Saying "immeasurable" means infinite is actually the assumption fallacy because it takes an ambiguous statement and stretches it to an extreme conclusion without supporting evidence. In Dragon Ball, when characters say something is immeasurable, it typically means:
Beyond what current tools or characters can measure (like scouters breaking when power gets too high).
Far stronger than expected (like how Krillin and others react when Goku surpasses their comprehension).
If "immeasurable" truly meant infinity, then:
Super Saiyan 1 Goku would already be infinitely strong, making later transformations meaningless.
No one could ever surpass anyone because infinity is the highest possible value.
Statements like "Beerus is stronger than Goku" wouldn’t make sense, since both would be "infinite."
Since Dragon Ball clearly maintains comparative power scaling, we can logically conclude that "immeasurable" just means too big to conveniently count, not infinite.
So, the real fallacy would be assuming "immeasurable" must mean infinite without considering how the series actually treats power.
SINIXT3R
Most fallacious clown who always suck to weakku diq @KakarotScales09
Let's neg this guy.
Saying "immeasurable" means infinite is actually the assumption fallacy because it takes an ambiguous statement and stretches it to an extreme conclusion without supporting evidence. In Dragon Ball, when characters say something is immeasurable, it typically means:
Beyond what current tools or characters can measure (like scouters breaking when power gets too high).
Far stronger than expected (like how Krillin and others react when Goku surpasses their comprehension).
If "immeasurable" truly meant infinity, then:
Super Saiyan 1 Goku would already be infinitely strong, making later transformations meaningless.
No one could ever surpass anyone because infinity is the highest possible value.
Statements like "Beerus is stronger than Goku" wouldn’t make sense, since both would be "infinite."
Since Dragon Ball clearly maintains comparative power scaling, we can logically conclude that "immeasurable" just means too big to conveniently count, not infinite.
So, the real fallacy would be assuming "immeasurable" must mean infinite without considering how the series actually treats power.
1 month ago | [YT] | 8