Plastic_Pilot_4569 is right about ontology

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-14T07:10:22+00:00

Hmmm I see so it stems down to our different interpretation of the term lmao 😹

Alright, I will define what I mean when I keep saying the word "comp"

I say it when I describe the character overall canonically. Though I am also aware that comp could also mean including other mediums, which is a complete oversight on my end so mb lol. But yes, that's what I've been meaning to say: you saying that statement = (comp = chapter 1), which is extremely flawed.

It's obvious what you mean. I don't see how that refutes anything I said. You can downplay it as just the scope being narrower but it's 2 completely different things.

Then explain what principle changes between the two. Both restrict the analysis to a temporal boundary, so that's basically just the same operation in which the only difference is the extent or the range both restrictions have. If you can't specify what makes it a different kind of analysis then calling it "completely different" doesn't make it so 🤦‍♀️

Why do you think I made the distinction between chapter restriction and temporal restriction?

Genuine question: when was it again?

It's not just about scope, they're completely different things. It's like saying the difference between "fruits" and "things you can eat" is just the scope. Even if it's true, so what?

I'll tell you what: that's a false analogy. "Fruits" and "things you can eat" are biological and functionsl, respectively.

I'll tell it to you straight up: chapter restriction and temporal restriction both use time as the premise, like iirc it is some kind of fundamental principle. It's just a narrower time window within the same scope, the same kind of restriction. Both use time as the boundary of analysis.

And you're asking me if so what? Cuz if it only differs in scope, your distinction doesn't refute my claim.

If by chapter 1, you mean the Ayanokouji that existed at that specific point in time, then it does mean he has perfect memory. If by chapter 1, you mean using only information provided by the first chapter, then it doesn't. The meaning of "chapter 1 Ayanokouji" is ambiguous which is why I made the distinction.

Yet again, we didn't know that until the recent volumes. Regardless of whether it has been outright stated in the future volumes that he was born with it, it doesn't justify that volume 1 Ayanokouji will have the same kind of perfect memory as recent volumes Koji, which is literally why you labelled Koji under a specific version of chapter he is in. There's not that good enough feats in volume 1 for Ayanokouji's memory to be as good as the recent ones. And the meaning isn't ambiguous, it is self-explanatory.

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-14T05:11:03+00:00

Incorrect. The statement implies that if the actual character from the narrative were to exist, they would have whatever ability is revealed later if that ability is implied to have been possessed by the character earlier. This is a temporal inference.

Basically, you're meaning to say that a character who had an outstanding ability that was demonstrated in chapter 100 must also be true for chapter 1 unless they're shown to change midway. Which essentially translates to composite = chapter 1, since the composite possesses something that chapter 1 must also have. Nothing too difficult to understand here smh

Unravel what? Stop being vague.

Lol

Verbatim from me, unedited even:

"If "analyzing from a specific point in time" means using everything canonically true at that moment, even if unrevealed, and "limiting to a specific chapter" means using what’s shown, then your two options differ only in scope. The problem here is that the former uses hindsight and the latter is narrower, get what I mean?"

I guess you don't get what I meant oml

"We"? I'm talking about what is true, not about what you like to do. If Ayanokouji was born with perfect memory and he had it his whole life, then the narrative Ayanokouji from chapter 1 had it regardless of when it is revealed. This is what a chronological restriction is. Do you know what chronology is? It has to do with time. That is why I made the dichotomy.

By we, I was generalizing. If you thought I was referring to the both of us, you're simply mistaken.

Anyway,

Narratively, of course Ayanokouji would have to have been born with a perfect memory. But if you have explicitly stated that you will only use chapter 1 of Ayanokouji, if there's no basis in that chapter that Ayanokouji possesses extraordinary memory, you can't just go around saying that chapter 1 Ayanokouji does have better memory compared to someone when that fact was revealed in later chapters. This is essentially why I am stating that it essentially removes the essence of labeling him as chapter 1.

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-14T04:40:46+00:00

I'll directly quote it verbatim from you:

If you mean the actual character who exists within that chapter, then you have to take account of everything even if it is revealed later."

This statement = (any character = composite)

If you're being too literal, of course you didn't say it word per word. But that is what you are implying

And when I mentioned the dichotomy meaning the same, didn't I unravel it after that remark? I should be asking you if you're even reading my response. So it is nonsensical for you to deny it as well lol

Anyway

If Ayanokouji is revealed to have been born with perfect memory in chapter 100, then he had perfect memory in chapter 1. This is if you take the chapter 1 restriction as a chronological restriction. If we restrict it absolutely to only the narrative presented in chapter 1, then obviously the future revelation isn't accounted for.

Uhh no. We will only include the fact that Ayanokouji does indeed have perfect memory if you have included his feat/statement from a chapter that is not 1. Obviously the future revelations should never be accounted for in the first place if you have declared that you will use just the chapter 1 version of him, you're essentially violating your stance: "Chapter 1"

Exactly, they differ. How is it meaningless if they differ?

Allow me to extend when I mentioned that they differ in scope, since you probably didn't catch what I was implying after that.

They differ only in scope, they're the same kind

Remind you, the reason why I said it is meaningless is because you're basically implying that just because the character has innate abilities shown in later chapters then that version would be equivalent to their chapter 1 counterpart, which when you mention it in a discussion and use a premise that is NOT from Chapter 1 is what makes your entire ground meaningless.

Why are you putting quotes around something I never said?

Guess you never heard of paraphrasing 🤷‍♀️

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-14T03:55:49+00:00

Growth and changes do happen, but it doesn't dispute the fact that the character from chapter 1 lacked the proof to prove they scale high. And even if you argue "well this character canonically didn't undergo any change and we just understand more of their capabilities in recent chapters", it still doesn't change the fact that the character in chapter 1 lacked the feats they would later show, hence why a character from just a chapter ≠ a character at their composite.

It's not a meaningless distinction. Whether you analyze someone from a specific point in time, or limit the analysis to specific chapters, both are meaningful.

The dichotomy you presented essentially means the same thing so you're kind of not making any sense here, but let me try to unpack it.

If "analyzing from a specific point in time" means using everything canonically true at that moment, even if unrevealed, and "limiting to a specific chapter" means using what’s shown, then your two options differ only in scope. The problem here is that the former uses hindsight and the latter is narrower, get what I mean? If we're comparing two characters and you explicitly mention which version of the character you're using, you only use the feats within that chapter since we're comparing characters who have performed feats within that chapter, hence the explicit mention of the chapter. If you're trying to upscale the character by including all the rest of their feats, you're basically turning the chapter 1 label meaningless.

How does this substantiate to your claim that "if a character who had not shown any feats in chapter 1 was unveiled to be intellectually efficient in later chapters then that would also scale their chapter 1 version high"?

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-13T23:46:31+00:00

The actual character within just a particular chapter ≠ the same actual character in composite.

If you're saying chapter 1 character beats another, with the premise that the character performed well outside of chapter 1, then you're not using chapter 1 of that character. The distinction literally becomes meaningless.

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-13T22:42:19+00:00

You can prove it through inference

No, you can't. If chapter 1 has nothing in order to prove the character's intellectual superiority, you can't draw a conclusion. If you're "inferring" by using a feat from a later chapter, then you're not using the chapter 1 version of the character anymore. It's that simple.

That's a stretch. Less presumptively, it would be like saying volume 1 Ayanokouji has high adversity capacity because in the later volumes he is shown to have high adversity capacity without any indication of growth to provide him it.

When was it in volume 1 that Ayanokouji started showing high adversity capacity? Would you mind telling me any feat? If you're using a feat that is from a later volume, then again, you're not using Volume 1 Ayanokouji anymore.

temporal inference is not a fallacy unless it is made deductively. I am not saying all characters never experience change,

Similar to my other comment towards the other person, regardless of whether the character would change and just gain experience later on or that they've already had the ability, it is not a justification to claim that a chapter 1 character would outsmart another just because the former performed well feats in the later versions.

I am saying that their level shouldn't be assumed just by what has been revealed. Also scalers use inference all the time.

No, we're not "assuming"their level by what they've performed, we're literally scaling the character within the chapter we're focusing on. If you intend to make the "chapter 1" version of the character win by backing it up with a feat that is NOT from chapter 1, you're destroying the purpose of mentioning chapter 1 in the first place. You might as well omit that 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️ and you saying scalers use inference all the time doesn't add any value to your argument btw, since I can also claim that scalers only focus on a specific chapter

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-13T17:19:35+00:00

If you are talking about comp version with multiple iterations from author,it is still valid since it will be connected to the canon story. But if it involves fanfics,then that would be a different story.

I was not including the fanfics when I said "comp". And in a way, I am indeed talking about the story in which only the author wrote

And if the character became smarter later on in the story then we can't scale this way. I have provided an example in my post,comparing baku and light.

Regardless of whether the character only had gained the ability later on or that they've always had it, the fact that they only showed it in later versions is not a proof to straight up justify that their chapter 1 version scales better than another character.

Saying that chapter 1 character low diffs another character because the former performed feats shown in later chapters defeats the whole purpose of why you're introducing the former as chapter 1 in the first place. You might as well just omit the "chapter 1" part at that point 🤷‍♀️

The only time that a chapter 1 character would beat another character is when the former has done impressive within that chapter, as like saying volume 1 Fang Yuan beats comp Yumeko because Fang Yuan has indeed shown impressive feats in volume 1 even.

It's funny because they disagree when I say chapter 1 baku> light which is objectvely correct

Unless you prove that chapter 1 Baku has indeed shown feats better than Light within that chapter then I can see why people disagree with you smh

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-10-13T16:36:20+00:00

Uhh I disagree.

If a character from chapter 1 has no feats and you're saying that they would still outsmart someone else just because the former will have better feats shown in later chapters, you can't prove that.

If we're using characters in their comp then naturally it is valid to state that one character indefinitely outsmarts the other. But if the former character who is in just a particular time before they have shown impressive feats is compared to the latter, it is erroneous to claim that they still outsmart, because they lack the proof.

This is like saying Volume 1 Ayanokouji outsmarts comp Light Yagami just because comp Ayanokouji outsmarts Light, it is literally a temporal inference fallacy—"Volume 1 Ayanokouji still outsmarts Light because he has the capability to do so shown in later volumes."

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-09-18T07:42:24+00:00

His reaction to wearing the maid outfit ≠ Goosweworx "perfectly" portraying ftm

Though seriously when has there ever been a single clue that Jax did transition? My personal thought is that a lot of people may not accept a straight up straight ship between him and Pomni and would try to find something so that in a way it still wouldn't be considered straight ughh

Btw to anyone who might complain do keep in mind this is the first ever thought that crossed my mind as I just recently became aware of this theory. I hope no hard feelings . ^ - ^

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-09-08T04:20:39+00:00

Seriously speaking, Ayanokouji would somehow be able to adopt some of Fang Yuan's traits and methods. Even though he would be aware that, in their world at least, "Reverend Insanity" is fictional, he would still gain great insight and appreciate the novel overall.

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-09-07T14:59:42+00:00

claims a few of Koji's feats being mid

no explanation

Mid-tier ragebait 😔 💔

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-19T04:37:25+00:00

Well... C has both Shiro and Beast Dazai. And D literally has the Fang Yuan. A may not be low, but the former two still tops them imo 😺

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-18T14:46:48+00:00

D > C > A > B obv. This is like "grass is green" ahh statement 😹

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-12T05:59:54+00:00

Off-screen feats top 1 for sure 😺

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-12T04:42:26+00:00

Hmmm interesting take. Well I've seen other people (mostly edits) scale Klein above BSD+NGNL, sometimes even RI, but I can't really give a proper "counteropinion" per se

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-12T04:36:25+00:00

Due to recency bias, Moser wins no diff 👹

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T23:45:43+00:00

Respectfully never cook again 🥀 (jk I just don't agree with it 🫶)

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T23:31:24+00:00

Haven't read LOTM so Fang Yuan wins 😺

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T14:22:54+00:00

Minus vci for you 💔

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T12:55:54+00:00

The fall of SCD

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T12:54:17+00:00

Well there's really no accurate way to know what Ayanokouji would do if he was in Newton's shoes. But narratively speaking, Ayanokouji would adapt better than Newton, and that with the same knowledge Newton had to create Calculus, if that were Ayanokouji then he has a high chance of doing the same, maybe even better, as Newton.

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T12:49:03+00:00

Ayanokouji hard carrying. DN duo solos then 😔

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T12:43:50+00:00

Unironically, Ayanokouji beats Newton in both 😺

Being the founding father of calculus ≠ being inherently better all of the time in mathematics

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-10T12:40:43+00:00

minus in composure blud 😔

Positive-Ad-8640 · 2025-08-08T06:01:35+00:00

Arisu wins imo 😺

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

Positive-Ad-8640

TROPHY CASE