Who the hell is Ned Gutters?
I'm not even doing that as a diss or whatever, who are you?? You're talking about people noticing you not posting, and I have literally never heard this username before.
Ned is a professor of logic. He is above seeking 'attention'(what?!). You can ask him to arbitrate between our arguments if you have doubts concerning what I say. He won’t wrong you if you are right. If I happen to be wrong, he won’t hesitate to point that out in my argument, and when he does so, I thank him for that because he only helped me get closer to the ‘truth’. Everyone – yes, everyone without any exception – is fallible, and there's no shame in that. As a matter of fact, this is considered a principle of intellectual conduct for effective discussion.
One more thing, when he points out that I am wrong, he doesn’t cite his authority as justification for that. He adheres fully to the principles of logic and proceeds to provide good reasons structured logically in his argument.
If his argument appeared to you somehow bizarre, he is most likely ‘joking’. He does that from time to time as evidenced by his joke of Bartolomew’s ‘barometer’(haha).
The problem in your arguments is that you attack your interlocutor directly and conclude from that that his argument is nonsense, bullshit or some other variant. This method of argumentation is taboo in the domain of logic, so you can understand now why he doesn't approve of it. Don't you notice that in my arguments with you (whether they are wrong or right) I do not attack you directly? The moment I attack you would be the moment I provided a bullshit argument.
Listen, man, bashing people won’t solve the problem, it will only further escalate it. If your intention is to make your interlocutor look stupid, my intention is to get closer to the ‘truth’. I don’t care about victories. If you want a victory, I will give you one. But your loss if far greater than your gain. ‘Truth’ and ‘victory’ are not necessarily one and the same. You can win the argument by just creating the ‘impression’ that your argument is sound, while it isn’t objectively.
If your intentions are to persuade me, then your arguments have hardly any 'probative weight'. I do not know if you are aware of this, but you spend like ¾ of your post dedicating it into negatively expressing your subjective opinions about your interlocutor. That’s irrelevant to the discussion (off-topic). For instance, we are talking about the final villain, but your interlocutor is not relevant to this in any way, unless he or she has good reasons to be the final villain of One Piece. Furthermore, it is absolutely disrespectful to the highest degree. You are basically just bashing people. It’s really problematic. I mean, seriously, am I supposed to be convinced that my belief is wrong because of what you think of me? That's then a bad approach of argumentation. Also, using the ridicule rhetoric in order to make me feel the social pressure of being laughed at doesn’t work either. The only thing that works is an argument that adheres to the principles of logic, and the principles of logic stand firmly and strictly against arguing the ‘arguer’ instead of the ‘argument’.
If I am wrong, then I would be happy to be wrong; however, I must be proven wrong through ‘good reasoning’. Once I detect a fallacious reasoning, an invalid argument, a poorly grounded argument, an unsound argument, or some argument that violates the principles of logic in some way, then there is a good chance that I will not be convinced, and I point out to my interlocutor, who happens to be you in this case, that there is a certain problem in the argument. Why do I do that? In order to look down on you? No. And I told you that before. I do it to justify my disagreement with your argument. I don’t accuse your argument of logical fallacies when there are none. I can explain to you why and how there were fallacies in your arguments all the way to the basic structure of the argument if you so wish.
And you're getting this from what, the one time Luffy reacted to Sakazuki's name on Fishman Island?
Luffy very clearly has a dislike for Teach as well, and has shown that disdain much more than he has for Sakazuki.
Actually, Galaxy, Angel compared Luffy’s reaction to Blackbeard and Akainu on the same chapter. You, on the other hand, compared Luffy’s reaction to Blackbeard at the beginning of the Dressrosa’s arc with his reaction to Akainu at the denouement of Fishman Island’s arc. That's not the same thing.
The author meant for that comparison to be made that way. Even the chapter was named 'two changes you need to know about'. Once Jimbei mentioned Akainu to Luffy, he glared and held his thoracic wound. On the other hand, when Teech was mentioned, Luffy was eating nonchalantly.
I personally believe Akainu will be an antagonist after Blackbeard's defeat. Among many other reasons, I will tell you this:
A fight with Blackbeard will only deal fixable damage to Luffy. However, a fight with Akainu, is likely to leave Luffy missing some bodily part. One hit from Akainu left Luffy bearing a wound of his chest for eternity. So it stands to reason to expect similar results from a fight against Akainu. A fight that could leave Luffy missing a limb or something is best left for the finale, in my view, because after such a tumultuous war, I don't expect Luffy to engage in any more battles, given that his freedom will have been gained through the downfall of the WG. I can already see counter-arguments using Kyros and Shanks, and that's why what was suggested was 'my view'.
This final villain discussion also has very little to do with hatred anyways. Blackbeard is the direct antithesis of Luffy with a direct connection to the overarching plot. That is what makes him the final villain, not some nonsensical Shonen hatred trope. That is why Sakazuki has no chance.
Being the antithesis of the protagonist is not a reason of guarantee that Teech will be the final antagonist. In this regard, we have seen, in a different story, a similar character who didn’t turn out to be the ultimate antagonist, haven’t we?
In Naruto, Obito was the antithesis of Naruto. He has been built up meticulously for many volumes and, at some point, most of us have been caught in the hype train back then, and thought that Obito would be the final antagonist. Even when he absorbed the ten tailed monster and became its host, we thought that we were dealing with the final antagonist. It turned out the final antagonist was Sasuke, after Kaguya, who was after Madara.
With this precedent, it's understandable why a person can doubt the notion that being the antithesis is evidence for being the final antagonist.
In any case, Galaxy, is there any other reason for believing Blackbeard is the final antagonist? I am curious to read some good reasoning on this matter.
That's still at least identifiable faces even if it's a problem. It's less terrible than the completely terrible "World Government" suggestion.
The World Government is not a character.
Because final villain discussion really is about that. About specific characters. The WG and it's various internal bits will unquestionably be involved in the final WAR.
But that war in classic shonen fashion will boil down to one on one fights, at the least with Luffy fighting somebody.
And that's really what we're talking about here.
World Government as you're saying is broad, that's exactly the problem with suggesting it.
By both the mere suggestion of the WG in my argument and the suggestion of the Gorosei (a team) in the poll, I thought it was obvious that the word ‘villain’ is not used in the sense of a ‘character’. It is used to describe an ‘evil antagonist’(at least, in my argument, if not in the poll). The usage of the word villain outside the scope of a ‘character’ is not incorrect. In fact, it is perfectly okay to use it like that.
Here is the evidence:
1.2The person or thing responsible for specified problems, harm, or damage: the industrialized nations are the real environmental villains’
As you can see here, the word ‘villain’ is used as the subject complement of the ‘nations’.
Here’s another proof:
Simple Definition of villain
- : someone or something that is blamed for a particular problem or difficulty
Such usage manifests itself here as well.
Heck such usage has even found its way into the idiomatic usage of the English language:
The person or thing responsible for all of the trouble or harm in a particular situation: TV tends to be cast as the villain of the piece.
See how ‘villain’ is used to describe ‘TV’ as the thing responsible for trouble/harm etc.
Sure, I am using ‘villain’ to refer to the antagonist, but does that mean the antagonist must be a ‘character’? No – absolutely NO.
Now, let’s talk about the antagonist:
While it is true that the antagonist can often be the character who opposes the main character around whom the story revolves(protagonist), it is not always the case. The antagonist in a story can be a character, a group of characters, an organization, a monster (Godzilla) – heck, it can be a mountain, a natural disaster, a setting, a society, and so on and so forth. Nowhere is it mentioned that an antagonist has to be a ‘character’ in a story.
For solid evidence on this matter, consult this link:
In Detective Conan, the main antagonist is an organization called ‘the Black Organization’.
The Black Organization (黒の組織 Kuro no Soshiki?) serves as the main antagonist in the series. It is a secret criminal syndicate with a hidden objective. To achieve that goal, the Black Organization commits various crimes to maintain its secrecy, remove obstacles, and gather funding and resources for its mysterious research projects. I made this copiously clear by shifting back and forth between these two words (villain & antagonist).
! > @Monkey:
You say this like the World Government as a whole system would be the enemies of the Strawhats as the final villain. Which is obviously untrue given the whole Marine civil war plot line Oda's been building since forever.The Marines in the final period are pretty obviously going to burst down the middle in some fashion with people like Smoker, Coby, and formers like Aokiji on one side. And people like Akainu, Onigumo and government agents like Spandam on the other
So the idea that the WG will be the final villain is untrue because Oda has been building a marine civil war plot line, huh. And this impending civil war is indicated by what exactly? Smoker, Fujitora, Coby, & Aokiji's disapproval of some of the methods implemented by the world government? How does this (if it is this) guarantee the happening of this civil war?
Let's suppose this marine civil war will truly happen, are Coby, Smoker, Aokiji, and even Fujitora an adequate military power to win that war? They are at best two admirals, one vice admiral, & god-knows-what military rank Coby has now (but I am sure as heck it isn't an admiral rank YET) against two admirals (Green Bull and Kizaru), a fleet admiral (Akainu), possibly a former fleet admiral (Sengoku), dozens of vice admirals, rear admirals, commodores etc. That looks like a lost battle.
Let's just say they somehow won that civil war despite their very low chances of victory against the other powerful individuals (some of whom are of the same level and others of an even higher one), how would their victory not make the government the final antagonist?
So it is perfectly correct to suggest the government as the final antagonist.