Misinterpretations/Failure to comprehend clearlyLet's start with one of the biggest mistranslations you make (and continue to use) throughout this discussion.
I state:
It is in their character to remark about how large Ichigo's reiatsu is because they are comparing it to their own and what they have witnessed thus far. Most of them are humans (or humans with special power) who have not encountered such large reiatsu involved with captains or espada.
You state:
Wrong, NON of the shinigami are humans except for Ichigo, whom is a "substitute shinigami", because he IS human. Shinigami were at one time humans, but not anymore. That is why shinigami and humans live in 2 different realms or "worlds". Also "most"? Most of the characters are shinigami.
Please do understand that when I state "most of them are humans"
I am specifically referring to Ichigo's friends and the comments they make about him during the first 50 or so chapters and in the SS arc. I am
NOT referring to any shinigami in this remark. What's worse is I even explained this here by referencing several humans that have commented on Ichigo's reiatsu:
Ishida (actually the person most proficient at sensing reiatsu) is not a shinigami.
Inoue is not a shinigami.
Chad is not a shinigami.
At no point did I assert that shinigami and humans are equivalent. In fact, you should have noticed this when I explicitly followed through with the previous comment, stating:
Those who have mentioned his power:
Rukia: low ranking, low reiatsu-type shinigami
Renji: lieutenant who is more head strong than anything
Kenpachi: he can't even sense reiatsu
Kisuke: Ichigo's instructor; you should expect remarks about his student's reiatsu
Yoruichi: Also expected as she oversaw his bankai training
Please note that ALL of these characters mentioned are shinigami. You should have been able to understand and comprehend that the subject of this sentence "Those who have mentioned his power" refers to shinigami and this separation was added to separate the humans from the shinigami characters. Ergo, your entire assumption between whether I know the difference between what a shinigami and human character is, is not only riddled with fallacious content but pretty much dents one of the major points of your rebuttal(s).
Continuing on...
Now, referring to your "point", that was just an opinion and nothing more. Like I said, to me it seems that you are just terribly bothered, that characters weren't running around screaming "Hey, Ichi has twice the strength of a captain", even though you, yourself have even said that several characters have commented on his power as well as strength . What's so hard to comprehend that this is a developing story and if any of the characters that you keep insisting should have known AND said something, actually did say something; I think that would have been basically just a HUGE SPOILER and isn't this story predictable enough? LOL!
Again, you use straw man to take my comments out of context. Please do not put words in my mouth. I acknowledged that people have made comments regarding Ichigo's reiatsu
in respect to their own as a form of self-comparison. Particularly, I focused on the
humans[/u] who have done so and explained that most of the captains have only classified his reiatsu as 'captain-level' and nothing special that would indicate it was
twice a captain's reiatsu
which is the entire point of my post which you have seemingly failed to pick up on for 5+ rebuttals.
Anyways, i thought it would be fun to respond seriously to a couple of your fallacies for sport.
Before I do so, though, I'd like to enlighten you in regards to my analysis and debating style. I often use devil's advocate to probe the specifics of a certain point. In other words, I am able to look at a debate from
both angles...you know, something you should have been able to do at an early point in your college education. That is the difference between biased and unbiased points of view. I am able to do it in such a fashion that most people perceive that my opinion on subject x is so strong that I would never think about opinion y presented by another person (or as seen as the opposite of subject x). In reality, I could have written my first post in terms of Kubo's ability to focus on the larger picture which is the reason why most of his work is so interesting.
So I'm aware you probably do not understand what that means. Simply put: when I write such a biased and opinionated analysis (like I have done so in this post), I
automatically know the correct rebuttal to that point. You have yet to even come close to said appropriate rebuttal in any of your posts. :\ The sad aspect is that I have even shown hints of my ability to play devil's advocate:
Either all of the other characters are just dense: incapable of analyzing reiatsu properly. Or Ichigo just doubled his power outside of his hollow mask/body form, putting him on par with Aizen (assumed from what Unohana states).
You could also argue that Ichigo defeated two captains as well, therefore it would make sense in an abstract fashion (let's face it...his fight between Kenpachi and Byakuya was much more elongated than Aizen's two fights).
So either Ichigo's full transformation (and reversion) either gave him an incredible amount of power to his normal form or Kubo is pulling the wool over our eyes yet again.
Simply put: over-analyzing manga does not often work
But, I do enjoy Bleach and Naruto because they offer so much more in terms of storyline. The anime offers up music. The manga offers up artistic drawings. But there is no harm in analyzing something I enjoy.
This post's main reason was to get people thinking about Kubo and how he writes.
I continue to watch because I enjoy the interaction between the secondary protagonists and their personal lives and mantras. I love the music as well. Anime is not all about plot/storyline after all. And let's not forget that there isn't much anime out there that catches my interest like the first 120 episodes of Bleach did.
All of these quotes demonstrate (and even GIVE you the material required to formulate an appropriate rebuttal) that I am playing devil's advocate. The bolded one should probably be given the most attention and I'll explain that towards the end.
Now for the fun!
YES you FAILED to make a point and I DID read your posts, maybe it is just a habit of yours to comment without reading. You only gave an unsubtantiated opinion, with support based upon only your own personal subjective observations and interpertations.
You did not read my posts, clearly. Maybe it's just a habit of yours to comment without reading? I can definitely see that being the case seeing how you cannot even refer to the characters by their proper names let alone analyze one of my rebuttals properly.
Also, stop making pathetic attempts at knowledge or wisdom, with really sad, pseudo intellectual analogies, refering to pathetic literary references, that have no true merit or worth in this discussion, especially with what you just posted last, which was half or more just a "straw man fallacy"
First, please look up the definition of straw man fallacy because you do not understand it. I provided a link to 42 popular fallacies at the beginning of this post. Second, please do not contradict yourself (yet again):
Like I said, that's my personal opinion, but I do have three Graduate Degrees, so I'm pretty sure my opinion, does have some weight.
Lastly, please don't get into art with me. My father was proffessor of sculpture and painting at the University of Vienna and the Art Institute of Chicago. True "Postmodern art", is just the mindless drivel of untalented, drugged up kids and/or college students or just mental patients. Try to impress someone else with that trash. Also, animated drawings have been around since at least the Roman Empire and one of the first Anime came out in 1912 or 1917, thus it predated "postmodern" by quite a bit. So whom ever told you or said that it was to be categorized as "Postmodern Art" was an uneducated and uncultured idiot or was just an ignorant ass trying to get more people interested in a completly worthless, wannabe "Art".
by bringing irrelevant crap into this discussion (you know, like you claimed I have done). My father is a retired detective and my mother still works as an oncologist. That must mean I'm an expert when it comes to solving homicides and determining whether someone has a cancerous or benign tumor. Irrelevant and fallacious much?
Please note the bolded part. You clearly do not understand what art is. You should have paid more attention when taking such lowly electives like humanities. You also probably should have paid attention to writing argumentative-style papers in English or, at the very least, listened when your professor discussed fallacies (which really should have been done in high school).
Now let me tell you what art is. Art's essence is in the eye of the beholder. You do not accept PMA. That's fine. That's your opinion.
Art IS opinion. But by stating that you do not believe in PMA, you suggest that you believe that we are not in the era of PMA but rather in the era of modernism still. If that be the case, please read up on Benjamin:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htmSince I know you won't (because I'm pretty sure your level of reading comprehension is not sufficient to comprehend most of the ideology in his essay), let's just state that you have no idea as to what any work of art entails. Simply put, you are yet another Senator Jesse Helms:
http://www.bigredandshiny.com/ourdailyred/posts/2008-07/images/2008-07-07-162010-1823587-1.jpgI'm also pretty sure you won't understand the pun as it relates to you in that piece. :|
Next, I don't mean to offend, but I and most other people with higher levels of education, think not all, but most "humanities" classes, are nothing, but worthless filler or "elective courses" with no academic value nor even any real significance/worth; thus your reference to that does not impress me and just FAILS, to even be taken into consideration. They are basically just a bunch of insignificant opinions about people, more or less, mindless Political Science or Social Studies and some sad attempts at Philosophy. As for what I think about or consider the "fuss" related to "post modern", also called "contemporary art" (trash Tongue), as well as refering to one of your earlier posts, is this:
Sorry but you are not in a higher level of education. From the looks of it, you have barely stepped out of high school. Proof? I'm a math major yet I am still able to retain knowledge from these lowly elective classes that have nothing to do with my major.
Your first error? You dismiss the academic value of these lowly elective classes even though you clearly have not taken anything away from them (assuming you have even taken them to begin with). You attempt to put on a straight face when discussing art yet you say there is no merit in a class that discusses art. This implies that you really are speaking out of your rear when discussing anything related to art at a scholarly level. Therefore, you must be using your own opinions to come up with a definition for what you believe art to be. Perhaps your father can help you better understand what I just said in terms of art.
Second, you reference psychiatry here:
with unsubstantiated OPINIONS about the current state of society and/or most likely couldn't actually teach a real class like Sociology, Psychology nor Psychiatry,
Do you understand what psychiatry is? I don't think you do because if you did you surely would not have classified it with psychology and sociology.
Now for the irony: psychology and sociology are actually very interesting subjects and
correlate quite closely to the humanities[/u]: said to be 'sister' sciences. Perhaps you do not understand anything about art because you also do not understand anything about psychology or sociology?
What I'm sayng is, the "analyzing", you are referring to is just wasting time and trying to feel important, done by completely insignificant nobodies in worthless places, like "humanities courses". So obviously you DID miss and DIDN'T "get" my "point",
Your 'point' is so riddled with fallacies and illogical remarks/contradictions that I doubt anyone is able to understand it clearly.
NOT to be analysed to "death", by some fan/fans and especially not by some self important jackass, whom wanted to write some worthless book, with unsubstantiated OPINIONS about the current state of society and/or most likely couldn't actually teach a real class like Sociology, Psychology nor Psychiatry, because almost ALL the "analyzing" you are talking about attempts in a FAIL sort of way to delve into the minds of people and just gives pointless opinions that they most certainly don't have the credentials nor education to support. Just because it does happen, does by no means justify it, nor does it mean that it should be done, but if that's your personal cup of tea, then go right ahead and drink. I on the other hand use it ONLY for ENTERTAINMENT, without the need for some kind of Sociocultural analysis, nor to qualm my insecurities, by criticising. While drinking that particular tea though, don't try to rationalize it to me by saying, "well its done in 'humanities' class. . .", because that is a Lemming's excuse, "well everybody else was jumping off the cliff, I figured I'd do it too."; that's nothing but a pathetic excuse, plain, simple and no "fallacy" involved.
This is where your true colors show, though. If you knew what art is you would know that art is always subjected to opinions by anyone who views it, ESPECIALLY true for 'visual arts' (correct terms being video art, performance art, installation, cinematography, and so forth). Let's break it down:
NOT to be analysed to "death", by some fan/fans and especially not by some self important jackass, whom wanted to write some worthless book, with unsubstantiated OPINIONS about the current state of society and/or most likely couldn't actually teach a real class like Sociology, Psychology nor Psychiatry, because almost ALL the "analyzing" you are talking about attempts in a FAIL sort of way to delve into the minds of people and just gives pointless opinions that they most certainly don't have the credentials nor education to support.
And you do have the credentials?

That's very humorous. Like I've pointed out, you would not group sociology and psychology (social sciences) into psychiatry (something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about). In other words, you brought up psychiatry in an attempt
at knowledge or wisdom, with really sad, pseudo intellectual analogies, refering to pathetic literary references, that have no true merit or worth in this discussion, especially with what you just posted last, which was half or more just a "straw man fallacy.
It sucks when your own words can be used against you doesn't it? Psychiatry is linked to medicine (most notably prescribing medications to patients with a variety of mental disorders). It has no place in a discussion involving social sciences, humanities, and art.
I on the other hand use it ONLY for ENTERTAINMENT, without the need for some kind of Sociocultural analysis, nor to qualm my insecurities, by criticising.
Great. Too bad it is more than just entertainment. So what you just stated was that you are too lazy (or lack the knowledge) to understand what makes manga and anime so entertaining. Anime, for instance, is based off of film. Film can be analyzed in terms of editing, mise-en-scene, and montage. Manga is more related to pop art.
Like I said, that's my personal opinion, but I do have three Graduate Degrees, so I'm pretty sure my opinion, does have some weight.
Here you try to wave your graduate degree in interior design like it means anything. You've just proven that the education system often fails many individuals. Your opinion is nothing more than your opinion just like mine. It has no more or less weight. But when you try to debate about facts in regards to social sciences or humanities, that is not your opinion. That is your uneducated sense of self stating what you believe is correct as opposed to what is actually correct. The difference is that the latter actually has credentials and a few hundred years worth of research under its belt to substantiate its opinion as widely accepted fact where you have nothing but steam.