Board Thread:Anime/Game Discussion/@comment-29981284-20161228210504/@comment-4148373-20190414213505

Jbyrdab wrote: Yes and no..., the meteorite was found in greenland, if what you say is true especially about vikings. Then theres a good chance that the norse gods were stand users if not stands themselves. regardless if you want to call out a series called bizarre adventure for having some detail thats hard to accept, then I dont know what to say. arrows normally only seek out those who have the fighting spirit to withstand the strand of virus, but they can be forced into someone. Not to mention the arrows were made by a wizard from the meteorite(only info we have on their creation), so its entirely possible a wizard could ya know, get from greenland to egypt. Either way i do believe that since the only information about them is from that source and that nothing has really contradicted this, its best assumed that its correct. Either way regardless of that fact, they did find that it does kill people without proper spirit, considering black sabath, even diavolo knew that. He still was the starting point for most of the bizzare adventure of part 3, he still caused alot of damage and personally he deserved an infinite loop, death or not he needs to be seperated from influencing anyone else. Thats just my stance Stop adding things not in the text to your statements and acting like they're true. As others have stated, the creator was never said to be a wizard, and the guy who discovered Greenland was Erik the Red, aka Erik Thorvaldson, which indicates that Thor predated the Viking colonization of Greenland. As does a lot of other archeological evidence I won't even get into.

I've also already mentioned how the Arrows and the Meteorite act different, and thus seem contradictory. Perhaps you could argue the Arrows were worked in some way to reduce the strength of the virus, but I find "they're supernatural artifacts that awaken the latent power of the soul, which can overwhelm or kill the person granted the power" to be far more consistent with the rest of what we know about them than Polnareff's meteorite/virus claim. As to their origins, who knows? Maybe they're ancient Egyptian artifacts that really did have some connection to the existence of their mythology and gods. Maybe similar artifacts also exist and explain the same thing for other ancient religions. Maybe they were made by the First Jojo, Joshua ben Joseph (this is a joke, I just love the fact that you can argue that Jesus is a Jojo). Who knows? DeathCrisisGod wrote: Most people who sympathize with diavolo have absolutely no concept of hell, which is rather telling. The afterlife exists in jojo so it's safe to assume that heaven and hell also exist. You people complain about nobody deserve eternal damnation but don't day a thing about the good people who experience eternal paradise in heaven. If diavolo had a natural death, he would still go to hell regardless. Btw, having a mental disorder doesn't lessen his crimes in the slightest. Everyone is responsible for their own actions Uh...no, assuming that Heaven and Hell exist just because there's an afterlife doesn't actually follow in the slightest. Hell, there's just as much reason to think it's Hades, not the Christian afterlife (in that both Mercury and Jesus seem to exist in Jojo). And, if Hell exists, how come Kira's soul seems to have escaped from it in Dead Man's Questions? If I recall correctly, he got dragged away by the Hands like Cheap Trick did, so, if there was actually a Hell, he seems likely to have gone there. Him coming back with no memories actually acts as a point in favor of the Greek afterlife and the River Lethe existing, if you really want to argue the point.

Moreover, the question is not "would Diavolo go there anyway?" The question is "does he deserve it?" To which I would answer "infinite punishment for finite harm seems unequal, mathematically speaking, but it's really up to personal judgement, and a bit of a pointless question, since it doesn't change his fate." I just have issues with some of the reasoning/evidence presented. Sometimes on both sides. Like the Insanity argument, which I kinda...look, insanity really only excuses so much. And also, not all mental illnesses are sufficient for an insanity plea, and Dissociative Identity Disorder (I think that's the current term for Split Personality Disorder?) is...controversial, to say the least. Paranoia usually isn't enough on it's own, either. Schizophrenia is, maybe Bipolar in some cases, but even then, plenty of people with those issues, even when unmedicated, aren't even remotely violent. Boysmith2003 wrote: 3. The whole point of evolution (assuming that it exsists) is to progress. You can't stagnate, or you die. That's Kars's whole philosophy. Incorrect. Evolution has no point, nor is it to "progress". Evolution, in it's simplest form, is the observation that self-propagating systems that cease functioning are bad at reproducing themselves, and thus the only systems likely to last and remain for any period of time are the ones good at not ceasing to function. Thus, the ones that adapt to their changing environment survive the longest, and slowly, they become better suited to their environment. Really, it's about studying shifts in the frequency of alleles over time, but that's sort of the most basic form of it.

Funnily enough, effective stasis is actually thought to be rather common in evolution. So long as nothing in the environment shifts so much that lots of members of a given species start dying without reproducing, species often maintain the same features for long periods of time. It's less "survival of the fittest" and more "survival of the good enough".

There is a sort of progress, in that species do tend to become more adapted to their niches, but there's the counterbalance that too much adaptation tends to leave you vulnerable to major shifts. Most penguins do fine in the Antarctica, but not so well in the Nile River, whereas crocodiles fare well in the Nile (and many other places), but not so good in really cold environments. Like most optimization problems, there's usually a trade-off, rather than an absolutely and completely objective improvement. See also: revolvers don't jam, automatics do, but automatics shoot more bullets faster, or other such things.