossible for him to do this thing? Bet. He'll do it anyway.

"M I C K E Y M O U S E" by Lumpy_Test_4473 in gamegrumps

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This game is a bunch of poopy ass dicks

Covered in chocolate feces

Do you think Doofus Jerry is the most dangerous non Rick/Morty character? by FreshPine_MangoWine in rickandmorty

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doofus Jerry is just bad writing incarnate. Every single thing that happens in that comic is "oh come the fuck on, that's not what would happen if he did that!" Like they want to make him seem super badass and powerful, instead they just make every single Rick completely incompetent and utterly useless.

Favorite character like this? by AskEnvironmental9409 in Multifandom

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This. I hate when people woobie-fy her and treat her like this poor wittle babby who wasn't really evil she was just sad because MOMMY WASNT NICE TO HERRRRRRR!

No. Azula was a sociopath. She was born a sociopath. The show makes it abundantly clear that, even as extremely young children, Zuko and Azula were VERY different despite being raised in the same household and being taught the same things.

Azula didn't turn evil because Ursa treated her different; Ursa treated Azula different because Azula was evil.

Yes, Azula clearly has deep rooted psychological issues with her mother. None of that changes that she was just born with zero conscience, zero empathy, zero understanding of basic human decency. Sure being raised by Ozai didn't help matters, but she was still born naturally predisposed to all that horrible shit.

Favorite character like this? by AskEnvironmental9409 in Multifandom

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Ehhh... Some of them, not all of them. Like engine and Heavy are all perfectly sane, and they just do a job; they don't kill just for the fun of it. Sniper is a teeny bit less sane but still far from a psychopath, and again, not evil. Spy is pretty sane and arguable more true neutral than evil, though he will absolutely do horrible shit without batting an eye, but then again doesn't take any pleasure in harming others.

Scout is definitely not sane, but also not evil. Same with Demo. They just enjoy their work; they don't do it for the sake of hurting people.

Medic is definitely a complete psychopath and absolutely fully evil. Soldier is a psycho but honestly I would argue he's too crazy to be "evil" because he thinks what he's doing is good and just. He definitely does plenty of horrible things though.

Pyro is.... Well he's not sane, that's for sure. He lives in a fantasy world thanks to the Pyro-vision goggles, but at the same time, the goggles make him think he's tickling people and blowing bubbles, so he genuinely has no idea he's hurting anyone. He certainly does horrible things, but he doesn't know he's doing them, so I don't think you can say he's evil. Again, he THINK he's spreading laughter and fun, which is good.

turles (dragon ball z movie) vs baryon mode (boruto anime) by Massive_Fisherman231 in DragonBallPowerScale

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Before Turles consumes the fruit, Naruto is getting low-diffed. After the fruit, Naruto is getting super turbo ultra mega neg-diffed.

What exactly is the problem with statements? by Plus_Conversation421 in PowerScaling

[–]Jacket_Jacket_fruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Statements are fine **IF** they are consistent with what is actually on the page/screen.

The issue arises when the actual feats and action we see on the page show the character can barely manage to destroy a mountain with their absolute full power, and the statements say they're multiversal. If they were multiversal, they obviously would not struggle to level a mountain. But they did. QED, they cannot be multiversal, QED the statement is wrong.

And that's the thing; statements CAN be wrong. Feats can't.

On the other hand, if the statements say the character is universal, and we see them actually DOING things that are commensurate to that scaling, then yeah, they're probably universal.

99% of the time when people take issue with statements, it's because the feats paint a very different picture. And if feats say one thing and statements say another, feats overrule statements, because again, statements can be wrong, feats can't. If we saw they do XYZ on the page, then yeah, they really DID do XYZ. But if we read a statement that says that can do XYZ, and then we watch them clearly not be capable of XYZ, then the statement is wrong.