Choose what you're more willing to believe:What is it with isekai's and the transferees suddenly loosing their moral compass after being summoned.
I get its another world and all that but to suddenly go from 10+ years of killing i bad, to being summoned and suddenly fine with killing a classmate like it's just another Sunday.
It was already explained by Mokomoko in chapter 4. For better chance of producing sage, the gift system turned them into battle maniacs, with more aggressive attitude and less aversion to killing.What is it with isekai's and the transferees suddenly loosing their moral compass after being summoned.
I get its another world and all that but to suddenly go from 10+ years of killing i bad, to being summoned and suddenly fine with killing a classmate like it's just another Sunday.
So what, do we execute car crash victims or burn victims because they are hurting. Or do we save them to give them the best chance to live on. As for being shredded one assumes you would be disconnected from the pain centers of your brain ,probably would be unconscious until your brain grows back or is put back together if it ever is. I assume weaker deathless creatures flesh would remain active after severing but while disconnected it cannot receive or send signals to the brain.Imagine being cut in half but unable to die because death is gone.
Or better, shredded into minced meat. You don't have healing and you don't have pain blocking.
He stopped the movements or weaken the molecular bonds of objects that wouldn't help him in this case. Even in the most extreme cases where the sea would suddenly vanish, he would fall his death. Then lets say he kills gravity as a concept. Well that would probably kill him with all the wacky physics would have with 0 gravity. Or maybe he "kills " the space in front of him to teleport IRL that would fling you so hard you would probably die from the rapid acceleration that would come from space that would have to be filled in or perhaps it would create a worm hole which is also lethal. Unless if you use #Anime logicI mean he's "killed" inanimate objects before, so killing the sea isn't out of the question
The holes are he'd definitely die first, I mean, that fish who was on an entire other plane of existence wasn't safe, why would he be? Sure, enough active intent can kill you, but execution even if you somehow bypassed intent would probably also be just proactive enough to kill before they could do it.find someone with a teleport skill teleport the city he is in over the sea. I dare you to find holes in this reasoning other that "theres no one with a teleport skill"
Everyone here in the comment section:[url=https://ibb.co/RNSpxsN]Ah yes, get rid off literally death itself, good idea.
Thats the beauty of my argument, the fact that we have a previous example to compare it to. Because the lady had transported them to a more conceptually lethal environment and had killing intent yet she lives. The difference is that now he cant use his ability to save himself, thats not to say he can't kill his obstacles but even in instances where he does he still dies from cause and effect. The reasoning is that dropping someone into the sea is not in itself a malicious act, leaving them there is but thats inaction similar to the demon king radiation except that killing the source will not help until it is too late. I choose not to see this lady continued existence not a hole in logic but a clue into a flaw of his ability.The holes are he'd definitely die first, I mean, that fish who was on an entire other plane of existence wasn't safe, why would he be? Sure, enough active intent can kill you, but execution even if you somehow bypassed intent would probably also be just proactive enough to kill before they could do it.
Like the whole point of that world eater fish was to show off exactly how absurdly over the top it can be, wasn't it? The only holes I see are why this lady is still alive.
I mean, you're basically assuming he's bound by human physical limitations in the first place. Even if it does kill the body, there's no guarantee that whatever entity it is would die along with it.He stopped the movements or weaken the molecular bonds of objects that wouldn't help him in this case. Even in the most extreme cases where the sea would suddenly vanish, he would fall his death. Then lets say he kills gravity as a concept. Well that would probably kill him with all the wacky physics would have with 0 gravity. Or maybe he "kills " the space in front of him to teleport IRL that would fling you so hard you would probably die from the rapid acceleration that would come from space that would have to be filled in or perhaps it would create a worm hole which is also lethal. Unless if you use #Anime logic
If he can kill the space, he can kill the acceleration.He stopped the movements or weaken the molecular bonds of objects that wouldn't help him in this case. Even in the most extreme cases where the sea would suddenly vanish, he would fall his death. Then lets say he kills gravity as a concept. Well that would probably kill him with all the wacky physics would have with 0 gravity. Or maybe he "kills " the space in front of him to teleport IRL that would fling you so hard you would probably die from the rapid acceleration that would come from space that would have to be filled in or perhaps it would create a worm hole which is also lethal. Unless if you use #Anime logic
She had no malicious intent though, her goal is for them to grow stronger, she put them in danger so they either grow stronger faster or die. She wants them to not die, she just does not care for those that do.Thats the beauty of my argument, the fact that we have a previous example to compare it to. Because the lady had transported them to a more conceptually lethal environment and had killing intent yet she lives. The difference is that now he cant use his ability to save himself, thats not to say he can't kill his obstacles but even in instances where he does he still dies from cause and effect. The reasoning is that dropping someone into the sea is not in itself a malicious act, leaving them there is but thats inaction similar to the demon king radiation except that killing the source will not help until it is too late. I choose not to see this lady continued existence not a hole in logic but a clue into a flaw of his ability.
Being in a more conceptually lethal environment didn't actually add any threat to him though, therefore there was no reason, maybe it inconvenienced him a little? Maybe not even considering it didn't go off.Thats the beauty of my argument, the fact that we have a previous example to compare it to. Because the lady had transported them to a more conceptually lethal environment and had killing intent yet she lives. The difference is that now he cant use his ability to save himself, thats not to say he can't kill his obstacles but even in instances where he does he still dies from cause and effect. The reasoning is that dropping someone into the sea is not in itself a malicious act, leaving them there is but thats inaction similar to the demon king radiation except that killing the source will not help until it is too late. I choose not to see this lady continued existence not a hole in logic but a clue into a flaw of his ability.