Muhoutou - Vol. 6 Ch. 50 - Hunter and Hunted

[MangaDex]

 

[frerouche]

Thanks for the chapter.
Is chapter 6 still nowhere to be found?

 

[Liberandum]

Thanks for the chapter.
Is chapter 6 still nowhere to be found?

The only place i was ever able to find it was a super virusy site that redirected me ever 5 seconds. If you find it on a site that doesn't seem incredibly sketchy send it my way (dm me or comment site name here). I have more time since its summer so I wouldn't mind at all.

 

[mrboxeater]

The only place i was ever able to find it was a super virusy site that redirected me ever 5 seconds. If you find it on a site that doesn't seem incredibly sketchy send it my way (dm me or comment site name here). I have more time since its summer so I wouldn't mind at all.

u can try rawkuma,net or rawlazy(has watermarks). Have adblock or ublock on, just incase.

 

[77BLc9JwJGpLVARkamJx]

Lol psycho bitch not gonna get an easy kill.

 

[Liberandum]

u can try rawkuma,net or rawlazy(has watermarks). Have adblock or ublock on, just incase.

Ive already been using Rawkuma, i'll check again and see what I can do.

 

[mrboxeater]

Ive already been using Rawkuma, i'll check again and see what I can do.

For raws, i think sites like rawlazy, jmanga or klmanga have more but they have watermarks. I think closest alternative to rawkuma is jestful. For search engines, have u tried yandex? Google has heavy dmca sometimes, doesnt give the best results.

 

[Liberandum]

For raws, i think sites like rawlazy, jmanga or klmanga have more but they have watermarks. I think closest alternative to rawkuma is jestful. For search engines, have u tried yandex? Google has heavy dmca sometimes, doesnt give the best results.

I ended up finding the chapter, thx for the help, I'll try and squeeze in extra time and get it out quick while also keeping my release schedule. I really appreciate this btw, if you ever have any other questions or anything just comment on the latest chapter because I read every comment.

 

[danbellucci]

hmmmmm This manga poses quite an interesting, devilish moral dilemma. If a woman is trying to murder you is it really wrong for you to have your way with her? On the one hand one might say that seizing a woman in such a way is wrong, but on the other hand one would say that killing a human being trying to murder you is fair enough , as would be for example, punching a human being trying to murder you in the face, and since seizing a woman and having your way with her is less severe than killing , then surely since killing in this circumstance is considered fair enough, then seizing the woman and having your way with her should also be considered fair enough.

Quite a philosophical conundrum, I have to say.

 

[Liberandum]

hmmmmm This manga poses quite an interesting, devilish moral dilemma. If a woman is trying to murder you is it really wrong for you to have your way with her? On the one hand one might say that seizing a woman in such a way is wrong, but on the other hand one would say that killing a human being trying to murder you is fair enough , as would be for example, punching a human being trying to murder you in the face, and since seizing a woman and having your way with her is less severe than killing , then surely since killing in this circumstance is considered fair enough, then seizing the woman and having your way with her should also be considered fair enough.

Quite a philosophical conundrum, I have to say.

I'm pretty sure that question is answered in the law pretty easily. In self defense you have the right to kill someone, but if you are able to restrain them, then it is not justified self defense, it wouldn't be self defense and would take significantly more power to restrain someone, so you cannot then after tying them up commit a crime on them because they're defenseless.

Anyways if you're not trolling and it's super hard to tell with a lot of the people I get in these comments, rape is wrong. Ik this is crazy and you might want to be edgy and stuff and be like but bro killing is justified by the state so lets rape. You're stupid and rape is wrong, God says it's wrong. Stop being such a relativist that your braun stops functioning.

Also, DIGITAL FOOTPRINT. What if somebody sends this to your employer, you really think that a normal person would read your comment and want anything to do with you? Be more careful about the nonsense you say online, stuff like that is bound to get you fired, and for no one to associate with you.

 

[Liberandum]

Thanks for the chapter.
Is chapter 6 still nowhere to be found?

I found chapter 6 and planned to translate it but tbh... I don't want to. Its literally just rape slop and I'd rather not spend more time on this 3/10 series, especially if its literally just rape slop. To sum it up for you if you care, she gets raped by some guys and they leak the rape video, everyone is like you're a whore and then her parents kill themselves.

 

[danbellucci]

I'm pretty sure that question is answered in the law pretty easily. In self defense you have the right to kill someone, but if you are able to restrain them, then it is not justified self defense, it wouldn't be self defense and would take significantly more power to restrain someone, so you cannot then after tying them up commit a crime on them because they're defenseless.

Anyways if you're not trolling and it's super hard to tell with a lot of the people I get in these comments, rape is wrong. Ik this is crazy and you might want to be edgy and stuff and be like but bro killing is justified by the state so lets rape. You're stupid and rape is wrong, God says it's wrong. Stop being such a relativist that your braun stops functioning.

Also, DIGITAL FOOTPRINT. What if somebody sends this to your employer, you really think that a normal person would read your comment and want anything to do with you? Be more careful about the nonsense you say online, stuff like that is bound to get you fired, and for no one to associate with you.

law isn't the same thing as morality, if it was then jewish persecution in not-see germany was moral.
You say that using force against someone during self defence is no longer justified if they're defenceless. I think what you mean is that if someone you're defending against no longer poses a significant threat to your life then using force during self defence is no longer justified.
However this is not true. Suppose you're walking home and just as you've started opening your door a crossbow bolt flies past your head. You turn around and see that someone 20 meters away has fired their crossbow at you and has begun reloading their crossbow which will take him at least 10 seconds. Your house has a panic room with communication channels to the nearest police station who will take less than 10 minutes to get there.
In this situation the crossbow man who is trying to kill you technically no longer poses a significant threat to your life , because you know you have easily enough time to go inside your panic room which is essentially a bomb shelter before he can shoot you again and you know there is no way he can get inside the panic room before the police come.
However, in this situation both morally and legally , most would say that it's ok for you to instead of running inside to your panic room, to take your pistol out your holster and shoot the man who just tried to kill you with a crossbow . This is the essence of "Stand your ground laws"
This shows that morally we accept that using force to defend yourself is not merely about whether the attacker poses an ongoing threat to you , but about the fact that once someone attempts to take your life , they have in some sense forfeited their own right to live and so it is justified for you to attempt to kill them even if they no longer pose a significant threat to your life.

Now having established that if someone attempts to murder you, it is morally ok for you to kill him (and this is a moral intuition shared by most of the world for human history) the question remains, if in a particular situation, it is ok for you to commit such great harm against someone that you kill that person, surely it must be also ok for you to commit harm less than that? e.g. if it is ok for you to shoot a certain person in the heart surely it must be ok for you to be more merciful than that and merely cut off their finger.
Thus logically the same consideration would also apply to seizing someone, or else you'd have to say that being merciful and inflicting less harm against someone than you are entitled is wrong.

How you would go about solving this moral dilemma, I do not know.

 

[Liberandum]

law isn't the same thing as morality, if it was then jewish persecution in not-see germany was moral.
You say that using force against someone during self defence is no longer justified if they're defenceless. I think what you mean is that if someone you're defending against no longer poses a significant threat to your life then using force during self defence is no longer justified.
However this is not true. Suppose you're walking home and just as you've started opening your door a crossbow bolt flies past your head. You turn around and see that someone 20 meters away has fired their crossbow at you and has begun reloading their crossbow which will take him at least 10 seconds. Your house has a panic room with communication channels to the nearest police station who will take less than 10 minutes to get there.
In this situation the crossbow man who is trying to kill you technically no longer poses a significant threat to your life , because you know you have easily enough time to go inside your panic room which is essentially a bomb shelter before he can shoot you again and you know there is no way he can get inside the panic room before the police come.
However, in this situation both morally and legally , most would say that it's ok for you to instead of running inside to your panic room, to take your pistol out your holster and shoot the man who just tried to kill you with a crossbow . This is the essence of "Stand your ground laws"
This shows that morally we accept that using force to defend yourself is not merely about whether the attacker poses an ongoing threat to you , but about the fact that once someone attempts to take your life , they have in some sense forfeited their own right to live and so it is justified for you to attempt to kill them even if they no longer pose a significant threat to your life.

Now having established that if someone attempts to murder you, it is morally ok for you to kill him (and this is a moral intuition shared by most of the world for human history) the question remains, if in a particular situation, it is ok for you to commit such great harm against someone that you kill that person, surely it must be also ok for you to commit harm less than that? e.g. if it is ok for you to shoot a certain person in the heart surely it must be ok for you to be more merciful than that and merely cut off their finger.
Thus logically the same consideration would also apply to seizing someone, or else you'd have to say that being merciful and inflicting less harm against someone than you are entitled is wrong.

How you would go about solving this moral dilemma, I do not know.

Yeah so theres still no dilemma really.
I didn't say law was the ultimate right, I think I even said in the post God is the ultimate right.
Now your crossbow situation, if you're getting your pistol because you're afraid they might come back at a later time and harm you then it would be justified. If not, you're not justified, if you're just killing them because you're legally allowed to then thats bad.
Now even after granting your hypothetical, that's still a complete false equivocation. If you are able to tie someone up who was trying to kill you, it is morally wrong to say even hit them with a belt, let alone rape them. You're trying to say well rape is less bad then murder, so maybe the rape is fine, but you're failing to realize that the rape is completely useless. You're not defending anything. In your crossbow hypothetical you're saying you could get a gun and shoot them, that would be ending the threat, if you however rape the crossbow guy... what was the point?
There is no real lesser harm in this, harm that is not required for your safety is bad. Once you tie them up, cutting off a finger is bad, rape is bad, punching them is bad. Non productive harm is bad, it would mean you're not loving the person, and not loving a person is bad.
And last again, let me reemphasize, God is the ultimate good. Rape is wrong. This might be a dilemma for a complete moral relativist, but rape is objectively bad.

 

[danbellucci]

Yeah so theres still no dilemma really.
I didn't say law was the ultimate right, I think I even said in the post God is the ultimate right.
Now your crossbow situation, if you're getting your pistol because you're afraid they might come back at a later time and harm you then it would be justified. If not, you're not justified, if you're just killing them because you're legally allowed to then thats bad.
Now even after granting your hypothetical, that's still a complete false equivocation. If you are able to tie someone up who was trying to kill you, it is morally wrong to say even hit them with a belt, let alone rape them. You're trying to say well rape is less bad then murder, so maybe the rape is fine, but you're failing to realize that the rape is completely useless. You're not defending anything. In your crossbow hypothetical you're saying you could get a gun and shoot them, that would be ending the threat, if you however rape the crossbow guy... what was the point?
There is no real lesser harm in this, harm that is not required for your safety is bad. Once you tie them up, cutting off a finger is bad, rape is bad, punching them is bad. Non productive harm is bad, it would mean you're not loving the person, and not loving a person is bad.
And last again, let me reemphasize, God is the ultimate good. Rape is wrong. This might be a dilemma for a complete moral relativist, but rape is objectively bad.

the point is that if someone tries to murder you then they are an evil-doer and punishing evil doers is a good thing. Punishing and harming evil people is a productive, objectively good thing. God agrees btw , it's probably somewhere in there.
The dillemma comes from the fact that this valid line of moral reasoning seems to be in apparent contradiction against the intuition that seizing a woman is wrong.
I can think of some potential ways to resolve the dilemma but I'd prefer to hear what other people think of the dilemma first.
Nothing I've written implies or presupposes moral relativism, you're just assuming that.