Jump to content


Photo

One Piece Chapter 891 Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#101 Saya

Saya

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • LocationIn the front row sit of a cinema

Posted Yesterday, 02:24 PM

I mean, most of us would consider cheating to be a bad moral, but it's not illegal.


There are in certain countries where it is a crime, but, yes and we have gone way out of this chapter discussion.

You people have given me an headache.
  • Petite Fleur likes this

#102 Grimmjagger

Grimmjagger

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,293 posts
  • LocationCaNdY fAcToRy

Posted Yesterday, 02:44 PM

There are in certain countries where it is a crime, but, yes and we have gone way out of this chapter discussion.
You people have given me an headache.


The perfect excuse for someone being trapped.
  • Fulmine and Abaroxa like this

uolpdaa33dc.gif

Follow my stories!
https://onemangaforu...agger-magazine/
Grimmjagger's magazine

My Lyrics
https://onemangaforu...lust/?p=1163928

#103 Lucky Wolf

Lucky Wolf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:06 PM


If you don't help someone dying, it's the same as helping the murder. If you had help, this victim could have been saved.

 

Um. Excuse me? By the same logic, if I have access to a higher level education, and could become a doctor, and don't I'm helping cancer/diseases kill people? Or if I don't become a cop? or a fire fighter? 

 

This argument also ignores the risks that come with helping. 



#104 Saya

Saya

    Crack Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • LocationIn the front row sit of a cinema

Posted Yesterday, 03:58 PM

Um. Excuse me? By the same logic, if I have access to a higher level education, and could become a doctor, and don't I'm helping cancer/diseases kill people? Or if I don't become a cop? or a fire fighter? 
 
This argument also ignores the risks that come with helping.


It isn't the same logic, you twisted it yourself. They aren't dying directly in front of you, which completely doesn't reflect the example that I made.


The perfect excuse for someone being trapped.


I am not being "trapped", I am just tired of this discussion.

#105 Lucky Wolf

Lucky Wolf

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts

Posted Yesterday, 05:55 PM

It isn't the same logic, you twisted it yourself. They aren't dying directly in front of you, which completely doesn't reflect the example that I made.



I am not being "trapped", I am just tired of this discussion.

From what I read it wasn't clear they were directly in front of you, but yes that does change the logic of it. I do happen to think though that you are missing the points brought up by others given the repetitiveness of the discussion



#106 Fulmine

Fulmine

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,742 posts

Posted Today, 01:23 AM


In Death Note, Light, although he could be an antagonist, he was killing the one's that he decided were ruining the peace of the Human-kind,
was he wrong? Yes.

In the end, did he succeed? No.
Although, at some point, many of us could have agreed with his way of doing, we all had the feeling that he was the antagonist anyway.

 

But, that wasn't what I meant tho, I wasn't saying that an antagonist couldn't be a main character but, immorals one.

None of that matters.

You said you doubted Luffy's being a pirate selling slaves would make a favored and serializeable manga. That's all I'm replying to by showing you serialized manga where main characters/protagonists are evil and yes, immoral and people still read it (Death Note is super popular even). I addressed exactly what your post said. You're mumbling excuse saying unrelated stuffs like whether they succeeded or not!

 

And all 3 manga I listed, the main characters/protagonists are immoral, though to different extent.

 

 


Because it undo the purpose of a role-model that his accessible for everyone.

I'm asking how is marrying Pudding not okay which is the root of all this discussion?

 

And no, it doesn't undo anything. Not all characters are perfect/Mary Sue. They have shortcomings, weaknesses, they can make mistakes (we all know Sanji is a pervert who wants to peep, a cook who values his food yet put razor into Zolo's bento box and now he talked about not putting poison in BM's cake etc.). Except for blind fanatics, retarded people and children whose mind is not mature enough (who shouldn't read the manga in the first place. Parental guidance is there for a reason), no one with an educated brain would be unable to distinguish between the good point they should learn from a characetr and the bad one they shouldn't. Not to mention they can understand that maybe in the world of One Piece, the law, morality code and culture allows for it but in real world that isn't the case. You think the reader population is filled with idiot who can't get that? And frankly, if they are, it's their own fault for interpreting the work like that.

 

And who said Oda planned for Sanji to be a role model? Much less accessible to everyone? You're aware people can have very different standards? Please don't tell me just because he's a hero-ish character. You would only commit circular reasoning.

 

You should read a lot more and expand your mind. Or if you have, then check your memory why you don't remember such obvious knowledge.

 

 


It isn't a crime? Are you defending Pedos in general?

Did you even read the explanation I gave following that?

Anw, Chillman answered it for me. And I will answer your next question that rose from his answer

 


Then there aren't any bad morals, we, Humans, made what is a good and bad morality.

Not quite. But it's true a lot of things are socially/culturally constructed. It's not that people can do whatever the hell they want and say ''eh, given my own morality it's okay''. There should still be some basic standard, for example: 

1. It must not hurt other people for wrong reason (note that there two clauses here: hurting people and for wrong reason)

2. You must not be double standard.

 

But anw, your answer is just dodging. You claim it's a crime, not just that it's immoral, so better be responsible for your words and show me how it's a crime. Don't run away after being so self-righteous! Haizzz...

 

 


Would you be ok, if somehow you had one nearby and you had childrens? Although, like you said, they don't "harm" anyone, at least not physically
I doubt any other animals have pedos or child-molestors.

Okay, I don't see why other animals are a factor here. Even if they have child molestors, pedos or rapists that doesn't at all change the way we human should behave, unless you want to return to Stone Age (or whatever-Age where you can do those things) or become one with nature by abandoning civilization and living like other animals. Let's talk human!

 

Also , you have more than once shown your lack of knowledge (simple stuffs at that like what a crime is or the definition of the terms you use) so I advise you to not talk about stuffs in vague manner like ''I doubt'' and use it as somewhat a basic to your argument.

 

But FYI, while there's a problem of comparing less intelligent animals to human (anthropomorphism), according to some researches ducks are a bunch of rapists. You can read on the topic with a bit of google-ing (though quite a coincidence, Oda said if he was an animal, Sanji would be a duck LOL).

 

To answer your question, yes, it is okay. That word harm in your post shouldn't be in quotation mark because indeed they don't harm anyone. When they do, they are child molesters/child abusers/rapists/murderer etc. The word pedophile, put it simply, only tells you a person is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids. That's all there is to it. And it's not just physically. They shouldn't stare inappropriately and cause emotional or psychological distress, too.

 

But yeah, if they behave perfectly appropriate, then it's just a sexual preference all in their head and their personal, private time. Not at all different from a woman's wanting to have sex with a man she finds attractive and then masturbates or vice versa. It's only when an individual can't control him/herself and harm another that it becomes a terrible crime.

 

 


yoh should also be aware that there is a reason that our bodies develop as we age and are not ready for reproductive methods.


I wouldn't think that way, there is a difference with this and thinking of a child and get turned on.

Reproductive act, that is the puropse of having sex, which childrens are not suited for.

I'm well aware but the thing is...you can have sex for pleasure so reproductive act isn't the only purpose of sex (that doesn't even mention very specific and out-there circumstances). There's a reason why people whose mature bodies can reproduct use condoms...they don't want to reproduct, surprise?...Children can feel pleasure so by your logic it's alright, right? Not to mention gay and lesbian sex can't reproduct (unless the world has evolve beyond what I know and I would love to see evidences of that from you...) so you are saying gay and lesbian sex is crime, too?

 

But funny enough, also by your logic, pedophiles and child molesters who are gay/lesbian are okay because their act isn't reproductive so you don't need to worry about whether the children are suited for it...now if you reply ''I don't mean that, obviously consent matters and then these children needs to be old enough to decide'' then good, you know what the actual problem is and this reproductive reasoning is complete bullshit.

 

So there's no difference as far as morality is concerned. Heterosexual women feel attracted to men and vice versa. Gay are attracted to each other. Lesbian are attracted to each other. Bisexual love both men and women. Asexual don't want sex. Pansexual don't care. Sadists love masochists and vice versa. People with foot fetish like feet. Acrotomophilia desire amputee (who said losing a limb decreases your sexual appeal, right?). Coprophilia excited for a 2 lovers 1 cup session. Some people like to have sex in front of mirror, others want a leash on their neck. Exhibitionists show all. Pedophile are attracted to children.

 

It's just one in a long list of what people want in sex or relationship in general, whether it has to do with gender, biological sex, kinks or whatever. There's nothing wrong with it. Reproduction has nothing to do here. The wrong thing is when you can't control yourself and let your desire take over and harm other, like rape/harrassment/molestation etc. If you think a girl masturbating to Tom Cruise for example is okay then there's no problem at all with pedophiles. A pedophile who has his/her sexual tendency in check, behaves perfectly appropriate in society and keep his/her fantasy in private space and time commits no crime and is not morally wrong in the least.

 

My goodness, are you serious or are you just playing devil to stir up this thread and boost forum activity? :rly: I do know our forum has been quite deserted but... :lolxg:

 

 


I won't change that way of thinking, I will not sympathize with those kind of people, unless you can prove it wrong.

I already did. I told you how pedophile is different from child molester. This isn't a matter of your personal liking. You are free to not sympathize with those people all you want but you don't get to call their being a crime when they haven't done anything. And it's not like they are that way because they choose to or because the sexual preference itslef is inherently harmful. This isn't like someone with a racist view. If you're concerned with the fact that they are stuck at kid stage and not attracted to the same mature people then treat them like they are people with disorder (that's how it's defined anw) and you should tell them to go to psychiatrist or whatever, not treating them like criminals.

 

 


Wasn't it stated that she was 15 before?

No. But that doesn't matter. I just showed you what pedophile means and it has nothing to do with Pudding. Don't ask irrelevant question to avoid your responsibility to back up your argument.

 

 


Out of nothing? How can you say that it isn't a crime? You sound like the type of person that would say that "Rapist aren't criminal, it's the law that make them criminals."

Rapists...well...rape. They do something bad. Pedophile is just a word for people with sexual attraction to prepubescent kids. It doesn't mean they do something bad. If they do, the term is child molester/child abuser. Same way heterosexual is a word for people who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Do you think heterosexuality is a crime? No! How long will it take you to understand something so easy to understand?

 

And it's not like I'm arguing semantic for fun. It's important to use the right word in topics like this because you would make false and serious accusation if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Being righteous is good and all but make sure you're being intellectual.

 

 


If you don't help someone dying, it's the same as helping the murder. If you had help, this victim could have been saved.

I don't know what a crime is even for you.

First, you talk about being okay with the crime. Now you change it to helping the murder. Make up your mind. Don't switch argument!

Anw, a person may not want to save the kid because he has other stuffs he needs to attend that he deems more important (or he just doesn't want to get into trouble) but that doesn't mean he thinks it's okay to hit and run (which might imply he's okay to do it himself or have it done to him). And it may be a weird situation but he may jot down the car's plate number and call police (because he's not okay with the crime) yet still doesn't save the kid for whatever reason (the kid accidentally killed his cat before).

 

Literally and technically not saving the victim does make the purpose of the murder, the victim's death, reached (at least if nothing else happens that saves the kid). But like my example about elephant and tiger both having 4 legs and being mammals, it's just a similarity at the most superficial level. Sure, the ones who turn a blind eye are cold-hearted or whatever, but it's not their responsibility, whether by law or by morality. And if they can accept the samething happen to them then I can only say they live a non-double standard life. Helping a murder is when you push the kid onto the road so the car can hit, for example.

 

What you're talking about is compassion and stuffs and I'm all for it, but it has nothing to do with crime or right or wrong.

 

 


It isn't the same logic, you twisted it yourself. They aren't dying directly in front of you, which completely doesn't reflect the example that I made.

Heh, so you know what twisting means. How about stop twisting what people said into ''it's fictional so it's okay''?


Spoiler Favorite male characters in manga/hwa/hua

#107 ShinmenTakezo

ShinmenTakezo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,292 posts

Posted Today, 04:19 AM

Then there aren't any bad morals, we, Humans, made what is a good and bad morality.

 

You are getting there


  • Abaroxa likes this

qhz8b56l.png


#108 Abaroxa

Abaroxa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts

Posted Today, 07:21 AM

Then there aren't any bad morals, we, Humans, made what is a good and bad morality.


That's a life lesson that those privileged enough don't have to learn the bad way.

Regardless of that, as a one piece reader you should know that.

DD: "Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"

#109 ShinmenTakezo

ShinmenTakezo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,292 posts

Posted Today, 08:30 AM

Well in One Piece, that does not hold truth since there are obviously absolute morals that Oda wants to point out. And DD is not an antagonist coincidentally...


  • Chillman likes this

qhz8b56l.png


#110 Petite Fleur

Petite Fleur

    ~ Spider Lady - Kiri's Wife ~ Professional Cuddle Bug

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,912 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted Today, 10:51 AM

Oh I by no means mean anything more by it than saying that I think one should be careful with such claims. They are more dangerous then anything I read here lately.

It's great and to me logical to speak out against child molestation in general but here it wasn't in order. The whole discussion startet because she saw something where there was nothing.

No no, it's fine, if you want to make excuses for Dude saying 'women mature faster, it is okay to arrange their marriages while they're 13 or 14' that's cool. There really is no other conceivable way to interpret that, so you're either not reading and just making chillboi 'guys controversy scares me' commentary, or you actively mean to stand up for child molestation supporters.

 

 

 
It might still be really significant in some way, though. If the Strawhats gets blamed for it, the BM Pirates could reason that the Fishmen were in collusion with them and go after FI as revenge, which would tie into Shirley's prophecy that FI would be destroyed. (It did save their lives, though, so that's something at least.)

 

 
 
He wasn't supporting child molestation. Nobody was doing that in this thread. Fulmine only said six years isn't that big of a gap between potential partners. which is why a marriage between Sanji and Pudding could seem natural to people even if Pudding was 15 (which she isn't) and even if she was intended to marry Sanji (which she wasn't). In my view, a gap like that matters the younger they are (example 12 - 18 is unacceptable, but 17 - 23 is acceptable), but the point where it begins to matter isn't objectively clear. It's informed by cultural perspectives. In some cultures, girls even younger than Flambe are marriageable and in others, Sanji would just barely qualify as an adult. Expecting to meet these kinds of differences of opinion and accepting the fact that they exist isn't equivalent to condoning them. 

 

These points are actually made clear. We have markers of development that go up to 35 years old, and beyond. So these markers in ones life are very clear, the morality based on cultural markers is not, for example, true. The intentions behind the age of consent have to do with things like 'wanting more soldiers for war' as opposed to the actual biological point for full adulthood - 25 years old. It is very clear that this is the point for that, the reason that the age of consent isn't 25 for the entire world isn't because it's morally ambiguous, it's because it's not convenient.

 

 

And it is okay. Though not something very recommended

 

This is literally responding to a portion of a post that said 'Sanji is a hero, it is not okay for him to do evil things'. One of those things could have been marrying a child. I'm sure Scorpion wants to defend this, and say 'he's not supporting child molestation' but Scorpion has no idea how micro aggression works in social environments. For example, he probably never analyzed the fact that Trump being president inspired all the white nationalist alt-right nazis to come out of hiding. The same way Sanji marrying a child would inspire pedophiles like Dude(who actively supports the idea of having a 14 year old arranged(see: forced) to marry him because 'they mature faster') to come out of the wood work.

 

It was force marriage for both of them remember? Whoever sees the story there advocating it should reconsider their reading comprehension.

Is your response to call people stupid? Let me know how you struggle your way through replying to this post, I want to see you defend Lucky, Fulmine, and Dude. If you still want to say 'it's because you're stupid, Petite' I'll know for a fact that you decided to come to their aid without reading the thread. Otherwise, if you're going to defend the posts saying 'whoa dude, marrying little girls is cool' like Dude likes to post, I'll know exactly where you fall.

 

You're either an argumentative mansplainer obsessed with flaunting his ego and telling yourself 'I don't need to research to be right, I'm me!" or we both know what you're actively trying to defend.


 

girls would be married off at 15 or thirteen on occasion of coming of age.girls mature faster than boys too.just facts especially arranged marriages.

Legit, tell me how I possibly misinterpreted this, chillbois?

 

@Scorpion2k4u

@Tale


 


Mmmh... Yeah, I kinda forgot about that but, I can't stop and think about the time that Luffy was taking advantage of a raging Dogtooth.

 

I think Luffy will need to advance both of his skills if he's going to defeat Dogtooth. Forcing the switch from CoO focus to CoA focus just means he'll be able to hit Dogtooth, but it doesn't mean he'll be able to actively hurt him throughout the fight.


2mGKRJi.png
▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂

Spoiler Quotes




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users