💥SunsRays🔫

Prev | Part 1(you're here) | Part 2

So, to start off, let’s take a look at Sun’s claims:

1. He is not bald

2. His rays are hair

I’ll be analyzing both separately, but before we get into specifics, let’s define our terms.

Who is bald?

The dictionary definition of bald, according to google, is: having a scalp wholly or partly lacking hair.

To meet this definition, a person must be lack hair on their scalp, meaning there is no hair there AT ALL. This is the official definition, which I will refer to as Bald (with a capital B), or True Baldness.

Two famous people that meet this standard are Mr. Clean (left), and Saitama (right) from One Punch Man.

These two individuals are Bald. This is the standard of True Baldness.

However, I would argue that there is, in fact, another definition of bald that is commonly accepted by society. To differentiate the two, I will refer to this secondary category as bald, with a lowercase b, or apparent baldness.

So, what is apparent baldness? I think the best example of apparent baldness is Seth Everman.

Seth is widely known for being bald (among other things, but I’m focusing on his baldness here). However, upon closer inspection, we can see that he does actually have hair in his scalp, he’s just shaved his head.

Thus, Seth does not meet the standards for True Baldness. He is, however, still widely accepted to be bald, as seen in his notorious youtube comment:

1.6 million people agreed with this, so it must have some merit, but Seth is not Truly Bald, so what is he? I would argue that Seth fits into the secondary category: he is bald, but not Bald.

What this means is that Seth appears to be bald, but is not truly Bald. THIS is apparent baldness.

I think the biggest factor in apparent baldness is the smooth silhouette, which I’ve highlighted here.

Seth shares this shape with Saitama. Both are bald, but only Saitama is Truly Bald. Do you feel me?

So now we have:

Bald: lacking hair on the scalp

and

bald: sharing the smooth silhouette commonly seen in Bald people; widely accepted and labeled as bald

By this definition, Saitama is both Bald and bald, and Seth is bald but not Bald. Finally, if someone who is Truly Bald wore a wig, they would be Bald, but NOT bald, since they lack the appearance of baldness.

Now we can examine Sun’s arguments.

Claim #1: Sun is not bald.

When you go by the traditional definition, Sun is Bald. He lacks hair, plain and simple. However, I would argue that his silhouette does not have the appearance of baldness.

Thus, he is not bald.

Moon, on the other hand…

Is very much apparently bald. And even if you argue that his hat disrupts the silhouette, let’s look at Pitbull, another famous bald individual.

Here we see Pitbull performing in a hat. Though the hat disrupts his smooth silhouette, we all know the truth: he is bald beneath it. Thus, Sun is Bald, but not bald, but MOON is Bald AND bald.

Whether or not the statement is true depends on the definition of bald you are using, and Sun could technically argue that he is not bald. Additionally, I don’t believe he is in the wrong for calling Moon bald either, because of relative baldness.

Relative baldness

Can Sun joke that Moon is bald? I say yes. Here’s why.

Let’s say I’m 5’5” tall, and I have a friend who is 5 feet even and one who is 6 feet even. The national height average is 5’4”. Thus, by technical definition, I am not short.

However, I would argue that my 6 foot tall friend could still call me “shorty” as a joke and get away with it. When standing next to them, I do appear short, even if I’m not technically Short in the official sense.

I can also turn around and call my 5 foot tall friend short, and I would be within my rights to so so as they would be both apparently short and Truly Short by definition. Finally, someone who is 5’2” (True Shortness) could probably still get away with calling my 5 foot tall friend short.

By these standards, I would argue that Sun has a right to jokingly call Moon bald, since Moon is relatively balder than him. This does, however, mean that the animatronics with synthetic hair, who are still technically Bald, are within their rights to joke that Sun is bald in comparison to them.

As an aside, you could also argue that one requires a scalp to be Truly Bald, since that is included in the definition. This would mean that technically none of the animatronics are Truly Bald, but the rights for who can call who bald would still default to relative baldness in this case, so the outcome would be the same.

So, to summarize: Sun is either Bald but not bald OR neither Bald nor bald, and either way you swing it, he’s still LESS BALD than Moon. On to the final claim.

Claim #2: Sun’s rays are hair.

Again, the technical answer is no. None of them have real hair that they grew from their head, but there are some technicalities here based on the same relativity theory.

No animatronic truly has hair, but if you want to define an animatronic equivalent to hair, it would probably be ‘something that is attached to or comes out of the top of one’s head.’

If we go by the attachment theory, animatronics like Monty and Puppet can be considered to have more hair relative to Sun and Moon. But is a wig truly hair?

Depending on how their synthetic hair is attached (is it a wig glued down to their head or threaded through the exoskeleton like a barbie?), it’s possible that what Sun has is actually the closest thing to hair, since his rays clearly originate from his head and are extending out from it, not just glued on top. Would you say that someone who is Truly Bald and wears a wig ‘has hair?’ They certainly appear to, but it’s not a part of them, so maybe you could argue that they don’t.

So, if Sun has the closest thing to hair, relatively, then I think he at least has more of a right to call his rays hair than is being let on, especially if we consider that he’s not apparently bald. And if Monty and Puppet’s hair is glued on, like a wig, then I would argue Sun has more relative hair privileges than them, since they are an actual part of him that extends from his head. Thus, the argument is not QUITE as ridiculous as it sounds, even if Sun’s rays are not truly hair by definition.

As another side note, you could maybe argue that Sun’s rays are closer to horns or even antennae? But I think that since they aren’t clearly defined as anything, it can go either way.

In Conclusion