Akuyaku Reijou to Akuyaku Reisoku ga, Deatte Koi ni Ochitanara - Vol. 3 Ch. 13

[whermit]

Womp womp, hope the burn was worth it

 

[feha]

hope that the punishment isn't just a slap on the wrist (it totally is, huh? )

I mean, getting a burn on the wrist is already enough of a punishment itself. Particularly as it was not only in vain, but also made everyone know she's both batshit insane and her word is word nil.

She doesn't need any additional punishment. Mc needs additional protection though, such as expelling the girl so mc isn't exposed to her on the daily.

 

[TakeiDaloui]

There is even how MC can't use a spirit and suddendly she can take on a bitch that can and burn her hand, when everyone knows fire scares her?
It was a pretty weak plot and the bitch was super betting on the heroine low self-esteem and glitching instead of trying to explain the situation.

The thing is that for most of the students there, they would believe that the MC did this because they don't have a good opinion of her. A lie is easy to be believed if it implicates someone people already believe bad about.

 

[reving]

Is it one chapter every 2 months ? First time I seen this

 

[Arenesos]

I actually feel bad for the other girl, and its obvious the MC does too. Everyone is shitting on the stupid girl, but Brigette is quite intelligent and acted just like her bc of the bastard prince. Its clear he's good at manipulating people to do his bidding and I hope Mc can save the other girl as soon as he drops her too.

 

[Umbrecola]

Being shunned does that to someone.

It's patently clear she wanted to speak, but when someone is treated like garbage their whole life they're under them impression that no matter what they say, they're not being believed by anyone. Even if it's the truth.

Also doesn't help MC was already worked up from the crazy bimbo waving fire at her given her dad traumatizing her as a child by burning to try and get her to awaken fire magic. Anyone who knew MCs fear of fire, the same fear MC's ex-fiance told crazy Bimbo about to bully MC, would have immediately call BS but MC doesn't have friends like that

 

[_LOOP_]

I actually feel bad for the other girl, and its obvious the MC does too. Everyone is shitting on the stupid girl, but Brigette is quite intelligent and acted just like her bc of the bastard prince. Its clear he's good at manipulating people to do his bidding and I hope Mc can save the other girl as soon as he drops her too.

I mean, that'd need a lot of work... but I kinda agree. If it's possible, that'd make less suffering in the end. She could even become an ally... I don't necessarily think she will though, she's pretty far gone

 

[XNFEdayo]

I mean, getting a burn on the wrist is already enough of a punishment itself. Particularly as it was not only in vain, but also made everyone know she's both batshit insane and her word is word nil.

She doesn't need any additional punishment. Mc needs additional protection though, such as expelling the girl so mc isn't exposed to her on the daily.

Not true in the slightest. The burn isn't a punishment, it's proof of the misdeed. It's not the consequence of her actions, it's the action itself. You can not say the thing she did on her own free will is punishment, it just doesn't work that way. You punish a wrongful action, any effect of that action does not count as punishment.

She burned herself - action
She casted blame of her action onto someone else - action
She has the pain of being burned - effect of her action
Everyone thinks she's insane and her word can not be trusted - effect of her action

Even if you DO say the pain of her burn is punishment, it's only punishment for the action of burning herself. She still must be punished for trying to hurt the reputation of someone else with her actions.

 

[XNFEdayo]

But have they experienced human emotion? If so, they don't fit the statement.

Apologies, I didn't know emotions were based on species. I thought they were concepts that fit all. I shall henceforth no longer call a dog wagging it's tail is "happy" but instead "Dog happy". Or any human as being sad but instead "Human sad" or "Hu-sad" for short.

 

[AnotherDuck]

Apologies, I didn't know emotions were based on species.

That's not a statement I made. Even as a joke, it doesn't make sense, since you already agreed with the phrasing in the first place.

 

[2hu_ism]

Thanks god we have spirit technology of CCTV that won't be editted in this world so the stupid drama gone with 1 chapter.

Now, all of the prince's pawn are gone,right ? the blondie got converted and this stupid girl got publicly shame. He's probably step up on stage by himself next time and reveal us why the hell he pulled all this scheme just to bully FMC.

please don't make it the usual toxic troupe like "I love her and only need her be depended on me so I bully her until she got no one left so she had no choice but gave her entire self to me who will protect her later" thing.

 

[feha]

Not true in the slightest. The burn isn't a punishment, it's proof of the misdeed. It's not the consequence of her actions, it's the action itself. You can not say the thing she did on her own free will is punishment, it just doesn't work that way. You punish a wrongful action, any effect of that action does not count as punishment.

Yes I can.

She burned herself - action
She casted blame of her action onto someone else - action
She has the pain of being burned - effect of her action
Everyone thinks she's insane and her word can not be trusted - effect of her action

• she is in pain - consequence
• she gets a permanent scar - consequence
• she lost value as a female in a feudal society - consequence
• she lost trust and reputation in a highly trust- and connection-dependent society - consequence
• effect of her action - synonym to consequence

Even if you DO say the pain of her burn is punishment, it's only punishment for the action of burning herself. She still must be punished for trying to hurt the reputation of someone else with her actions.

No she doesn't have to (And even if she did, she already has been in multiple ways. So further punishment is unnecessary).
Punishment exists to make people contribute as much to society as they damaged it, to keep people away from future victims, to rehabilitate people so they can return to society, to discourage people from doing the same thing again (or copycats from doing it too).
Punishment does not exist to provide retribution or vengeance (though somewhat tangential is that it does exist to break the chain of hatred, by discouraging the victim from retaliating in turn by somewhat mollifying them through showing the existence of some consequence for the perpetrator).

The only thing that has to be done, is ensure that no further victims are created by her (that includes a prior victim becoming one again, anew). Hence why I suggested expelling or suspending her, and forcing her into "counseling" (aka re-educated). Or if that doesn't seem to work out/guardians want to rid themselves of the stigma entirely, then send her to a nunnery instead (permanently hides her away from high-society).

 

[Fussbucket]

Why does the prince have the power to control people like that? It doesn’t seem to just be him putting pressure on them, it seems like it’s some type of psychological magic power to compel people And make them do horrible things.

 

[XNFEdayo]

Yes I can.

• she is in pain - consequence
• she gets a permanent scar - consequence
• she lost value as a female in a feudal society - consequence
• she lost trust and reputation in a highly trust- and connection-dependent society - consequence
• effect of her action - synonym to consequence

No she doesn't have to (And even if she did, she already has been in multiple ways. So further punishment is unnecessary).
Punishment exists to make people contribute as much to society as they damaged it, to keep people away from future victims, to rehabilitate people so they can return to society, to discourage people from doing the same thing again (or copycats from doing it too).
Punishment does not exist to provide retribution or vengeance (though somewhat tangential is that it does exist to break the chain of hatred, by discouraging the victim from retaliating in turn by somewhat mollifying them through showing the existence of some consequence for the perpetrator).

The only thing that has to be done, is ensure that no further victims are created by her (that includes a prior victim becoming one again, anew). Hence why I suggested expelling or suspending her, and forcing her into "counseling" (aka re-educated). Or if that doesn't seem to work out/guardians want to rid themselves of the stigma entirely, then send her to a nunnery instead (permanently hides her away from high-society).

You.....do realize that expelling her or suspending her or forcing her into "counseling" or sending her to a nunnery are all methods of punishment....right? Like, you actually had me thinking about this until your tangent. Hell the beginning of your first paragraph is contradicted by you in your second paragraph.....huh!? And no one said a damn thing about retribution or vengeance, I'll like that you try not and insert words I never said.

That's not a statement I made. Even as a joke, it doesn't make sense, since you already agreed with the phrasing in the first place.

You didn't understand a single thing, but that's fine I'll explain from the top.

"OBJECTION! Illya von Einzbern, Sella, Leysritt and the 7 homunculus of FMA all had emotions! Please use another example that doesn't discriminate against homunculus!"

This was a joke I made, and it was VERY obvious joke, towards the comment below.

real question: are you a homunculus who has never experienced human emotion or something

The main part of that joke was "If you read it wrong, it sounds like he's saying homunculus doesn't have feelings" I KNEW that wasn't what they were really saying HENCE why I made it obvious that it was a joke. Plus there's a hidden message in it that i'll come back to later

But have they experienced human emotion? If so, they don't fit the statement.

This comment of yours, I took as a joke since.....what you said would only make sense if you didn't catch the, for the 3rd time now, obvious joke
btw, a non joke response would have been something like "you don't have to be a homunculus to never experience emotions. There are humans who don't, and homunculus that do. Please stop the discrimination against homunculus."

anywho, next I....

Apologies, I didn't know emotions were based on species. I thought they were concepts that fit all. I shall henceforth no longer call a dog wagging it's tail is "happy" but instead "Dog happy". Or any human as being sad but instead "Human sad" or "Hu-sad" for short.

... made a joke to what I assumed was a joke. But then this happened

That's not a statement I made. Even as a joke, it doesn't make sense, since you already agreed with the phrasing in the first place.

And I proceed to facepalm.
1st - How the hell did you not notice the initial joke!?
2nd - I didn't agree to anything! In no interpretation of the English language could you get anything suggesting agreeance from my words. Even more so when you take in consideration that....
3rd - The hidden message in the first joke, I made incredibly clear in the 2nd. There is no such thing as "human emotions", it's just "emotions". I didn't even use the term "human emotions" in the first joke!

I'm not even upset you took my joke seriously. I wasn't even going to respond once I realized you took it seriously, but that agreed with the phrasing bullshit was not going to slide.

 

[feha]

You.....do realize that expelling her or suspending her or forcing her into "counseling" or sending her to a nunnery are all methods of punishment....right? Like, you actually had me thinking about this until your tangent. Hell the beginning of your first paragraph is contradicted by you in your second paragraph.....huh!? And no one said a damn thing about retribution or vengeance, I'll like that you try not and insert words I never said.

It's only punishment if it is for the purpose of punishing (which generally means retribution or vengeance). It is where I got the impression the person I replied to wanted the girl to suffer some kind of retribution - since that is the connotations the word 'punishment' has.

You don't sentence someone to those things to punish them, you do it to safeguard [society; which includes individuals], make them atone (as in undo the damages caused ie. by reimbursing enough money to buy a new [whatever], not as in repenting), or rehabilitate (both safeguard society and atonement, so society can continue collecting taxes and prosper on their back).

It [whether it is a punishment or not] is all about intent. Even if the actions themselves may be identical.

 

[AnotherDuck]

1st - How the hell did you not notice the initial joke!?
2nd - I didn't agree to anything! In no interpretation of the English language could you get anything suggesting agreeance from my words. Even more so when you take in consideration that....
3rd - The hidden message in the first joke, I made incredibly clear in the 2nd. There is no such thing as "human emotions", it's just "emotions". I didn't even use the term "human emotions" in the first joke!

1st - How the hell did you not notice that I said, "even as a joke," explicitly stating I understood it was a joke?
2nd - By the way you worded it, you accepted the phrase, therefore you agreed to it. It's just logic.
3rd - Debatable. I've read enough xenofiction to understand there's a difference.

I'm not even upset you took my joke seriously. I wasn't even going to respond once I realized you took it seriously, but that agreed with the phrasing bullshit was not going to slide.

And you still failed to notice I took it seriously as a joke. But it stopped being funny since it wasn't sound, which I said.

 

[XNFEdayo]

1st - How the hell did you not notice that I said, "even as a joke," explicitly stating I understood it was a joke?
2nd - By the way you worded it, you accepted the phrase, therefore you agreed to it. It's just logic.
3rd - Debatable. I've read enough xenofiction to understand there's a difference.


And you still failed to notice I took it seriously as a joke. But it stopped being funny since it wasn't sound, which I said.

1st - "How the hell did you not notice the initial joke?" That's talking about the first joke, initial meaning first. Your comment was on the second joke. So no, you did not explicitly state that you understood the initial joke was a joke. I assumed as such and then you made a post that really showed you didn't, I have no reason to further assume you did.
2nd - That's called making an assumption and your assumption was wrong. You agree when you say words of agreement, THAT is logic.
3rd - Sure. In my personal research, in most instances of looking up the term "human emotions" it leads to discussions, theories, etc and almost every one of them did not use the term and simply use "emotions". Hell even looking up the definition just lead you to the word "emotion". That's why I took up that stance, if your understandings lead you to believe different then sure I can leave that up for debate.

Yeah, calling bs on your "seriously as a joke" claim but I'm not you so there's really no way to prove truth or false. So just gonna drop it here.

It's only punishment if it is for the purpose of punishing (which generally means retribution or vengeance). It is where I got the impression the person I replied to wanted the girl to suffer some kind of retribution - since that is the connotations the word 'punishment' has.

You don't sentence someone to those things to punish them, you do it to safeguard [society; which includes individuals], make them atone (as in undo the damages caused ie. by reimbursing enough money to buy a new [whatever], not as in repenting), or rehabilitate (both safeguard society and atonement, so society can continue collecting taxes and prosper on their back).

It [whether it is a punishment or not] is all about intent. Even if the actions themselves may be identical.

Punishment's second and eight definitions fits in the realm of correction and not retribution. But if that was your way of thinking (it meaning retribution/vengeance only), I apologize for saying you contradicted yourself. It is still in fact a "punishment" or a penalty for a wrongdoing and is most likely what she will receive.

 

[AnotherDuck]

That's called making an assumption and your assumption was wrong.

The only funny part about your joke is the hypocrisy of trying to call someone out on an erroneous assumption when that's the entire basis for your joke.

 

[XNFEdayo]

The only funny part about your joke is the hypocrisy of trying to call someone out on an erroneous assumption when that's the entire basis for your joke.

Calling someone out on an erroneous assumption? Nah.
Calling someone out when they think their assumption is truth and even tried to double down on it because of their flawed sense of logic. Damn right, and I'll wear that mantle of hypocrisy proudly.
But hey, even if it's just out of some sour feelings at least you admit that between the two my joke at least had SOME funny part.

Now please get over it.
If the only thing you can come up with is this attempt at a jab towards the things I said, there's no point in continuing this further.

 

[AnotherDuck]

Calling someone out when they think their assumption is truth and even tried to double down on it because of their flawed sense of logic. Damn right, and I'll wear that mantle of hypocrisy proudly.

I think you reversed some things there, but you do you.

If the only thing you can come up with is this attempt at a jab towards the things I said, there's no point in continuing this further.

You didn't have any points to counter, so I didn't have to.