User blog comment:TheHadouCyberspaceWitch/Why the Dream Depot is BIGGER Than You Thought/@comment-28171785-20180521053207

>"Throw away most of what you know about how big the Dream Depot is. That's literally less than trash compared to the new Dream Depot. So colour is what gives everything it's life, essence, and the Black Paint is fully sentient. This means that everything in the verse, all things with colour, are sentient. Every drop of colour is sentient."

Every paint, down to the last drop in the Mario verse being sentient is false. Colour itself in the world while it is true gives life its essence, however is does not mean it’s sentient. Colour in this case is nothing more then what gives the world life, colourful paint is what represents life while whiteness gives off the impression of non creative, dry, lifeless existence.

The black paint in this case was a literal special ‘case’, what gave it sentience in the first place was the mixing of multiple colours which gave it unique properties not found in the regular colours. Saying that the colours would have the same properties of black paint is a Burden of Proof when it clearly shows that it’s entirely different by itself in nature, regular colour would not have this. Furthering with this, Super Mario Sunshine gives another case where colour is used in the game.

The paint and colours in this game is a result of the paintbrush used by Bowser Jr. as you probably already know, however unlike Colour Splash, the paint enemies in the game are sentient via being able to walk and various Mario enemies being there. However, the separation of what happens in Colour Splash and Sunshine is different since those enemies are the manifestation of the brush, something actually gave them life in the first place. Every case of sentient paint in the Mario verse was because of a special case or magic like the brush, literally not every single fucking one will be sentient.

Your argument here consists of Association Fallacy and Burden of Proof Fallacy. Your argument fails to actually give proof of what you are saying and heavily ignores context in this case. Your attempt to prove infinite sentience has been utterly dismayed and destroyed to the very aspect. Moving on.