Talk:Slicer Brothers

Pretty through knowledge of alchemy. 58.169.180.123 15:51, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Wha??? What was this point of this comment? What did you mean here? Tommy-Vercetti 17:07, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Minor nitpick: Ed's right arm was still able to move during his fight with Slicer. It is not until Envy arrives that his arm ultimately breaks.

Sustaining a Soul
"Due to the manga later establishing that a human body and soul must be alive for either to continue existing,"

When does this happen? Don't the Philosophers Stones kind of disprove this? I mean, Kimblee had his throat slashed & then was EATEN. I think that tends to kill you, but he didn't seem to have any problems.Neo Bahamut (talk) 00:22, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

...What does Kimblee's stone and armor bound souls have in common, whatsoever?

First off, the notion is mentioned during the time when Al keeps getting pulled in towards Truth, in the Briggs arc. While it's never stated outright, the entire point of Barry the Chopper's death; both his body and soul die instantly together when his body rubs out his blood seal; is there to show that notion. Keep in mind too that every conversation about souls always alludes back this incident is pretty heavily implied to be the case.

And secondly, Kimblee's later resurgence inside Pride's stone (which I assume is what you're alluding to) has little, if anything, in common with the binding process.

You could even argue that because Pride ate BOTH Kimblee's body and soul or even that every Stone is literally just an ocean of lost (albeit still individual) souls, and because of Kimblee's bizarre love of such suffering, he was able to keep his own indentity far more closely.

All I'm saying is, what happened to Kimblee (eaten alive, literally) and having both sides of someone pulled apart and then split into another object is nowhere remotely the same thing, at all.

Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 14:18, September 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, it is not stated once, ever. That makes a lot more sense now. Barry's case is a spurious correlation. Barry makes note that his body was rotting, so it is possible that his body would have died of that anyway, and that the simultaneous death was more-or-less a coincidence. It is also possible that the passing of the soul kills the body, but not the other way around. Which is precisely where the Stones come in. The Stones are nothing but souls, sometimes of people who lived thousands of years ago. You'd have to jump through all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain how all of these peoples' bodies could still be considered "alive," in any sense of the word. I don't see how you consider these to be totally different processes. They are both cases of the soul being separated from the body, and the quoted claim does not discriminate between different types of soul extraction. I do distinctly recall Ed saying that the soul was "life energy," but I do not see why it would work in the reverse direction.Neo Bahamut (talk) 23:32, September 20, 2012 (UTC)