Oh i do have a problem with pirating that is why i am a big akainu fan.
No problem as in being okay reading the manga and doesn't question what's wrong with Oda...My point is if people (Enbima is the one who started) are so righteous they feel the need to point out Oda is drawing a 15 year-old in marriage and ask what the hell is wrong with him as a mangaka then why the hell do they not ask what the hell is wrong with him drawing a 17 year-old going around releasing the world's most dangerous criminals out of prison for his personal purpose and keep reading this story for so long? And not to mention a lot of critically acclaimed works in other mediums (films, anime, music) that talks about sensitive topics.
Clearly all of them understand Oda is just telling a story with dark, for lack of better words, elements. That's different from advocating these elements itself. Every educated reader should understand what they should learn from Luffy (have a dream, never give up, care about friends, etc.) and what they should not (I love my brother so much I decide the rest of the world deserves a bunch of Impel Down Level 6 criminals). So thinking just because a hero-ish character doing something bad means author's advocating for that bad thing is stupidly arrogant. These people think the reader population is filled with idiots who can't think...
The same should apply for Sanji. He's a good character but that doesn't mean readers would imitate him blindly. And hell in Sanji's case, it's not like he's actually a child molester. They haven't had sex or any physical contact that's out of bound. Pudding is willing (though for different reasons before and after the ceremony), and the culture and law in-verse probably allow it. So from Sanji's perspective, if not perspective of everyone in-verse, it's a perfectly okay action. Sure, in real life law would not account for intention in most cases but the point is when you read a manga, you as a reader have a near omnipotent point of view (I'd say only the author, editor and know-it-all kind of character like Aizen would know more than us readers), so you can afford to understand the characetr more than you would someone in real life, and so you can clearly distinguish between an author's portraying an in-verse world plus a character without ill will AND an author who is advocating for ill action through a hero character (which would indeed warrants a ''what is wrong with mangaka these days?'').
Um. You were the one who suggested Death Note not me.
I used Death Note as an example since, it's the only manga from those you listed yourself.
Yep. And? I literally see no meaning in repeating a fact which does not in any way add to the discussion. Are you trying to refute me or just being Ms/Mr Obvious?
I suggested Death Note (as well as 2 other manga) as an example where the main character/protagonist is evil/immoral. It perfectly addresses your lack of knowledge about manga world where you thought Luffy's being a pirate selling slaves would be a problem as a manga premise and then used that to attack the Sanji case.
And your example only supports my point.
Because she was underage back at the time this discussion started?
15 is underage? So what age is not underage? By which country's law? Does that country exist in One Piece? I don't remember any law (or cultural view) in One Piece saying so...Not to mention Pudding is willing and she's not your average 15 year-old. So an exception she may as well be. And before you tell me ''but real life'', go back and read the discussion from start to now to know what is actually being discussed.
Your point being...?
Unless you were sliently targeting me, I don't see the purpose of this.
The same one I said before. That Sanji's being a hero makes no difference. You think making a hero who does evil thing is problematic because it may send the wrong message but readers should be capable enough to understand what they should learn and not learn from a character, whether the characters are portrayed clearly as villainous or not is not an issue because even good people have shortcomings or mistakes. In real life do you just listen and imitate everything from anyone you deem good? Do you not selectively and carefully choose what you should learn from a person? If you can then do the same for a manga. Don't shift your responsibility as a reader and human being to the author.
And please, if I think you're stupid I would say so. What's the point of silently targeting you? You're who?
Sanji is one of the protagonist, it would only be logical. That's one of the reasons that you brushed aside.
Apart from that, Sanji is prepared to fufill his dreams and fight for that reason, which is one of the main point in One Piece anyway.
Logical? I just showed you protagonists can be immoral, by author's choice. I don't brush it aside. I perfectly addressed it but you dodged my argument LOL
And? He has good points? Yeah, I know. He's one of the heroes who are conveying One piece's main theme? Yeah, I know. And my argument is exactly that even if he is, he can still do wrong and readers should be smart enough to avoid making the same mistake at him. Not blaming the author for making a bad role model when it's only a design to serve the story, at least until you can prove Oda actually advocates for it.
Are you holding a grudge against me?
You are personally attacking me for what reason?
Having different percpective of life doesn't make one person stupid. I am being polite and you should too.
No. Why should I? I barely know you LOL
Where did I say you're stupid in that quote? I only advised you to read more and expand your mind because clearly you know nothing about manga where main characters/protagonists are evil/immoral and your understanding of an author's writing a story is bad to the point you think a hero doing a bad thing is the same as author advocating for it and author needs/must show he/she's villainous. That's the same as telling someone who doesn't know something to go read around that something. How is that calling you stupid? It's just lacking knowledge. Stupid describes those who, even after obtaining the knowledge, still don't know what it means or how to make use of it.
-A had never learnt maths so she didn't know how to solve quadratic equations. But once she did, she caught up to those who started maths way earlier than her. She's not stupid.
-B can only solve quadratic equations after studying for four times the amount of time an average student would spend (Obviously, I don't count specific cases like he doesn't like maths and ignore the subject period or he suffers some medical condition where his brain is underdeveloped etc.) . He's stupid.
So I'm not calling you stupid in the least. Having different perspective of life doesn't make one person offensive, much less when I actually understand what I'm talking about. Heed your own advice!
You are oversensitive, aren't you?
A crime is when you do the opposite of the law, which basically any pedophiles and child molesters are doing, at least, in North America, I don't know elsewhere.
Again, not any pedophiles. Pedophiles by definition don't do anything. They commit no crime. When they do, child molester is the term. Please use them correctly and don't accuse people of what they don't do. You're just being stubborn and not admitting you are wrong about what you're talking.
And funny enough you bring up law. At first I thought you had some absolute, universal morality you so believed in and argued for it because you're adamant something shouldn't be touched...
You're aware law is not absolute? That's why it varies between countries and even between states in America. Hell, in certain countries, pre-marital sex is against the law, doesn't matter how old you are which is not the case in a lot of places in North America. So if in Japan or Europe or in One Piece world (the only place where it matters) the law is not like North America law then Sanji did nothing wrong (as well as other cases where you would call them child molesters) so how can you call it a crime? Much less make a definitive statement like what you said
It's never ok. Regardless, fiction or reality.
Next you will tell me, ''oh I only speak for where I live'' then I would throw that back at you: other people may also speak for where they live and most importantly, where the characters live (in One Piece).
Sorry, reality doesn't just consists of just North America, much less fiction. Please discover other continents...
And the funniest of all, child marriage is legal in several places in North America. Of course, as exceptions, with parental/judicial consent and whatnot but Sanji and Pudding totally have that as well as the willingness of both parties (well, technically they should still need pre-marriage counsellor in some states but why when your purpose is killing your spouse and your mother-in-law, right?). So Sanji commited no crime and did nothing wrong even by your standard: North America law. Wow, Oda clearly researched your country of choice's law very well before writing his story yet you still have problem
Having sexual attirences with childrens are wrong in all the way. I already told you that childrens aren't meant to have reproduction behaviors. That is their wrong doings.
Yet sex can be for pleasure, not just reproduction. You don't know that? Well, time to expand your mind again.
Doings? Who does what? Like I have said for several times, pedophiles don't do anything (those who do would be called child molesters/abusers/etc.). They are only sexually atracted to prepubescent kids in their head. If they don't do anything then why are you even accusing them of crime and wrong doings with that ''children are not ready'' reason? If no one has sex with them (or does anything harmful in general to) then no consequence can even happen.
A majority of people have agreed for it to be a crime, what else do you want?
Fun fact: there's such a thing call argumentum ad populum.
And like you, they may not understand the difference between pedophiles and child molesters (hell, they may even think those two are the same thing) so their opinion could be invalid (they may agree with me, but use wrong terms).
Sorry to disappoint you, maybe you learned that humans are animals.
I did. I said ''other animals''. Do you know why I phrased it like that? Because, surprise, I know humans are animals. My argument is other animals' behavior shouldn't influence us humans. Nice Strawman!
You are right, I should have been to my crystal ball and looked at every animal species that exist. I will do that next time.
Really? You couldn't understand the purpose of the word "doubt".
You should. You're proving my point. You don't know about something, you ask, you go research, you don't get to use it as a basic for your argument. It's simple as that.
I perfectly understand the word ''doubt''. It means you don't know for sure, as you just admitted, and yet you felt adequate to bring it up as a support for your stance...
Pedo means children, more or less and Philia means to love or being abnormally affectionate of something.
Well, first of all, by your own definition, still no harmful action is done. Love and be affectionate is not the same as molest or abuse or have sex with or taking explicit sexual pictures etc. So you agree with me. Thanks!
Second, yep, you showed you don't know what you're talking about again. Children? Define it! There are 5 year-old children and there are 12 year-old children and there are 14 year-old children. There are those who hit puberty and there are those who have not. It's not as simple as you think. Read about it!
Just some simple links.
Anw, Pudding can be 14-15 and clearly not prepubescent (obviously so) so there's no pedophilia here. And like I said, she's not your average girl. She's a Yonkou crewmember, living in an environment where she can kill people and get exposed to a lot of stuffs. Her mental age isn't like an average 14-15 year-old. Now, that may not be taken into consideration in real life law but at least it (as well as other things in the manga) serves as a context to understand this isn't a simple and stereotypical disgusting case of child marriage.
Are you being serious? You should be aware that I was referring to the natural purpose of the act.
...Being Ms/Mr Obvious again? Yes, I know what you're referring to, and I'm telling you we human can have sex for ''not natural'' purposes and so your reasoning which is children are not ready for reproduction is out of the window because they may not even do it for that purpose in the first place. How can they be not ready for the consequence of something they don't even do? That's like worrying about a guy's unreadiness for a job that he never applies to begin with...
Either you give a reason that covers all bases and says loud and clear children should not have sex period (of course, with evidences backing that up) or not. You give a reason like reproduction and I refuted that. Your sentence is dead clear
Reproductive act, that is the puropse of having sex, which childrens are not suited for.
Not a word about other purposes of having sex. So don't try to change argument and appear as if you actually talked about more than that after I corrected you!
I'm not saying that, unlike homosexual persons, a children doesn't have the conscience or the maturity of their thoughts. Which, except for rare cases, shouldn't want to feel pleasure with a adult doing these kinds of things.
Oh, so you do know there are rare cases. Then maybe Pudding is such rare case and so Sanji was right to think it was okay, right?
True, just that it's for reproduction. You know that condoms are made to stop the reproductive act of sex? Yes, they are made to stop us from making babies and having not to fear being impregnated, which a human body does for the sole purpose of having childrens. Or maybe you didn't know that?
How can gays and lesbians reproduce (when having sex with someone of same biological sex, that is)?
LOL no, you can also use condoms to prevent STDs but no one who wants to reproduce would put condom on to begin with (unless they think they can just poke a hole at the tip or they want to rely on the small chance that the condom doesn't work and even then not all pedophiles use condoms or even want to impregnate) so it doesn't hurt my point in the slightest.
You have anything else to delay your admitting you're wrong?
Your point being?
That pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, just like homosexual people are attracted to the opposite sex (though the former is classified as a disorder). It's only when they harm or violate people that they commit crimes and are immoral. Otherwise it's just a fantasy in their head. You can't call it a crime or immoral just because they masturbate to their fantasy.
You keep glossing over that very fact and try to put the crime label on them but you can't.
It's not irrelevant, I wanted to know, which makes it relevant.
I'm not talking about your right to know. That's why I did answer you with a ''no''. Please read and understand what you read!
I'm saying it isn't relevant because your argument has never been about her precise age. You talk about pedophilia without knowing what children means in the term's definition. So why even asked her age when I told you how pedophilia is defined? Even if she's 15 that doesn't change the fact that pedophilia doesn't apply to Sanji because Pudding is not a pre-pubescent kid nor was it ever said how minor is defined in One Piece.
stop this discussion about that molestation crap here! This is chapter discussion thread! But u r discussion about pedos and stuff------who cares about that in a chapter discussion thread...... there are other theads for off topic discussions go there!
Because it direclty relates to whether Sanji does wrong and what the chapter advocates.