voltlunok wrote:There are issues with your arguments here though. One, with Raditz there is credence to his claim. 'Wait a minute...this guy who claims to be my brother has a tail just like mine from when I was a kid!' But not only that, Goku doesn't out right believe Raditz, no one really does in that moment.
Right, but what if a chapter later it was revealed Raditz was lying? Or that they were half, step, or adopted brothers? You wouldn't know that unless the story told you. You'd still believe he was Goku's full brother until led otherwise.
And there are still plenty of more examples to choose from. A demon tells Goku Snakeway is rumored to be a million km long. With nothing else to go on, we assume it's the truth. Freeza and everyone else in the story hypes up Goku and himself as being the strongest in the universe. If the story ended there, that'd be considered the truth, but it did continue and the claim is contested.
Or what if Toriyama believed Goku was from another planet, but he never introduced this concept into the series? Then Goku would be human, and that'd be a fact until he mentioned he wasn't in an interview or another source. It's still another example of true until proven otherwise.
voltlunok wrote:Two, with the episode of TLA you reference, most people watching who could put two and two together, knew Aang was lying. The story is so ridiculous that it honestly can't be true. However to the two tribes, this is the Avatar, who says he is 100+ years old, saying that it was a game, that's why they believed him. We're not supposed to, we're outsiders watching the events of the show. That's the thing, 'statements are true until contradicted' works alright from the viewpoint of the characters in the show, in that universe, but even then characters may not believe said claims. That's why the term 'unbelievable claims' exists.
This is completely false. Without the ending scene, very few people would say he was lying, and of the few who did they wouldn't have any credence. Aang didn't stutter or scratch his head or use any of the other tropes one typically uses when very obviously trying to fool someone in a kid's show. Even someone like the Nostalgia Critic, a pro at picking up tropes, believed Aang in the vlog about this episode.
But say you are right and Aang gave some hint he was lying which I just missed. That hint is still part of the context. If I noticed I wouldn't doubt his story because that's the way it's being presented to me: a doubtful account. I'm not arguing for "doubtful exposition is true until proven otherwise". So now imagine whatever hint you picked up on wasn't there. Would you doubt Aang just for the sake of it? You could, but you would be mistaken if you claimed this was the story's intent.
"True until proven otherwise" is intended for the audience, not the characters. Storytellers write around their audiences' presuppositions to surprise them. They don't just assume they're going to disbelieve everything presented to them.
*SPOILERS)
In SotC, you're supposed to take it for granted you're the good guy, only for it to slowly dawn on you that you're not. The game wouldn't work if we doubted everything from the start.
In Star Wars, who was honestly supposed to guess Darth Vader was Luke's father? This claim was so shocking even James Earls Jones thought he was lying. But imagine how lame of a story it would be if he were? The moment would make awkward and devalued. It could work in another kind of medium, but not this one, so we take it as likely fact even without the confirmed from Yoda in Episode 6.
voltlunok wrote:The issue with 'statements are true until contradicted' is that we would have to take each and every line that is meant to hype a character up or make them sound threatening at 100% face value with nothing to back up these claims but those words. The line about Beerus is hyperbole, just making the character sound threatening and powerful. The practice is so silly that some games and anime will out right make fun of it. Example, in Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate, when you do the single player quest to hunt the Serigios, Guildmarm says "It's scales could slice open the skies! The earth would crumble under the beat of it's mighty wings or crushed by it's sharp talons!...Too much hyperbole? OK, back to business then." Little paraphrasing there, can't fully remember how she hyped the beast up. But yeah that's the inherent issue with this 'rule', that taking stuff completely at face value (specially something as absurd as destroying a universe in one shot.) there is nothing to back the claim up and it utterly destroys the possibility of discussion, which is what these forums are for.
Another way to phrase this is:
"Statements or facts intended for the audience to be taken at face value are probably true until hinted otherwise."
If Beerus said "I could destroy the universe with a single blast", that statement is too specific to be taken as hyperbole, so it should be treated as story exposition if the context supports it. Saying power-related statements can't be taken as fact just because there are hyperboles is a flawed argument. Hyperboles are not supposed to be taken seriously, and there's nothing inherent about power-related statements that automatically makes them hyperboles.
