A Story About Being Attacked by an Armed JK - Ch. 3

Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,296
How old is she? She's supposed to be a JK, right? How is he gonna marry her without parental permission? She gonna hire some goons to pretend to be her mom and dad or are they gonna "date" for several years until she's 18? If she's 17 it makes some slight more sense because that's only a year, maybe a few months depending on when she's asking.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,296
Did she get parental permission to be an assassin?
....You do realize that marriage is a legal process overseen by government bodies right...? You do understand that marriage laws exist and you don't just marry someone without the law and government being involved, right? OK...because being a murderer of any caliber is not in any way similar to undergoing a state sponsored process with legal requirements (unless you're a spy).


Hence why I asked if she was going to get some goons or something to bypass the legal requirements and authorities that typically oversee these situations.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
May 5, 2023
Messages
940
I'm being held hostage by this hot JK girl and now after banging her I have to marry her to not get shot.

Oh no~

metal-gear-rising-desperado.gif
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,101
....You do realize that marriage is a legal process overseen by government bodies right...? [...] and you don't just marry someone without the law and government being involved, right?
1. Neither of those things are necessarily true. The institution of marriage-- talk less the concept thereof-- well predates any direct government interest in it.

2. She's an outlaw.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Messages
9,443
How old is she? She's supposed to be a JK, right? How is he gonna marry her without parental permission? She gonna hire some goons to pretend to be her mom and dad or are they gonna "date" for several years until she's 18? If she's 17 it makes some slight more sense because that's only a year, maybe a few months depending on when she's asking.
I don't think a girl who forces a guy to have sex with her at gunpoint(AKA rape) cares about legal ways to get hitched.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,296
1. Neither of those things are necessarily true. The institution of marriage-- talk less the concept thereof-- well predates any direct government interest in it.
She's living in modern day Japan, bud. Stay with me.
2. She's an outlaw.
Doesn't change the fact that if she wants "Marriage" and not "Co-habitation" she needs to find someone dirty enough to help her sneak through the system. Unless her form of "marriage" is hillbilly backyard with a shotgun barrel to the back (or something similar.

I don't think a girl who forces a guy to have sex with her at gunpoint(AKA rape) cares about legal ways to get hitched.
So you mean she's gonna do something dirty like...

"hire some goons to pretend to be her mom and dad"

Or something? Wow, who could've ever thought.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,101
Doesn't change the fact that if she wants "Marriage" and not "Co-habitation" she needs to find someone dirty enough to help her sneak through the system. Unless her form of "marriage" is hillbilly backyard with a shotgun barrel to the back (or something similar.
Clearly, we both recognize that marriage can, has, and does exist outside the recognition of the state, so there's no need to further argue that matter.

That said, it makes no sense for you to thus categorize such a marriage given that the state's desire to be aware of marriages is a recent innovation, and given that the concept of the "shotgun wedding" only describes its cause and not form.
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,296
Clearly, we both recognize that marriage can, has, and does exist outside the recognition of the state, so there's no need to further argue that matter.

Never said it wasn't.
That said, it makes no sense for you to thus categorize such a marriage given that the state's desire to be aware of marriages is a recent innovation.
Because I was the guy with the state given authority to ask "Do you" when you want to say "I do"

It's clear from context that while she's crazy, she's still lucid enough to understand what's going on so I have no reason to believe or suspect that she didn't mean finding a loophole around the state given marriage system. Murders have always respected the law (to some extent) when it was convenient for them, so I see no reason to assume she wouldn't also do something similar if using a loophole wasn't the main goal.




Dear Reader, I contact you from the future. From here on, we're simply going to argue over if I'm defining Marriage as solely state-approved or not. Very little about the manga is even in the conversation. We're just screaming at each other at this point. If you choose to persist and continue down the rabbit hole, then proceed with caution for our battle will be LEGENDARY!
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,101
Never said it wasn't.
...you emphatically defined marriage as such, to begin with:

....You do realize that marriage is a legal process overseen by government bodies right...? You do understand that marriage laws exist and you don't just marry someone without the law and government being involved, right?

Because I was the guy with the state given authority to ask "Do you" when you want to say "I do"
What does that have to do with your depiction of state-unrecognized marriages outside of simple bias?

Murders have always respected the law (to some extent) when it was convenient for them, so I see no reason to assume she wouldn't also do something similar if using a loophole wasn't the main goal.
It's not illegal to call someone your spouse and consider yourselves married, lack of state-granted privileges aside. It's certainly more legal than being an assassin.

As a matter of fact, why do you think that someone that opposes the law as a profession would want to actively enmesh themselves in it?
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,296
...you emphatically defined marriage as such, to begin with:
Incorrect. I stated that she lived in Modern Day Japan and that marriage, by technical definition of where she is, is a state overseen process UNLESS it's a backyard hillbilly type of situation.

Words and context don't exist separately. If I say "Spiders aren't food" it's clear as day I'm talking about within the context of the society I exist in, regardless of the fact that spiders are eaten in various parts of the world on a daily basis. I shouldn't have to say "Spiders aren't food in state/city/country" for you to get that.

Likewise if I talk about marriage in Modern Day Japan, I'm talking about the modern Japanese Marriage System as overseen by the government and that should be clear as day. That is I pointed out that she would need a separate sense of marriage from the world around her if she wanted to use the term "Marriage" but not go through the system.

I honestly don't get why people on this site get so nitpicky. it's pedantic at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
What does that have to do with your depiction of state-unrecognized marriages outside of simple bias?
It means I recognize where the state gets involved in the process and understand how it can be abused which, again unless she's got a completely separate idea of marriage, she is planning to do.

It's not illegal to call someone your spouse and consider yourselves married, lack of state-granted privileges aside.
If that were the case for she wouldn't have said "Go out with the plan of getting married" there's obviously a distinction for her beyond a simple change of words.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,101
Incorrect. I stated that she lived in Modern Day Japan and that marriage, by technical definition of where she is, is a state overseen process UNLESS it's a backyard hillbilly type of situation.

You said no such thing. You talked about what "marriage" was in a general sense (parentheses and emphasis mine):
....You do realize that marriage is a legal process overseen by government bodies (plural-- which ones?) right...? You do understand that marriage laws (for which jurisdictions?) exist and you don't just marry someone without the law and government (which ones?) being involved, right?

There's no reference to specifically modern Japan. There's no qualification that you're talking about marriage in modern Japan. It actually does not matter that you meant to refer to modern Japan, because your statement has the same issues even in that context, which is that you incorrectly exclude state-unrecognized marriages because you incorrectly consider marriage a strictly legal affair.

At any rate, it's "clear as day" that you initially made a general statement about marriage, which is what enabled me to say that what you stated wasn't necessarily true. This is the essence of the initial disagreement.

You only acknowledge state-unrecognized marriage in a later post, after I point that out. That ought to have been the end of the discussion and yet you want to argue that you never said what you said to start, in the way you said it.

This is a "nitpick"? Am I supposed to intuit what you mean to say, with the bias that you're not substantially wrong? Maybe in your mind, you made these connections, but you never transmitted them into your post in any capacity-- and if I have to explain how any more thoroughly, I'll literally be diagramming your sentences.

It means I recognize where the state gets involved in the process and understand how it can be abused
Which is irrelevant unless you're just capitulating a bias against state-unrecognized marriages (and/or, bizarrely, trying to subtly brag about being a clerk).

If that were the case for she wouldn't have said "Go out with the plan of getting married" there's obviously a distinction for her beyond a simple change of words.
Such as a marriage ceremony that occurs without the state's knowledge? Again, why would an outlaw want to enmesh themselves within the law?
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
May 13, 2023
Messages
1,984
Those are based MangaDex forum users.
Who knows, man.. Maybe her raping him and her having that gun is actually approved by the government, hence she's obviously gonna get parental permission for getting married, then again those 2 guys arguing are more committed to this, than I ever was to anything in my life gotta respect it
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
1,296
You said no such thing. You talked about what "marriage" was in a general sense (parentheses and emphasis mine):

My guy, the emphasis was added but I MADE THE STATEMENT.
Doesn't change the fact that if she wants "Marriage" and not "Co-habitation" she needs to find someone dirty enough to help her sneak through the system. Unless her form of "marriage" is hillbilly backyard with a shotgun barrel to the back (or something similar.
And what were my exact words before this?

She's living in modern day Japan, bud. Stay with me.
All you said was that she's an outlaw, and that has literally never meant anything to criminals getting married. All I did in return was acknowledge an external possibility, that doesn't change the fact that the main focus of my statements are centered around who she is as a modern day Japanese person in a modern day japanese city.

There's no reference to specifically modern Japan. There's no qualification that you're talking about marriage in modern Japan. It actually does not matter that you meant to refer to modern Japan, because your statement has the same issues even in that context, which is that you incorrectly exclude state-unrecognized marriages because you incorrectly consider marriage a strictly legal affair.

At any rate, it's "clear as day" that you initially made a general statement about marriage, which is what enabled me to say that what you stated wasn't necessarily true. This is the essence of the initial disagreement.

You only acknowledge state-unrecognized marriage in a later post, after I point that out. That ought to have been the end of the discussion and yet you want to argue that you never said what you said to start, in the way you said it.

I repeat: "Likewise if I talk about marriage in Modern Day Japan, I'm talking about the modern Japanese Marriage System as overseen by the government and that should be clear as day. That is I pointed out that she would need a separate sense of marriage from the world around her if she wanted to use the term "Marriage" but not go through the system."

At no point in ANY of my comments did I disavow non-state recognized marriages. She has made no distinction in the marriage she mentions and the typical marriage seen throughout the country, so I asked a simple question on how she was going to get around it. You people are the ones making the argument that she's suggesting a non-state recognized marriage (or at least bringing it up for some random reason) and the only ones saying anything in relevance to it. All I did was say it exists.
This is a "nitpick"? Am I supposed to intuit what you mean to say, with the bias that you're not substantially wrong? Maybe in your mind, you made these connections, but you never transmitted them into your post in any capacity-- and if I have to explain how any more thoroughly, I'll literally be diagramming your sentences.

Buddy, you're sitting here trying to tell me the intent behind my words and then having the gall to act like you're not nitpicking my sentence to death? Like I said in the previous comment, I shouldn't have to say "Marriage is a legal construct in State/City/Country" it should automatically be assumed that I mean in the confines of Modern Day Japan when we're talking about a Modern Day Japanese person in Modern Day Japan. This should be especially clear when I point out how it is overseen by the government.


You are nitpicking, you are being a pedant because the breath of my comment on marriage does not expand to the entire planet and all of history. That is pure pedantry.

Which is irrelevant unless you're just capitulating a bias against state-unrecognized marriages (and/or, bizarrely, trying to subtly brag about being a clerk).

??? It's perfectly relevant if the subject of our conversation is "How is she planning to legally bypass the system"? How was that not clear enough?

Such as a marriage ceremony that occurs without the state's knowledge? Again, why would an outlaw want to enmesh themselves within the law?
...MURDERERS GET STATE-MARRIED ALL THE TIME! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?

Also, why would an outlaw want to enmesh themselves within the law? You tell me.

Joseph DeAngelo - Was a cop

Tilmer Thompson - Was a lawyer

Edward Cowart - WAS A JUDGE

Criminals of all backgrounds still exist within the confines of law whenever they WANT TO, whenever it is BENEFICIAL to them. You think Al Capone didn't get state-married because he was a criminal? He not only got state-married, he had a kid. There was no magical ethics barrier stopping him. At no point did he go "Wait I'm a crime lord, I can't touch legal marriage!"

It was what he wanted so he did it, then the next day he continued to consider who he needed to kill.

People who break the law...still use the law. They still enmesh themselves within the law whenever they want to. It's always been like that.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top