Edit: I am beginning to be inappropriate (probably even guilty of what I'm annoyed with). I'll respond later.

@Shadowgreed:

Oh I've gotten the "Bashing" one, which one do you guys have?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Working on it; I'll keep you posted. Wish us luck!

@Monkey:

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.

That part of my post doesn't matter whatsoever, but you've commented on some of my posts, most recently on May 3rd to my dumb prediction: Sanji is a lesbian (to which I did not take offense - as I am not to the above question - and which was my first post in some time). I don't think you've actually ever been uncool to me directly, but I have seen your relationship with Austro fester and get more and more abusive over time, as well as responding to most people you disagree with in outright hostile ways. I am guessing that my most recent post broke the following rules:

• **Do NOT harass other members, not through posts, not through PMs. We will find out and you will be punished.
• We want the atmosphere of the forums to be a fun and pleasant place. Things that have the potential to lead to flame wars will be removed and the user warned. – Don't be an ass/jerk. Be respective of other member's opinions.
  -- No trolling, bashing, or flaming. Respect all members, their opinions, and their posts.**
  But I've seen you do the same time and time again, and I just don't care for it anymore.

@Monkey:

Oh look, Semantics McCrazyPerson is back after like a month.
Go back to OroJackson and scream your madness into the void. But please, spare the void your fucking horrible semantics arguments. No one deserves that you point missing clown.

Don't get me wrong, I kind of love the character idea of someone who whips out dictionaries and RationalWiki logic quotes, and is still insanely wrong about everything he says?
But in the context of fiction only please.

You're my number one nomination for the next round of purges btw, congratulations.

Right or wrong, I will never understand how you always manage to be such a thorough bag of dicks/inflamed asshole.

Purge me away; if you haven't noticed, I don't post much anymore, and a big part of why is people like you who think that having a better argument than someone else makes them an idiot or an asshole, and gives you a right to be a shit person to them. I use the term "argument" loosely: your arguments are borderline non-existent, consisting primarily of authoritative bullshit, which you label caviar and force-feed to other members.

I originally posted this in the wrong thread, and got some feedback, so I'm including the feedback and my response as well:

I'm sure the conclusion has been drawn before, but I have no idea if from this "evidence" (everything is based on some junk I recall reading a while back, so if I'm totally mistaken, ffffffff that's ok).

The side on which one's hair parts has purportedly been linked to the direction in which one's hair grows, in terms of clockwise and counterclockwise, and that direction supposedly correlates with gender (not sexuality). I don't remember which direction is which but, in general, one direction tends to be associated with male, and the other with female.

Sanji's hair part changed sides because he is now a closet Okama, or more generally just "female" (though, I then believe she is a lesbian). This probably won't play out explicitly, as Sanji's sexuality essentially remains the same - attracted to women - and gender typically isn't explicitly addressed regarding the crew; we get hints from personality and behavior, of course (i.e. Zoro is clearly male), so we might see some hints in Sanji's behavior, but I don't think there would ever be confirmation of this.

As the view is practically unfalsifiable, and I am happy to reject good, scientific methodology for the prospect of something stupid, I now fully endorse the preceding conclusion.

TL;DR: Sanji is a lesbian.

@Katzztar:

I had to reread to try to understand what you're saying. I'm still not sure if you're talking about 1) real life or 2) some sort of theory of identifying manga characters…

IF 1)=
Sorry this belongs to Dumb Predictions thread. IT makes it sound as if one can know one's gender based on where their hair parts or what direction their cowlick lays.
People can change their parts by conscious choice and never change their gender identity. I personally have done so, middle of head, left part and right part. I never changed my gender identity of female
In my family cowlicks are present but for both my male cousin and I, it is same direction.

If 2= I never heard of that.

@Ned_Gutters:

Sorry I did mean (1); I'll edit to the correct location once I have my computer handy.

The idea is: though you can change your part, if you don't, it is a function of a natural "swirl" your hair grows in. You can check this swirl by looking at the top of the back of your head in mirrors. This swirl is what has purportedly been correlated to gender; part just follows it if you don't intervene.

This dumb prediction assumes gender can change with conditioning (doesn't seem likely - see Rainer Maria Wilker for one famous example, though I'm sure there are studies) OR it just takes Sanji's part as an indicator from the medium of this "change" in Sanji's gender.

Obviously this is a dumb prediction. I just placed it in the wrong thread :p

Edit: Counterargument, he grew facial hair, thus identifies as male.

and:

@Monkey:

What the fuck is this post lollllll

Agreed.

This was a great chapter. I missed the adventure aspect of One Piece, just travelling the oceans. The starvation chapter brings me back to the days of Zoro + Luffy, when they were starving and Luffy got stuck in a bird's mouth. No matter how strong you are, you need to eat!

It may have already been said, but obvious prediction:

(I am assuming the person saying we've been playing little pirate games was either Kidd, or Kaido was mocking Kidd, as Kidd looks pretty dejected.)

Kaido has broken Kidd's will. When Luffy shows up, and (a) beats Kaido or (b) Kidd realizes Luffy stands a chance, this will restore Kidd's will. If (b), then Kidd will come in for the assist. Afterwards, Kidd won't officially ally with Luffy, but will become "friendly" (scare quotes: Kidd won't get in Luffy's way, and will help when it is convenient or maybe even mildly inconvenient, but will maintain his general dickish attitude). After all is said and done, Kidd will say something like "I owe you; I'll pay you back by beating you to One Piece." Luffy will give a "Shishishishi," and they'll depart.

@mbaruh:

Should have quoted me, I only noticed this now. I merely noted that such a distinction exists, and that MK's post mixes the two terms.
Anyway, I suggest we stop with the Rebecca talk, the thread has become really derailed lol

Ah, I guess I missed the point :P My bad!

The entire reason it is a nature vs nurture "debate" is because it isn't settled. So, if you're appealing to it as a kind of expert opinion - not merely your belief - this is misguided; it is your judgement as to whether it is nature or nurture (upon which psychology might explain how that is meant to work), but there is no settled matter about whether it is or isn't nature or nurture.

In any case, that distinction is silly - experts can be wrong. I take qualm with the distinction, it's implied completeness, and the exclusivity captured by "vs." these are consequences of psychology trying - especially through the middle of the 20th century - to emulate the "hard sciences" by incorporating notions of causal closure, completeness, reduction, and final causes into a domain where they really just don't make sense. Many of these notions have been disavowed, and the distinction is becoming undone (for example by, I believe, gestalt psychology, transcendental psychology, philosophical psychology, and making its way through mainstream late 20th and contemporary 21st century psychology - but I could be mistaken).

Everyone is a function of both nature and nurture, and a whole bunch of other things too. The question is really oke of explanation primarily, and only causality insofar as it serves explanation. Anyone can be somewhat (but often very incompletely) understood in terms of nature or in terms of nurture, or in other terms entirely. The question is, given an individual and a specific conversation, what is the relevant (not only true) way of understanding that individual.

Saying "nature vs. nurture" and leaving it there puts an end to the process of explanation and understanding, which is the entire purpose of this conversation.

Lastly: I'm not really crapping on you, but on (admittedly) experts who think nature vs nurture is a meaningful or important debate to have that the truth somehow depends on. This is a long time gripe of mine.

@gangonga:

For all the readers that have forgotten,when Wanda was describing what an absolute lunatic and ruthless guy Jack is,and how much he has ravaged this country,Oda has purposely shown Luffy and only Luffy to be hearing extra carefully her sorrowful memories.

That means that Luffy has taken a personal interest in this Jack guy,even before he was shown to us and the protagonist.

Take also into account that Luffy has fought every bigger threat in every stop from the start of the series,and you can probably guess who will fight Jack.

I'm not taking a position, but if this is relevant, so is this:

Luffy says "I can't believe a beast like Jack is just Kaido's lapdog" and it shows Zoro.

I've also seen the arguement that Luffy only let's Zoro take on the number 2. If that's relevant, it's also relevant that Jack has been established as "Kaido's lapdog."

Again, taking no position here, just critiquing argument. I'd LIKE if Zoro took on Jack, but I'm can't pretend I have any idea what's gonna happen now.

I agree that we may hear a bit about Franky, will definitely get a flashbook for Jinbe, and learn about Sanji and Brook (pretty much immediately), will get something on Crocodile and likely Moriah (maaaaybe Enel), and I think we'll probably get the stories of the supernovas.

Regarding Zoro, I don't think there is more past to tell, but I like the general idea of this theory, even if it is almost entirely speculation:

I have a hard time imagining that Zoro will find time to leave the crew at this point in the story, but who knows - we may be looking at another split up sooner than we think.

Regarding Chopper, I am a fan of the theory that Luffy will get ill like Gol D. Roger did, and we will see Chopper shine as being able to cure him.

Other than that, I think we're pretty much done exploring Straw Hats outside the context of ordinary arcs (Robin will keep finding Poneglyphs, Usopp and co. will eventually end up at Elbaf, etc). It just seems that Oda is picking up the pace now, and most SHs have adequately fleshed out pasts and no obvious reason for some crazy individual arc. But hey. Iunno.