Rikei ga Koi ni Ochita no de Shoumei shitemita - Vol. 9 Ch. 51 - An Ordinary Lover's Memory

[MangaDex]

 

[cokelemon]

Oof, that wasn't the trauma I expected

 

[phil777]

Kanade being weak. Normality is overrated.

 

[kamiyathunder]

Normal? Let me quote Morticia Adams:

“Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.”

 

[AnotherDuck]

You can't count on martial arts to keep you safe, especially as a woman. It will help against aggressors who're more cautious, but against determined attackers, you need a significant amount of skill if you're not stronger.

"I can't become your boyfriend, but I can teach you math."

Lives for his field.

Now that's spacing out. Not because of her "being weird doing martial arts." If anything, she lacks skill, because she failed to hold back her actions.

Questioning the definition of "normal" is a good way to question its relevancy.

So logical that she start with, "Everyone does that," and continues to talk about him not doing it.

 

[Phantommemorial]

It is normal for human to be unique.
Become the new normal.
It is normal to be yourself.
Normalcy requires chaos to exist.
And many other random one-liners that I can spew.

 

[Dzrian]

You can't count on martial arts to keep you safe, especially as a woman. It will help against aggressors who're more cautious, but against determined attackers, you need a significant amount of skill if you're not stronger.

You can definitely count on martial arts to keep yourself safe. Or actually, more accurately, to try to keep yourself safer.

The way you put it is like saying you can't count on workplace safety to keep yourself safe because there could be accidents that will still manage to affect you.

Or, you can't count on helmets because it may work for small impacts but not when a truck runs over you.

Point being, it's uncalled for as it sounds as if it's discrediting the use of it, and it is common or obvious sense anyways that it only serves protection to an extent just like anything else, to prevent things that would've been more avoidable, but it's there to increase the likelihood of personal safety. Either you be an easier, weaker prey, or be able the repel danger and have a higher chance against more capable attackers.

 

[Dzrian]

Skill issue bruh. She made a teacher go out with her, did that, then got a trauma from it whenever she sees him.

 

[AnotherDuck]

You can definitely count on martial arts to keep yourself safe. Or actually, more accurately, to try to keep yourself safer.

So first you say something contradictory, then you have to correct yourself to say something that's exactly what I said. Are you just looking for an argument because you don't like the way I phrased something? And the phrase in the manga was an absolute, "will keep you safe," which both of us agrees is false.

The way you put it is like saying you can't count on workplace safety to keep yourself safe because there could be accidents that will still manage to affect you.

Workplace safety rules, like wearing a helmet at construction sites, are there because the risk is higher than normal. Yes, they protect you. But no, they do not guarantee your safety. If you're an idiot you're probably still going to get injured. So you're not refuting my argument.

Or, you can't count on helmets because it may work for small impacts but not when a truck runs over you.

Helmets while cycling are actually rather minor in the grand scheme of things. They can help, sure, but they won't significantly impact your overall safety one way or the other. There's been studies about it, with findings like wearing a helmet increases your chance of being in an accident, or that walking has roughly the same risk factor.

 

[Dzrian]

I reckon that you're the one making an argument here, considering you're taking what I was saying as an attempt at rebuttal when it was actually just analogies.

Firstly, I wasn't contradicting myself but rather making a more accurate statement. I'd argue it's more accurate than your statement as well, leaning toward the idea that you can actually count on it. I'll explain the reasoning in the next paragraph.

There's also a flaw in your point about helmets increasing the chances of accidents, and this aligns with your way of thinking in your initial comment. I was making analogies since I didn't know the term, but it seems that it went over your head. So I looked it up, you're welcome. The term is 'reverse causality.'