Quote:
Originally Posted by flein1337
death note has HUGE limits... if u can kill a building with it, why couldnt the guy prision go 2 france in 1 hour from japan?he just died in his cell from heart attack... because its IMPOSIBLE... 1: buildings dont have a "lifespan"... 2: buildings is NOT artificial life... 3: 2 day on the way home from work, i killed a rock
|
Unbelievable! *wears a face of mock surprise* What an eloquent response! Perhaps I should just concede the point then huh? If humans really are as limited as your response seems to indicate it's a wonder we got as far as using the deathnote on ourselves!
You know I've really tried to be broadminded and forgiving in attempting to understand this reponse but I've got to admit, it has me totally foxed. First off, it has completely unrelated arguments, next - it deals with anything but the actual point of discussion in the "debate", third - Even after it's broken incomplete arguments it still runs into the brick wall that we've been trying to surmount, and finally - It clearly indicates that the actual argument put forth in the response was based off an incomplete understanding of the debate in question.
I mean even apart from the fact that there have been atleast fifty thousand words in human readable language explaining that the entire problem of "buildings not having life" is based on human supposition, even explaining away the fact that buildings are not "artificial" life actually supports the argument that they might be "real" life, even explaining away that the "HUGE limitations" that have been so caretakingly amplified in the succinct quote have actually been attributed to humans and not the notebook, I still don't get what
"going to france from japan in 1 hour" has anything to do with the
"deathnotes have no limitations in killing only humans and might be able to kill other forms of life as well" discussion. The only way the argument even makes a remote shred of sense (in an astronomically loose interpretation of the term "sense" of course) is that if the contender assumed that the original argument implied the deathnote HAD NO LIMITATIONS AT ALL as opposed to HAD NO LIMITATIONS to killing buildings. Otherwise there seems no sane explanation of what teleportation has anything to do with the death of bulidings.
If anything, this sort of a supposition is more annoying than worrying. It only goes to show that the actual people attempting to sound halfway intelligent in this debate are misinformed of the facts and are putting in phrases of arguments that bear no connection whatsoever to the actual discussion in question. And given this denseness in thought for the view put forth it seems ridiculously inappropriate and in fact mortifying to see that a hint of sarcasm has crept into the post where syllogisms to killing rocks on the way home have been mentioned! If it's not sarcasm then the statement actually supports my theory of deathnotes being capable of killing "inanimate" objects so I'm completely unclear if not totally flummoxed on what the actual point of that last statement was. Having said all this, it seems only fair if I were to summarily reject the material of the post on the basis of misinterpretation and/or insanity. I therefore take this moment to aver that I abhor your asinine animadversions.
@Cooly - I've really come to a standstill on this. We're the only two people heatedly debating the possibilities of the DN and it's neither entertaining nor enlightening any of the original hardcore DN fans or the more recent admirers of this thread. My original hidden agenda was to drive Kanji-kun mad *mwahah! ^_^* but alas, he's proven too tough for my twisted words
So I'd like, at this juncture, to agree that we disagree about the limitations of deathnotes and have done with it. The last thing I need to look at is another post that mis-quotes statements and pouts irrelevant material spoiling a hitherto intellectual discussion.