ranma's pet

[Tornado Ninja Fan]

We never see Ryoga while he is traveling to a location, but he seems to often walk to places you need to cross large bodies of water to get to. With his piglet curse swimming is not an option if he expects to keep his gear, and with his direction curse taking a boat or plane is not an option.

Since you have not provided a better idea I will assume you agree that Ryoga's ability to get lost is something like a teleport ,or phase powers(Rifts).

He could just wander on a ferry or a boat, fall asleep or get lost in it (he can get lost in a single house for hours) and when the boat arrives on another island he leaves it, none the wiser. He might even complain how that weird house has so many windows showing the ocean.

I figure she is just kind of in shock. It's not like she would go to those locations like the building's attic.

She is clearly angry at him, not shocked. Ryoga is stronger than her and would have dragged her there.

Zwzn wrote: Given the way his family get lost, Ryoga has been pretty much living on his own for years, and the calm way he dealt with the boar makes it look like he had been in similar situations before.
Tornado Ninja Fan wrote: Ryoga wasn't carrying his umbrella at that time. He must have bought it after he got cursed and then he decided to deal with wild animals that way.
Zwzn wrote: Why would Ryoga need a weapon to take on a charging wild animal?
Tornado Ninja Fan wrote: I never said he needed it. He got it and decided to use it to deal with animals.
Zwzn wrote: You claimed Ryoga needed his umbrella to fight animals.

Okay, last try. I wrote: He bought the umbrella after he got cursed (probably just to avoid getting wet and he probably took that one because it was sturdy) and then (after he bought it and noticed it could be used as a weapon) he decided to deal with wild animals that way (by using the umbrella as a weapon. Maybe because he wants to practice using it, maybe because he doesn't wants to get his fingers dirty, maybe because he doesn't want to put it aside and risk losing it.)

Because Ranma would know for certain it wasn't true?

Why would he know that? Is he so knowledgeable about Ranma?

A skilled liar, a gifted actor, and a great judge of character. Ryoga's list of abilities is growing.

Genma had just knocked down a large path. The plants were snapped in two. There was nothing to impede Ryoga's vision if he had looked. Even if we assume Ryoga could not have seen Ranma until his head was above the panda that still gives him time to avoid Ranma who he had just jumped in front of.

There was still enough bamboo under Ranma to form an unbroken canopy in the panel that shows him.

Tigers very good jumpers, and aside from humans are the number one predator in the area.

Both tigers and humans run on the ground when they follow their prey.

@ Tornado Ninja Fan: Man, you're a real piece of work.

Compliments will get you nowhere.

You're assuming that extenuating circumstances is the charge, and thus that Ranma is guilty, when I'm clearly arguing that Ranma is not guilty, and thus that I'm not arguing that Ranma is being charged with extenuating circumstances.

Way to put words in my mouth. I wouldn't assume that and if you'd paid attention you'd know why - it doesn't make sense.
How often do I have to explain it to you? Extenuating circumstances change the sentence - the resulting punishment - not the verdict - guitly or not guilty. They're not a charge and if you read that into what I've written you need to check your eyes. Or you need to find out what charge actually means.

I'm arguing that the extenuating circumstances themselves would lead to a not guilty verdict, not a guilty verdict mitigated by them. Yes, there is a clear difference, and law does not hold a monopoly over what "extenuating circumstances" means and implies.

The law holds a clear monopoly over what those words mean when they decide on a verdict. Do you want to argue how a court would decide? Then use these words correctly and don't try to argue their definition.

I mean, honestly.

You started arguing that you knew how a court would decide as if you'd studied the law.
You promptly misused words that are near exclusively used at court, which is not surprising when someone talks out of their ass.
When I call you out on not knowing what you are talking about, you act indignantly and still manage to misunderstand everything I write.
Honestly? I think you are wilfully ignorant. You don't know what you are talking about and you don't want to listen.

[Crescent Pulsar R]

@Tornado Ninja Fan:

So, you understand how I'm using the phrase, but decide against recognizing it in the argument so you can counter-argue that I don't know what I'm talking about, in order to refute my argument that way? How petty. Alright, if you'll only accept the one way, then how about something like, oh, let's say... "attendant circumstance?" It matters not to me, since you still haven't proven why Ranma would not be charged as being not guilty. I've long since illustrated why he would not be guilty: one, there's no motive or intention; two, he was not aware of Ryoga's presence when he jumped; three, the chances of colliding with someone else, in the air, and by a cliff, are so remote to be out of anyone's hands; four, he had no control over where Ryoga was going to be, and what he was going to do; five, Genma trying to raise Ranma to be a man among men, and then cursing him so he changes into a girl, results in making Ranma so angry that he doesn't even remember colliding into a large object in broad daylight.

Basically, we know that it wasn't on purpose, and that it was an accident. We can all agree on that. The only argument anyone has toward Ranma being guilty is in regard to whether he was capable of doing something about their inevitable collision and chose not to do anything. Circumstance number five, I think, clearly shows that he had not been capable.

Except Ranma wasn't sleepwalking, and in fact there's absolutely no evidence he was anything but "angry". And if being angry excuses you for anything you do, then I certainly hope you find Ryouga (and Akane for that matter) to be utterly blameless for, mm, pretty much anything in the manga.

Of course Ranma wasn't sleepwalking. Duh. Why would I argue that? I was illustrating that people can and have been given not guilty charges if it can be proven that one's state of mind, at the time, compromises their ability to comprehend what they're doing. Especially if the condition is induced by someone else, a condition (sleepwalking, blackouts, personality disorder, et cetera) or incidental (being exposed to, or experiencing, something that has a significant affect on one's mental state), and not caused by themselves (such as getting drunk). In Ranma's case, it's both incidental and caused by someone that's no doubt caused him grievances before.

Except, of course, that Ranma knocked an innocent bystander off a cliff as a direct result of running around like that. I mean, how much more dangerous to others can you get than that? I guess Ranma could have been knocking people into active volcanoes. Would that be worthy of criticism?

*I slap my hand over my face*

HeyZeus on a stick... That's not the point. The point is that, in that environment, his chances of endangering others is less than his chances of endangering himself while in that state of mind. That's it. You're saying that it's dangerous for others, while I say that it's more dangerous for him. That Ryoga just happened to be in his way, in the air of all places, was against much greater odds. Yes, it happened, but that doesn't mean that what Ranma was doing was dangerous to others. The potential is there, to be sure, but the odds of it happening are so great as to not even be considered as a clear and present danger.

It's exactly like that! Except they aren't driving, one runs into the other instead of them both smashing into each other, and one was not watching where he was driving whereas the other one was just trapped by a different car in a position where they couldn't get out of the way, and only one driver was hurt. So I guess it's not like that at all, and no, it does not make any sense to me you think that is an appropriate analogy. I remain absolutely flabbergasted that anybody would try to put moral equivalency between "guy who got knocked off of cliff" and "guy who knocked him off a cliff as a direct result of not paying attention to what he was doing".

You pretty much just damned your own argument with your own words. The collision occurred because the Ranma "driver" was not paying attention to where he was driving and then hit someone else. This would not be a "both are to blame" situation, it would be entirely the Ranma driver's fault. His argument of "I was so road raged it was impossible for me to pay attention to what I was doing or what the car was hitting" would not exactly go over well in court, either. It would go over even less well if it was "my passenger was so road raged it was impossible for me to pay attention".

And... nope! You didn't get it. Geez; I think I somehow managed to confuse you. ;/

Anyway, as stated many times before, it's not a case of one running into the other, but both colliding into the other. This is a fact. It should be as clear as day, since they both jumped without seeing one another, which sent them both on a collision course with each other. It matters not what their trajectory or velocity of travel was, as that's incidental.

Now, Ranma and Ryoga are not the drivers in my analogy. The drivers represent both of their decisions to jump into the air, which sets them on a path that will unwittingly create a collision that they can not avoid. Once they jumped, the collision was inevitable.

Uh, no, that is not reasonable or sensible. First, as your own analogy (and Ranma's admission) shows, Ranma is completely at fault for the collision. Regardless of whether he could have done anything about it after hitting, the only reason it happened was due to Ranma's recklessness. (1) Second, Ranma most certainly could have done something to redirect Ryouga if he had been paying attention to his surroundings. He could have knocked Ryouga towards the ground, just grabbed and thrown him, and even quite likely could have rescued him after the collision. He's kind of good at mid-air combat, or so I've heard.

(2) Not that it matters, since Ryouga never would have been in danger if Ranma hadn't been idiotically charging around at high speed in a dangerous area without bothering to look where he was going.

You certainly like to ignore someone's argument, and disregard proving them wrong. Well, that just means that I have less to worry about, but I wanted to address the part that I underlined, that I haven't addressed with other parts of your post.

1: No, he most certainly could not have. And you can't blame him for his inattention, either, as illustrated many times before. Which has yet to be refuted.

2: No, Ryoga would not have fallen off of a cliff if he hadn't been near one. Remember, that's the only reason why the outcome is dangerous for him, not because Ranma was running around. It's simple math. Had Ranma run into Ryoga in a place where he could only be knocked to the ground, would you have called it dangerous, then? Of course not. Ryoga's a big boy, after all; he can take a simple fall. Which is assuming that he'd even fall if Ranma ran into him while standing on the ground. And Ranma didn't place Ryoga near the cliff nor in the air, and neither had been aware of the other, besides.

Anyway, this is getting tiresome. My argument still hasn't been refuted on both of the fronts by which it had been presented, and I keep having to explain my logic when I don't really need to. But, what can I say? I prefer coming to an understanding, regardless. That said, I think I'm done, here. I've illustrated why "Ranma knocked Ryoga off of a cliff = Ranma's fault" is not appropriate, while establishing why equal or no blame is appropriate. I keep getting lax in certain responsibilities, anyway. -_-;

[Tornado Ninja Fan]

@Tornado Ninja Fan:

So, you understand how I'm using the phrase, but decide against recognizing it in the argument so you can counter-argue that I don't know what I'm talking about, in order to refute my argument that way? How petty.

No, I am refuting that you know what you are talking about when you claim that you know how a law court would decide and take your misuse of "extenuating circumstances" as proof.

And all of a sudden you want to discuss the accident with me again and act as if that was what we were doing. You know what? Fuck it. I've had it with your dishonest behaviour.

[Crescent Pulsar R]

Okay, now that's just wrong. Dishonest behavior? Well, I hope slander was worth it, because, while I was making my argument in the context of the law, I was clearly using the term "extenuating circumstance" as thus. I made it very clear, both in how I argued (I was using it to excuse his actions, not mitigate how responsible he was for them, as if he were already guilty), and how I explicitly said that it wasn't being used according to the law when you got the wrong idea the first time.

Hey, I tried. I even tried another term, and that's why I had to reiterate my argument, to once again show what you were failing to understand when I was using the other term. It was never about mitigation, but excusing.

[Pale Wolf]

... Are you guys digging up US legal code over this?

Okay, boys, girls, and those who waver between the two, everyone take a step back and cool off.

Getting a mite heated in here, and the neighbours are complaining.

I'm not naming names, we're not really at 'official warning' level yet, though only just, but if you think it's the other guy, look in the mirror, long and hard, then see if you still think so.

I don't read every thread in the forum, so if anyone else catches further problems, feel free to contact me, I usually log in at least once a day.

[Tornado Ninja Fan]

And if you were to put all of this into the context of Ryoga prosecuting Ranma in a court of law? Ranma would be deemed innocent because of too much in the way of extenuating circumstances.

while I was making my argument in the context of the law, I was clearly using the term "extenuating circumstance" as thus. I made it very clear, both in how I argued (I was using it to excuse his actions, not mitigate how responsible he was for them, as if he were already guilty), and how I explicitly said that it wasn't being used according to the law when you got the wrong idea the first time.

Well, of course everyone would use the colloquial definition of a legal term when they claim they know how a court of law would decide.

[Crescent Pulsar R]

Yes, picking out one part where it's clearly not illustrated, because you're placing it outside of its context, means that you're right and I'm wrong. The rest of that paragraph is as follows:

For one, you'd have to observe the act, which was taken before Ranma could have seen Ryoga. Next, in correspondence with that action, you'd have to take into consideration his state of mind at the time of said act, which we, as judge and jury, know that it came into being because of Genma, and that it is excusable because we know that it was inevitable, considering what happened and knowing how Ranma would feel about being turned into a girl. And then there are the circumstances that led up to it, which include Genma's decision to train at Jusenkyo, how Ranma had become blind with rage, how Ranma and Ryoga met, their contest for last breads, how Ryoga handled the issuance of the duel, why he followed Ranma to China, and how he happened to be near a cliff at the time of the incident.

That covered the actus reus, mens rea and attendant circumstance. And you ignore what I'm saying when I use the word "innocent," not "guilty," in regard to what you quoted:

And if you were to put all of this into the context of Ryoga prosecuting Ranma in a court of law? Ranma would be deemed innocent because of too much in the way of extenuating circumstances.

Put that together...

And if you were to put all of this into the context of Ryoga prosecuting Ranma in a court of law? Ranma would be deemed innocent because of too much in the way of extenuating circumstances. For one, you'd have to observe the act, which was taken before Ranma could have seen Ryoga. Next, in correspondence with that action, you'd have to take into consideration his state of mind at the time of said act, which we, as judge and jury, know that it came into being because of Genma, and that it is excusable because we know that it was inevitable, considering what happened and knowing how Ranma would feel about being turned into a girl. And then there are the circumstances that led up to it, which include Genma's decision to train at Jusenkyo, how Ranma had become blind with rage, how Ranma and Ryoga met, their contest for last breads, how Ryoga handled the issuance of the duel, why he followed Ranma to China, and how he happened to be near a cliff at the time of the incident.

...as it had been written, and you can begin to understand what I'm trying to say. I mean, I'm trying to argue his complete innocence, so why would I intend to argue that he's at least partially guilty? And if clearly showing that I'm using the term "extenuating circumstance" to excuse one's actions wasn't enough, when you said this to that:

And another mistake. Extenuating circumstances led to diminished sentences, not acquittals.

I corrected your assumption with this:

That's if the verdict itself is extenuating circumstances, which assumes that Ranma is guilty. However, if there's far too much to give a guilty charge, Ranma walks free. And Ranma would, because there are too many things that clearly show that he had little to no control over the situation. One, because of the state of mind that Genma put him in; two, because he couldn't have seen Ryoga with the last act that set them both on a collision course; and three, Ryoga chose to walk by a cliff.

I clearly make a distinction in regard to how I'm using the term (and it's not the only time I do so). I'm not using it as a verdict, but as a form of attendant circumstance. The kind that excuses someone from penalty or grievance, for instance, if something came up and made it impossible to, say, take an important test. The extenuating circumstance I'm referring to would not only prevent that missed test from affecting one's grade negatively, but it would even give them a chance to take the test when that would normally not be possible for those who didn't have a good reason for missing it.

So, yeah. You can stubbornly hold on to your assumption all that you want and ignore all of the times (potentially this time, too) when I've told you that you're mistaken, instead of accepting what I've been trying to tell you all along, but it would be pointless. Which makes pursuing this topic pointless. It's time to give it a rest. Really. I mean, if you can use this in your accusation...

while I was making my argument in the context of the law, I was clearly using the term "extenuating circumstance" as thus. I made it very clear, both in how I argued (I was using it to excuse his actions, not mitigate how responsible he was for them, as if he were already guilty), and how I explicitly said that it wasn't being used according to the law when you got the wrong idea the first time.

...and still not get it? One better hope that rest is all that you need, because you're literally putting your own assumption into its grave with that.

(That said, perhaps the topic should be locked.)

[SpaceKnight of Chaos]

Just to comment, while I was originally only able to layout the turn of events for the curse flashback in the anime, I've found the pages of the event in question from the Viz manga on AnyManga.

Page 4: http://www.anymanga.com/ranma/002/008/004/
Ryoga and Ranma hit each other in midflight. The posture of Ranma's body and the angle of the prior panel may suggest that Ryoga was coming down as Ranma was coming up and Ryoga was knocked aside with the impact.

Page 5: http://www.anymanga.com/ranma/002/008/005/
Ryoga falls headlong towards the Spring of Drowned Pig, back to the cliff, which crumbles slightly in his wake. He describes his attacker as knocking him "from the cliff to the spring".

I also found out that the sequence of Ranma changing Ryoga into a pig to keep him from attacking her, then promising they'll talk this out, isn't unique to the anime take: it's from the original manga, page 11 http://www.anymanga.com/ranma/002/008/011/

[Zwzn]

Just to comment, while I was originally only able to layout the turn of events for the curse flashback in the anime, I've found the pages of the event in question from the Viz manga on AnyManga.

Page 4: http://www.anymanga.com/ranma/002/008/004/
Ryoga and Ranma hit each other in midflight. The posture of Ranma's body and the angle of the prior panel may suggest that Ryoga was coming down as Ranma was coming up and Ryoga was knocked aside with the impact.

In the frame Ranma yells "Get back here pop!" you will notice that there are bamboo leaves below Ranma. That might mean Ranma was higher then Ryoga at that time.

It looks like they both jumped at about the same time to me, and the only reason Ryoga did not see Ranma sooner was because he was watching the panda.