Mushoku Tensei ~Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu~ - Vol. 12 Ch. 58 - Unspeakable Strength
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@joel7686 3 years, buddy. He travelled, mostly by foot, for 3 years.
@criver He doesn't need to obey the morals of our world's Japan, which he barely "lived" in since his seclusion. Slavery exists in their society, and he even associated with them on multiple occasions. They need a slave, so they bought one. There's no need for him to hesitate because he has more than enough time to acclimate to the world's morality. It's part of their economy, even. Some kingdoms wouldn't even survive, much less thrive, without slaves in it. I won't even entertain your comparison with infanticide because it's pretty obvious why the two aren't comparable.
You also speak that this is out of character for him but there's nothing to suggest that he'll be against this beforehand. He helped the children at the smugglers' base beforehand because Ruijerd wants to, not because of his sense of morals. He'll be totally fine just ignoring those child slaves.
He's not a villain for owning a slave nor a sociopath, just like not all people with slave owners back then in our own world are villains. They're living in different times, with different morals.
You say that morality is a product of society, yet you abhor him for having a moral compass that does match his society. You're being the inconsistent one here. He hasn't lived in Japan's society since his recluse started in middle school. He has lived longer in this world's society than he did in Japan, ergo, his morality will not match ours. Although I would argue that morality is more biological and then social, just to clear up your misunderstanding.
@criver He doesn't need to obey the morals of our world's Japan, which he barely "lived" in since his seclusion. Slavery exists in their society, and he even associated with them on multiple occasions. They need a slave, so they bought one. There's no need for him to hesitate because he has more than enough time to acclimate to the world's morality. It's part of their economy, even. Some kingdoms wouldn't even survive, much less thrive, without slaves in it. I won't even entertain your comparison with infanticide because it's pretty obvious why the two aren't comparable.
You also speak that this is out of character for him but there's nothing to suggest that he'll be against this beforehand. He helped the children at the smugglers' base beforehand because Ruijerd wants to, not because of his sense of morals. He'll be totally fine just ignoring those child slaves.
He's not a villain for owning a slave nor a sociopath, just like not all people with slave owners back then in our own world are villains. They're living in different times, with different morals.
You say that morality is a product of society, yet you abhor him for having a moral compass that does match his society. You're being the inconsistent one here. He hasn't lived in Japan's society since his recluse started in middle school. He has lived longer in this world's society than he did in Japan, ergo, his morality will not match ours. Although I would argue that morality is more biological and then social, just to clear up your misunderstanding.
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 283
@criver
but i wouldnt consider him as one. Hes just an anti social neet thats tired of his life at best before he died. He tried to change as much as possible on this life though.
I would like to disagree, even on non isekai themed stories these sorts of comments would pop up.
Because he isnt a sociopath in the first place (atleast from my perspective) and never really showed signs of being one. Sure, he did some stuff in his previous life
which lead to his brother completely hating him for. Not sure if still canon since that special arc was removed from the WNs.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2019
- Messages
- 38
kinda weird that this debate on slavery is still ongoing. telling slavery in a setting that allows it does not mean that the author supports it, but it is in Their World. and most of the time the authors are paralleling the idea on our own old societies where we were using slaves for whatever reason, i mean as early as just the 1930 we were even still using child labor, albeit nowadays it's called helping the parents (not taking about 1st world but 3rd world) when they get like a dollar a day just for their labor in the fields, so do you consider those equal pay (DUH of course not) but for capitalist it's ok because you AGREED for doing the WORK for that PRICE but is it wrong or is it right?.
Slavery is indeed wrong, but does it not happen, no it still does. even now slavery is just being told a different type. working for long hours on a company with low wages, what do you call that... technically the root of slavery is still FINANCIAL GAINS OR SITUATIONS (this does not mean only monetary). modern society have modern slaves, why not take a look at the situation of domestic helpers in middle east, where they have the mindset of they can trade the domestic helper to other owners without their consent. people know it's wrong but it's there.
just because the concept of slavery added in a isekai story is considered lazy writing, then the option is that again why not try writing a different one how can you put the idea there if no slavery or those things you don't like are involved, see if you can circumvent slavery in a setting where it is similar to medieval society wherein the defeated are turned into slave labor, and that they only keep high profile people as prisoners as trade for other things needed but for normal soldiers don't think so. this type of writing is not only in japanese light novel but frequent in any type of (ancient, medieval, less technological settings, chinese novel and korean novels also have these settings). just because they are written now does not mean, that in the setting of the story it should not exist.
and to the people comparing Rudeus's situation to Julia's (yes spoiler that would be her nickname) situation, yes they are both different but that does not mean that the feelings that they have for hopelessness in their own situations are different. Actually for people in those levels of mindset having someone ask them that and giving that end request would actually be a welcome for some people (for people who don't want to live anymore), but for Julie, she said she still wants to live and that is what Rudeus was looking for and I for one think that it was ADMIRABLE for her to say it, since it is hard for people to say it when they have reached the bottom of hole with no one helping them up. A good comparison for this, Rudeus was helped by Roxy but rudeus was already on the path of change not like his old life when no one Recognized his efforts not even his own family, especially with high expectation families when they want you to be the best and not to be for who you are. But for Julie, she had lost everything and if people were to say to help her it would have an opposite effect since Julie did not trust anyone at that time, a person saying he will end it for her is more honest to her since she has literally hit rock bottom, because people have a doubtful attitude when being helped with no form equivalent exchange.
And to the people that think that the person should be a hero just because they have the mindset of a modern person and should just take a look at reality, (to the people talking about the Haitan revolution this is getting old) you need a LARGE group of people to do those things THAT IS WHY IT'S CALLED A REVOLUTION you need people and lots of them, . the MC is just one person with the reputation of being QUAGMIRE, that is all, he is not a super man like SUPERMAN wherein he could survive being solo (well technically later he could, but it is still implied in the series that he cannot beat an army especially when there are other high level people in the world, he has already been killed if not for Nanahoshi, and even before when he was saved by Grysaline refer to the kidnapping incident). He has the concept that HE CAN DIE if he made a mistake, which makes him CALCULATIVE if they need to help or such, but that is the reality of the story and LIFE itself. This story is a more realist type of story rather than a SUPER HERO story. (similar to how Stories about REAL ROBOTS and SUPER ROBOTS are different ie GUNDAM VS MAZINGER).
and the concept of being an ADULT..... there is NO SUCH THING. if being an adult has the moral compass of being helpful in every way, why not jail people who likes taking BULLYING as a form of joke. even in Adults these things happen. if we are basing it on a the moral compass of our society and the moral compass of their world, then technically you would be the outcast and you will be the one persecuted, you would need the POWER to change something which one person could not do. Adapting to society is one of the norms of people living, no matter what morals are there in the whole group, humans (part of the animal group) are technically social, they do want to be acknowledge by their group so try going to a country where they don't like your moral compass and lets see what happens to you there, so technically you would still need to be careful in integrating yourself in that society.
we can be happy that we already are living in a modern society where there is less of these kinds of things happening.
Slavery is indeed wrong, but does it not happen, no it still does. even now slavery is just being told a different type. working for long hours on a company with low wages, what do you call that... technically the root of slavery is still FINANCIAL GAINS OR SITUATIONS (this does not mean only monetary). modern society have modern slaves, why not take a look at the situation of domestic helpers in middle east, where they have the mindset of they can trade the domestic helper to other owners without their consent. people know it's wrong but it's there.
just because the concept of slavery added in a isekai story is considered lazy writing, then the option is that again why not try writing a different one how can you put the idea there if no slavery or those things you don't like are involved, see if you can circumvent slavery in a setting where it is similar to medieval society wherein the defeated are turned into slave labor, and that they only keep high profile people as prisoners as trade for other things needed but for normal soldiers don't think so. this type of writing is not only in japanese light novel but frequent in any type of (ancient, medieval, less technological settings, chinese novel and korean novels also have these settings). just because they are written now does not mean, that in the setting of the story it should not exist.
and to the people comparing Rudeus's situation to Julia's (yes spoiler that would be her nickname) situation, yes they are both different but that does not mean that the feelings that they have for hopelessness in their own situations are different. Actually for people in those levels of mindset having someone ask them that and giving that end request would actually be a welcome for some people (for people who don't want to live anymore), but for Julie, she said she still wants to live and that is what Rudeus was looking for and I for one think that it was ADMIRABLE for her to say it, since it is hard for people to say it when they have reached the bottom of hole with no one helping them up. A good comparison for this, Rudeus was helped by Roxy but rudeus was already on the path of change not like his old life when no one Recognized his efforts not even his own family, especially with high expectation families when they want you to be the best and not to be for who you are. But for Julie, she had lost everything and if people were to say to help her it would have an opposite effect since Julie did not trust anyone at that time, a person saying he will end it for her is more honest to her since she has literally hit rock bottom, because people have a doubtful attitude when being helped with no form equivalent exchange.
And to the people that think that the person should be a hero just because they have the mindset of a modern person and should just take a look at reality, (to the people talking about the Haitan revolution this is getting old) you need a LARGE group of people to do those things THAT IS WHY IT'S CALLED A REVOLUTION you need people and lots of them, . the MC is just one person with the reputation of being QUAGMIRE, that is all, he is not a super man like SUPERMAN wherein he could survive being solo (well technically later he could, but it is still implied in the series that he cannot beat an army especially when there are other high level people in the world, he has already been killed if not for Nanahoshi, and even before when he was saved by Grysaline refer to the kidnapping incident). He has the concept that HE CAN DIE if he made a mistake, which makes him CALCULATIVE if they need to help or such, but that is the reality of the story and LIFE itself. This story is a more realist type of story rather than a SUPER HERO story. (similar to how Stories about REAL ROBOTS and SUPER ROBOTS are different ie GUNDAM VS MAZINGER).
and the concept of being an ADULT..... there is NO SUCH THING. if being an adult has the moral compass of being helpful in every way, why not jail people who likes taking BULLYING as a form of joke. even in Adults these things happen. if we are basing it on a the moral compass of our society and the moral compass of their world, then technically you would be the outcast and you will be the one persecuted, you would need the POWER to change something which one person could not do. Adapting to society is one of the norms of people living, no matter what morals are there in the whole group, humans (part of the animal group) are technically social, they do want to be acknowledge by their group so try going to a country where they don't like your moral compass and lets see what happens to you there, so technically you would still need to be careful in integrating yourself in that society.
we can be happy that we already are living in a modern society where there is less of these kinds of things happening.
@criver
@CBAROG
@joel7686
@unmellow I think that issue was already discussed to death in previous chapters. I just skip over those sections, since I can't change it.
I'm not ignoring it; I'm explaining a piece of chronal causality that you are deliberately choosing to ignore. Christians did not exist until after the death of Christ, and the Christian Church did not exist as any kind of organized entity until decades after that. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the bits of the Old Testament you object to was written by the Jews before Christ was born, and is recorded in the Torah, which existed well before the Bible. And as I stated previously, a key part of Christian theology is that the sacrifice of Christ made the laws of the Old Testament both outdated and unacceptable. Trying to claim that the Christian Church is somehow responsible for the laws of the Old Testament is like trying to claim that the people who wrote and implemented the Magna Carta are somehow responsible for the creation of the Carolingian Empire; it is physically impossible.
"Update it with the times"? And what fucking times are those, pray tell? The 21st, which has barely even begun and is already rocked with internecine warfare and collapsing economies brought about by the decrepit remains of capitalist and communist propaganda? The 20th century, when World Wars ravaged all of humanity and assorted variants of Communism / Facism created pointless mass slaughter in the tens of millions and hammered entire nations into pointless poverty and starvation? The 19th, when the French devolved into bloody Reigns of Terror, Napoleon brought war to all of Europe and much of Asia, and slavery with all of its bloodshed and misery was rampant until well into the era? The 18th, when slavery was at its peak and we saw the rise of cruel mercantilist monopolies like the East India Trading Company?
I have no idea how it happens, but it seems a common failure for "modern" people to believe that they are somehow more competent and morally / intellectually superior to the people who came before them. You're not, neither am I, nor is anyone else in the world. The only thing you have to raise yourself above your ancestors is a greater store of knowledge. Knowledge that I should not (but apparently do) need to remind you was created, investigated, gathered, and recorded by those very same "outdated" peoples you insult.
You actually had a good thing going with your statement that legal systems rose out of necessity; I entirely agree. The abstract that the average person calls "justice" does not exist, and the vast majority of law makes no attempt to enforce it. All law is based on giving an outside authority the power to mete revenge, so that the cycle of revenge is contained and hopefully quelled for the good of the community. It's not that a criminal has to face some abstract ideal of "justice" -- it's that a victim can get a satisfactory quantity of revenge. The agency of revenge is just assumed by the outside authority. The methods by which this agency is given, and the degree to which it is given, is the foundation of what we call "government".
It's too bad that you immediately shoot your kneecaps out with your nonsense of "natural empathy". English being English, I assume that when you refer to "natural empathy" you are referencing "empathy which is of a natural character-the default state of the human consciousness".
I'm curious; what example of natural empathy are you referring to? The empathy of assorted apes, where rape and crude torture happen naturally? The empathy of lions and tigers, who slaughter their young if they become too annoying? The empathy of dolphins, for whom casual murder is a sport and necrophiliac rape of their victims "just happens"? Or is there some human example of "natural empathy" that outweighs humanity's base evils?
Western civilization was not created by "natural empathy"; if it was as you claim it to be, then every single nation in the world would have Western government and law to some extent. What's more, Western government and law as we recognize it today would have emerged far earlier in history. Western government and laws concerning individual liberty was created by centuries of philosophy founded upon the idea of Abrahamic-God-given-rights that cannot be infringed upon by any earthly entity. Consider; if your "natural empathy promotes individual liberty" claim is correct, then why did the Native Americans spend thousands of years with regular war and slavery before European explorers ever met them?
You speak as a fortunate but ignorant man does; one who has never seen war, real poverty, and disaster. To you, it is "natural" that people are ordered and fair because you live in a time of unprecedented wealth and peace created by your forefathers. Don't piss it away with your nonsensical "natural empathy".
"Update it with the times"? And what fucking times are those, pray tell? The 21st, which has barely even begun and is already rocked with internecine warfare and collapsing economies brought about by the decrepit remains of capitalist and communist propaganda? The 20th century, when World Wars ravaged all of humanity and assorted variants of Communism / Facism created pointless mass slaughter in the tens of millions and hammered entire nations into pointless poverty and starvation? The 19th, when the French devolved into bloody Reigns of Terror, Napoleon brought war to all of Europe and much of Asia, and slavery with all of its bloodshed and misery was rampant until well into the era? The 18th, when slavery was at its peak and we saw the rise of cruel mercantilist monopolies like the East India Trading Company?
I have no idea how it happens, but it seems a common failure for "modern" people to believe that they are somehow more competent and morally / intellectually superior to the people who came before them. You're not, neither am I, nor is anyone else in the world. The only thing you have to raise yourself above your ancestors is a greater store of knowledge. Knowledge that I should not (but apparently do) need to remind you was created, investigated, gathered, and recorded by those very same "outdated" peoples you insult.
You actually had a good thing going with your statement that legal systems rose out of necessity; I entirely agree. The abstract that the average person calls "justice" does not exist, and the vast majority of law makes no attempt to enforce it. All law is based on giving an outside authority the power to mete revenge, so that the cycle of revenge is contained and hopefully quelled for the good of the community. It's not that a criminal has to face some abstract ideal of "justice" -- it's that a victim can get a satisfactory quantity of revenge. The agency of revenge is just assumed by the outside authority. The methods by which this agency is given, and the degree to which it is given, is the foundation of what we call "government".
It's too bad that you immediately shoot your kneecaps out with your nonsense of "natural empathy". English being English, I assume that when you refer to "natural empathy" you are referencing "empathy which is of a natural character-the default state of the human consciousness".
Because if that's not what you're saying, what you're saying is a neologism in conjunction-"naturalempathy"-which requires explaining.
I'm curious; what example of natural empathy are you referring to? The empathy of assorted apes, where rape and crude torture happen naturally? The empathy of lions and tigers, who slaughter their young if they become too annoying? The empathy of dolphins, for whom casual murder is a sport and necrophiliac rape of their victims "just happens"? Or is there some human example of "natural empathy" that outweighs humanity's base evils?
Western civilization was not created by "natural empathy"; if it was as you claim it to be, then every single nation in the world would have Western government and law to some extent. What's more, Western government and law as we recognize it today would have emerged far earlier in history. Western government and laws concerning individual liberty was created by centuries of philosophy founded upon the idea of Abrahamic-God-given-rights that cannot be infringed upon by any earthly entity. Consider; if your "natural empathy promotes individual liberty" claim is correct, then why did the Native Americans spend thousands of years with regular war and slavery before European explorers ever met them?
You speak as a fortunate but ignorant man does; one who has never seen war, real poverty, and disaster. To you, it is "natural" that people are ordered and fair because you live in a time of unprecedented wealth and peace created by your forefathers. Don't piss it away with your nonsensical "natural empathy".
@CBAROG
You are claiming that the entirety of the Western world spontaneously shifted towards individual liberty; there is no such thing as a massive, spontaneous shift in culture that upends millennia of practice - it has to come from somewhere. If you have an alternate explanation for where that came from, please share it with me.
I very clearly explained that the Bible was opposed to slavery from the start; if you have an issue with my claim please go back and respond to what I actually wrote instead of trying to put words in my mouth. The Church did not "end slavery" in a time frame that would please you because doing so would have required waging war against most of the known world; slavery was a profitable and/or useful institution that formed the basis of many economies, and many kingdoms / clans / tribes / etc absolutely would not abandon slavery until after centuries of proselytizing and missionary work. Considering how folks like you complain about Christians, I do not believe for a second that you would actually approve of said warfare. Your complaint about an "omni-everything deity" allowing this fails due to the same principal.
Also, see the first part of my reply to criver; you're missing a rather important piece of chronology here.
I very clearly explained that the Bible was opposed to slavery from the start; if you have an issue with my claim please go back and respond to what I actually wrote instead of trying to put words in my mouth. The Church did not "end slavery" in a time frame that would please you because doing so would have required waging war against most of the known world; slavery was a profitable and/or useful institution that formed the basis of many economies, and many kingdoms / clans / tribes / etc absolutely would not abandon slavery until after centuries of proselytizing and missionary work. Considering how folks like you complain about Christians, I do not believe for a second that you would actually approve of said warfare. Your complaint about an "omni-everything deity" allowing this fails due to the same principal.
Also, see the first part of my reply to criver; you're missing a rather important piece of chronology here.
@joel7686
The United States was not a sovereign nation until March 4, 1789; New Hampshire was the last necessary state to sign the Constitution into law, and March 4th is when the government became active. In other words, the United States was capable of making its own laws and governing policy until March 4, 1789. All laws and policy concerning slavery before that time period were the makings of the British Crown and Parliament. In other words, from the time the nation was created as a sovereign entity to the time slavery was outlawed, the United States was absolutely the quickest of the major Western nations to outlaw slavery. What's more, even before the Revolution was won there was immense pressure to get rid of slavery; it was only the revolt of several slave owning states and a threat to nuke independence efforts that stopped slavery from being eliminated then and there. Hell, Christians were agitating for the end of slavery before the Revolution was even considered: Benjamin Franklin, one of the most prominent Founding Fathers, freed his slaves and founded one of the first Abolition movements in the colonies.
@unmellow I think that issue was already discussed to death in previous chapters. I just skip over those sections, since I can't change it.
@ninjadork
I think the only conclusion one can draw from this is that the books are untrustworthy and full of bs.
And you can see the same with the Bible and its "interpretations".
However, revenge is a big thing in many religions, so maybe that's where your confusion arose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Evolutionary_across_species
time they are capable of unspeakable atrocities. It's not all black and white, you do not have angels and demons.
that matter. And I also do not agree with your statement that Christianity is the reason we have no slavery.
one of the major advancements of society was separating religion from law. If anything it seems that religions get in the way of individual liberty and in general the law.
that you wrote, and then come up with some argument based on it. Considering this, it is beyond any doubt that you are arguing in bad faith and will keep throwing around strawmans.
But somehow other bits and pieces from the old testament are all good and dandy. So you get to pick what's convenient - which is exactly what I said:
I just cannot take this seriously - where you can argue that your books are holy at the same time, but there's also bs in them that you have to conveniently ignore.
Yes, also every single one of the bits of the old testament that I did not object to, but are accepted, were also written by the Jews before Christ was born. Your point?
I think the only conclusion one can draw from this is that the books are untrustworthy and full of bs.
The Bible doesn't deny everything in the old testament nor does the Christian church, or will they deny their own god? So yes, I can claim that they are cherry-picking what's convenient.
And you can see the same with the Bible and its "interpretations".
That was a joke if it was not obvious. The point is that the book is not the product of some omniscient being and has plenty of wrong things in it. We have better works now that tackle ethics, morals, science, and do not require "interpretations" to make sense. Basically better reads that are not diluted with indoctrinating ideas.
I am not insulting "outdated" people, that's something you wrote. I have great respect for scientists regardless of their religious beliefs. You are conflating religion with science. Religion is about faith, science is about knowledge. Need I remind you that religions have both helped and impeded progress. Knowledge is simply not their main goal of religions - faith is.
The idea behind law is not revenge. Your whole argument based on revenge after that is nonsensical because of that.
However, revenge is a big thing in many religions, so maybe that's where your confusion arose.
I never used the term "natural empathy" - that's something you came up with, to be precise I wrote:
In that context, I think you will find this educational:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Evolutionary_across_species
Empathy doesn't imply that you can do no wrong - look up the definition. I recommend reading the whole wiki page, and the some more.
This is not about outweighing "evils". Animals (humans included) are complex beings - they are capable of great love and empathy, and at the same
time they are capable of unspeakable atrocities. It's not all black and white, you do not have angels and demons.
I never argued it was. There are obviously many factors. I just do not agree with you attributing all ethical and forward looking ideas to Christianity, or any religion for
that matter. And I also do not agree with your statement that Christianity is the reason we have no slavery.
I disagree, in the sense that I do not believe that is the major factor. I am not going to deny that there are ideas from multiple religions. But as I mentioned,
one of the major advancements of society was separating religion from law. If anything it seems that religions get in the way of individual liberty and in general the law.
There is no such claim that I made. Which leads me to another point - more than half of your statements that you made are of this form. You argue that I have claimed some bs
that you wrote, and then come up with some argument based on it. Considering this, it is beyond any doubt that you are arguing in bad faith and will keep throwing around strawmans.
@Monochrome_Scholar
By all means, if his persona and memories were wiped entirely, and he started as a blank slate I would agree with you 100%. However, this is simply not the case.
one that actually feels sexually attracted to children. I do not believe the MC is the latter, and it's also doubtful whether he is the former.
unfortunately this usually doesn't go further than a character being edgy, only "evil", seeking "revenge".
I would have agreed with you if it were not for the fact that he's actually his old self in a new body. The key point being that his old self was brought up with 21st century morals and values.
By all means, if his persona and memories were wiped entirely, and he started as a blank slate I would agree with you 100%. However, this is simply not the case.
He suggested it to the friend, and went along with the idea.
Then I believe we agree on the basic ideas regarding this, and I am not sure what we are arguing about. The only thing I would question is whether this is indeed "the best way it could have gone".
I think this was actually included as a plot point for a reason. Why include a scene where the MC is freeing slaves, if the MC is pro-slavery?
He didn't seem particularly pleased when they went to buy the slave though, no?
Yeah well, "Shield Hero" never really acted towards his slaves as slaves, on the contrary. There is an isekai where the MC buys a sex slave though, where things are a lot more clear.
Once again, I believe we agree on the main points.
You have to make a distinction between a person that enjoys petite women (that are grown up and do not have the mentality of a child due to some mental illness), and
one that actually feels sexually attracted to children. I do not believe the MC is the latter, and it's also doubtful whether he is the former.
I think it is, considering this page:
A little off the mark there - I feel strongly about what I consider bad writing, not necessarily moral/immoral plot points. If anything I would enjoy more complex antagonists in manga,
unfortunately this usually doesn't go further than a character being edgy, only "evil", seeking "revenge".
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
- Messages
- 316
@ninjadork i am not contesting the end of slavery or who took credit for it, it was one of the last places to make it official, take a look on other countries history
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2019
- Messages
- 367
I thought all hope was lost and I was spoiled after having decided to read a little from the novel after having run out of manga chapters (Because in the novel MC does very NotGood shit casually and it progressively gets worse) But this chapter reignited the image of my generic isekai'd Rudeus. And I love it again
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
- Messages
- 316
@RCcola33 as i said before 4 times already, slavery is a crime now days, like any other crime people did not stopped doing even if it's illegal. you people love to insist on this shitty argument "yOu ReAlIzE tHeRe iS sTiLl sLaVeRy rIgHt?"
it's a crime don't play dumb it used to be something ok to do like owning a car, saying that slavery did not ended only makes me think less about you, murder did not ended just because it's illegal, child rape did not ended because it's illegal, grow up and throw this argument on the garbage please.
it's a crime don't play dumb it used to be something ok to do like owning a car, saying that slavery did not ended only makes me think less about you, murder did not ended just because it's illegal, child rape did not ended because it's illegal, grow up and throw this argument on the garbage please.
Similar threads
