fallacies
Puyo Mage
On the "damage" to the Throne of Heroes by ORT:
Because the Versus Battlers presumably require clarification ...
However, "damage" as a term is here used with a particular nuance, clarified below.
In her initial explanation, da Vinci states:
At this, da Vinci affirms his guess, stating that Servants consumed by ORT can "never again" be summoned.
However, when Gordolf asks what's become the Servants consumed, da Vinci declares that "data cannot be digested." She presumes / guesses that ORT is stockpiling the data within it, and affirms Mashu's guess that if ORT were to be destroyed, the data stockpiled by ORT "should be safely returned to the Throne of Heroes."
That is to say, setting aside the matter that a number of the statements in this passage were explicitly guesses, there were points at which da Vinci was contradicted, either by dialogue or circumstance.
In the aftermath of ORT's defeat, it's indeed the case that there were no noted after-effects or lasting consequences to the data of the Heroic Spirits upon the Throne of Heroes stolen away by ORT; and it wasn't in fact the case that Servants consumed by ORT could "never again be summoned." The "links" that were "destroyed" were also seemingly restored to no specific fanfare.
Per the situation that the "never again be summoned" wasn't in fact "never again," we can surmise that the words with which the situation is described above aren't perfectly literal. "Not a second time" / "never again" was excessively absolute in its phrasing. Similarly, though "predation" was performed, we're told outright that "data cannot be digested" — putting into question whether or not the term "predation" should be taken in the conventional sense.
How are we to understand "damage" or "destruction," then? Was the damage / destruction rendered by ORT something we should interpret in the conventional sense of injury or harm in the context of, say, ablation of the metal in a motor block on a car? With regard to ORT's interaction with the Throne, nothing of the sort was actually confirmed.
Making use of da Vinci's analogy, let's say that there's a bank account with a thousand dollars in it. If five hundred dollars within are temporarily relocated to a separate bank account before being transferred back, and no cost has been incurred, do we say that the original bank account sustained "damage" in the interim period in which funds were temporarily displaced?
If your sibling tells you that half of the cans of coke in the fridge now belongs to them, or takes them out, but is later made to return them as-is by your parents, in the period in which the coke was removed, was the entire quantity of coke "damaged" or "destroyed?"
The contention here is that even though da Vinci affirms Kadoc's supposition that ORT can "render damage" to the Throne, and states that Servants consumed by ORT can "never again be summoned," these shouldn't be understood as entirely literal statements. "Never again" was excessively absolute, and later contradicted; and "damage / destruction" was in subsequent context seemingly restored to no lasting impact, more resembling "temporary displacement" than "ablation of the metal in a motor block on a car."
As a side note, certain parties have argued:
"Even if no damage was actually observed or noted in the aftermath, da Vinci's affirmation of Kadoc's take on ORT's interaction with the Throne should be taken to imply that it's not only 'possible' that ORT can actually render damage, it's 'likely' that it can do so, on the evidence that characters coded as experts 'thought so' in the above scene."
To this, my response would be that the "damage" supposedly being dealt is specifically described within the later parts of the passage, and is qualified by da Vinci using the analogy of funds being stowed away within a bank account — a seemingly fully reversible process, which isn't what would be implied per the conventional understanding of the term "damage."
If you want to instead make the case that damage in the conventional sense (of "ablation to an engine block") can in fact be rendered by ORT, there better be more evidence.
TL;DR - Setting aside that verbal communication is an imperfect medium where words stated don't necessarily come in the nuance that you might expect, statements made by non-omniscient characters in a fictional narrative shouldn't necessarily be taken as factual statements regarding the worldbuilding of the setting.
Because the Versus Battlers presumably require clarification ...
Chapter 24 - Arrow 1 - Part B said:
The above passage has been taken to give that ORT can render "damage" to the Throne of Heroes.
However, "damage" as a term is here used with a particular nuance, clarified below.
In her initial explanation, da Vinci states:
- the Servants did not "withdraw" to the Throne of Heroes, per what normally occurs on defeat
- their "links" to the Throne of Heroes were destroyed
- the entirety of the Servants' Saint Graph data was "stolen away" / "subjected to predation" by ORT
- such an action is in essence "consuming the History of Man as it stands"
At this, da Vinci affirms his guess, stating that Servants consumed by ORT can "never again" be summoned.
However, when Gordolf asks what's become the Servants consumed, da Vinci declares that "data cannot be digested." She presumes / guesses that ORT is stockpiling the data within it, and affirms Mashu's guess that if ORT were to be destroyed, the data stockpiled by ORT "should be safely returned to the Throne of Heroes."
That is to say, setting aside the matter that a number of the statements in this passage were explicitly guesses, there were points at which da Vinci was contradicted, either by dialogue or circumstance.
In the aftermath of ORT's defeat, it's indeed the case that there were no noted after-effects or lasting consequences to the data of the Heroic Spirits upon the Throne of Heroes stolen away by ORT; and it wasn't in fact the case that Servants consumed by ORT could "never again be summoned." The "links" that were "destroyed" were also seemingly restored to no specific fanfare.
Per the situation that the "never again be summoned" wasn't in fact "never again," we can surmise that the words with which the situation is described above aren't perfectly literal. "Not a second time" / "never again" was excessively absolute in its phrasing. Similarly, though "predation" was performed, we're told outright that "data cannot be digested" — putting into question whether or not the term "predation" should be taken in the conventional sense.
How are we to understand "damage" or "destruction," then? Was the damage / destruction rendered by ORT something we should interpret in the conventional sense of injury or harm in the context of, say, ablation of the metal in a motor block on a car? With regard to ORT's interaction with the Throne, nothing of the sort was actually confirmed.
Making use of da Vinci's analogy, let's say that there's a bank account with a thousand dollars in it. If five hundred dollars within are temporarily relocated to a separate bank account before being transferred back, and no cost has been incurred, do we say that the original bank account sustained "damage" in the interim period in which funds were temporarily displaced?
If your sibling tells you that half of the cans of coke in the fridge now belongs to them, or takes them out, but is later made to return them as-is by your parents, in the period in which the coke was removed, was the entire quantity of coke "damaged" or "destroyed?"
The contention here is that even though da Vinci affirms Kadoc's supposition that ORT can "render damage" to the Throne, and states that Servants consumed by ORT can "never again be summoned," these shouldn't be understood as entirely literal statements. "Never again" was excessively absolute, and later contradicted; and "damage / destruction" was in subsequent context seemingly restored to no lasting impact, more resembling "temporary displacement" than "ablation of the metal in a motor block on a car."
As a side note, certain parties have argued:
"Even if no damage was actually observed or noted in the aftermath, da Vinci's affirmation of Kadoc's take on ORT's interaction with the Throne should be taken to imply that it's not only 'possible' that ORT can actually render damage, it's 'likely' that it can do so, on the evidence that characters coded as experts 'thought so' in the above scene."
To this, my response would be that the "damage" supposedly being dealt is specifically described within the later parts of the passage, and is qualified by da Vinci using the analogy of funds being stowed away within a bank account — a seemingly fully reversible process, which isn't what would be implied per the conventional understanding of the term "damage."
If you want to instead make the case that damage in the conventional sense (of "ablation to an engine block") can in fact be rendered by ORT, there better be more evidence.
TL;DR - Setting aside that verbal communication is an imperfect medium where words stated don't necessarily come in the nuance that you might expect, statements made by non-omniscient characters in a fictional narrative shouldn't necessarily be taken as factual statements regarding the worldbuilding of the setting.
Last edited:
