Rooftop Sword Master - Ch. 25

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
244
@LordPigeater7 it's obvious that he will die at the end of the series. how he die that still the question. will he kill himself, surrender and whatever the country will do for him, or die together with that last 2 prick for the finishing.

the wildest guess would be the owner of the sword comes up something something isekai
 
Aggregator gang
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
713
Holy shit Holy shit Holy shit Holy shit Holy shit Holy shit Holy shit im fucking shaking.e
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 30, 2018
Messages
92
Bet hes gonna grab a missile and throw it back, it literally has happen at some point like there's no way it won't happen
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
2,874
Huh? Wait, do they think he is not bulletproof? I mean, he ran straight into dozen of people shooting at him with automatic guns. Its not like they didnt hit him even by pure luck xDDD

@kuyukotto and the nurse.
 
Fed-Kun's army
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
846
Oh how I wish I find this manhwa later in the future so I can binge reading 100+ chapters in a day
Now I'm craving for more chapters like a crackwhore
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,976
@Keshire it's law and order. If the police see a person with a sword decapitating another person, it's their job to use force to stop this person. Let's say for example some citizens/bystanders see someone attacking another person on the street. If the bystanders come to the defense of the victim, is it alright for the attacker to kill the bystanders who are trying to help?
 
Double-page supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
902
Wow is he like if kid Bruce Wayne got Hulk powers? Hahaha.

No sympathy from me anymore just here for the Murder Hobo's Revenge. (sounds like a nice B-Movie title)
 
Fed-Kun's army
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
464
@Nk9bjP4A Yes and it would be morally correct as well. You have to remember that for most of human history cops weren't a thing in the capacity they are in in the western world. The cops are just doing their job, sure, but their job duties do not care about what's moral. MC has every moral right to kill these subhuman pieces of shit and I would even argue that would include their parents as well. Brothers and sisters is going a step too far for my tastes though.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,976
@Petnavis From your perspective, then if I see a little girl that I don't know anything about on the street getting attacked by a man with a knife, I should not attempt to defend her, because of the random possibility that she may be evil and the man might be her victim, and if I try to defend her then the man has the moral right to kill me?
If it's ok to kill the parents of an evil child, without any evidence that the parents had any involvement with the child's crimes, then the only thing linking them together is genetics or that they live together in the same house. So if you say that it's ok to also kill the parents, then it should logically be ok to kill the brothers and sisters. In the same way, if the parent commits a crime, then their children who may have no involvement with the crime should be killed too, since they're genetically related. Also, if a child was adopted immediately after birth or conceived with donor material, then if the child commits a crime then the biological parents who simply only contributed genetic material to a sperm/egg bank and may not know anything about the child should also be killed too.
 
Fed-Kun's army
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
464
@Nk9bjP4A >From your perspective, then if I see a little girl that I don't know anything about on the street getting attacked by a man with a knife, I should not attempt to defend her, because of the random possibility that she may be evil and the man might be her victim, and if I try to defend her then the man has the moral right to kill me?

That's not what's happening in this story. When it comes to children it's a nuanced issue. How old are they? 15? Tried as an adult. 8? Now you're in the realm of them not really knowing consequences of their actions fully. In this story these people were at least 13 and beat someone into a coma and went back to get revenge on their victim. Also, here's the thing about going to the defense of someone - if a women spent the past 10 minutes antagonizing their bf by assaulting them and humiliating in public and he retaliates and the only part you see is the man beating the women that makes you in the wrong and I'd even argue morally wrong. If you're consistently jumping to the aid of people who are being assaulted don't be surprised when one day that person turns out to be the aggressor.

>If it's ok to kill the parents of an evil child, without any evidence that the parents had any involvement with the child's crimes, then the only thing linking them together is genetics or that they live together in the same house. So if you say that it's ok to also kill the parents, then it should logically be ok to kill the brothers and sisters. In the same way, if the parent commits a crime, then their children who may have no involvement with the crime should be killed too, since they're genetically related. Also, if a child was adopted immediately after birth or conceived with donor material, then if the child commits a crime then the biological parents who simply only contributed genetic material to a sperm/egg bank and may not know anything about the child should also be killed too.

Wrong and you're not making logical sense. Do you know why parents are penalized for the actions of their kids under the eyes of the law until the kids become adults? Because the parents RAISE their kids and are RESPONSIBLE for their actions. If you raise a kid to be a piece of shit and they go out into the world and do piece of shit things then yes, both parents and child should be responsible. If some guy killed my niece and I found out their parents were also pieces of shits I'd like them all dead. The reason why brothers and sisters, for me personally, are exempt is because they did not raise the child and there's no promise that they're a piece of shit because not everyone comes out the same when raised in a family.

I have zero idea why you're focusing on child this and child that because that's not what the story is about nor has anything to do with what I said. The reason the MC is killing the brothers and sisters is because his family was taken from him in order to get justice so he wants to take their family away. It's a very simple revenge story. None of the characters, so far, have been children. Stop bringing it up. Children tend to operate under different rules because they're not fully grown and it would be unfair and, dare I say it, immoral to treat children as adults when it comes to punishments.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,976
@Petnavis What you are implying is that nobody should help anyone, because anyone could be a criminal, and that the potential of helping a criminal is morally wrong.

I use the word child to describe a parent-child relationship, because everyone is a child of a parent, regardless of the age. A child in this sense is simply a direct descendant of a parent. A 50 year old is still the child of an 80 year old parent.

The characters are under 18 years old so they are not legal adults. At least the MC, but I'm not sure about the others. But age doesn't change responsibility, although it may change the allowable punishment by law.

No, parents cannot be held for crimes committed by their children by law, even if the children are under-aged, at least in western democratic countries. Otherwise it would be like making a child responsible for the parent's debt when the parent passes away, which is not true in western countries, although Japanese manga seem to make it so.

It is entirely possible that parents never taught their children to commit crimes, and the children learned to do it on their own or were influenced by other unrelated people. Automatically making parents responsible without any evidence is against the law in most developed countries. People are innocent until proven guilty. The story so far hasn't shown that the parents were involved with their children's crimes, although it does imply that they tried to shield their children from attention by sending them overseas, which isn't a crime. The story so far may show that they could have abused their powers in their jobs, but so far not in relation with their children, at least until the MC started to kill them. Let's say for example, a restaurant owner sees hungry people and feeds them food for free, but the people he fed turns out to be criminals on the run who later commit more crimes. Is the restaurant owner guilty of assisting the criminals of their crime?

If you want to find real world similarities to the story regarding revenge, you can find several in the news from middle-east/asian countries where revenge acts or revenge killings are allowed by some tribal or religious cultures. Like if a parent or child commits rape, the victim's family is allowed to rape a family member of the criminal. It's completely against the law in western countries. Or if someone causes an accident that causes a victim to lose his eyes, the victim's family is allowed to surgically remove the eyes of the person who caused the accident. The US constitution's 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and I assume most developed countries have similar laws, although this would apply to the person who commits the criminal act. Punishment to family members who have not been proven to be involved in a crime is something different.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,976
@Petnavis Today there was a viral video of a police officer saving the life of a man who's wheelchair was stuck on the train tracks as the train was approaching. Let's use this for an example, and say hypothetically that the train driver was a victim and was trying to run over the man in the wheelchair, who was a criminal who previously tried to kill the train driver. The police officer saw the man in the wheelchair stuck on the tracks, so she ran to pull the man away from the tracks. Does this mean she is now as guilty as the criminal because she attempted to save his life, and so the train driver should be allowed to kill both of them together by running them over with the train?
 
Active member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
374
@Nk9bjP4A The kids are pieces of shits, and so are the parents, they both committed many wrongs, so they should both die simple as that. I have no idea why you're bringing all these random hypotheticals that have little to no relevance. I think you are misreading the situation here. It's pretty cut and dry to be honest.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
2,976
@EzWeeb The hypothetical situations are relevant. The discussion was whether it was perfectly fine for the MC to kill anyone who gets in the way of his revenge, including him killing the police, some who are just doing their job of coming to the aid of anyone in need of help. Someone said all police are corrupt, so they should die. The hypothetical situation replaces any bias against police by replacing them with ordinary bystanders on the street, who may simply help a victim because that may just be their normal reaction. Someone replied that it's fine to kill anyone who tries to help, which would mean no one should help anyone because the person you help might be a criminal.

In the previous chapters, the author so far hadn't shown the involvement of the abusers' parents in what happened to the MC. The author only mentions the MC blaming the abusers' parents for the loss of his own parents, which is seemingly why he wants to kill their parents too. It would be different if the author actually showed the parents directly interfering with the police investigation at the time, but I don't remember anything like this, at least not until later. It seems to me that the MC is using guilt of association for his reason to kill everyone related to his abusers (like their siblings), but that's the sort of attitude that dictators and secret police use to imprison people without evidence, or why some mass murders justify the targeting of their victims. Is he going to kill their ex-wives too? And their step-children?
 
Active member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
374
@Nk9bjP4A I think you are reading to much into it if they were directly involved then it's fine. Sure if it's some random ass dude close to them then it's wrong, but if they were directly involved I see no problem.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
31
nah fuck them, fuck them all, they didn't do anything when mc almost got killed and resulted for his parents sacrificing themselves and even with that those 8 fuckers still got away with it by moving to the states
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top