Why bother when it's going to be destroyed by Luffy anyways?
Well it's pointless NOW, but it's still an oversight by the Ryugu Kingdom, which heavily relies on tourist attraction anyway.
Notions That Don't Deserve Their Own Threads
-
-
Well it's pointless NOW, but it's still an oversight by the Ryugu Kingdom, which heavily relies on tourist attraction anyway.
You cannot just willy nilly throw up an amusement park because fuck it, why not. I'm guessing several people had the idea to put one up. But you have to go through the city. They won't give you your zoning permits until you've proved you have the financing and the bank wants to see some permits before it loans out the money so what you end up having is a lot of possible builders trying to put it up but being stalled up because they didn't get the necessary paperwork in order to break ground.
-
You cannot just willy nilly throw up an amusement park because fuck it, why not. I'm guessing several people had the idea to put one up. But you have to go through the city. They won't give you your zoning permits until you've proved you have the financing and the bank wants to see some permits before it loans out the money so what you end up having is a lot of possible builders trying to put it up but being stalled up because they didn't get the necessary paperwork in order to break ground.
It's a monarchy, it would happen if the king willed it. Neptune relocated dozens of thousands of fishmen at his whim.
-
It's a monarchy, it would happen if the king willed it. Neptune relocated dozens of thousands of fishmen at his whim.
Thanks for playing, smell ya later
-
Just a thought: FI should really build itself its own amusement park. It's a kingdom that for generations made its children sneak and stare in jealousy at another island's amusement park, which causes child kidnappings annually. Forget assimilating the rouge fishmen, start THERE.
It was a symbol of discrimination/segregation, your thinking both too hard about it as a literal thing and too little about what it signifies.
Even in universe the draw of it was half "whoa an amusement park!" and half "I want to join that forbidden world". -
@Monkey:
It was a symbol of discrimination/segregation, your thinking both too hard about it as a literal thing and too little about what it signifies.
Even in universe the draw of it was half "whoa an amusement park!" and half "I want to join that forbidden world".Lol I know that.
Still though… fish-children (lol) were literally going to the sea-top (a better term?) to look at the ferris wheel in an area filled with kidnapping gangs. It should have come to the attention of any sane government. -
Lol I know that.
Still though… fish-children (lol) were literally going to the sea-top (a better term?) to look at the ferris wheel in an area filled with kidnapping gangs. It should have come to the attention of any sane government.Chalk it up to lack of resources.
Also, it would require electricity, which sounds terrible for an underwater island where people are wet most of the time.
-
@Monkey:
"Hardly" implies few. Like say….five.
Law there used the sentence containing 'hardly' and then added an 'afterthought' correcting the previous sentence: 'nobody short of the Celestial Dragons'. The sentence basically was like this: 'There is hardly anyone who commands that kind of authority – nobody short of the Celestial Dragons!' So what Law meant to say there is: 'There is nobody aside from the Celestial Dragons who commands that kind of authority'.
The author used it like that to emphasize the reality of the situation: Law is thinking as he is speaking.
A common way of expressing 'afterthoughts' is through the usage of a 'dash' or a 'double hyphen' (as I have just shown you). Here is another example: There was an umbrella here -- an extremely beautiful umbrella. 'An extremely beautiful umbrella' is the afterthought in this situation.
@Monkey:
And when did this happened?
That 'did happened' when Doflamingo took the Celestial Dragons' money in order to coerce the Government into making him a warlord.
That happened when one of them ordered a bridge to be built 700 years ago, and the Government let that happen and aided in that by sending people who refuse to join them (the WG).
@Monkey:The coercion was on the basis of his little blackmail secret as I recall.
I could go ahead & ask you if it is the same recalling upon which you wanted me to base my trust previously, but then I would be committing an Ad Hominem Fallacy. This is why it is bad to direct arguments to the person.
Regardless, here is the evidence:
@Monkey:Such as narrative boxes that include things stated directly by the author and not flawed in-universe characters?
Also neither of us is doing anything different than the other,I am providing evidence & not committing fallacies at least.
@Monkey:we're both taking dialogue. I am also applying logic that I trust Oda to use (as he usually does) to those things stated.
'Usually' is different than 'always'.@Monkey:
Unless Oda writes in some wacky manner where two different words can precede something at the same exact time then no, there's only one antecedent. And it's the families. The creators are mentioned earlier and not even in like a list or something.
According to the rules of 'pronoun-antecedent agreement', 'they' agrees in gender and number with both the families and the other 'they' that refers to the creators. The only way you can tell in this situation to which antecedent that pronoun refers is by the 'clues' provided by the context. The clues provided by the context are not sufficient to disambiguate 'they'.
@Monkey:Your point about me avoiding descriptive thinking is pretty absurd given this entire thing about thinking all the 19 kings are still alive forever, an idea you've pretty much created from wholecloth.
That's the 'tu quoque' fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
This fallacy was committed when you concluded that my argument about descriptive thinking is absurd by trying to show that it was inconsistent with my past claims.
Tu quoque is Latin for 'you too' or 'you also'.
@Monkey:Yeah I'm pretty familiar with English, and that sentence unquestionably reads that the dynasties continue to rule from Mariejois. You'd also think that just maybe a thing like the 19 king still being alive would be a massive secret both in universe or at the least from Oda to us the readers. And not something driven by quickly in vague easily misinterpreted dialogue (notice how you're the literal only person who thinks this thing) by Doflamingo.
Of course I am the only person who says this since I am the only person you are talking to about this matter.
Furthermore, the point that my argument is wrong because most people do not think such thing is the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
@Monkey:If you simultaneously believe the Gorusei are also immortal then this also doesn't make sense with the way Oda has very very subtlely been maybe hinting at that without coming out and saying anything to it.
Nothing at all about this makes sense.Before Shirahoshi was explicitly said to be the ancient weapon Poseidon, Oda 'subtly' (not 'subtlely' by the way) hinted at that by saying that her power is capable of sinking the 'world' beneath the waves.
!
These qualities exist only in the ancient weapons and the Earthquake Fruit.Now, let me give you one more hint about the Gorosei's immortality: they carry on their bodies 'scars' from combat while their position as 'the supreme leaders of the Government' should keep them protected from any kind of harm.
!
Either they have risen to that position of supremacy through their battle prowess or they have suffered those scars from the Void Century.
@Monkey:Except in this sentence Jack is the active participant choosing a passive subject, it would heinous grammar to have the "he" refer to the Sheepshead.
This says otherwise:
http://grockit.com/blog/ambiguous-and-vague-pronouns/'First, let’s look at a simple example of an ambiguous pronoun:
Jessica met with Susie after she had lunch.
You might read this sentence and automatically correct the pronoun ambiguity. For some reason, you might think that Jessica had the lunch (your logic). Someone else might think Susie had the lunch. The truth is, there is no way of knowing. The pronoun “she” is ambiguous because it has no clear antecedent: it can refer to either Jessica or Susie.'
What was that about heinous grammar again?
@Monkey:This example isn't even irrelevant though because the actual dialogue is separated and not in one sentence. Doflamingo ends the previous sentence with the families, and begins the new one with They. That precisely how that whole thing scans.
That's right. Hence the ambiguity. Keep in mind that those sentences are not connected by a conjunction. In other words, they are neither a 'complex sentence', a 'compound sentence', nor a 'compound-complex sentence'. Each of them is a separate sentence. Furthermore, Doflamingo was talking very informally there, and that's all the more reason to think that 'they' may also refer to the other 'they' that refers to the creators.
!
He began his sentence with 'those kings, the creators…' Then added to that: 'They took their respective families and moved to the holy land of Mariejois...' It is wrong to use as the 'subject' of the verb 'moved' the pronoun 'they' when there is already another subject ('those kings') preceding it. In other words, it wrong to use it like that when there is already 'those kings' preceding the verb 'moved'.
@Monkey:Honestly I was saying that because I found it really weird that you didn't know such a common thing and thought you'd be satisfied with that.
That's because you took for granted the false notion that I do not know dynasties nor its usage in English, lol.
@Monkey:But instead you want to suddenly turn on the formal debate faucet and apparently actually don't think dynasties are referred too grammatically like this?
I am aware of that. For instance, the Gupta dynasty is referred to as the Guptas, but that occurs only when the writer is certain that the reader is aware that the word 'Guptas' is a dynasty to begin with. Otherwise, it will be confusing. To draw an analogy, it is like using a subject, object, or possessive pronoun with no antecedent.
@Monkey:If someone was writing about Germany in 1917 they could write this sentence and absolutely nobody would question it.
"The Hohenzollern's united Germany under the Prussian monarchy, and they still rule it to this day."
Or for contemporary purposes "The Kims established their rule in North Korea after WW2, and they still rule it to this day."
Actually you don't even need to go the history route.
"The Pepe family opened their famous pizzeria in downtown New Haven in the 1920's, and they still run it to this day."This is completely correct English usage. And is extremely common to boot.
Did you notice the differences between them and the sentences that we were talking about?
All three of them are compound sentences joined by conjunctions. In Doflamingo's dialogue, however, the sentences are all separate sentences. They are not combined by conjunctions. Therein lies the problem.
@Monkey:Do you not know what a dynasty is? Should I call them Houses? If you wanted to a pretentious weirdo you could call your own family a dynasty or "house of smiths" or something. Dynasties are blood families, and a word usually reserved for nobility or at the least some sort of blood related powerful rich people.
Do you know what polysemy is? It means that a word has more than one meaning. Family is a polysemous word, meaning that it has more than one meaning. In other words, the word 'family' has more meanings than its dynastic meaning.
As for dynasty, I am not sure if you truly believe that, or if that is just done to slander me, but, oh well, feel free to believe whatever you want. Alas, thy reality is merely a mirage.You are taking the word dynasty and using it loosely. We are talking about royal lineages, so the definition should be 'a line of hereditary rulers keeping control of a country for many years, passing the throne from father to son, brother to brother, etc'. In this case, dynasty can only be a dynasty if a successor to a throne succeeds that throne.
The Void Century is still 'void', so we don't know if the kings back then had been keeping control of their countries for many years, or if they usurped that throne or conquered the country one year or 5 years before forming their alliance and moving to Mariejois.
As evidence for this, check this out:
Pay close attention there because Robin is talking both about the conquest of Alabasta and the beginning of a dynasty and about the years between each of those two things (conquest and dynasty).
@Monkey:The fuck are you even talking about lol. You're overthinking everything so hard it's gone into some sort of contortion contest.
No actually, I don't put much mental effort into this. Otherwise, I don't think I would have started this discussion in the first place.
'That's why you're wrong/saying stupid things' etc are Ad Hominem Fallacies, so don't use them.
@Monkey:There's nothing confusing about this.
A dynasty covers both these things, the creators, and their descendents. That's exactly what a dynasty friggin' is.That's exactly why I told you that 'the creators' refer to the progenitors as opposed to the entire family of rulers.
@Monkey:The word is frequently used to cover a family through time and space, it's broad and useful and in no way destroys any distinctions. Hell this is even less complex than that because the creators weren't just random vagabonds who founded dynasties…they were pre-existing dynasties because all of them were already kings.
But the author there was not talking about the kings, their mothers, and even their pets; he was talking only about the 20 kings themselves. The World Government was created by 20 people with crowns on their heads. Those 20 fellas are called the creators. That's what the manga says. If you want to believe otherwise, that's fine.
The proof that the creators is an epithet of the 20 kings is its grammatical usage. In other words, it is used as an 'appositive' of the 20 kings.
To avoid any kind of misunderstandings about this, I'll even explain what an appositive is:
An appositive is a noun or pronoun -often (not always) with modifiers - set beside another noun or pronoun to explain or identify it.
@Monkey:Why you're veen nitpicking this (incorrectly at that) I've lost all sight of. What does this have to do with anything.
What?
@Monkey:Best I can figure is you're trying to say that it's impossible for Oda to say "families still rule to this day" when it absolutely isn't whatsoever.
This is the Straw Man Fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when you distort your interlocutor's argument, demolish the distorted argument, and conclude that you have demolished the REAL argument.
I wasn't saying this at all. Because of 'pronoun ambiguity reference', I said that 'they' MIGHT refer to the 19 families. In other words, I was wholeheartedly open to this possibility as well.
@Monkey:We don't even need any of this dynasty talk. It's completely normal English to use the word family like that, especially when speaking of an enterprise or institution connected to the family in question. It's used in day to day English to refer to political families, business families, and even our own family history or that of neighbors and friends.
It's your own fault for putting yourself under the delusion that your interlocutor does not know the meaning of dynasty, lol.
@Monkey:Because you don't actually seem to know how people use the English language very well. I'm accusing you of this.
A~~nd you committed the Ad Hominem Fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Do you know what a fallacy is? It is a defective argument. It's also called a 'dead' argument. That's what you have just provided. The form of this argument is like this: Mr X doesn't know how Y language works; therefore, he is wrong.
The Ad Hominem occurs when an arguer concludes that the argument is faulty/bad/wrong by placing his interlocutor in a bad light.
That's NOT how arguments work. That's how FALLACIES work.
@Monkey:Alright kiddo, I know the fallacies like the back of my hand thanks.
Eh, really? Then don't litter your posts with them -_-'
@Monkey:You can stop cracking open the book to look them up.
Cracking open the book requires one to suspect the existence of fallacies in your discussion. One will only suspect the existence of such fallacies if he is able to recognize them. And if one is able to recognize fallacies, that means he is knowledgeable about them.
@Monkey:We're not in a formal debate here, if I'm going to ask you a person to person question that suggests I don't think you know what you're talking about it's not the same thing as trying to make some grand formal point.
You must change that method of thought. It's flawed to its core. Your provided arguments are illogical. Didn't you learn from your experience that among the natives of the English language there are those who use flawed English? An instance of this is when people use 'double-negatives'. Instead of saying the correct 'I don't know anything', you find them taking for granted the false 'I don't know nothing'. Of course, there are those who use it just for the fun of it, but that's entirely different than those who accept it as the correct usage of the English language.
@Monkey:But if you're going to keep condescending to me with them
I wasn't actually. That's how a discussion works. If you are ready to point out the mistakes that you ASSUME other people make, be also ready for others to do the same to your arguments.
@Monkey:, then how about you start playing by your own rules, and instead of making spurious inexperienced sounding claims about how English is used perhaps actually provide evidence that what you're saying is correct in the first place.
Because I didn't think you would disagree with me about such evident matter.
@Monkey:and your strange attempt to squeeze "the 19 kings still live!" out of extremely loose dialogue would be laughed at in the circles you're attempting to belong to.
That's the Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
This fallacy has one of the following forms:
X is laughable. Therefore X is false.This fallacy occurs when you mock the other person's argument, make fun of it, get people to laugh at it , and use the social pressure of being laughed at to force someone to change their beliefs.
-
See what I mean? ^^ This kid goes hardcore.@King:
Chalk it up to lack of resources. Also, it would require electricity, which sounds terrible for an underwater island where people are wet most of the time.
Never thought about that however can't you just have people towel off before they step in?
-
Chalk it up to lack of resources.
Also, it would require electricity, which sounds terrible for an underwater island where people are wet most of the time.
Now that you mention it, what powers Shabondy Park? The OP-verse seems to have middle-age\early renaissance technology (with the exception of Vegapunk's toys). Convenient Vegapunk device?
Humanity would be screwed without him. -
There may be a practical reason why the CD have to be kept around even as a figurehead, perhaps some mechanism of Mariejois means that only they can access it's secrets, but the Gorusei are their guardians and gatekeepers and rule in practicality if not name.
My best guess is that there are some CD that legitimately are strong and should the gorosei try to step out of line the full might of not just tenryuubito authority, but also actual strength will come down on their heads. Doflamingo has shown that those of CD stock can become physically powerful and it stands to reason more of them might be of similar strength. Especially considering they stand at the top of the world giving them all the resources and time therein contained at their disposal should they desire fighting power.
-
When Doflamingo was talking about a portion of the history from the Void Century, he said that the World Government was 'formed' by 20 kings known as the 'creators', and he further said that even now 'they' reside in Mariejois 'reigning' over the world. The pronoun 'they', because of its ambiguous reference, could either refer to the remaining 19 families of the creators or it could refer to the creators themselves. In the latter case, it would mean that the creators are still alive, and it is not unreasonable to form such thought because of the powers of the Ope Ope Fruit. In either case, this indicates their supremacy.
however in cnet's translation of the chaper there is no such ambiguity
18
[Box: Green Bit - Law VS Doflamingo and Admiral Fujitora]
Doflamingo: Let me tell you a story, Law…...... // Long ago, a full 800 years before the present day......
Law: .........
Doflamingo: Twenty kings from twenty countries gathered in the centre of the world...... / ...and they created a single massive organisation. // We know this organisation today as the World Government.
Law: .................. / pant
Doflamingo: And those twenty kings, the Founders... // ...each brought their families with them to Mariejoa and made their new homes there. / The Nefertari family of Alabasta was the one exception, so to be perfectly accurate, a total of 19 royal families settled in Mariejoa. // Those families still live there today, looking down on the world with supreme authority. / The descendants of the Founders… The Tenryuubito!! -
Lol I know that.
Still though… fish-children (lol) were literally going to the sea-top (a better term?) to look at the ferris wheel in an area filled with kidnapping gangs. It should have come to the attention of any sane government.When all this will end (by 'this' I mean the segregation and discrimination), young fish-men will be able to ride roller coasters as much as they'd want. It'll be an important moment and will symbolize the end of racism, or at least that's how I see it.
_
The 'ambiguity' theme Austra'***** pointed out here reminded me of a certain theory claiming that Luffy's dream would be to build a kingdom because of Ace's final words in the Japanese version (among other arguments). I've been desperately looking for an English version of it - in vain.
Has anyone heard of it before ?***** (you'd have to check if this ambiguity/notion existed in the original version [japanese] o__r if it was introduced because of an inaccurate translation)
-
however in cnet's translation of the chaper there is no such ambiguity
Thank you for your help, Akagami7.
The argument was about the correct interpretation of the translation on the panels that I provided. That translation there was CCC's translation, and to my knowledge, he is a reliable translator.
Cnet's translation does indeed express without such ambiguity that the 19 families are still reigning over the world. Besides, even if we go by Cnet's translation, he says: 'Those families (the 19 families) still live there (at Mariejois) today (present), looking down on the world with supreme authority'.
What's up with that? The Donquixote family is no longer supposed to be one of those families who live at Mariejois, nor is it supposed to be looking down on the world with 'supreme authority', so there should be only '18 families'. -
Thank you for your help, Akagami7.
The argument was about the correct interpretation of the translation on the panels that I provided. That translation there was CCC's translation, and to my knowledge, he is a reliable translator.
Cnet's translation does indeed express without such ambiguity that the 19 families are still reigning over the world. Besides, even if we go by Cnet's translation, he says: 'Those families (the 19 families) still live there (at Mariejois) today (present), looking down on the world with supreme authority'.
What's up with that? The Donquixote family is no longer supposed to be one of those families who live at Mariejois, nor is it supposed to be looking down on the world with 'supreme authority', so there should be only '18 families'.Well, I think we don't actually know whether homing, his wife, corazon and doflamingo were the only members of the donquixote family
-
The 'ambiguity' theme Austra'***** pointed out here reminded me of a certain theory claiming that Luffy's dream would be to build a kingdom because of Ace's final words in the Japanese version (among other arguments). I've been desperately looking for an English version of it - in vain.
Has anyone heard of it before ?Any English translation? You said 'an English' version of it, so I assumed you're looking for any translation as long as it is in English.
This is what I think you were talking about:
Ace was talking about Luffy becoming the Pirate King since, as we have all known, that has always been Luffy's dream.
That look of death on Ace's face tears my heart apart. Oda-sensei captured that expression splendidly. He is not only a good story teller, among many other things, he is also a great artist.
@akagami7:Well, I think we don't actually know whether homing, his wife, corazon and doflamingo were the only members of the donquixote family
That's what I thought as well. I was about to start looking about whether or not Doflamingo referred to himself as the sole survivor of his clan.
-
Thank you for your help, Akagami7.
The argument was about the correct interpretation of the translation on the panels that I provided. That translation there was CCC's translation, and to my knowledge, he is a reliable translator.
Cnet's translation does indeed express without such ambiguity that the 19 families are still reigning over the world. Besides, even if we go by Cnet's translation, he says: 'Those families (the 19 families) still live there (at Mariejois) today (present), looking down on the world with supreme authority'.
What's up with that? The Donquixote family is no longer supposed to be one of those families who live at Mariejois, nor is it supposed to be looking down on the world with 'supreme authority', so there should be only '18 families'.Sir I've known CCC, I've posted with CCC, CCC is a friend of mine.
Sir, CCC would also think you're a crazy person. -
@Monkey:
Sir I've known CCC, I've posted with CCC, CCC is a friend of mine.
Sir, CCC would also think you're a crazy person.This is ducking weak. Maybe you need to throw in the towel?
-
Thank you for your help, Akagami7.
The argument was about the correct interpretation of the translation on the panels that I provided. That translation there was CCC's translation, and to my knowledge, he is a reliable translator.
Cnet's translation does indeed express without such ambiguity that the 19 families are still reigning over the world. Besides, even if we go by Cnet's translation, he says: 'Those families (the 19 families) still live there (at Mariejois) today (present), looking down on the world with supreme authority'.
What's up with that? The Donquixote family is no longer supposed to be one of those families who live at Mariejois, nor is it supposed to be looking down on the world with 'supreme authority', so there should be only '18 families'.In terms of dialogue flow, he couldn't just say "those families, except for my family, still live there" as the revelation of his family being one of the 19 families would only be made in the next page.
Not only would that sound awkward, it would actually spoil the impact of Oda's own cliffhanger.
-
In terms of dialogue flow, he couldn't just say "those families, except for my family, still live there" as the revelation of his family being one of the 19 families would only be made in the next page, ending in a cliffhanger.
Ahh yes. Monkey King's Lao G has arrived. You can't touch MK he's a born king!
-
This is ducking weak. Maybe you need to throw in the towel?
Missed the reference.
Also I'll argue most things, but semantics is the worst thing in the world.
Other people are chiming in, and really he's an isolated case so whatever.
If this theory became epidemic (like Perona and Monet crew theories once were…shudder) then maybe I'd care.--- Update From New Post Merge ---
The Donquixote family is no longer supposed to be one of those families who live at Mariejois, nor is it supposed to be looking down on the world with 'supreme authority', so there should be only '18 families'.
Also just to back up Cannon on this, where was it said the Donflamingo family was all gone?
This is a family name that has been sitting around in Mariejoise for 1000 years.
You're suggesting there would be only ONE nuclear family as a result of all that? And not lots of different Doflamingos running around? -
@Monkey:
Missed the reference.
Also I'll argue most things, but semantics is the worst thing in the world.
Other people are chiming in, and really he's an isolated case so whatever.
If this theory became epidemic (like Perona and Monet crew theories once were…shudder) then maybe I'd care.--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also just to back up Cannon on this, where was it said the Donflamingo family was all gone?
This is a family name that has been sitting around in Mariejoise for 1000 years.
You're suggesting there would be only ONE nuclear family as a result of all that? And not lots of different Doflamingos running around?Protect the family! Nobody speaks ill of my subordinates.
…And you're supposed to smash the dude not go all eh, doesn't matter. Australopithecus is gonna break the gears if you're not careful!
-
Protect the family! Nobody speaks ill of my subordinates.
…And you're supposed to smash the dude not go all eh, doesn't matter. Australopithecus is gonna break the gears if you're not careful!
lol, power is knowing you don't even have to bother
-
Australopithecus is basing giant epic multi page nonsense theories based on the lack of understanding the meaning of a single word, that is perfectly clear to everyone else that speaks the language.
WHile G8trH8tr is getting sarcastic and upset at the system of other posters who have been around the block, because no one takes him seriously.
Both claim that someone being unwilling to argue against their nonsense is not because it's complete nonsense and a waste of time, but because everyone else has internally admitted they are wrong and the nonsense is actually totally right and undeniable.
Yeah, cream of the crop here.
-
^10 out of 10. Best Post.
[hide]
[/hide] -
Hey Robbo! Rob man! I noticed I am back in the current events thread. Thanks pal!
WHile G8trH8tr is getting sarcastic and upset at the system of other posters who have been around the block, because no one takes him seriously.
Yeah you keep sitting in your thrones while i sweat my ass off doing mental gymnastics every day in order to get stronger. You're going to regret that someday.
-
I like how the moment the eternal surgery technique of the Ope Ope no mi was revealed, suddenly everyone is a potential immortal. I'm sure it'll play out somehow eventually, but it's probably going to be like one person. A few AT MOST. It's not such a cheap of a technique to be used dozens of times.
Austra, if your only evidence is semantics in a specific translation, then you have absolutely no case right now. If in the end it turns out you were right, feel free to give everyone in this forum a juicy "I told you so", how's that?
-
Australopithicus arguing his case.
-
Austra, if your only evidence is semantics in a specific translation, then you have absolutely no case right now. If in the end it turns out you were right, feel free to give everyone in this forum a juicy "I told you so", how's that?
*cough *cough
Everyone?
-
-
I just realized this damn thing has been around for 2 whole days.
-
I feel like Australopithecus might have 'won' the argument based on technicalities. But I'm not convinced at all with what he's saying.
FC(3DS) - 2724-4238-5489 (LZTan)
FC(Switch) - SW-3434-4042-7728 (Jin)
-
@Bond:
I feel like Australopithecus might have 'won' the argument based on technicalities. But I'm not convinced at all with what he's saying.
I'm not sure what technicalities but what I do know is that the idea that the original kings that formed the world government are all alive in the present is very slim. It's a possibility of course, especially considering the 5 Elders and the Op-op Fruit but Doflamingo wasn't hinting that in the slightest I know that much.
And like Monkey King said it's super unlikely that after a century, Doffy, dad, mom and bro are the only Donxiotte family members and the entire line(consisting only of those 4) was cast out of Mariejois.
Austra tends to find meanings in words that aren't intended or may not be there at all. I mean please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way Fukaboshi gave Luffy the go ahead to physically destroy Fishman Island, certainly not after the blood transfusion scene with Jinbe breaking a law that was born out of hatred and prejudice. The same scene were Fukaboshi, crying tears of joy, speaks to his mother saying "this is the nothing/zero where we start anew."
-
this thread feels like an abandoned battlefield,where no one even remembers why the fight was started.
seriously though Australopithecus,no offence,but while i think you are a good poster,but for some reason you always pick obscure,unlikely theory that are in fact very weird and opposite the flow of the story.just my opinionedit:
@RomanceDawn yeah i agree with you.he was more talking in a metaphorical way,and talking about their hatred and prejudice.
though i do think that luffy will surely destroy the island as predicted by sharley,i don't think fukaboshi was talking about that -
The Riku family has 3 members, the Nefertari family has 2 members.
Wiper is THE descendant of Calgara after 400 years.
I'm going to assume that Doffy is the only member alive of the Donkey Shot family.
It doesn't make much sense, but who cares ? Not me.
 -
After re-experiencing Skypiea and realizing how different it is to today's One Piece, I wonder how Oda would tell the story of Skypiea in today's One Piece.
- First of all, I assume Conis' mother/Pagaya's wife would have been killed by God's judgement basically as early as Enel usurped the country. That would give much more emotional heavyweight to all of Pagaya's and Conis' decicions and actions. I mean, we haven't seen one single person die because of Enel. We were just told that he destroyed Birka. But he killed not even one person :/ Also, where is Conis' mother anyway?
- Second: We would have seen the destruction of Birka in a flashback. Show, do not tell.
- Third: Each Priest would have gotten a part in the flashback, maybe Enel did a survival game on Birka as well, and these 4 (5 with Yama) were the last survivors (like upper yard's survival game) giving us more time with the priests making them more memorable.
- Fourth: Everyone would probably have more shiny and flashy attacks.
-
The Riku family has 3 members, the Nefertari family has 2 members.
Wiper is THE descendant of Calgara after 400 years.
I'm going to assume that Doffy is the only member alive of the Donkey Shot family.
It doesn't make much sense, but who cares ? Not me.I think too that de Donquixote's family consist just of Doffy now…
-
It is also possible that those 18 families must married their sons and daughters and thus joined the families and decreasing the number of families in the course history.
-
It is also possible that those 18 families must married their sons and daughters and thus joined the families and decreasing the number of families in the course history.
Charloss certainly helps that theory.
-
- Second: We would have seen the destruction of Birka in a flashback. Show, do not tell.
Urouge will probably be relevant to this.
-
This post is deleted!
-
The Riku family has 3 members, the Nefertari family has 2 members.
Do they? Those are nuclear families we saw. Having a small amount for a nuclear is expected.
But you don't think Vivi has any uncles and aunts and cousins possibly existing? Really?Wiper is THE descendant of Calgara after 400 years.
He is a descendant. They never said any such exclusivity.
-
OP is packed with characters as is. If anyone in a given family mattered for anything in the story, they would play a part in it, even if little.
But just because there is no uncle or a cousin now, doesn't mean they won't appear later in the story. In Nefertari case, I really doubt it, considering the situation the kingdom was in would require involvement of anyone that meant anything in the family, plus Crocodile would have targeted them without doubt. In Donquixote family's case, other branches or a branch might appear because there's nothing explicitly stating they couldn't.
-
Any English translation? You said 'an English' version of it, so I assumed you're looking for any translation as long as it is in English.
This is what I think you were talking about:
http://i.imgur.com/n0z36FJ.jpgAce was talking about Luffy becoming the Pirate King since, as we have all known, that has always been Luffy's dream.
That look of death on Ace's face tears my heart apart. Oda-sensei captured that expression splendidly. He is not only a good story teller, among many other things, he is also a great artist.
No, I was talking about the English version of the theory. :happy:
Australopithecus is basing giant epic multi page nonsense theories based on the lack of understanding the meaning of a single word, that is perfectly clear to everyone else that speaks the language.
WHile G8trH8tr is getting sarcastic and upset at the system of other posters who have been around the block, because no one takes him seriously.
Both claim that someone being unwilling to argue against their nonsense is not because it's complete nonsense and a waste of time, but because everyone else has internally admitted they are wrong and the nonsense is actually totally right and undeniable.
Yeah, cream of the crop here.
As a mod aren't you supposed to calm things down instead of adding fuel to the fire ? (I mean you're clearly exaggerating the situation and throwing out personal attacks for… nothing ?)
-
@Monkey:
Do they? Those are nuclear families we saw. Having a small amount for a nuclear is expected.
But you don't think Vivi has any uncles and aunts and cousins possibly existing? Really?He is a descendant. They never said any such exclusivity.
Like I said I know it doesn't make sense and I don't care.
I prefer to think of Wiper as THE descendant of Calgara rather than one descendant who goes more berserk than his 30 cousins. -
As a mod aren't you supposed to calm things down instead of adding fuel to the fire ? (I mean you're clearly exaggerating the situation and throwing out personal attacks for… nothing ?)
He's calming down the spread of insane semantics arguments based theories.
Sounds like a fire being put down to me.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Like I said I know it doesn't make sense and I don't care.
I prefer to think of Wiper as THE descendant of Calgara rather than one descendant who goes more berserk than his 30 cousins.Wiper is a semi-charismatic rebel leader, being the descendent of Calgara may be part of his motives but it's not like it's the only reason he is who he is.
There's the bell sure, but there's his own personality, and the motive of the Shandians getting back their land completely separate from the bell. -
@Monkey:
Wiper is a semi-charismatic rebel leader, being the descendent of Calgara may be part of his motives but it's not like it's the only reason he is who he is.
There's the bell sure, but there's his own personality, and the motive of the Shandians getting back their land completely separate from the bell.I know all that.
All I'm saying is that a fictional character doesn't exist until he exists. I'm fine with the Nefertari being only two after 900 years. You could call such a genealogical tree childish storytelling, but it wouldn't be the only childish aspect of One Piece. -
regarding Skypiea. In the Manga a boy throws a stone at Conis' head, in the Anime the boy throws a tomato.
Oda, how could you do so much wrong. A Skypiean would never throw Vearth. That's like a devoted Christian throwing the bible at someone's head in disgust.
The Anime corrected that scene. Also, where did he get the stone from? -
I know all that.
All I'm saying is that a fictional character doesn't exist until he exists. I'm fine with the Nefertari being only two after 900 years. You could call such a genealogical tree childish storytelling, but it wouldn't be the only childish aspect of One Piece.Except One Piece is a detail heavy story that has hundreds of corners that exist just to make it a full and breathing fantasy world too.
