Shanks is obviously talking about Luffy in this quote, luffy is even shown entering the submarine while Shanks was talking.
Love that people use that term, even when, or possibly especially when it's still a matter of POV. He was also shown stopping the War essentially, basically mostly just by showing up and stopping Akainu. This drew the attention of every1, and with a couple of added implied threats Shanks put this War to a stop. The war that could've carried on till only 1 side remained and you really think his actions were purely for Luffy? for the sake of granting his former Captain's "legacy"? Fine that's your POV. Doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. But the fact that Shanks saved Coby's life with that move not even knowing who he was, also proves he probably cared a good deal about innocent lives, and while Luffy is shown while Shanks was talking; His words themselves 'basically' seem go on to stop the War, and save Luffy's life simultaneously; yet Why would 1 think with this terminology he was only talking of Luffy?
or even primarily of Luffy?…
! On almost any given statement there is a least the 2 sides of taking it literally/ or figuratively. Then you add variables like subtext, the surrounding info, what you can and can't 'rightfully infer' from the surrounding info, and you can have many variations of POV's. Leaving something ambiguous does not definitive proof provide, especially when it comes to words instead of actions. Never said your theory was wrong, or inappropriate, or etc., just said some/ maybe most of it's proofs/ evidence, especially being mostly words/ talking/ conversations of characters(without full reiteration of the context, both directly from these situations, and the manga as a whole), in a drawn manga; makes it a lot less "concrete proofs/ evidence", and more seeming reinforcement of your theory , with interpretations by you. Not every thing will necessarily Be/ or even is supposed to be as "obvious to any1/ every1" as you might think.
Not trying to intentionally give a speech or lecture, but when interpreting words + meanings, because that's what you're doing, "interpreting" (instead of actions), then often times if you still have to come up with many mights or coulds to explain it, it's because it was built on/ around 'unstable support' in the 1st place; Don't be surprised if others "interpreted" it (certain things), differently from the start.
! > Why the hell would Shanks come to meet WB to tell him that Ace is still not strong enough to fight Teach? Shanks does not even know him, he just met him once, why would he care? There is a meaning behind it, he cares about "this era that no one will be able to stop", he is talking about Teach. The purpose of the meeting was to let Teach messing around implying that Shanks knows stuff about him that "We" and Whitebeard don't.
! (not even saying this is the definite or even possible reason,just you asked , gave you an answer) Just met him once and knows his relation to Luffy. Maybe thought, huh hope that guy don't die needlessly or stupidly, because he challenged the wrong peson, at the wrong time. Hate/ Love/ Comprehension/ Friendship/ "Caring"/ + planning are always things that can be developed from "once". You're the 1 who's saying no. And coming to meet some1 although going thru a WG Fleet to do so, still seemed like quite an easy/ logical thing for Shanks to do after WB had refused his other form of communication, especially in the way he(WB) did.
But Though That wasn't even my point, I said 'could', as in was using it as an example. "this era that no 1 will be able to stop" is more about ramifications to me.
Nothing necessarily about BB himself, but with the possible bonus of possibly saving Ace's life/ freedom.
Look at what happened because of this 1 fight. Can you really say Shanks wasn't possibly correctly thinking of what might happen?…
! Once again Never said there was no meaning behind it, just not necessarily the meaning you're attributing to it. That's the thing with "implying", it implies different, and sometimes differing things to different people, which is why it's perfect to use in a story where you want people to continually have questions, as nothing is definitive, and things "hinted" at could also be things hinted at for different reasons than 1 might think.
! For instance some1 in another thread with BB's comment of "fate"/ or 'The fruit choosing him', instead of 'the norm people choosing the fruit' said it as if it was being literal. While BB, BB's sniper and doctor, 1 and all showed signs of believing heavily in "fate", like Zoro 2 yrs later in SA also, doesn't make it true: Zoro said it was the ship's fate to get sliced by him, while the sniper said it was the bird's fate to die. Any1, character or reality, can 'say' this but it doesn't make it "fact", or evidence/ proof that it's true, ironically especially in the story. But for the example A/ The fact is Zoro made a mistake, and sliced the ship to resurface + "correct that mistake", and the sniper was a good shot so when he aimed for the bird he hit it. These were their physical actions. Who knows what Oda actually had in mind by saying "fate" decided it. Who knows if you should literally consider "fate" == "Oda" or not.
Shanks specifically said that he wasn't being careless.
Actually that's debatable as well. I think BB gave Shanks his scar from underhanded means, even for a pirate.
Nowhere did I call him careless. To be surprised, jumped from behind while in the middle of a clash, or ganged up on at the last minute could happen in any situation even if "he wasn't being careless", that term doesn't indicate as absolute as you seem to think. It Especially might not mean as much as you seem to think seeing as how we don't know the conditions, circumstances, and absolute time of when the wound/ cut/ w. e. you want to call it occurred. If Oda wanted to make it "clear" it was in a "fair fight", or just make people speculate as to was it, or was it not a fair fight; or clearly say/ make it clear it wasn't a "fair fight", then he could've. Way I see it he specifically did none of these things, notably/ especially. this would make me then lean towards the middle approach, of basically either was possible or not. Except we see BB early on, and at the prison, and at the War, from that we see no great indication that he was that "stand- out-ish" strength/ power wise to have hurt, or meant that much to a possible -soon -to -be Yonkou/ greater or slightly less than this in power; without the fruit. So I lean more towards BB did what he did, not as fairly/ nicely/ secret hiding/ withholding power as 1 might have theorized; But what I pointed out about BB attacking by surprise, especially because of the manga in it's entirety.
! Actually a lot of your "quotes", the words were different from the actual pic
For instance: ""This wound isn't from my adventures""
in the pic is "This isn't a wound from the adventure"
The meaning could be changed dramatically, and drastically from that difference in English. In my POV, the original, it actually becomes quite a confusing term. But no clear cohesive/ decisive meaning would that easily be pulled from it.
! and: "What ashes me now, is this one".
in the pic is "But what aches now is this 1." (Not pointing out your spelling differences, or word missing, or anything else, besides other possibilities for what you see as expressly done for your 'as their core basis' reasons )
Just Pointing out a common practice in many manga and in reality as well is to say a wound, or 'quirk' "aches" when some1(oftentimes the very person who caused, created, effected, whose influence influenced this wound/ scar/ 'quirk') is near/ mentioned/ about to do something important/ or even about to do something that effects the person in a bad way.
A more direct meaning/ interpretation of the mention, + why it was mentioned, that would/ could also be "worthy" of note
On another hand, you have to know him very well if you are suggesting a yonkou to not go after him.
Not really. This all goes to the/ my point of repercussions/ ramifications, basically of cause and effect…
Their eventual fight being the cause of a Preventable escalation of affairs(effect). An effect Shanks might simply have been trying to prevent, as Sengoku also considered Shanks 1 who doesn't do 'shake things up' unnecessarily.
Preventing the effects, would seem reason enough for a little bit of "disturbing the peaceful norm", especially if he succeeded. Not saying Shanks is the saint of pirates, but he does seem to try to avoid 'collateral damage to "innocents", or those 'not necessarily in his way' ' as well. Preventing a situation that meant some large scale ramifications of those above^^ mentioned groups might seem a reason, despite possibly not knowing Ace, BB, or even WB, well enough(?)…
If Ace and BB fight, as it was seen, it was mostly because BB chose to fight him, also like does most things, for a greater purpose down the line. Shanks could have been written as having noticed this, and also the fact that eventually WB might be forced to move, which would lead to others moving which might just be the beginning to shift the entire world "balance/ landscape" in a negative way.
Well, that's not in the theory, it was suggested by someone else.
Also as mentioned above, Shanks "recruiting" or even trying to "attempt to recruit" BB away from WB's crew, because he saw the possible added potential in his ""D" - ness" (made up term, that seems to fit), just doesn't seem like Shank's style. Especially if he was doing it mostly to fulfill his former captain's 'legacy'. Basically saying some of the "motives/ meaning/ explanations" might be differing than what you posited as a theory.
My mistake, should of added the quotation marks, because I was also addressing the tail end of your primary post, which I assume was your theory. I know you used befriend or 'interested, like he was with Luffy'. But to me the end result if he succeeded with BB was BB either joining him, or leaving WB to strike it out alone, thus going on + achieving w. e.?…
But this works out the same/ similar enough to me as if was trying to recruit BB away from WB. Both, and either don't really seem like Shank's style. It would seem IMHO that Shanks would either before/ after/ or simultaneously present this to both BB and WB, if he expected anything to result at all. Seeing as how WB didn't seem to know anything of it, or about them necessarily knowing each other that well, don't really see that as a large possibility.