General & Others Next Straw Hat Crew Members and the Grand Fleet
- Thread starter Uncle Van
- Start date
- Tags #c4ng2g carrot fans are still losers carrot haters are real losers seethe at the rabbit carrot is doing nothing because she doesn't matter carrot will never join the straw hats carrot's story never even began cry about carrot everyone else in the verse neg diffs the bunny imagine thinking stussy won't join its over furry bros keep the bunny on zou nobody else needs her let it go furry bros momo is breeding yamato no character is less relevant than carrot oden larper fans can't read stussy > carrot & yamato stussy supremacy who will be the next nakama of the week? yamato always had a better chance than carrot yamato story is over
oh boi..Let me rephrase. The burden of proof was mine at the beginning of this conversation, the very beginning, meaning page 1 of this thread. When my claims was this one:
"All the strawhats share a set of parameters that we can use to predict a future strawhat."
In the meantimes, I PROVED that claim. Here on my blog
Meaning that I don't have the burden of proof anymore. Basic logic.
After that you said "you are wrong". Which is, in regards to my proofs, a extraordinary claim. Which means that we are in the reversal of the burden of proof. its now YOU who need to prove your claim.
YOU need to prove that my proof are non conclusive. Its easy, I've listed each proof at every point of the reasonning and the pillar mainly with chapter or citations. So you only need to prove that one parameters is actually not shared by the strawhat in every pillar given the parameters that I describe and you will have proven my reasonning wrong.
Now, do the job or stop saying that I'm wrong.
I don’t need to continue reading it if I find a mistake in the first pillar already.
Simple logic.
Let's take as an example a theory that Oda might have changed the path of the character of Carrot at the last minute (meaning at the beginning of Wano).. well, in this case, my conclusion would indeed be wrong, but my reasonning being that Carrot was constructed like a strawhat and that she was therefore predictible as a potential strawhat would still holds.
This is the magic of logic.
Yes, this is counter intuitive, but despite having a wrong conclusion, my reasonning still holds its ground in face of a potential prediction of a new strawhat.
Nice, you tricked me. There is indeed no "statistic". its just basic sceptical reasonning mate.
No, the problem is that you prefer complotism mindset over rationnal reasonning.
That's the thing you don't understand. EVEN if it would come to the right conclusion, it would STILL be a bad reasonning. Simply because its not based on rationnal logic but on confirmation bias.
Sure
Hehe nah. No one on this forum has seen me angry.
I can be a little triggered at time but it only happens on very rare occasions.
I don't need to look into your head, reading the theory is enough to understand that it is only based on confirmation biases.
Indeed, I'm neutral on the question. I'm open to all possibilities.
Then might I suggest for you to look at real theories and not just the one that confirm your preexisting suppositions ?
Let's take as an example a theory that Oda might have changed the path of the character of Carrot at the last minute (meaning at the beginning of Wano).. well, in this case, my conclusion would indeed be wrong, but my reasonning being that Carrot was constructed like a strawhat and that she was therefore predictible as a potential strawhat would still holds.
This is the magic of logic.
Yes, this is counter intuitive, but despite having a wrong conclusion, my reasonning still holds its ground in face of a potential prediction of a new strawhat.
Nice, you tricked me. There is indeed no "statistic". its just basic sceptical reasonning mate.
No, the problem is that you prefer complotism mindset over rationnal reasonning.
That's the thing you don't understand. EVEN if it would come to the right conclusion, it would STILL be a bad reasonning. Simply because its not based on rationnal logic but on confirmation bias.
Sure
Hehe nah. No one on this forum has seen me angry.
I can be a little triggered at time but it only happens on very rare occasions.
I don't need to look into your head, reading the theory is enough to understand that it is only based on confirmation biases.
Indeed, I'm neutral on the question. I'm open to all possibilities.
Then might I suggest for you to look at real theories and not just the one that confirm your preexisting suppositions ?
1. All the strawhats have specific parameters of construction in common we can see that through a deep analysis of the story
2. I counted 10 foundamental construction parameters that all the strawhats are sharing
3. I sorted those 10 parameter by order of importance and gave them a % as a result.
4. We can see that Carrot much like Vivi is depicting a lot of those parameter.
5. Their result is superior to 70%
So Carrot and Vivi are mainly constructed like strawhats.
2. I counted 10 foundamental construction parameters that all the strawhats are sharing
3. I sorted those 10 parameter by order of importance and gave them a % as a result.
4. We can see that Carrot much like Vivi is depicting a lot of those parameter.
5. Their result is superior to 70%
So Carrot and Vivi are mainly constructed like strawhats.
Last edited:
Someone keep track how many pages it's been that we've discussing the same argument with Logiko.
The bonney train is going to come and go purely becayse of that.
The bonney train is going to come and go purely becayse of that.
