General & Others Next Strawhat Crew Members and the Grand Fleet
- Thread starter Guan Yu
- Start date
- Tags #carrot4prison #furries4carrot #larrot #yamato4nakama #yamatofansunite #yamatoisnakama carrot blows cry about carrot furries for nakama furries scurries i need my support carrot body pillow oni princess and the pirate king this thread stupid we're here for jew vs dizzy who wants rabbit stew yamato > carrot yamato best girl yamato finds the one piece yamato hype yamato is the last crew mate
- Status
I’m sorry story telling analysis is not proof. Because you can analyze it wrongly. Facts are proof.
That is why we have so much discussions. All of us have analyzed the story and come to different conclusions. Story telling analysis can me influenced by biases. I’m biased against Carrot, don’t want to her to join and biased towards Yamato and want her to join.
But you are biased that everything that happens to you is proof that 🥕 will join.
That is why we have so much discussions. All of us have analyzed the story and come to different conclusions. Story telling analysis can me influenced by biases. I’m biased against Carrot, don’t want to her to join and biased towards Yamato and want her to join.
But you are biased that everything that happens to you is proof that 🥕 will join.
THere is only one fact in One Piece, and it is the story.. So you are right to take me back on this. I shouldn't talk about proof, I should talk about the most "accurate analysis possible"
You guyz are not analysing the story. You are taking made up rules and try to make you vision of the story concure with those rules.
In reality, the story doesn't work that way.
And that's what I was talking about when I explained this:
You guyz are not functionning rationnally.
Why do you think I created all those concepts and tools to analyse the story ?
Because my vision of the story, in other word: the theory, wasn't in adequation with reality. With the old rules, Carrot shouldn't have been portrayed like that, according to those rules, CArrot should already have a backstory by now, according to those ancient rules, Carrot should have had a talk with Luffy..
.. but this never happened.. When there was everything else. And this was therefore a unique situation. Carrot wasn't constructed like any character, she was out of ALL the boxes created by Oda. We had here a unexplained reality and rules that didn't apply to explain it. Just like a geocentric model couldn't explain the movement of certain planets... the ancient rules can't explain some weird and recent event in the story.
That's why I went deeper. That's why I deconstructed those rules. That's why I can now say that a backstory is not a necessity anymore.
Everything I'm analysing, points to Carrot, but it doesn't mean that everything is pointing to her. Like I said, there is still a tiny little chances that Oda will make a complete twist out of her.
But I've analysed all the possible outcomes:
Coming back to Zou would neglect Carrot's characterization
Sailing the see alone would neglect the fact that she was never introduced as a leader
Being killed would only confirm the myth and a ressurection
Being captured would send the strawhat toward her and make her come anyway
Staying in Wano wouldn't make sence as Carrotwas never shown being amazed by the island
Sailing with the fleet is impossible as the fleet won't grow
All of those are pointing to nothingness, a narrative void, a narrative nonsence.
Only 1 way made perfect sence.
You guyz are not analysing the story. You are taking made up rules and try to make you vision of the story concure with those rules.
In reality, the story doesn't work that way.
And that's what I was talking about when I explained this:
You guyz are not functionning rationnally.
Why do you think I created all those concepts and tools to analyse the story ?
Because my vision of the story, in other word: the theory, wasn't in adequation with reality. With the old rules, Carrot shouldn't have been portrayed like that, according to those rules, CArrot should already have a backstory by now, according to those ancient rules, Carrot should have had a talk with Luffy..
.. but this never happened.. When there was everything else. And this was therefore a unique situation. Carrot wasn't constructed like any character, she was out of ALL the boxes created by Oda. We had here a unexplained reality and rules that didn't apply to explain it. Just like a geocentric model couldn't explain the movement of certain planets... the ancient rules can't explain some weird and recent event in the story.
That's why I went deeper. That's why I deconstructed those rules. That's why I can now say that a backstory is not a necessity anymore.
Everything I'm analysing, points to Carrot, but it doesn't mean that everything is pointing to her. Like I said, there is still a tiny little chances that Oda will make a complete twist out of her.
But I've analysed all the possible outcomes:
Coming back to Zou would neglect Carrot's characterization
Sailing the see alone would neglect the fact that she was never introduced as a leader
Being killed would only confirm the myth and a ressurection
Being captured would send the strawhat toward her and make her come anyway
Staying in Wano wouldn't make sence as Carrotwas never shown being amazed by the island
Sailing with the fleet is impossible as the fleet won't grow
All of those are pointing to nothingness, a narrative void, a narrative nonsence.
Only 1 way made perfect sence.
Last edited:
THere is only one fact in One Piece, and it is the story.. So you are right to take me back on this. I shouldn't talk about proof, I should talk about the most "accurate analysis possible"
You guyz are not analysing the story. You are taking made up rules and try to make you vision of the story concure with those rules.
In reality, the story doesn't work that way.
And that's what I was talking about when I explained this:
You guyz are not functionning rationnally.
Why do you think I created all those concepts and tools to analyse the story ?
Because my vision of the story, in other word: the theory, wasn't in adequation with reality. With the old rules, Carrot shouldn't have been portrayed like that, according to those rules, CArrot should already have a backstory by now, according to those ancient rules, Carrot should have had a talk with Luffy..
.. but this never happened.. When there was everything else. And this was therefore a unique situation. Carrot wasn't constructed like any character, she was out of ALL the boxes created by Oda. We had here a unexplained reality and rules that didn't apply to explain it. Just like a geocentric model couldn't explain the movement of certain planets... the ancient rules can't explain some weird and recent event in the story.
That's why I went deeper. That's why I deconstructed those rules. That's why I can now say that a backstory is not a necessity anymore.
Everything I'm analysing, points to Carrot, but it doesn't mean that everything is pointing to her. Like I said, there is still a tiny little chances that Oda will make a complete twist out of her.
But I've analysed all the possible outcomes:
Coming back to Zou would neglect Carrot's characterization
Sailing the see alone would neglect the fact that she was never introduced as a leader
Being killed would only confirm the myth and a ressurection
Being captured would send the strawhat toward her and make her come anyway
Staying in Wano wouldn't make sence as Carrotwas never shown being amazed by the island
Sailing with the fleet is impossible as the fleet won't grow
All of those are pointing to nothingness, a narrative void, a narrative nonsence.
Only 1 way made perfect sence.
You guyz are not analysing the story. You are taking made up rules and try to make you vision of the story concure with those rules.
In reality, the story doesn't work that way.
And that's what I was talking about when I explained this:
You guyz are not functionning rationnally.
Why do you think I created all those concepts and tools to analyse the story ?
Because my vision of the story, in other word: the theory, wasn't in adequation with reality. With the old rules, Carrot shouldn't have been portrayed like that, according to those rules, CArrot should already have a backstory by now, according to those ancient rules, Carrot should have had a talk with Luffy..
.. but this never happened.. When there was everything else. And this was therefore a unique situation. Carrot wasn't constructed like any character, she was out of ALL the boxes created by Oda. We had here a unexplained reality and rules that didn't apply to explain it. Just like a geocentric model couldn't explain the movement of certain planets... the ancient rules can't explain some weird and recent event in the story.
That's why I went deeper. That's why I deconstructed those rules. That's why I can now say that a backstory is not a necessity anymore.
Everything I'm analysing, points to Carrot, but it doesn't mean that everything is pointing to her. Like I said, there is still a tiny little chances that Oda will make a complete twist out of her.
But I've analysed all the possible outcomes:
Coming back to Zou would neglect Carrot's characterization
Sailing the see alone would neglect the fact that she was never introduced as a leader
Being killed would only confirm the myth and a ressurection
Being captured would send the strawhat toward her and make her come anyway
Staying in Wano wouldn't make sence as Carrotwas never shown being amazed by the island
Sailing with the fleet is impossible as the fleet won't grow
All of those are pointing to nothingness, a narrative void, a narrative nonsence.
Only 1 way made perfect sence.
I don't know maybe to manipulate manga evidences your way?..
You're the definition of biased you can't even acknowledge that Carrot thanked Daifuku herself for helping her destroy his own fleet..
Dude you think Pedro really tried to fight Perospero when he just had a monologue about having the feeling that this was his final voyage and the ship being trapped in candy..
Using your argument against you, to compare Carrot and Robin's relevancy it has to be prior Robin joining the crew somehow, yet for your shining Nakama action rule its fine to employ parallels with strawhats way after they joined such as Nami saving the crew from a cyclone when she was sick and Carrot going Sulong are on equal standing apparently..
You're the definition of biased you can't even acknowledge that Carrot thanked Daifuku herself for helping her destroy his own fleet..
Dude you think Pedro really tried to fight Perospero when he just had a monologue about having the feeling that this was his final voyage and the ship being trapped in candy..
Using your argument against you, to compare Carrot and Robin's relevancy it has to be prior Robin joining the crew somehow, yet for your shining Nakama action rule its fine to employ parallels with strawhats way after they joined such as Nami saving the crew from a cyclone when she was sick and Carrot going Sulong are on equal standing apparently..
What you are saying makes no sense
For starter:
Why do you think scientists can sometimes proves to themself that they are wrong ? Because they are smart ?
No.
Because their method are reliable.
Method =/= Personnal mindset
Post automatically merged:
Where did you see that I can't acknowledge that ? Do you have a quote or are you inventing again ?
That doesn't mean he didn't try to beat him
Only the comparison of the revelancy of the character as to be taken into account prior to them joining. There is no rules concerning the "Shining Nakama action" sometimes it's done before they join (Franky/Sanji/Zoro/Chopper) sometimes it's not. It doesn't matter with that parameters as it's not about "when" it's about "how".
You are confusing two completely different parameter.
Last edited:
For starter:
Why do you think scientists can sometimes proves to themself that they are wrong ? Because they are smart ?
No.
Because their method are reliable.
Method =/= Personnal mindset
Post automatically merged:
Where did you see that I can't acknowledge that ? Do you have a quote or are you inventing again ?
That doesn't mean he didn't try to beat him
Only the comparison of the revelancy of the character as to be taken into account prior to them joining. There is no rules concerning the "Shining Nakama action" sometimes it's done before they join (Franky/Sanji/Zoro/Chopper) sometimes it's not. It doesn't matter with that parameters as it's not about "when" it's about "how".
You are confusing two completely different parameter.
the math points towards it being true. Yet it is still a theory.
You had to creat writing stiles, neologisms, categorize those words so that you can make sense of your bias.
Just because you create a word and categorize it doesn’t make it true. It needs to be approved first by some institution and experts of that field.
The facts are as followed:
Yamato has been from the moment she has been introduced extremely relevant. To the point only strawhats are relevant, she fulfills a lot of the criteria to become a strawhat. Which I will not list again.
And than there is also a feel, from the moment a character appears he gives of a vibe.
The vibe that he will be important to the story
The vibe that he is just a side character
The vibe that he is an antagonist
Yamato gives strawhat crew member vibes
Carrot gives please don’t waste time on here vibes
This is why I'm not talking about proof anymore but "the best analysis possible". In short, the best theory possible. The same way a cosmological theory can sometimes only approach reality by numbers.
That's what I'm doing here. My knowledge is the science, the narrative reasonning are the numbers. Simple as that.
The same way, the story elements points toward Carrot joining the strawhat.
The same way some have to create theorems, functions, experimentations. Neologisms are just words. What those words are describing is real. I'm only doing something NO ONE did until now. It's not about bias, it's about process. And I already proved that I had no bias in my process. If you want me to copy paste the entire post I made yesterday to do that, I can, but I'm not sure that you read it the first time so I won't bet on a second.
I'm a expert in the field, and right now, I'm the ONLY expert in the field that CARED to dive deeper in the analysis of the storytelling One Piece. So trust, me, you won't find no reliable consensus on the subject. Plus, the actual "consensus" is like the church defending the Geocentricmodel in front of Gallileo.. IT's not rationnal, it's a cult as I explained here:
So you will excuse me if I don't find the actual consensus reliable on a rationnal and narrative level.
Wrong. SHe has been relevant to the point of an arc character is relevant : Rebecca / Kyros / Shiraoshi / Vivi / Wiper etc..
This is not "to the point of the strawhat", if that was the case, Yamato would have some strong strawhats qualities : A post, a strong dynamic with the crew. This is not the reality of the story
Only to you and some members here. I can assure you that a lot of people think the opposite. It's not a good argument.
There is. In fact I would go as far as saying that the Shining Nakama action of Carrot is one of the strongest exemple of this principle as it is one of the longest.
That's what I'm doing here. My knowledge is the science, the narrative reasonning are the numbers. Simple as that.
The same way, the story elements points toward Carrot joining the strawhat.
The same way some have to create theorems, functions, experimentations. Neologisms are just words. What those words are describing is real. I'm only doing something NO ONE did until now. It's not about bias, it's about process. And I already proved that I had no bias in my process. If you want me to copy paste the entire post I made yesterday to do that, I can, but I'm not sure that you read it the first time so I won't bet on a second.
I'm a expert in the field, and right now, I'm the ONLY expert in the field that CARED to dive deeper in the analysis of the storytelling One Piece. So trust, me, you won't find no reliable consensus on the subject. Plus, the actual "consensus" is like the church defending the Geocentricmodel in front of Gallileo.. IT's not rationnal, it's a cult as I explained here:
So you will excuse me if I don't find the actual consensus reliable on a rationnal and narrative level.
Wrong. SHe has been relevant to the point of an arc character is relevant : Rebecca / Kyros / Shiraoshi / Vivi / Wiper etc..
This is not "to the point of the strawhat", if that was the case, Yamato would have some strong strawhats qualities : A post, a strong dynamic with the crew. This is not the reality of the story
Only to you and some members here. I can assure you that a lot of people think the opposite. It's not a good argument.
There is. In fact I would go as far as saying that the Shining Nakama action of Carrot is one of the strongest exemple of this principle as it is one of the longest.
- Status