| Hail to akito! and lads, i'm writing it |
| @Lelouchvibritmer to any Code geass fan, Hail the immortal fake Empror, lelouch!, but akito is still better LelouchviBritMER said: Give 1 example of a geass user geassing a code bearer who had no contact with each other. According to C.C, the point of the contract is to Give someone their most desired power in the form of Geass and in exchange, fulfilling the conditions of the contract by retaining the position of the contractor at the final stage of the Geass power, and stated that among all of whom she formed a contract with, none did, but charles did! in a side note: i should add that not making a contract risks the Geass power disappearing before adulthood, if un-used but doesn't prevents it from reaching a final stage like someone who made a contract would since ''shin'' another contract-less Geass user made by ????, a skull monster? had reached two Geass if that wasn't enough i'm not even gonna say charles/lelouch since you would start with *but it's an assumption* -----------just thing, ''ignoring it is optional and writing this just serves as a reminder'' note: awkwardly enough, C.C dismissed Mao even though he had two eyes as well when she mentioned her contracts/Charles being at the final stage of their Geass power yet another reason why character feats > statements ''in a case by case basis obviously!'' but feel free and head-canonize it with: because she loves Mao! and didn't want to! Phantomnocomics said: i'm not basing if off character statements, i'm basing if off feats, there is no Feat that says a Geass user cannot use their Geass in someone who they did not a contract with LelouchviBritMER said: That means nothing There is also no feat which shows that people can't kill code bearers if they first say "Kali Ma", and yet we can be 100% sure that this doesn't mean that saying "Kali Ma" kills code bearers. Wait what?. do you know how illogical your equivalence is ?, seriously, you should read what a false equivalence is and know what you write/think The Code bearers are IMMORTALS, they are Immune to ANY kind of damage no matter how the scale is, they will survive it Facepalm, ''a fuc*ing Sound won't break the most Nich crystal in the world'', let alone kill an immortal the other thing is, is that you are claiming that code bears can die from hearing certain things again, read what i wrote, they are immortals, a mental shock won't kill them, lad Phantomnocomics said: one being Charles code ability yet having geass LelouchviBritMER said: Give me 1 screenshot of Charles using his geass after he got the code. Without it we must accept his own words which say that he doesn't have a geass anymore. his memory-passage to Nunnally when he touched lelouch (only those with the code can do that). there you go Phantomnocomics said: and awkwardly enough, Charles used Geass twice in lelouch inbetween S1 and S2? LelouchviBritMER said: He does indeed. And that is completely irrelevant because only Lelouch's geass can be used only once per person. you don't get it?, do you?, let me think it for you then when Lelouch starts to restore his real memories and realize the fake memories, the ones about Jullies and his journey to Europa are absent and *all memories* were shown whether made up or not it is a plot hole and another reason why the feat of Julies memories not being there is more than enough evidence Phantomnocomics said: translation: the feat is not there but if it was important it would have been there, therefore the assumption is wrong you don't say? LelouchviBritMER said: Of course it is. If something is important for the audience to know, they will tell/show us in some way. For example, if Shirley had received the code in some way and survived her wound, the anime would have mentioned that at some point. They never mentioned it, so Shirley never got the code and died. *but if it were important* is still not an argument, come back when you create a real one Phantomnocomics said: , and the equivalent is false, the circumstance where lelouch Gets his Geass in has nothing to do with his Geass power, you can make someone falling off the sky get a Geass and it would still not matter, LelouchviBritMER said: That's my entire point! It has nothing to do with his geass power. And how do we know this? because the anime never mentions it as something that does matter. After all, it could have been, for example in Madoka Magica your powers depend on external circumstances. But not so in Code Geass because it was never mentioned that it was. If something is never mentioned in a any way, it is not something that matters. Getting code and geass from different people was also never mentioned, therefore it doesn't matter, and therefore the assumption that it does matter is false. did you even bother to read what i wrote? the place/circumstance of where a contract is made does not matter since the Geass power is determined by the most desired power of the person given the power, the contract is but a condition for that power and prevents it from disappearing. since Geass without contracts disappear if un-used and unconditional < that's the point of the contract the condition, being to retain the position of the contractor by the Geass user obtaining the power in the final stage of Geass. < where one obtains the power to kill a code user whether contracted or not Madoca magica =/= Code Geass < different shows, heck, even I didn't compare DB with code geass like this when you scolded me, only made a death of author/author comparison talk about double hypocrisy Phantomnocomics said: this is what C.C said to lelouch, it is what the power the person desired the most is what is given to in exchange of fulfilling the contract LelouchviBritMER said: You prove my point. You quoted the show, and thus pointed out that it mattered. if it matters it is mentioned thus, if it isn't mentioned it doesn't matter. watch out lad, you said it *proves my point* ''when it doesn't'' 3 times in a row,lad, one more and i'm calling it No, i didn't quote a *show*, i quoted a character statement nor am i entitled to quoting a character in a copy-pasta fashion nor does it matter whether it is a copy pasta fashion or not, or whether said quote is based of a character statement or a feat as long as it originate from the show ''debunked'' [quote=LelouchviBritMER message=56283678] You prove my point again. Marianne's geass is is have her soul enter the body of somebody else a,d control it (when she wishes). That's all it does. If Marianne had used her geass on C.C., she would be in C.C.'s body and not in Anya's anymore. That would have made Anya collapse, like she did later on when Marianna's soul left. And yet, Anya was still standing there, with Marianne inside fuc*ing called it, that's it, yet another fallacy, non sequitur no less --------------------- No, that's a misinterpretation of it The literal translation of her power is that Raw: she can cross to other people hearts as said in Japanese Dub: she can cross to other people minds as said in Dub but the heart >< mind is used to as a symptom. so i don't mind it. We only say Soul because her *body* materialize physically in the Worlds of M/C where only there can she attain her original form < Marianne had C.C use her code in her to enter the world of C. since she wanted to enter as her self instead of Anya, otherwise, She could have went with suzuki and C.C while in the world of memories, it was SHE who entered it Through C.C since she had her code sealed When Marianne goes there, she ignores the C.C that exists in all times and heads straight for the one that exits there when she seals her code < who is the memories of C.C when the world of memories start to break we see that C.C from the M world is standing just like the one in the actual world, even though they were not at the start this means that once C.C restores her memories, her code surfaces again, and the world of memories starts to shutter like we saw since that was why she was there ------ Your equivalence: if she transferred herself to the mind/brain of C.C she wouldn't have been in the world of memories? < ridiculous!, not only did you ignore what i have been saying, but also ignored the show this :The Idea of the World of memories/C being separate from the brain/mind of C.C is simply false since it's canon confirmed that they are linked while for the other, Anya collapsed not because Marianne went to the world of C but because C.C used her code in her/Geass making marianne goes as her self instead of as Anya Marianne stated that she can only restore her original form when she is within the system in the world of C which is linked to the world of memories and just like how she went to the world of C. she did the same for the world of memories, *restoring her original form*, so it's optional that when she goes to the world of memories, whether to restore her original form or not The soul/mind/self are all symptoms that are used instead of saying heart/oneself, so keep that in *mind* Kokoro literal translation is heart for the reference and in a side note, you forget that this is her *second time* going to the world of memories to restore C.C memories and unseal her code, when she was killed, she stated that she was communicating with C.C before she left so her code was unsealed by then, and once she left she never returned that they had to use lelouch to lure her in C.C was in Europa ''Leila'' and china ''mao'' before coming to japan ''lelouch'' Marianne only stated that her power was dormant for so long, this can mean that her power hasn't been used for a long time which makes sense, since she quit being a Knight once she became an empress, ''Emperor's wife'', and This means that it does not matter whether she goes there as anya or marianne herself, she just can go there LelouchviBritMER said: Provide proof, show a screenshot where that is said. Everyone has their memories inside themselves. No, a Memory is a not an a Self Insider http://www.human-memory.net/brain_neurons.html study neuroscience < lad what is known as neuron, or nerve cell ''brain cells'', are made up of a ''Soma'', a bulbous cell's body that contains/has the nucleus,a ''dendrites'', a long feathery filaments attached to the cell's body,and a Single ''Axon'', a Long branched filament. each neuron maintains a voltage Gradiant with a certain amount that varies from one to an other, when the voltage amount change, an Electro-chemical pulse called a nerve impulse gets generated and travels in the axon, and then transfers to the other neuron through a Synapse, a gap between the membrane of the neurons used to transmit signals, and since an axon contains membranes that are vesicles that contain thousands of neurotransmitters, neurotransmitters are chemical messengers that relay, amplify, modulate, the signals between the neurons, when they are stimulated by an Electrical pulse or nerve impulse, neurotransmitters are released, and they cross the cell membrane into the synaptic gap, between the neurons, those chemicals then bind to the chemical receptors, in the dendrites, of the receiving ''post the sypatic'' neuron, which opens up special gates where the flood of the charged particles enter which affect the potential charge of the receiving neuron, this way, a message within the brain is converted, as it moves from one neuron to another, from an electrical signal, to a chemical signal, and back again, an on going chain of events which is the basis of the brain activity this Complicated process include the commonly confusing concept *memories/memory* which is a part of the brain activity < welcome to what a memory is lesson the World of memories However is a Physical ''lelouch'' place that exists in all times, past, present, and future that is related to the world of C. this should goes without saying, but i just *hard debunked* you Phantomnocomics said: ironically enough, it does the opposite for me, if the code user is not the one who you formed a contract with and if the code is sealed LelouchviBritMER said: Marianne DID form a contract with C.C., not with V.V.! so if you were right, that means the only possibility of how Marianne could have been there before is if C.C. had sealed her code before and that has never happened before. Therefore, your assumption cannot be true. don't half quote to mislead, it's annoying and pathetic here is the whole quote ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ironically enough, it does the opposite for me, if the code user is not the one who you formed a contract with and if the code is sealed and marianne said what are you doing, closing up yourself again in this place?. and the only time where C.C was seen in that place is when she sealed her code, so . . . . the only logical explanation is that C.C sealed her code once before Marianne was killed. as C.C in the world of memories, the one that exist in all times i suppose was ignored by marianne and marianne went for the actual C.C, someone who can only be there when the code is sealed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- whether incidentally or intentionally, you made the implication that i stated marianne formed a contract with V.V, the quote above debunks that, refrain from doing that again i'm gonna pretend your actual response started at IF it did not happen in the show in-screen since the show does not cover the time of the actual event events being off-screens are not a reason for them to be wrong therefore, your argument is debunked Phantomnocomics said: and marianne said what are you doing, closing up yourself again in this place?. and the only time where C.C was seen in that place is when she sealed her code, so . . . . LelouchviBritMER said: So... you have proven yourself wrong. Marianna says that being there has happened before, and C.C. has never sealed her code before. Therefore sealing the code has nothing to do with it. 5th time < fuc*ing kill me with the non sequitur fallacy, lad and no, this was already debunked but to debunk it even more, Marianne went there once before to restore her memories since the C.C in that place can only be there when she is sealing her code and sealing her code leads to her memories being lost the event happened before marianne was killed, it being *off-screen* is not reason for it to be wrong Phantomnocomics said: the only logical explanation is that C.C sealed her code once before Marianne was killed. LelouchviBritMER said: Really now? Are you taking that route? The rules for codes have exceptions, the anime never mentions this, but they do exist. C.C. has sealed her co before, the anime never mentions this, but it happened. Don't you see that you're making up a whole lot of stuff the anime never shows us just to support your assumptions? i'm gonna just gonna pretend you started your actual response at the. who is the *anime*? who are you referencing exactly?, the characters?, because as far i know, marianne is a character in the show, and she made the statement it being a reference of a feat the feat being off-screen is not a reason it to be wrong therefore your argument which opposite this idea is *WRONG* Phantomnocomics said: Yes, he can talk in the matter they agreed/confirmed in, but talk as a DIRECTOR?. no LelouchviBritMER said: If I tell you that the world is round. Then you can tell others in my name that the world is round. no, i won't, because why would I, that's dumb? the World/planet is not round. geometrically speaking, 21th century and people still believe those stuff < Phantomnocomics said: if the director says something or confirmed something then that's that, what's Important is the director and finally, you agreed to it, if some Producer said the director stated once that X is Y then this is the same for the writer and the director LelouchviBritMER said: i can't puzzle together what you're saying here. if it helps, you can just write everything in french je peux comprendre le français sans aucun problème mais je vais, quand même, répondre en anglais parce que c'est plus facile pour moi. Donc, écrit tout en français, ça ira pour moi. C'est drôle que je sois sur le site en anglais mais je trouve une personne qui veut que je parle français seul, et ai-je mentionné que tout le monde sera confus ? Je préférerais ne pas faire ça. that said, it doesn't matter who, if someone said director stated, then that's more than enough be it the producer or a writer, but always keep in mind that those are indirect sources LelouchviBritMER said: does not apply. death of the author cannot be invoked when the work directly contradicts the interpretation. Tolkien described the One Ring as a ring, you cannot use death of the Author to say that it wasn't a ring, but a smartphone instead. Code Geass makes it clear Lelouch can not have the code, therefore he doesn't. what was described is not what the death of author is about but ..... it seems i will have to explain what the death of author is Barthes's "The Death of the Author" is an attack on traditional literary criticism that focused too much on trying to retrace the author's intentions and original meaning in mind. Instead Barthes asks us to adopt a more text oriented approach that focuses on the interaction of the reader, not the writer, with it >and really?, using cross referencing again?, lad, you freaking scolded me for using DB author as a comparison or did you forget that? if there is no Presentation of the material's claims, then the claim can be interpreted > there is a RING, but how does the ring look?, feel?, what is it made of?, is it even a traditional ring?, is it a One made of Many?, One for who?, can it even be worn?, is it even an actual Ring?< nice false equivalence but no, i wouldn't use that equivalence of yours bu i would use the above stuff *X states Y is Impossible* < what an argument!, you sure showed me what the writer says after he writes is meaningless i have been debunking every response of yours up till now LelouchviBritMER said: not if it only lasts for a minute. that's just like a mere e slap on the wrists. hurts for a minute and then you're fine. Remember, Lelouch first plan for redemption was to "suffer for all eternity" in c's World with his father. A very temporary death doesn't compare to that. *a slap on the wrists* excuse you?, do you know fuc*ing wrong it is to say that to actual patients who suffered that? there are people who got disabilities/traumas from near death experiences, let alone literally dying for a while or being stabbed to it but your *mis-wording* aside, i'm gonna pretend your writing starts at remember, he wouldn't have had suffered since he would be aging that is if he can somehow survive in it without foods/water he would die just like any other person, if anything, *boredom* would be more of a legit reason from what you described, but then again, there is his pop to accompany him for the rest of his life if anyone was gonna suffer, it would have been *charles*< yet back again to the stuff, *temporary death/being stabbed to death* doesn't compare to *spend a lifetime with your pop in a magical place* ......fuc*ing kill with me a meteor lad, just watch out what you say about death, ok? Phantomnocomics said: .....i'm dead!, i fall off the chair reading this?, you know it is a *torturing tactic* to stop someone heart to leak out information out of someone, right? LelouchviBritMER said: That's not death. death is when the brain no longer shows any kind of activity. Thos people you mentioned were tortured, not killed. *that's called being brain dead and doesn't mean the patient is dead, it's something some people recover from https://kgov.com/brain-dead-patients-who-have-recovered *so...are you one of those people?*...*and you know what i'm talking about* --- and there are some super rare cases where somehow some people survived their brains/hearts being shut down *tortured by being killed* and they get killed, get revived, then die but point is, self torturing via death is a thing LelouchviBritMER said: Clearly not in the eyes of Lelouch, his original plan for redemption was not soemthing that last a minute, but an eternal state. If he were immortal, the only thing which would be eternal would be his boinking with C.C. and that's hardly a punishment. yet back again to the stuff, *temporary death/being stabbed to death* doesn't compare to *spend a lifetime with your pop in a magical place IF he can somehow find water/food* so no, clearly lelouch thought otherwise, being eternally alive/being stabbed to death are far greater punishments Phantomnocomics said: in a side note, charles pretty much confirmed that you can have more than one code LelouchviBritMER said: true. This doesn't say anything about having a code and a geass though, so this is irrelevant. a reminder that *Charles* was totally able to steal both C.C and V.V codes but .....meh plot more like a plot hole that is Phantomnocomics said: and awkwardly enough, C.C implied that she lelouch could have killed her with one eye.....i guess having two eyes is not even a requirement by now, just do the contract conditions lad or not if you didn't form a contract with a code user LelouchviBritMER said: Now you're saying you don't need 2 eyes? How much more will you fantasize? Besides, getting the code has nothing to do with "doing the contract". The contract between charles and V.V. was to "slay God" they never did that and yet Charles got the code. nice strawman, but in actual context, it's there *how much more will you fantasize* is not an argument i'm gonna pretend your response started at besides ---and awkwardly enough, C.C implied that she lelouch could have killed her with one eye.....i guess having two eyes is not even a requirement by now, just do the contract conditions lad or not if you didn't form a contract with a code user---- < actual quote even if a half one >false equivalence, since different conditions and neither did lelouch control the world by then contract-less Geass users exist and they are unconditioned C.C stated that whoever she granted him/her the power, will retain her position and the power to kill her the contract is more or less meaning by this point since she did both grant powers via contracts and no contracts say like Leila Phantomnocomics said: and he technically did accept death though, it just happens that it wasn't a permanent kind of death in this context LelouchviBritMER said: Immortal people don't die. That's what immortality means. Losing consciousness briefly, sure, but death no. Immortality = Undead-ness < literal meaning so no, they can die but not be dead and by die, i mean like someone blowing up for a second then coming back the next they died technically second but cannot be dead since their undying process will start since duh, immortality so you are just confusing vitality/durability with immortality. different concepts. lad LelouchviBritMER said: Someone who has the code getting a second code says nothing about the situation of someone without the code getting the code. you still failed at a test that shows whether you are biased or not the question was about whether someone can gets a code from someone they didn't contract whether it is a geass user or a code user is unspecified whether intentionally or incidentally, you picked up the wrong answer either way, like i stated before, you are either biased or forgetful and in either case, try to put the show before what is in your mind first a bit this an answer that works for both cases lad! LelouchviBritMER said: yes, C.C. refused to let Charles take her code which would have made her mortal again so she could have died as she wished. i'm amazed?, lad, you are finally agreeing that C.C is such a hypocrite! LelouchviBritMER said: yes, i never contested that. Someone with a code getting a second code is radically different from someone without a code getting a code. Why are you bringing this up? two reasons, future measures and to point out that the contract is point-less Phantomnocomics said: from both someone who they formed a contract with or not and having two geass is not a necessity. LelouchviBritMER said: Yes, the contract is just a formality which plays no actual role in code transfer. We know this because Charles never completed his contract with V.V. and yet he has his code. Why Charles was able o get C.C.'s code as well was never explained, all we can do is guess. Perhaps things are different for people who already ahve a code. Perhaps it's enough to once have had 2 eyes (like charles did) and it still counts afterwards. this is actually a very intelligent response, i'm impressed!, lad *i'm calling it, the contract is the sakura of code geass* the only good feature it provoid is that it prevents Geass disappearance for those who did not use it before adulthood which is a .....almost a useless feature and i guess, be more connected to the contractor? yet another useless feature ------ well, Lelouch never completed either of the contract's conditions either had no two Geass either yet obtained supposedly the final stage of a geass/power to kill a code user, that being C.C andremember!, the contracts have conditions from both sides! and if you think about it, V.V gave up in one of those conditions, the no lying part while the slaying gods part was while kept not yet fulfilled, < reason why C.C asked charles why did he steal V.V code this could translate well to the lelouch/C.C case since lelouch never completed his condition but C.C condition was to die so it's a bit weird, Lelouch case comes off as a premature hack to what we thought! i guess it's more of a time/usage thing than a Geass level/contract fulfillement who could have know?! and the two latter are more of a confirmation that the person is ready for such an event LelouchviBritMER said: long text. the easy answer is, god just erased the people who wanted the ragnarok connection. That's why Marianne was erased, not because of codes or geasses, but because she supported ragnarok Whether you find that a stupid thing for god to do, well it's your right to think that. the collective unconsciousness is made up of mankind will/minds, it is not an actual God, God imply Omnipotence, it is only a Nickname given to by Charles, so watch out there and Erasing is not a suitable word since it implies un-existence, something that breaks logic when you consider the context of the show, let alone the physics/sciences or the concept of immortality ------- so instead, i will rephrase it for ya: the collective unconsciousness destructed the people who want the Ragnarok connection ------ False!, if that was the reason, then anyone with the same want in the World would be destructed!, not just marianne and charles! or are you saying that only marianne and charles want to stop time from the time of the command to its end? and it is impossible to destruct an immortal. let me spell it for you It is I M P O S S I B LE to K I L L an I M M O R T A L unless said Immortality is Fake and the kind of: kill it till it dies kind of immortality then maybe ------ now, with the response off, i will repose the message in here but with some updates to it it's impossible to kill a Code bearer via destruction no matter what the scale the sole way to kill a Code bearer is via another Code bearer/Geass user who obtained the power for it, or had his/her Code transferred to said persons and C.C made it clear that obtaining a code from someone who you did not form a contract with is possible since contract-less users exist and being at the final stage of a Geass grants its user the power to kill a code bearer regardless whether it is who they contracted or not since that would be the same for the contract-less ones ------------ command: do not stop the track of time < event. what is causing the track of time to stop? cause of the event: the Ragnarok connection and the thought elevator < causes Cause of the Ragnarok connection is the codes connection via Charles and C.C the thought elevator was only caused by C.C disconnecting the codes connection from Charles and C.C/destroying the thought elevator would have been more than enough to apply the command CU Logic: but if that were to happen, they can always try again my logic: well, that is true, but if you do more than that, you are applying the command in a *forever* fashion rather than just a once in a time command and if that were to be case, then UC would be opposing any Support to the time stop plan including that time when Suzaku technically killed Lelouch so we know that is not the case at all --- here is where things go out of the command, lad The only thing about this is an implication made by C.C and marianned asking why isn't The Collective unconsciousness killing C.C? then C.C says because she doesn't to stop the track of time. now, here is the issue, it doesn't matter what you want, but what you can do < the collective unconsciousness doesn't follow this method and instead does the other so logically, following this method, it would have been a logical conclusion that the code would be transferred to someone who does not support the time stop plan, say, like Lelouch But the anomaly being Marianne, and Charles death as it was Unnecessary once their code and the other unrelated-ness and Charles the only sense i can make of it is *Lelouch did it* since the destruction accelerated when he shout at them but then again, the process was held off C.C because of her want maybe the level of the want determine the acceleration of the destruction speed? but if so, why did it increase then when Lelouch shout at them? it's nonsensical and we know there is no Future crap since the command would have disappeared once Lelouch was stabbed to death TLDR: The command was temporary and only lasted from once started till lelouch death The command was only meant to stop the event that could have stopped at there but did not It killed people unnecessary so which was out of the command it killed unnecessary people unrelated to the cause of the event and did not for those who were a cause of the event which is necessary for the command if the command were to be actual/literal, it would have killed both the cause of the events, it being C.C and Charles, leaving one and picking the other because of their beliefs is not a reason specially when a person unrelated to such stuff were picked up as well the command endangerment is not related to who the collective unconsciousness killed! nor is there such a thing as a command endangerment as it allowed the command to be undone killing the unnecessary people from an endangerment point therefore is false killing people out of their *beliefs* instead of *stats/abilities* and the beliefs determining whether said person will be killed or not. but then again, Marianne was a Geass user, who could have possibly Used her Geass in lelouch....''interesting'' ....*Brain.exe has crushed* LelouchviBritMER said: or simply because god is above codes and geasses (perhaps the source?) and thus is able to erase anyone, code or not. After all, in your explanation god switches codes around, so even in your explanation god is above the power of codes. And so the code was erased together with charles. not god, charles calls it GODS in japanese actually,but it's just an UC, and it's just mankind will/minds manifested, but no, it was stated that it was actually a creation out of research, so the research origin is more nominated for that role, and the place itself is an thought interference system it only manipulated the process though!, which is incomparable to say, actually destruct the thing that the process is about Geass would be comprehensible but code bearers is just a No unless their immortality is fake, but then again, i'm sure C.C would have found a way if that was the case since because of her wish she is a hypocrite though! and lad, did you forget one of the code bears was a fuc*ing death skeleton?. like whattttttt lad LelouchviBritMER said: Undead means "between death and life", like zombies and ghosts and vampires and mummies and so on. People with the code are not undead. Immortal means "doesn't die" Un Dead, the Opposite of dead = Alive already explained what immortal means, but here i am again with etymology In < Not / Mort < Death / al is an adjectif suffix season < seasonal propose < propsal so the literal meaning of Mortal is dead but people often just use it alongside deadly https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-al Phantomnocomics said: no, that's the *literal* meaning, You see, Mort means death in french, Mortal is the adjectif form of it, and IM is self explanatory, so Im-mort-al literally means Undead Undead translated to franch is mort-vivant ImMORTAL means not-MORTAL, mortal means "the ability to die", so an immortal doesn't have the ability to die. Just as mortel is french for having the ability to die. Immortal in French is immortel,, again not-mortel, thus without the ability to die. actually, the literal meaning of mort vivant, is death alive since there is no direct equivalent of undead in french but i always liked to say inmorte since it's the closest thing to a direct word you will have in french but the word is already occupied with a different meaning so, darn it. ----------- Mortal means Dead literal meaning but people let it mean deadly LelouchviBritMER said: zombies have the ability to be killed, that means zombies are not immortal zombies are between life and death, undead, mort-vivant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie A zombie (Haitian French: zombi, Haitian Creole: zonbi) is a fictional undead being ou en français, si tu préfères ça https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie Autres noms Zombi, Nzumbe, Zonbi Groupe Créature légendaire Sous-groupe Mort-vivant lad, you don't have to link that wiki there is no such thing as something semi death/alive even in fiction, you are either alive or dead, one could say dead alive in a sense but then again that means nothing, only that something originally dead came back to life so the thing is technically alive, so calling it an undead is a bit misleading but what can do, popular culture is wrong again, lad?! as un-dead means the opposite of dead = alive< Phantomnocomics said: thing is though, the nun blood is not leaking anymore, that would take around an hour to happen, LelouchviBritMER said: if you find the pool of blood too small, then just se that scsne as the nun still alive but in the process of bleeding out. Phantomnocomics said: the nun hands are clean, LelouchviBritMER said: which means her hands are not what injured her, she probably used a weapon or so. even though we never see the weapon. people aren't blood fountains, blood doesn't shoot out, it flows. it only sprays in movies. if she cut her throat or whatever her hands wouldn't be dirty if she didn't grasp her cut in pain. No tool to be seen whether in the first scene or last scene so no, it's more or less that she hit her fatally kind of once like say, hit her head with the platform and that can cause all that bleeding what an evil nun LelouchviBritMER said: Because the show staff wanted to show a naked C.C. Seriously though, because C.C. didn't own anything of her own, everything was a gift from people who had fallen to her geass. And as she told the nun, she returned all gifts. The first line is probably the most actual and intelligent response yet so far but jokes aside lad, a Nun can't run a church in her own, there must be a priest unless it's abandoned, and what a damn lady, she couldn't even bring her another nun clothes i'm thinking it's an abandoned church, but no, that would be silly i would say it's more or less that the nun was paranoid or that it's a fake symbolism either way, what a fanservice! Phantomnocomics said: with that amount of blood leaking?, do you know wide/deep the wound would have to be?, she would have had minutes before she faint LelouchviBritMER said: Why is it a problem that they didn't draw enough blood to be medically correct? Out-of-universe speaking, it's an artistic choice of the animators. in-universe speaking, you could say that at that points the nun was still busy dying. i don't believe in out-of-universe excuses so nope and yeah, probably, as once that level of wound is caused, it would only be minutes before C.C have her codes or else she would be dead Phantomnocomics said: Yes, and to add to that, the bleeding doesn't deem to have left that spot, so she takes the post then the bleeding starts but her death was most likely instant as i doubt she would have chosen this kind of death LelouchviBritMER said: Why would her death have been instant? there's no reason to assume that she just stepped to wherever she was laying, injured herself badly (cut throat or whatever, doesn't matter), and bled to death. it's a back wound, specifically her head, but *it does matter* ''GLORY'', the only way i can see her causing that kind of wound in that pose is if she lied first, hit her back at the ground and then, crossed her hands and closed her hands thing is lad, those kind of wounds can make their patients in a Instant COMA but shockingly, she managed to make a pose of her own like, lay like she likes before becoming a dead. what a nun! LelouchviBritMER said: Dying literally means that you are goin gto be dead. Immortals can't die. Immortal is immortal, "pas mortel" No, someone who is dying does not translate to someone dead par example, X is dying because of Y but not dead yet or X died ''heart/brain shut down'' but not Confirmed dead yet Immortals can die because of Y but not be dead because of it and nice, you are actually using the literal meaning, i hate when people counter a literal meaning with a definition since that's not how it works so it's nice to see someone being logical for once lad! Lad, late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin mortalis, from mors, mort- ‘death < etymology so mortal when used as an adjectif means deadly but when used as a noun, it should mean dead < LelouchviBritMER said: i didn't write that, i was using the text from the official guide book and combined that with what lelouch said in turn 20.. sarcasm< and joke is dead Phantomnocomics said: and no for redemption as that can be done by multiple ways, it's the *i will kill myself for killing another person* instead of *i will fix killing that person by making their wish come true* or something like that LelouchviBritMER said: Yeah, there are other ways to pay for sins, "Lelouch chose death to pay for his sins". So the other ways don't matter because they're not what Lelouch chose. being eternally there for the world and accepting the consequences, better choice than escaping via death Phantomnocomics said: she still contracted her statements, sure, feat wise this is what happened, and context can be extracted from those feats ''that even a 2 year child can'' but it still prove my point that LelouchviBritMER said: How does mao not being willing to make C.C. mortal because he loved her prove your point? yeah, about that, how about we not head-canonize it with MAO insane moments, like cutting C.C in parts in packing her and you know what i meant lad, she could have totally fooled him and been honest with him since the start, but the truth is, she wasn't and that's not *love*, that's *obsession* because clearly, lovers love to cut their lovers in parts Phantomnocomics said: no, she didn't know that V.V was gonna try to kill her, but she still agreed to the plan by making it look like not V.V who did it by not telling charles about it LelouchviBritMER said: Why do you think she didn't tell charles what happened? Charles used his geass on Anya to make her forget what she saw, this happened as a child, so obviously Charles knew what happened and the only way was that Marianne (as Anya) told her. V.V. did not know about Anya seeing it all and Marianne taking over Anya. We know this because Anya says her memories (which are implanted by charles) don't match her diary entries. Turn 16 Anya: Memories that people have are always fake. No point in believing in them. Suzaku: I’d have to disagree with that. Anya: But I know it. In my case I kept diary from nine years ago. I don’t remember anything from it at all. Suzaku: Could that be it? The emperor’s Geass? But why use it on Anya? 9 years ago, that's when Marianne was murdered Facepalm, the point is that she didn't tell him lad, and charles doesn't need Anya memories to know that marianne was killed the silly charles stands in a heaven prototype where dead people talk to him, that's more than enough to know it V.V < is stupid and Anya memories =/= Marianne memories unconditional cooperation is still cooperation< Phantomnocomics said: he never stated this in the first time with V.V, it wasn't till later on that this was stated LelouchviBritMER said: he stated it later, but he was talking about a time long in the past. Charles geassed Anya 9 years ago, when marianne died. [quote=LelouchviBritMER message=56283678] And what plan would that be? V.V.'s plan was the same as Charles' plan, but V.V. was afraid that Charles' love for Marianne was going to hinder their joint plan (world without lies), and thus he killed her. marianne agreed with ragnarok, so yes she agreed with V.V.'s and cahrles' plan, but i'm sure she didn't agree with getting killed. V.V plan was to kill marianne make it look like others did it Marianne hide in anya and could have exposed V.V at any time yet she chose otherwise, informed C.C who left, and did not interact with charles about it at all and you're right, she agreed to V.V/Charles plan, and obviously not the killing part, obviously but i guess neither point is right or wrong, more or less just irrelevant by this point of discussion Phantomnocomics said: You can't erase an immortal of existence, that defies the point of being immortal, LelouchviBritMER said: You'd think that, but it seems that god can because he did. feats > your interpretation sure if you ignored all of the contexts, then why not but with context?, hell no >not an actual god, an artificial Collective unconsciousness made of human/mankind will/minds< > then he should have he did it as it should have been and got C.C alongside it < what i would think > what you would think interpretation of a feat > a made of up feat Phantomnocomics said: definition of ad hominem fallacy: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather the argument itself No, but Linking a sub reddit page that is about the other side of the argument/discussion while calling the other side troll/other names because of your opinion instead of just linking a wiki is i'm cool if you want to link to your sub reddit page, just leave me out of it, last thing i want is some crazy CG fan stalking me, can we do that or maybe not? ''that would be removing the first part of the message'' bonus: would be nice too if you post it only once, no need for repetition, lad! i command you, state why Lelouch is stupid and why akito is a better character! |
| [quote=LelouchviBritMER message=56293144] Weird how my free time shifted into a hell of a two weeks well that aside lad i know you might be offended/sad because of how much you missed me/late replay but worry/feat not for im never leaving this place till this discussion is concluded < which might take forever judging from your broken way of discussing well let see, still same crap: You might call me a vandalizer but that is only because im ruining your theory debunk claim _ learn the difference between being a troll and random < when i state by a fate fan at the end that is not trolling as there is no bait in it only confusing/random statement therefore calling others trolls by being random is a fallacy by itself! _ misquoting/half quoting stuff are not scans < even a half dead brain person would know that. No One stated Bandai official subs are head canon < that does not make any sense as Canonicity is about the geniuity of a Work while head canon is something made up out of said canon and subtitle are just text over the screen that tries to translate what the show is stating Only when SAID thing is confused with the OG intention only then can it be considered headcanon if there were to be a Sub stating over 9000 in you just embarrassed yourself official subs are not necessarily accurate < i debunked your claim of them being so with the kokoro example you just embarrassed yourself Marianne used her Geass in C.C to transfer her self into the world of memories to unlock C.C memories < world of C is a physical place and Marianne was there so....../already debunked your claim but that was not her soul as it is stated to be her heart in Japanese and yet another reason not think that official = accurate ROLF... admitted kad? since when is an actual statement being there turns out into an admitting when it is there/there is more than code Geass stating that Lelouch of rebellion in this context is Fake deep has nothing to do with me not bothering to watch ALL of Code Geass there is more than one code Geass lad but i doubt your writing realize that < the only ones from rebellion of lelouch were skipped were two while stopped the whole akito the exiled since it was nonsense goku ___________________________ note: The Only thing im vandalizing is your theory debunk claim < and re_arguing your claim is not a troll qualification < i know! what a shock ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Phantomnocomics said: According to C.C, the point of the contract is to Give someone their most desired power in the form of Geass and in exchange, fulfilling the conditions of the contract by retaining the position of the contractor at the final stage of the Geass power, and stated that among all of whom she formed a contract with, none did, but charles did! That doesn't say anything about the role of the contract. More so, you contradict yourself. You say that "retaining the position of the contractor" is "fulfilling the conditions of the contract", and then you continue to point out that she said "none did, but charles did!", and yet we know that Charles never retained the conditions of C.C.'s contract, thus, according to your wording, he never fulfilled her contract which is contradicted by her statement. Therefore, you contradicted yourself. The exact role or fucntion of the contract is unknown because the anime never specifies anything and all we ever see is lip service, so it could just be word fluff. But whatever contracts may or may not be, we do know that fulfilling contracts has nothing to do with the transfer of codes. We know this for a fact because the anime explicitly tells us that the contract between V.V. and Charles is to kill god. Turn 14 V.V: Charles, you won’t forget, will you? Our contract? Charles: I know. To kill God and smash this world of lies. We know Charles never fulfilled his contract and yet he acquired the code. this proves beyond any doubt that contracts, whatever they may be, play no role whatsoever in the transfer of codes. Phantomnocomics said: note: awkwardly enough, C.C dismissed Mao even though he had two eyes as well when she mentioned her contracts/Charles being at the final stage of their Geass power Because mao was in love with C.C. and would never make her mortal, thereby indirectly causing her death. C.C. knew this, which is why she didn't list Mao as a potential code transfer candidate. Phantomnocomics said: Wait what?. do you know how illogical your equivalence is ?, seriously, you should read what a false equivalence is and know what you write/think false equivalence? How is saying that a lack of information for X can not be used as "information" for X a false equivalence? that's not what those words mean Your reasoning was just a fallacy, pointing out a fallacy is not a false equivalence. you're just tossing about random words now. Phantomnocomics said: the other thing is, is that you are claiming that code bears can die from hearing certain things ???? Are you confusing someone else's words with mine? I never said anything remotely like that. Phantomnocomics said: his memory-passage to Nunnally when he touched lelouch (only those with the code can do that). It is a well known fact that Nunnally saw nothing. There was no "memory-passage". the anime makes that unambiguously clear by having Nunnally react and gasp audibly BEFORE showing the images. Therefore her reaction can't have been TO the images. Nunnally thus didn't show any reaction to those images at all, thus she didn't see anything. This is further evidenced that the shown images don't resemble code visions in the slightest. Code visions shown in past episodes have those blue nerves tunnels. the images in the final episode have nothing like that. those images are thus, a fortiori, non-diegetic! Also, you wrote this in response to me asking to show a screenshot wher Charles used his geass after getting the code. how is this reply an answer?? that scene had nothing to do with Charles or his geass. So I repeat my question, show a screenshot of charles using his geass after he got the code. You won't find anything because he never did because he couldn't. he had lost his geass as he himself had stated. Phantomnocomics said: it is a plot hole and another reason why the feat of Julies memories not being there is more than enough evidence that's not a plothole, the anime isn't obliged to show ALL memories which returned. None of the Akito memories were relevant to the R2 story. of course this is so because at the time R2 was made, the Akito story didn't exist yet. But the point is that the Akito memories are completely irrelevant and wouldn't have been shwn anyway. Not showing irrelevant stuff is not a plothole. And again you bring up points which are not even remotely connected to what we were talking about. What do the meories from the Akito spinoff have to do with Lelouch being the only who couldn't use his geass more than once? you just spout random stuff. Phantomnocomics said: *but if it were important* is still not an argument, come back when you create a real one It's part of a deduction, so of course it counts as being part of an argument. Please do some more effort when attempting to troll. Phantomnocomics said: the place/circumstance of where a contract is made does not matter since the Geass power is determined by the most desired power of the person given the power, yes, and how do we know this? because the anime informed us. If something matters, if something is important to know to be able to understand the story, the anime informs us. that's the whole point! therefore, if it isn't mentioned at all, it can't be necessary information to understand the story. that's just basic CONTRAPOSITION! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition In logic, contraposition is an inference that says that a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of the statement has its antecedent and consequent inverted and flipped: the contrapositive of P → Q is thus ¬ Q → ¬ P you ... you don't understand what an analogy is The madoka example was made to show that there are alternatives possible in fiction. I even went on with saying "not so in code geass" How in the world can you follow that up with your statement?? A character statement made in a show, therefore you quoted the show. You say the weirdest things. What does this even mean?? you said that you cannot give yourself the inherent right to copy the words of a character. What?? Is this the language barrier? Again, I invite you to continue your conversation in french. I understand french, it won't be any problem. This might fix a lot of issues. If off-screen events are never mentioned or referenced, then we have no reason to assume they happened. You can assume an infinite amount of things which happen off-screen but are never mentioned or referenced. Things which are not part of the anime are just fantasy. You keep using "debunked" as "i disagree with you", but that's not what debunking means. You have yet t build a single correct reasoning. instead you just throw in random stuff which are not related, fantasize stuff, and make incorrect leaps of logic. none of that is debunking. Phantomnocomics said: the event happened before marianne was killed, it being *off-screen* is not reason for it to be wrong Marianne herself said her geass only ACTIVATED when she was dying. therefore your entire reasoning falls apart. it's a totum pro parte ... THAT is your reply? [quote=Phantomnocomics message=56292978] the World/planet is not round. geometrically speaking, 21th century and people still believe those stuff < [/qoute] Wh... what?? I made an analogy, I wasn't literally talking about the shape of the world (off-topic; the world is strictly speaking an oblate, but only very slightly so. calling it a sphere or round is "close enough") Phantomnocomics said: C'est drôle que je sois sur le site en anglais mais je trouve une personne qui veut que je parle français seul, et ai-je mentionné que tout le monde sera confus ? Je préférerais ne pas faire ça. I think that ironing out the misunderstanding in this discussion due to a language barrier is of higher importance than some random guy getting confused. They can use google translate if need be. So, please, do use french, it will help making your words more understandable. Phantomnocomics said: it doesn't matter who, if someone said director stated, then that's more than enough Well, Okouchi stated that the director stated that he (and everyone else present at the meeting) was in agreement with the death of lelouch. Phantomnocomics said: Barthes's "The Death of the Author" is an attack on traditional literary criticism that focused too much on trying to retrace the author's intentions and original meaning in mind. Instead Barthes asks us to adopt a more text oriented approach that focuses on the interaction of the reader, not the writer, with it Interpretations of a work of fiction still need to be consistent with what the fiction presents. If Code geass shows us that Lelouch is a part of the Britannian royal family, then you can't invoke "death of the author" to pretend that he is actually an alien from mars. Likewise you cannot use death of the author to pretend that Lelouch was able to have both the code and a geass because that just as much violates the information the anime conveys. Therefore you can't use death of the author to contradict the official statements which say Lelouch is dead because any assumptions that lelouch is not dead would lead to inconsistencies in the story. Death of the author is no excuse for "anything goes" Phantomnocomics said: if there is no Presentation of the material's claims, then the claim can be interpreted The anime is very clear that everyone loses the geass when you get the code. ALL precedents show this. characters explicitly say this. Not a single mention of any exceptions exist in the show. Therefore the material does make the unmistakably clear claim that Lelouch cannot have a code. [quote=Phantomnocomics message=56292978] *X states Y is Impossible* < what an argument!, you sure showed me [*quote] With X being the anime itself and you having no evidence to counter it, yes i did show you. That itself is already completely false. the creators of a fiction is the only source of canon, and that doesn't end after a certain point in time. things like errata, clarifications, retcons, continuations, etc are all canon Not only that, what the show staff said in this context isn't even new information. the anime itself makes it clear that lelouch is dead because it's impossible for him to have a code. All what the show staff did was repeat the anime by saying "yes he's dead". All you've been doing is talking a lot of nonsense, throwing in weird headcanons like code bearers who can be geassed, answer completely besides the questions, and failed to deliver a single shred of proof for your wild assumptions. Awesome debunking there. Phantomnocomics said: there are people who got disabilities/traumas from near death experiences, let alone literally dying for a while or being stabbed to it how can you even compare that to someone who fully heals without any repercussions or side effects after a minute? that comparison makes no sense at all. those people carry a burden for life. lelouch, if he had had a code, wouldn't even have a scar. Phantomnocomics said: he would die just like any other person, if anything, *boredom* would be more of a legit reason from what you described, but then again, there is his pop to accompany him for the rest of his life Wait, now you're talking about his first kamikaze plan (which failed), the one where he intended to lock himself up with his father. I'm talking about "the paying for his sins", thus Zero Requiem, not what happened in turn 21 i only briefly mentioned his first kamikaze plan to indicate how serious he takes his redemption and the severity of what he considers to be a fitting punishment of his sins. A mere "death for 1 minute" just can't compare. Phantomnocomics said: ---and awkwardly enough, C.C implied that she lelouch could have killed her with one eye.....i guess having two eyes is not even a requirement by now, just do the contract conditions lad how is one to fulfill C.C.'s contract "kill me", if they can't even take away her code which needs two eyes? I'll grant you this, you're the most creative code theorist I've ever seen. never in all my years discussing this have i seen anyone who managed to fantasize such outlandish stuff. not a single person has ever thought of these things. Phantomnocomics said: Immortality = Undead-ness < literal meaning so no, they can die but not be dead Even in french that is incorrect immortel and mort-vivant are not synonyms. Phantomnocomics said: the sole way to kill a Code bearer is via another Code bearer/Geass user who obtained the power for it, or had his/her Code transferred to said persons The only way to kill a code bearer is by first rendering him mortal again by taking away their code. like charles took V.V.'s code, and V.V. later eventually succumbed to his injuries from battle. Are you saying there is a so-called "power to kill an immortal"? We never see the ragnarok connection come to fruition, so we don't know. For all we know that was figurative speech and not literal, referring to Charles clinging to the past. The plea to not stop time then simply meant to not allow charles' plan Did you think time was literally going to stop? undead means not dead and not alive perhaps "undeadunalive" would have been a better word, but well, what can you do? the adjective version of the substantive "mort" is also mort" and not mortel mortal/mortel means having the ability to die immortal means not having that ability. Phantomnocomics said: actually, the literal meaning of mort vivant, is death alive since there is no direct equivalent of undead in french And the french equivalent of railroad is chemin-de-fer which literally translates as "road made from iron". both still refer to the same concept. Likewise mort-vivant means undead even though the literal translation means dead-alive. (notice, the adjective is mort, not mortel) Literal translations is not how you go from one language to another. then what are zombies, mummies, etc? living beings? mortals? A priest is not always needed, monasteries can consist of nothing but nuns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery A monastery is a building or complex of buildings comprising the domestic quarters and workplaces of monastics, monks or nuns, And there you go again. Head trauma does not necessarily lead to instant coma. Phantomnocomics said: so mortal when used as an adjectif means deadly but when used as a noun, it should mean dead < mortal, as a noun, does not mean death. A mortal is a being who can die. Phantomnocomics said: yeah, about that, how about we not head-canonize it with MAO insane moments, like cutting C.C in parts in packing her I have no idea what you're saying here it sounds like you're saying that mao didn't want to cut up C.C., but I'm sure that's not what you meant. Phantomnocomics said: Facepalm, the point is that she didn't tell him lad, and charles doesn't need Anya memories to know that marianne was killed then why did Charles change Anya's memories if he didn't know Marianne was in there? Phantomnocomics said: Marianne hide in anya and could have exposed V.V at any time yet she chose otherwise, You mean tell people other than Charles and C.C.? Expose the existence of geass and Charles' true plan? Of course she wouldn't do that Phantomnocomics said: No, but Linking a sub reddit page that is about the other side of the argument/discussion while calling the other side troll/other names because of your opinion instead of just linking a wiki is You were being called a troll because you kept spouting nonsense, tried to antagonize, just say random stuff to get a reaction from people, make up stuff and pretend it's real, etc The reddit page is not "the other side", it's an overview of the official statements and and overview of what the anime shows us. Phantomnocomics said: just leave me out of it I never pulled you into this. you were the one who chose to go into discussion. if you want "to be left out of it", then simply end the discussion. I'm not forcing you to do anything. work in progress |
PhantomnocomicsDec 13, 2018 5:27 PM
| @LelouchviBritMER unless you are blind or have eye issues < the last part where there is work in progress should be seen so you just double posted for no reason |
| @Phantomnocomics [quote=LelouchviBritMER message=56293144]To any Code geass fan, just ignore the vandalizing troll who is trying to deceive people by saying things like that code bearers can be geassed (see here), that souls are physical objects (see here) and who calls the official subs from Bandai "headcanon" (see here). He even admits to not having watched all of Code Geass because he thought it was fake deep (see here). Don't waste your time with that troll. Here's what is known about the ending of the anime: Lelouch is truly dead and does not have the code. The old code theory was fully debunked years ago. The community already knows this for years because: - the anime makes it clear that it is impossible for Lelouch to have the code as that would have violated the rules the anime itself established, i.e. everyone who gets the code loses the geass, there are no canon exceptions. Lelouch never lost his geass. - the show staff themselves have been repeating for 10 years that Lelouch is truly dead, sometimes poetically, sometimes very very explicitly. For those interested, you can read the Code Geass community database which has gathered all the official statements (interviews, live commentaries, tweets, the remade epilogue from 2009, the official guide book, etc), all with sources, links and even pictures! It also uses the anime itself to show that it is 100% impossible for Lelouch to have the code. As a small example of the linked database, here is a part of the "Geass Memories" where show staff talked about how they made the anime 10 years ago: "Before I started writing the story of a person called Lelouch, I confirmed with Taniguchi-director something. That thing was that THE END OF LELOUCH WILL BE DEATH." "Probably this Lelouch we see in the first episode of the series wouldn't CHOOSE DEATH. He would try something to avoid it. He couldn't DIE, for Nunnally as well. But we see him changed in the last episode." "At least he is aware of his sins and pays for them with HIS DEATH." "This man called Lelouch will pay for his sins by HIS DEATH. The story follows him till he finally make this decision." Source Screenshot Translation ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Phantomnocomics said: According to C.C, the point of the contract is to Give someone their most desired power in the form of Geass and in exchange, fulfilling the conditions of the contract by retaining the position of the contractor at the final stage of the Geass power, and stated that among all of whom she formed a contract with, none did, but charles did! That doesn't say anything about the role of the contract. More so, you contradict yourself. You say that "retaining the position of the contractor" is "fulfilling the conditions of the contract", and then you continue to point out that she said "none did, but charles did!", and yet we know that Charles never retained the conditions of C.C.'s contract, thus, according to your wording, he never fulfilled her contract which is contradicted by her statement. Therefore, you contradicted yourself. The exact role or fucntion of the contract is unknown because the anime never specifies anything and all we ever see is lip service, so it could just be word fluff. But whatever contracts may or may not be, we do know that fulfilling contracts has nothing to do with the transfer of codes. We know this for a fact because the anime explicitly tells us that the contract between V.V. and Charles is to kill god. Turn 14 V.V: Charles, you won’t forget, will you? Our contract? Charles: I know. To kill God and smash this world of lies. We know Charles never fulfilled his contract and yet he acquired the code. this proves beyond any doubt that contracts, whatever they may be, play no role whatsoever in the transfer of codes. Phantomnocomics said: note: awkwardly enough, C.C dismissed Mao even though he had two eyes as well when she mentioned her contracts/Charles being at the final stage of their Geass power Because mao was in love with C.C. and would never make her mortal, thereby indirectly causing her death. C.C. knew this, which is why she didn't list Mao as a potential code transfer candidate. Phantomnocomics said: Wait what?. do you know how illogical your equivalence is ?, seriously, you should read what a false equivalence is and know what you write/think false equivalence? How is saying that a lack of information for X can not be used as "information" for X a false equivalence? that's not what those words mean Your reasoning was just a fallacy, pointing out a fallacy is not a false equivalence. you're just tossing about random words now. Phantomnocomics said: the other thing is, is that you are claiming that code bears can die from hearing certain things ???? Are you confusing someone else's words with mine? I never said anything remotely like that. Phantomnocomics said: his memory-passage to Nunnally when he touched lelouch (only those with the code can do that). It is a well known fact that Nunnally saw nothing. There was no "memory-passage". the anime makes that unambiguously clear by having Nunnally react and gasp audibly BEFORE showing the images. Therefore her reaction can't have been TO the images. Nunnally thus didn't show any reaction to those images at all, thus she didn't see anything. This is further evidenced that the shown images don't resemble code visions in the slightest. Code visions shown in past episodes have those blue nerves tunnels. the images in the final episode have nothing like that. those images are thus, a fortiori, non-diegetic! Also, you wrote this in response to me asking to show a screenshot wher Charles used his geass after getting the code. how is this reply an answer?? that scene had nothing to do with Charles or his geass. So I repeat my question, show a screenshot of charles using his geass after he got the code. You won't find anything because he never did because he couldn't. he had lost his geass as he himself had stated. Phantomnocomics said: it is a plot hole and another reason why the feat of Julies memories not being there is more than enough evidence that's not a plothole, the anime isn't obliged to show ALL memories which returned. None of the Akito memories were relevant to the R2 story. of course this is so because at the time R2 was made, the Akito story didn't exist yet. But the point is that the Akito memories are completely irrelevant and wouldn't have been shwn anyway. Not showing irrelevant stuff is not a plothole. And again you bring up points which are not even remotely connected to what we were talking about. What do the meories from the Akito spinoff have to do with Lelouch being the only who couldn't use his geass more than once? you just spout random stuff. Phantomnocomics said: *but if it were important* is still not an argument, come back when you create a real one It's part of a deduction, so of course it counts as being part of an argument. Please do some more effort when attempting to troll. Phantomnocomics said: the place/circumstance of where a contract is made does not matter since the Geass power is determined by the most desired power of the person given the power, yes, and how do we know this? because the anime informed us. If something matters, if something is important to know to be able to understand the story, the anime informs us. that's the whole point! therefore, if it isn't mentioned at all, it can't be necessary information to understand the story. that's just basic CONTRAPOSITION! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition In logic, contraposition is an inference that says that a conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. The contrapositive of the statement has its antecedent and consequent inverted and flipped: the contrapositive of P → Q is thus ¬ Q → ¬ P you ... you don't understand what an analogy is The madoka example was made to show that there are alternatives possible in fiction. I even went on with saying "not so in code geass" How in the world can you follow that up with your statement?? A character statement made in a show, therefore you quoted the show. You say the weirdest things. What does this even mean?? you said that you cannot give yourself the inherent right to copy the words of a character. What?? Is this the language barrier? Again, I invite you to continue your conversation in french. I understand french, it won't be any problem. This might fix a lot of issues. If off-screen events are never mentioned or referenced, then we have no reason to assume they happened. You can assume an infinite amount of things which happen off-screen but are never mentioned or referenced. Things which are not part of the anime are just fantasy. You keep using "debunked" as "i disagree with you", but that's not what debunking means. You have yet t build a single correct reasoning. instead you just throw in random stuff which are not related, fantasize stuff, and make incorrect leaps of logic. none of that is debunking. Phantomnocomics said: the event happened before marianne was killed, it being *off-screen* is not reason for it to be wrong Marianne herself said her geass only ACTIVATED when she was dying. therefore your entire reasoning falls apart. it's a totum pro parte ... THAT is your reply? [quote=Phantomnocomics message=56292978] the World/planet is not round. geometrically speaking, 21th century and people still believe those stuff < [/qoute] Wh... what?? I made an analogy, I wasn't literally talking about the shape of the world (off-topic; the world is strictly speaking an oblate, but only very slightly so. calling it a sphere or round is "close enough") Phantomnocomics said: C'est drôle que je sois sur le site en anglais mais je trouve une personne qui veut que je parle français seul, et ai-je mentionné que tout le monde sera confus ? Je préférerais ne pas faire ça. I think that ironing out the misunderstanding in this discussion due to a language barrier is of higher importance than some random guy getting confused. They can use google translate if need be. So, please, do use french, it will help making your words more understandable. Phantomnocomics said: it doesn't matter who, if someone said director stated, then that's more than enough Well, Okouchi stated that the director stated that he (and everyone else present at the meeting) was in agreement with the death of lelouch. Phantomnocomics said: Barthes's "The Death of the Author" is an attack on traditional literary criticism that focused too much on trying to retrace the author's intentions and original meaning in mind. Instead Barthes asks us to adopt a more text oriented approach that focuses on the interaction of the reader, not the writer, with it Interpretations of a work of fiction still need to be consistent with what the fiction presents. If Code geass shows us that Lelouch is a part of the Britannian royal family, then you can't invoke "death of the author" to pretend that he is actually an alien from mars. Likewise you cannot use death of the author to pretend that Lelouch was able to have both the code and a geass because that just as much violates the information the anime conveys. Therefore you can't use death of the author to contradict the official statements which say Lelouch is dead because any assumptions that lelouch is not dead would lead to inconsistencies in the story. Death of the author is no excuse for "anything goes" Phantomnocomics said: if there is no Presentation of the material's claims, then the claim can be interpreted The anime is very clear that everyone loses the geass when you get the code. ALL precedents show this. characters explicitly say this. Not a single mention of any exceptions exist in the show. Therefore the material does make the unmistakably clear claim that Lelouch cannot have a code. Phantomnocomics said: *X states Y is Impossible* < what an argument!, you sure showed me [*quote] With X being the anime itself and you having no evidence to counter it, yes i did show you. That itself is already completely false. the creators of a fiction is the only source of canon, and that doesn't end after a certain point in time. things like errata, clarifications, retcons, continuations, etc are all canon Not only that, what the show staff said in this context isn't even new information. the anime itself makes it clear that lelouch is dead because it's impossible for him to have a code. All what the show staff did was repeat the anime by saying "yes he's dead". All you've been doing is talking a lot of nonsense, throwing in weird headcanons like code bearers who can be geassed, answer completely besides the questions, and failed to deliver a single shred of proof for your wild assumptions. Awesome debunking there. Phantomnocomics said: there are people who got disabilities/traumas from near death experiences, let alone literally dying for a while or being stabbed to it how can you even compare that to someone who fully heals without any repercussions or side effects after a minute? that comparison makes no sense at all. those people carry a burden for life. lelouch, if he had had a code, wouldn't even have a scar. Phantomnocomics said: he would die just like any other person, if anything, *boredom* would be more of a legit reason from what you described, but then again, there is his pop to accompany him for the rest of his life Wait, now you're talking about his first kamikaze plan (which failed), the one where he intended to lock himself up with his father. I'm talking about "the paying for his sins", thus Zero Requiem, not what happened in turn 21 i only briefly mentioned his first kamikaze plan to indicate how serious he takes his redemption and the severity of what he considers to be a fitting punishment of his sins. A mere "death for 1 minute" just can't compare. Phantomnocomics said: ---and awkwardly enough, C.C implied that she lelouch could have killed her with one eye.....i guess having two eyes is not even a requirement by now, just do the contract conditions lad how is one to fulfill C.C.'s contract "kill me", if they can't even take away her code which needs two eyes? I'll grant you this, you're the most creative code theorist I've ever seen. never in all my years discussing this have i seen anyone who managed to fantasize such outlandish stuff. not a single person has ever thought of these things. Phantomnocomics said: Immortality = Undead-ness < literal meaning so no, they can die but not be dead Even in french that is incorrect immortel and mort-vivant are not synonyms. Phantomnocomics said: the sole way to kill a Code bearer is via another Code bearer/Geass user who obtained the power for it, or had his/her Code transferred to said persons The only way to kill a code bearer is by first rendering him mortal again by taking away their code. like charles took V.V.'s code, and V.V. later eventually succumbed to his injuries from battle. Are you saying there is a so-called "power to kill an immortal"? We never see the ragnarok connection come to fruition, so we don't know. For all we know that was figurative speech and not literal, referring to Charles clinging to the past. The plea to not stop time then simply meant to not allow charles' plan Did you think time was literally going to stop? undead means not dead and not alive perhaps "undeadunalive" would have been a better word, but well, what can you do? the adjective version of the substantive "mort" is also mort" and not mortel mortal/mortel means having the ability to die immortal means not having that ability. Phantomnocomics said: actually, the literal meaning of mort vivant, is death alive since there is no direct equivalent of undead in french And the french equivalent of railroad is chemin-de-fer which literally translates as "road made from iron". both still refer to the same concept. Likewise mort-vivant means undead even though the literal translation means dead-alive. (notice, the adjective is mort, not mortel) Literal translations is not how you go from one language to another. then what are zombies, mummies, etc? living beings? mortals? A priest is not always needed, monasteries can consist of nothing but nuns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery A monastery is a building or complex of buildings comprising the domestic quarters and workplaces of monastics, monks or nuns, And there you go again. Head trauma does not necessarily lead to instant coma. Phantomnocomics said: so mortal when used as an adjectif means deadly but when used as a noun, it should mean dead < mortal, as a noun, does not mean death. A mortal is a being who can die. Phantomnocomics said: yeah, about that, how about we not head-canonize it with MAO insane moments, like cutting C.C in parts in packing her I have no idea what you're saying here it sounds like you're saying that mao didn't want to cut up C.C., but I'm sure that's not what you meant. Phantomnocomics said: Facepalm, the point is that she didn't tell him lad, and charles doesn't need Anya memories to know that marianne was killed then why did Charles change Anya's memories if he didn't know Marianne was in there? Phantomnocomics said: Marianne hide in anya and could have exposed V.V at any time yet she chose otherwise, You mean tell people other than Charles and C.C.? Expose the existence of geass and Charles' true plan? Of course she wouldn't do that Phantomnocomics said: No, but Linking a sub reddit page that is about the other side of the argument/discussion while calling the other side troll/other names because of your opinion instead of just linking a wiki is You were being called a troll because you kept spouting nonsense, tried to antagonize, just say random stuff to get a reaction from people, make up stuff and pretend it's real, etc The reddit page is not "the other side", it's an overview of the official statements and and overview of what the anime shows us. Phantomnocomics said: just leave me out of it I never pulled you into this. you were the one who chose to go into discussion. if you want "to be left out of it", then simply end the discussion. I'm not forcing you to do anything. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ To any Code geass fan, just ignore the vandalizing troll who is trying to deceive people by saying things like that code bearers can be geassed (see here), that souls are physical objects (see here) and who calls the official subs from Bandai "headcanon" (see here). He even admits to not having watched all of Code Geass because he thought it was fake deep (see here). Don't waste your time with that troll. Here's what is known about the ending of the anime: Lelouch is truly dead and does not have the code. The old code theory was fully debunked years ago. The community already knows this for years because: - the anime makes it clear that it is impossible for Lelouch to have the code as that would have violated the rules the anime itself established, i.e. everyone who gets the code loses the geass, there are no canon exceptions. Lelouch never lost his geass. - the show staff themselves have been repeating for 10 years that Lelouch is truly dead, sometimes poetically, sometimes very very explicitly. For those interested, you can read the Code Geass community database which has gathered all the official statements (interviews, live commentaries, tweets, the remade epilogue from 2009, the official guide book, etc), all with sources, links and even pictures! It also uses the anime itself to show that it is 100% impossible for Lelouch to have the code. As a small example of the linked database, here is a part of the "Geass Memories" where show staff talked about how they made the anime 10 years ago: "Before I started writing the story of a person called Lelouch, I confirmed with Taniguchi-director something. That thing was that THE END OF LELOUCH WILL BE DEATH." "Probably this Lelouch we see in the first episode of the series wouldn't CHOOSE DEATH. He would try something to avoid it. He couldn't DIE, for Nunnally as well. But we see him changed in the last episode." "At least he is aware of his sins and pays for them with HIS DEATH." "This man called Lelouch will pay for his sins by HIS DEATH. The story follows him till he finally make this decision." Source Screenshot Translation There are so many things wrong and off topic with your comments, You two, that i don't even begin to imagine where to start! Contracts are just formalities, We know that you can acquire a Geass and/or a Code through the consent of its weilder (a code bearer), Otherwise, They would just seal it off. the contract play no role in the process of transferring a code other than show that there is a mutual concession for a potential transfer. You can also aquire a Geass without a contract like Shin. I'm pretty sure C.C wording meant that charles did what her contracts could not. it's more of a poor wording by the other person than a contradiction. Obtaining a Code Geass through two eyes is not a requirement (at least, from what the show tells us) as C.C offers Lelouch her code despite having one Geass eye only. We don't know enough information to tell how does the world of C or the collective unconsciousness work exactly, but at least, we know that charles wanted to unify all of humanity into one mind, thus, killing god. not literally stopping time which would freeze all matter in the universe (come on, This is obvious) but It deleting charles and marianne was weird and unexplained, so there is that. P.S Please, If you two ever debate again, refrain from going off topic and degrailing. @Phantomnocomics, don't define words with their ''literal'' and ''etymological'' meanings, but rather with what the population and society's way of using it. words change overtime As for @LelouchvibritMer, A monastry is not exactly a church, I don't know whether that christian building in the Show was a church or a monstary, but if it is the former rather than the latter, then it is gonna be awkward. my last word and opinion is that having to live forever and facing the consequences fits an eternal, Neverending punishment rather than just die by being stabbed; so i go with he's alive but had to die. but either works for me. |
no need to spam, The director already confirmed R3 takes place after season 2. and Yes, Lelouch was technically dead during the event from R2 to R3. so why is this still a thing? |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Code Geass - Hangyaku no Lelouch Episode 25 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Chilli-Kun - Apr 11, 2008 |
313 |
by Fvrenight
»»
Oct 2, 1:53 PM |
|
Poll: » Code Geass Hangyaku no Lelouch Episode 18 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )Braveone - Mar 5, 2007 |
140 |
by Sovietsuke
»»
Sep 27, 11:55 AM |
|
Poll: » Code Geass - Hangyaku no Lelouch Episode 22 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Crystal - Mar 22, 2007 |
412 |
by ryylsz
»»
Sep 7, 8:49 AM |
|
» I don't understand hype of Lelouchbrycinator123 - Sep 11, 2023 |
36 |
by Richard_drizzle
»»
Aug 18, 6:17 AM |
|
Poll: » Code Geass - Hangyaku no Lelouch Episode 15 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )babykeiji - Feb 23, 2008 |
138 |
by illwill_sch
»»
Aug 16, 6:21 PM |