Sonna Kazoku nara Sutechaeba? - Vol. 1 Ch. 1

[Sonaldo]

I wouldn't call that domestic violence. I would call it domestic abuse. Well, that is, until she throw porcelain at his face.
Also, probably child neglect. Though feels like the existence of "common sense" implies the father is somewhat accountable for that part too (can you hold a victim accountable for treating another victim criminally poorly, if you know he should understand he's treating the other victim criminally poorly, under orders/duress?).

Violence doesn't mean only physical violence. Your mental health is also subject to attack and that's exactly what the wife did to this poor dude

 

[Sonaldo]

Heya translator here, there's some stuff I have to explain haha.

1.

Come on, dude, spoilers.

2.

The Japanese raw said DV, domestic violence, I try to stick with the source as much as possible. About the story, of course the manga would start off quite mysterious, it's better to slowly read it in my opinion.

Thanks for the chapter my dude. Ignore the critics. I think you did a good enough job

 

[feha]

Violence doesn't mean only physical violence. Your mental health is also subject to attack and that's exactly what the wife did to this poor dude

Sure, but the thing is, violence includes an active and aggressive component. Something that is clearly lacking in their methodology (which is very passive and non-confrontational - until he forces it into a conflict). Which is why the better term for that is 'abuse'.

And even beyond that, I am sure some ppl would argue that there isn't mental violence (unless you do ESP), and that those things should be called mental abuse/assault/trauma/whatever. But I were pointing out it being a misnomer before even getting into that rat's-nest of a debate.

 

[Sonaldo]

Sure, but the thing is, violence includes an active and aggressive component. Something that is clearly lacking in their methodology (which is very passive and non-confrontational - until he forces it into a conflict).

She literally forbade him from even talking to them. He's basically non existent to them. Like he can't even make any noise when leaving and coming into the house. That's an active component. It's harming the husband mental state. Humans are social creature. Lack of social interaction will absolutely mess you up. This isn't passive in any sort of way.

even beyond that, I am sure some ppl would argue that there isn't mental violence (unless you do ESP), and that those things should be called mental abuse/assault/trauma/whatever. But I were pointing out it being a misnomer before even getting into that rat's-nest of a debate.

There's mental violence my dude.

All those words you listed are synonyms for violence my dude. Like what did you think assault mean? They're all words meant to imply causing damage or harm to something. Again, your mental health is absolutely susceptible to damage. And those damage can come from others.

 

[Oeconomist]

I mean domestic violence doesn't necessarily means the violence have to occur physically no?

You are begging the question to arrive at a false conclusion. Domestic abuse is not limited in scope to violence; the scope of violence is not as broad as the scope of abuse.

 

[Oeconomist]

There's mental violence my dude.

Only in a metaphoric sense. If you start confusing metaphor and poetry with fact, then you end-up with incoherence.

 

[Sonaldo]

You are begging the question to arrive at a false conclusion. Domestic abuse is not limited in scope to violence; the scope of violence is not as broad as the scope of abuse.

Yeah but your mental can be violated no? Sure the scope is small but still, mentally violating someone is a thing. And that's exactly what the wife is doing to that man. Hence why calling is domestic violence is appropriate.

 

[Sonaldo]

Only in a metaphoric sense.

No? You think mental trauma are metaphorical? Lol guess PTSD are metaphorical as well? Are you actually denying someone mental state by calling metaphorical?

 

[Oeconomist]

Yeah but your mental can be violated no? Sure the scope is small but still, mentally violating someone is a thing. And that's exactly what the wife is doing to that man. Hence why calling is domestic violence is appropriate.

No. Not every violation is violent.

 

[Sonaldo]

No. Not every violation is violent.

But the violation we're talking about here is. Hell, one of the synonyms for violation is abuse lol

 

[Oeconomist]

No? You think mental trauma are metaphorical?

Stop tryiing to cheat your way out on this matter. All abuse is abusive; that doesn't mean that all abuse is violent. The ends, including wicked orr hurtful ends, that can be achieved through violence can often be achieved by other means; similar results do not equate to an identity of means.

 

[Oeconomist]

But the violation we're talking about here is.

No, you're again begging the question.

Hell, one of the synonyms for violation is abuse

Lists of synonyms generally include words with overlapping scope. Finding “violence” in a list off synonyms for “abuse” or vice versa doesn't show that they mean exactly the same thing.

lol

Anyone can laugh at anything. Laughter is a lousy argument.

 

[Sonaldo]

Stop tryiing to cheat your way out on this matter. All abuse is abusive; that doesn't mean that all abuse is violent. The ends, including wicked orr hurtful ends, that can be achieved through violence can often be achieved by other means; similar results do not equate to an identity of means.

But the one we're talking about now is lol. Fuck sake the wife threw a glass at him just because he talked for a little with his own fucking daughter. Man is literally about to pass out from the mental stress in front of a railway track. You genuinely think that the man mental state is fine? What the wife did for a literal decade isn't violent? Isn't causing permanent, lasting damage to his mental psyche?

 

[Sonaldo]

Lists of synonyms generally include words with overlapping scope. Finding “violence” in a list off synonyms for “abuse” or vice versa doesn't show that they mean exactly the same thing.

Yeah but they're similar in meaning. Not exact but similar enough they can most often be interchangeable

You think abusing the law and violating the law has different meanings?

 

[Oeconomist]

But the one we're talking about now is lol. Fuck sake the wife threw a glass at him just because he talked for a little with his own fucking daughter.

Don't lose track of what has actually been said. The word “violence” was used to translate the remarks of a character who knew nothing of the glass being thrown nor of any other form of violence.

Man is literally about to pass out from the mental stress in front of a railway track. You genuinely think that the man mental state is fine?

You are still begging the question. Everyone agrees that the character who was mistranslated as using the term “violence” saw evidence of abuse.

What the wife did for a literal decade isn't violent? Isn't causing permanent, lasting damage to his mental psyche?

Again, you are pretending that the scope of “violence” includes any form of abuse.

 

[feha]

Only in a metaphoric sense. If you start confusing metaphor and poetry with fact, then you end-up with incoherence.

There is a reason I described that debate (about whether there is mental violence at all) as a rat's nest: it's all about nomenclature and linguistics in regards to some specific connotations that are extremely dependent on the people in question, and can arguably be part of the idiolect rather than dialect or language.
You are not going to come to any agreement regarding this - as the argument is purely in the realm of nomenclature

Stop tryiing to cheat your way out on this matter. All abuse is abusive; that doesn't mean that all abuse is violent. The ends, including wicked orr hurtful ends, that can be achieved through violence can often be achieved by other means; similar results do not equate to an identity of means.

Which is why I approached things from that -^ angle. That there is nonviolent abuse. But sonaldo is clearly not agreeing with that, and seems to - within his idiolect - extend the term violence to cover all forms of abuse. That is clearly not correct imo, but I already identified that I won't be able to convince him that ie. taking credit for someone else's work is a non-violent form of abuse.

But the one we're talking about now is lol. Fuck sake the wife threw a glass at him just because he talked for a little with his own fucking daughter. Man is literally about to pass out from the mental stress in front of a railway track. You genuinely think that the man mental state is fine? What the wife did for a literal decade isn't violent? Isn't causing permanent, lasting damage to his mental psyche?

Which was why I kept in being specific about the glass part being actual violence - but also making it clear that it stemmed from him finally taking action to stop the abuse by confronting her about it, and not something he's ever experienced before that very day.

Yeah but they're similar in meaning. Not exact but similar enough they can most often be interchangeable

You think abusing the law and violating the law has different meanings?

It does actually. The connotations for abusing the law, is that you are acting fully within the legal framework, to screw over others with the law as leverage. Violating the law has connotations that you are not following it. And performing violence upon the law has the connotations that you are putting it under a scalpel as you're revising it in ie. parliament.

 

[Oeconomist]

Yeah but they're similar in meaning. Not exact but similar enough they can most often be interchangeable

Often, but not always. And, in this case, the translation was wrong.

You think abusing the law and violating the law has different meanings?

A doubly foolish question. First, not all violations are violent; second, indeed the law can be abused without being violated. Police and prosecutors abuse the law all the time.

 

[Oeconomist]

the idiolect rather than dialect or language

Except that we are not principally discussing his idiolect; we are discussing proper translation for a wider audience.

Translators must proceed by a doctrine different from that of Humpty Dumpty. They cannot, properly speaking, even translate just for Mr Dumpty, as his meta-language is no more intelligible than his everyday speech; we cannot really know what he intends to say.

You are not going to come to any agreement regarding this - as the argument is purely in the realm of nomenclature

In many arguments, we proceed not to get our opponent to agree, but to secure agreement from some share of the rest of the audience.

 

[Sonaldo]

Don't lose track of what has actually been said. The word “violence” was used to translate the remarks of a character who knew nothing of the glass being thrown nor of any other form of violence.

Fair enough. Disregard that point by me

You are still begging the question. Everyone agrees that the character who was mistranslated as using the term “violence” saw evidence of abuse.

Not everyone.

Again, you are pretending that the scope of “violence” includes any form of abuse.

Not any. I'm specifically talking about this one. This form of abuse is definitely is. A drug abuse isn't violent. A mental abuse is absolutely is. Even more so when it's done at the level that this manga has shown

 

[Sonaldo]

But sonaldo is clearly not agreeing with that, and seems to - within his idiolect - extend the term violence to cover all forms of abuse.

I literally stated multiple time I didn't. I stated the abuse shown in this chapter is violent. That's all. Never did I wrote "all abuse are violent". Now you're just making things up

It does actually. The connotations for abusing the law, is that you are acting fully within the legal framework, to screw over others with the law as leverage.

That's not what abusing the law means. By that logic every lawyer, the professionals that are supposed to practice the law are abusing it. This is going into ridiculous territory

Violating the law has connotations that you are not following it. And performing violence upon the law has the connotations that you are putting it under a scalpel as you're revising it in ie. parliament.

Okay yeah you're just talking nonsense now.