@shouldsleep Inhumane literally means "without compassion or care for suffering and misery" <.< So yes apathy and intentionally avoiding deep conversation is acting without care for her mental health is inhumane. And if we replace her with a smallpox patient, they wouldn't be told not to talk to them. They also wouldn't hold back from letting them know about their family. The reason it is 'inhumane' is because it was a choice to do unnecessarily negative things, entirely unrelated to what their actual concern is.
Orenchi ni Kita Onna Kishi to Inakagurashi Surukotoninatta Ken - Vol. 3 Ch. 23 - Homo Sapiens
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
- Messages
- 283
So like what was the point of this arc? We went from SoL reverse-isekai to "what would happen to the person who reverse isekead and met a government agent"
The characters didn't really grow, Chris learned that the government will lock her up alone if she steps out of line and will bring Kanji in as well due to their relationship.
I don't see how the government if they let her go back to the farm, didn't install cameras everywhere in the house and on the farm fields / village to keep track of Chris's whereabouts and activities.
Hoping the next couple of chapters show use what the actually point of this arc was.
The characters didn't really grow, Chris learned that the government will lock her up alone if she steps out of line and will bring Kanji in as well due to their relationship.
I don't see how the government if they let her go back to the farm, didn't install cameras everywhere in the house and on the farm fields / village to keep track of Chris's whereabouts and activities.
Hoping the next couple of chapters show use what the actually point of this arc was.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2018
- Messages
- 223
@WillLi, No inhumane isn't literally "without compassion or care for suffering". Both Oxford and Collins links it to cruelty (which historically, has been its usage) while the Thesaurus has one of two has one definition as you say, the other still link it to cruelty. But therein lies the problem with the one you describe. It is a vague description. From that word, being apathetic about victims in wars and the like is inhumane, which is wrong. The act done is the inhumane thing, which is why I expressly said earlier:
And again:
Apathy does not immediately entail being inhumane. Most of their actions are either routine or commonly practiced. It being called inhumane would mean you think a lot of the things done in hospitals are inhumane.
Because in most cases, apathy is not linked to being inhumane, which also applies to this case.
They aren't told not to talk to her, point me to any part that that was expressly told. They talk to her shallowly, which is fair, as that is what happens mostly in hospitals and the fact that they have no idea how to talk to her, her being from another world and all that, and the only part where they expressly told they could not answer is in regards to Kanji's condition, which in this part is protocol. You do not tell a lie about the patient's condition. Since they do not know what effect she could have done to Kanji, they could not have said, oh he is fine. Not to mention that she isn't his legal guardian, so she has no authority to know his condition. Now they could've made him call her immediately, but that's a different matter altogether, it's stupid, yes, but again, not inhumane.
And again:
Apathy does not immediately entail being inhumane. Most of their actions are either routine or commonly practiced. It being called inhumane would mean you think a lot of the things done in hospitals are inhumane.
@Shouldsleep
From Collins dictionary
Notice how all those relate back to not caring about the fact that someone is suffering? Cruelty in itself can be simply not caring that someone is suffering. The people themselves might've cared, but the -methods-, also called the treatment itself, was desgined without care for her suffering. So yes, the treatment was inhumane. And you're right I can't find where they specifically were told not to talk to her, however they still don't talk enough to pass for real human interaction. That also doesn't change that they kept her out of the loop of her friend at first, which has no relation to medical protocol. There's the fact that they didn't provide any entertainment for her, then they even still shrunk her room later to just her bed and cough in chapter 30. They had plenty of space to let her roam her room, but they chose to take that away for some arbitrary reason. Also on day 10, she had more than 10 not healed needle wounds. There is also in chapter 20 evidence that they don't even properly inform her of preparation of test. Telling her when it's dinner time that she can't eat because of a upcoming test. When she didn't eat from clear depression, their response was "You need to eat cause there will likely be more test" They didn't actually bother to change anything until Chris got violent, and that was probably the heads up just being afraid she'd escape with magic. There is no way that's 'humane' treatment.
From Collins dictionary
and the british
Oxford
As a bonus, the Oxford definition of gruel
Notice how all those relate back to not caring about the fact that someone is suffering? Cruelty in itself can be simply not caring that someone is suffering. The people themselves might've cared, but the -methods-, also called the treatment itself, was desgined without care for her suffering. So yes, the treatment was inhumane. And you're right I can't find where they specifically were told not to talk to her, however they still don't talk enough to pass for real human interaction. That also doesn't change that they kept her out of the loop of her friend at first, which has no relation to medical protocol. There's the fact that they didn't provide any entertainment for her, then they even still shrunk her room later to just her bed and cough in chapter 30. They had plenty of space to let her roam her room, but they chose to take that away for some arbitrary reason. Also on day 10, she had more than 10 not healed needle wounds. There is also in chapter 20 evidence that they don't even properly inform her of preparation of test. Telling her when it's dinner time that she can't eat because of a upcoming test. When she didn't eat from clear depression, their response was "You need to eat cause there will likely be more test" They didn't actually bother to change anything until Chris got violent, and that was probably the heads up just being afraid she'd escape with magic. There is no way that's 'humane' treatment.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2018
- Messages
- 223
@WillLi
PS. You can't argue for something that was never shown in the first place.
The treatments aren't designed without care for her suffering, they are general methods that are used in most situations. The problem in the situation is that Chris does not know that all of it is natural (she does not know how isolation works and modern medical methods aren't known in her previous world). However, perception does not come into play in being inhumane in this situation. Being inhumane is inhumane regardless of the perception of the one it is being done to (enjoying being tortured is inhumane even if you enjoy being tortured and chemotherapy is still humane even if it hurts a lot) as inhumane is a doer's description and not a receiver's.
Medical protocol states that you can't divulge patient data to someone not of kin or the legal guardian. Kanji was a patient at the time and Chris is neither her kin nor her guardian. This is basic hospital procedure.
Which we did not see, they did not know what her ideas about is and can't use world knowledge to supplement.
PS. You can't argue for something that was never shown in the first place.
Yes, this is stupid, but stupid =/= inhumane. Medical isolation can happen, curtains in isolation rooms, I doubt.
Obviously needle wounds don't instantly heal. Now Chris could've used healing magic but that's her choice, and sticking needles isn't inhumane (the sites where they sampled blood isn't right, you don't stick it in the middle of the forearm. Sites where you sample blood are places where it is easy to do so which is why the most common sites are the middle of the arm, the wrist, the finger and between the back of the knee). Having multiple sites for blood sampling is normal as using the same site multiple times could damage the vein/artery permanently. Again not inhumane.
Doing a glucose test in the morning is the best time to do it as you only skip one meal (dinner). Them telling it at dinner is convenient in the situation, because she is a stay in patient and this is the time when it is told about it. Now the problem here is that in a normal patient, they would've known from the onset all of the tests to be done to her, which is not possible in her situation. None of these are inhumane still.
"You need to eat" is a common response to patient. You need to know that basic actions for certain situations are predetermined in hospitals. They didn't change anything because protocol, and the protocol is designed humanely. Had Chris known the complete nuance of the situation then our vantage point would change and we wouldn't have this inhumane nonsense, which goes back to my earlier statement. That being humane does not change regardless of the perspective.
@Shouldsleep if you can't see that this stuff disregarded her mental state you're too far in your own head. You just yourself said "they didn't take into account that she doesn't see this as normal" but the thing is they -knew- she was from another world, so this isn't 'standard' for her. And the nurses -saw- her emotional condition deteriorating and did not. That is acting without care for her suffering. If you can't see that then you simply don't understand the definition of the words. You can make as big a post as you want, but the simple fact is, until Chris got violent, every thing we saw they did was either 'neutral' towards her mental health or careless, that's inhumane. Being 'protocol' doesn't make something not inhumane. Electric chair used to be protocol, are you going to tell me that wasn't inhumane? Humans can get used to lots of inhumane conditions, but that doesn't make them humane, that just means we tolerate them. Japan is a great example of that. You are literally saying "If she knew how we do things she wouldn't have broken down" but inhumanity is not caring about the suffering of -other's-. Meaning it doesn't matter what our standards are, it's about seeing her suffering and not doing anything about it. It's about taking the other person into account. What is a humane way to treat 1 person might not be a human way to treat another. Because different things make different people suffer.
But if you can't grasp things at this point then there is no point to continue with you, because you're not discussing things, you admitted that they 'didn't care' but that not caring wasn't inhumane, then after I used your own cited dictionaries to prove that -is- inhumane, now you're saying they didn't "not care". You obviously have some kind of investment in the result that they were not inhumane, so I will leave you to twiddle your thumbs.
But if you can't grasp things at this point then there is no point to continue with you, because you're not discussing things, you admitted that they 'didn't care' but that not caring wasn't inhumane, then after I used your own cited dictionaries to prove that -is- inhumane, now you're saying they didn't "not care". You obviously have some kind of investment in the result that they were not inhumane, so I will leave you to twiddle your thumbs.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2018
- Messages
- 223
@ WillLi it's not inhumane because the actions did not have cruelty in mind. The electric chair was deemed inhumane because they found out that the procedure is actually painful, and protocol isn't always right, but our current deifinition stands that the procedures are humane, else we would've changed them.
I've agreed that they mostly didn't care but I've emphasized that apathy does not equate to being inhumane immediately, else, every non caring parent, teacher and the like would be inhumane, but our current society defines them as negligent rather than inhumane.
"I've mentioned that had she known differently" because in reality, indeed had she been any other person, nobody would say "that's inhumane" because the fact is, the things they did aren't. Her being different, as I said earlier is the reason why people say it is inhumane, but being inhumane shouldn't change regardless of the person.
The thing with being humane is (and any other word, to be honest) is that society dictates the definition. If we reach the point where society says negligence is inhumane, then by definition it would be inhumane.
A good example of this would be euthanasia. See some people think it's humane, but others don't. Since there is no clear consensus, then it could be either. In her situation, society deems the actions (apart from magic test) to be perfectly normal. One person being a completely different case does not change that situation. So long as consensus deems it, a word is born and its usage, defined.
I've agreed that they mostly didn't care but I've emphasized that apathy does not equate to being inhumane immediately, else, every non caring parent, teacher and the like would be inhumane, but our current society defines them as negligent rather than inhumane.
"I've mentioned that had she known differently" because in reality, indeed had she been any other person, nobody would say "that's inhumane" because the fact is, the things they did aren't. Her being different, as I said earlier is the reason why people say it is inhumane, but being inhumane shouldn't change regardless of the person.
The thing with being humane is (and any other word, to be honest) is that society dictates the definition. If we reach the point where society says negligence is inhumane, then by definition it would be inhumane.
A good example of this would be euthanasia. See some people think it's humane, but others don't. Since there is no clear consensus, then it could be either. In her situation, society deems the actions (apart from magic test) to be perfectly normal. One person being a completely different case does not change that situation. So long as consensus deems it, a word is born and its usage, defined.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,115
@Qelix
And anyone making this their argument, even worse their entire argument is engaging in some low effort thought exercises. It's easy to just go "BAD MAN BAD" (or in this case "govt bad!") and expound on why you think that. However... It's not very interesting, thought-provoking or realistic.
Aaaaand this is why this comment is so good and why I wish I could, I dunno, upvote it or thumbs up it or something. THIS is a good point. Realistically, if the Japanese government knew that someone in their care/observation was legitimately from another world (and one much less advanced than ours) and they were studying here for weeks/months to make sure she didn't pose a LEGITIMATE RISK TO HUMANITY FROM DISEASES (which is why "govt bad!" arguments and the like are even less useful) and that person was there semi-voluntarily and used to having someone else there to guide/help them (who also happens to be in quarantine as well, no less) - it would make complete sense for the Japanese government/military to bring in psychologists and behavioral experts to help her cope. This modern day Japan, too, you can set up a video call for Chris and Kanji to converse with each other from their hospital beds without violating quarantine regardless of where they are. Even previous chapters pressed on the nursing staff realizing that Chris-chan was suffering from depression to the point where it was impacting her health. And, yes, I agree - having this touched on would make the scenes even better. (Not that I think that they're not good enough with them, however. It would just be sprinkles on top along with a cherry.)
Meaning the mangaka wanted to play this up for drama. Now, now... Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing that as a bad thing. I enjoyed it and thought it was really well done. And, hell, the mangaka could have easily have taken the route of doing this and it still not helping - that's still realistic, mind you. I'm just thinking that a lot of you in the comment sections are... make really bad or the entirely wrong argument for the wrong reason here. You can make all the "but what is inhumane" and "this definition of inhumane" and "but is it inhumane to her..." and yaddayadda arguments you want, but it doesn't escape the fact that 1.) This would need to happen in the real world. And it would happen. There is no escaping this. and 2.) This was done for dramatic effect. Not to make antagonist vs protagonist arcs. This is not a shounen battle manga, the nurse is not this week's under boss/minion. Please keep that in mind.
And anyone making this their argument, even worse their entire argument is engaging in some low effort thought exercises. It's easy to just go "BAD MAN BAD" (or in this case "govt bad!") and expound on why you think that. However... It's not very interesting, thought-provoking or realistic.
Aaaaand this is why this comment is so good and why I wish I could, I dunno, upvote it or thumbs up it or something. THIS is a good point. Realistically, if the Japanese government knew that someone in their care/observation was legitimately from another world (and one much less advanced than ours) and they were studying here for weeks/months to make sure she didn't pose a LEGITIMATE RISK TO HUMANITY FROM DISEASES (which is why "govt bad!" arguments and the like are even less useful) and that person was there semi-voluntarily and used to having someone else there to guide/help them (who also happens to be in quarantine as well, no less) - it would make complete sense for the Japanese government/military to bring in psychologists and behavioral experts to help her cope. This modern day Japan, too, you can set up a video call for Chris and Kanji to converse with each other from their hospital beds without violating quarantine regardless of where they are. Even previous chapters pressed on the nursing staff realizing that Chris-chan was suffering from depression to the point where it was impacting her health. And, yes, I agree - having this touched on would make the scenes even better. (Not that I think that they're not good enough with them, however. It would just be sprinkles on top along with a cherry.)
Meaning the mangaka wanted to play this up for drama. Now, now... Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing that as a bad thing. I enjoyed it and thought it was really well done. And, hell, the mangaka could have easily have taken the route of doing this and it still not helping - that's still realistic, mind you. I'm just thinking that a lot of you in the comment sections are... make really bad or the entirely wrong argument for the wrong reason here. You can make all the "but what is inhumane" and "this definition of inhumane" and "but is it inhumane to her..." and yaddayadda arguments you want, but it doesn't escape the fact that 1.) This would need to happen in the real world. And it would happen. There is no escaping this. and 2.) This was done for dramatic effect. Not to make antagonist vs protagonist arcs. This is not a shounen battle manga, the nurse is not this week's under boss/minion. Please keep that in mind.
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 174
This might be a stupid question, but how the heck bringing psychologists and behavioral experts could be useful in this kind of situation ?
It's not something that already existed before & could ne observed to gain understanding of it.... it's something that suddenly popped up.
And how we could understand something that suddenly popped up without any known knowledge about it using knowledge that based/gained/extracted from social phenomenon/phenomena that already existed in our world for hundred of years
Just my opinion
It's not something that already existed before & could ne observed to gain understanding of it.... it's something that suddenly popped up.
And how we could understand something that suddenly popped up without any known knowledge about it using knowledge that based/gained/extracted from social phenomenon/phenomena that already existed in our world for hundred of years
Just my opinion
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,115
@ShortBarrelRaifu
...So you're going to keep someone confined in a room for... weeks, months... and draw blood from them every single god damn day to the point their arm looks like that of the most strung out heroin addict in a back alley in Los Angeles that's died form an overdose with a needle still in their vein and keep them separated with no contact from their only point of reference in this world and you're NOT going to consult psychologists and behavioral experts to make sure she doesn't, I dunno, flip her shit or start killing staff or decides to kill herself?
It doesn't matter if she's from a world that is nothing, culturally, like ours where magic exists and orcs rape female knights for real and not just in eromanga. She is a human, the tests confirm that. They are social creatures. Even if her world has no concept of "mental health" outside of, I dunno, trepanning to remove evil spirits, having experts evaluate her health and mindset is useful for keeping her healthy, sane, and... most importantly... COOPERATIVE. Although at that time you leave the realm of mental health more and more and start getting into psyops and interrogation. Still related to the field and its science, but... entirely different in methods and goals. Believe me, even high profile war criminals and terrorists that are being held get consideration from shrinks. Although in that case not so much humane reasoning (although that DOES play a role), but because you want to flip or get something out of an asset. "Good cop, bad cop" is one of the most common and simple examples of this that has existed for decades. And it often works. Why? Because when you're a captive and someone there is sympathetic to you, your human brain is going to be more receptive to that person.
It just makes sense to do it. Whether from a humane standpoint or just wanting a cooperative-and-not-insane-or-dead-from-suicide asset. You can still use and benefit from a cooperative asset. One that resents you, tries to escape or undertakes suicide attempts because you overplayed your cards is a waste of a valuable asset. And why take in an asset and build a repertoire with them if you're just going to turn them against you?
...So you're going to keep someone confined in a room for... weeks, months... and draw blood from them every single god damn day to the point their arm looks like that of the most strung out heroin addict in a back alley in Los Angeles that's died form an overdose with a needle still in their vein and keep them separated with no contact from their only point of reference in this world and you're NOT going to consult psychologists and behavioral experts to make sure she doesn't, I dunno, flip her shit or start killing staff or decides to kill herself?
It doesn't matter if she's from a world that is nothing, culturally, like ours where magic exists and orcs rape female knights for real and not just in eromanga. She is a human, the tests confirm that. They are social creatures. Even if her world has no concept of "mental health" outside of, I dunno, trepanning to remove evil spirits, having experts evaluate her health and mindset is useful for keeping her healthy, sane, and... most importantly... COOPERATIVE. Although at that time you leave the realm of mental health more and more and start getting into psyops and interrogation. Still related to the field and its science, but... entirely different in methods and goals. Believe me, even high profile war criminals and terrorists that are being held get consideration from shrinks. Although in that case not so much humane reasoning (although that DOES play a role), but because you want to flip or get something out of an asset. "Good cop, bad cop" is one of the most common and simple examples of this that has existed for decades. And it often works. Why? Because when you're a captive and someone there is sympathetic to you, your human brain is going to be more receptive to that person.
Interestingly? This also works BOTH ways, strangely enough. Despite some of the Nazi captives at the end of WW2 being some of the most heinous people imaginable, many guards and people ended up making friendships with the prisoners. Hermann Göring (who did do some heinous shit, but was no where near as bad as some, like Himmler who was a scummy piece of shit of whom death was too good for) who was Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe (German air force) is the most infamous example of this. After Germany surrendered and the Nuremberg trials went underway, he was in custody. He chatted (over things like hunting and firearms, IIRC) with an American serviceman there who was his guard and the two became friends. Göring asked to be given some of his personal property to the guard. Despite the guard knowing this was a very big no-no and he shouldn't do it, he did. Inside those contents were a cyanide pill that Göring ingested - killing himself.
It just makes sense to do it. Whether from a humane standpoint or just wanting a cooperative-and-not-insane-or-dead-from-suicide asset. You can still use and benefit from a cooperative asset. One that resents you, tries to escape or undertakes suicide attempts because you overplayed your cards is a waste of a valuable asset. And why take in an asset and build a repertoire with them if you're just going to turn them against you?
Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
- Messages
- 174
They're not psychologists and behavioral experts right ?
But i got your point, as long as her brain works exactly as you mentioned
Then the problem is solved
Never know that kind of stuff happened shortly after WW2, thx for the extra info @definitionofinsanity
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 27, 2018
- Messages
- 2,900
I doubt she'll just be able to go back with him author already made this hole so i wonder whats gonna happen
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2019
- Messages
- 22
Well that was anti-climactic. I was hoping for better.
Fuck off with "magic is beyond science". God I hate this plot device so fucking much.
Also, even if she isn't the source of a pandemic. I really fucking doubt the government's just going to let her walk around free. At the very least, she's being moved towards government facilities.
Also, even if she isn't the source of a pandemic. I really fucking doubt the government's just going to let her walk around free. At the very least, she's being moved towards government facilities.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2019
- Messages
- 164
Damn this arc lack of so much common sense, I feel the author tried to aboard the situation the most scientific accurate way possible but it just didnt acomplished that, some lack of knowledge or bad advise about a lot of stuff and the "magic is beyond science" so they surrender was the biggest mistake, I think that would just want them to learn or discover the mystery beyond science much more, it could change the world as we know it and they just gave up?
Similar threads
