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

[Arenesos]

Well from the spoiler I got he definitely deserves it, men who say that are utter trash and should see themselves out.

 

[Oeconomist]

Not everyone.

No, everyone. Your language skills are too poor for you understand just what I said.

I'm specifically talking about this one.

The specious argument that you used for claiming that the abuse of which she learned was violent could be as well (and as badly) applied to all abuse with such consequences.

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

And now you are still more baldly begging the question.

 

[Sonaldo]

The specious argument that you used for claiming that the abuse of which she learned was violent could be as well (and as badly) applied to all abuse with such consequences.

No lmao 🤣. Pretty clear you're just trying to make a generalized statement from my specific point. For the last time, the abuse she did to him constitute as domestic violence from a mental standpoint. That's it.

Also, yes all abuse that cause consequences as seen in this chapter is considered domestic violence. What are you on about lmao 😂. I'm done being serious with a clown like you.

 

[Oeconomist]

No lmao 🤣.

As I've noted, laughter can be directed by anyone at anything.

Pretty clear you're just trying to make a generalized statement from my specific point.

The logic or illogic of a claim is most often found by seeing whether it works generally. Yours doesn't. Extreme effects can result from non-violent causes.

For the last time

No, you don't have enough sense to know when you've lost.

the abuse she did to him constitute as domestic violence from a mental standpoint. That's it.

No, that's not it. Extreme psychologic effects can result from non-violent causes.

Also, yes all abuse that cause consequences as seen in this chapter is considered domestic violence.

You're back to begging the question.

What are you on about lmao 😂.

Again: Laughter can be directed by anyone at anything.

I'm done being serious with a clown like you.

Your attempts at being serious failed as rational argument, so you resort to no more than ridicule and question-begging.

And that's fine with me, just as it will be fine when you add more of the same, because (as I explained elsewhere) I'm concern with a share of the rest of the audience.

 

[ispcizero3rd]

whoah, chilll comment just went wild. we didnt even know what/why did he said that, was it because its not his daugther or something?

 

[Ilyonel]

looking for some spoiler, found arguments instead.

 

[Skydaz]

Can the rest of us here get some proper spoilers? Thanks

Like drop all of it quoting my comment

 

[al_pacino]

looking for some spoiler, found arguments instead.

same here, my guy. I mean... this is so fucked up, I'm kinda curious on how this all get started. and I'm really having a hard time trying to comprehend the husband. withstanding that kind of treatment for 13 years!? NTR sounds much better. and this from the guy who hate NTR to the very core.

 

[silverpetricof]

That was very interesting. I'm eager to see how this shapes out.

Thank you for the translation (I also thought the use of the term "violence" was a little odd. But if that is what was in the original raws, then I respect keeping it that way. It doesn't change the fact MC is suffering either way).

 

[Parahill]

Ok, I need spoilers because this so mess up! Why did she do that!?

 

[undeed]

wow, I didn't expect to find a wild debate like this when I opened the comments
but that made me curious, so I looked it up

looking at the raw, nothing wrong with the translation

asking google-sensei,
there is a wikipedia entry about "domestic violence"
but nothing on "domestic abuse"

searching with query "domestic violence vs domestic abuse"
my 2nd top result says that those two are interchangeable
my 3rd top result says that those are just different words used in different state's law, but "describe similar conduct"

I think this whole back and forth about the word definition will only get me flagged as a victim trying to get help

 

[shadowtempestdemon]

Throw it all away, that is not family or anything similar. I'm gonna guess the kid isn't his and the wife trapped him due to her thinking he would cheat on or leave her like she did to him. Hope the other lady helps him, but I wouldn't be surprised if the wife killed him

hm. wouldn't be surprised. Is this based on a novel? If so, we could check.

 

[shadowtempestdemon]

Unless he did something, like cheat on her, she's pretty horrible. Maybe the kid isn't his and she trapped him, or maybe she's just psycho.

 

[DynJarren]

hm. wouldn't be surprised. Is this based on a novel? If so, we could check.

I think it's an original, just got to wait for more translations

 

[Oeconomist]

my 2nd top result says that those two are interchangeable

No, it doesn't. What it says is

It can be difficult to decipher the difference between violence and abuse when the two are so closely related. However, by definition violence is an action that causes destruction, pain, or suffering whilst abuse refers to prolonged maltreatment that can cause emotional as well as physical trauma. Due to the similarities between the two, the line between violence and abuse is somewhat of a grey area.

Abuse is a broader category, containing all of violence but not entirely contained by violence. Everywhere that “violence” is used, “abuse” can be substituted; but not vice versa.

 

[undeed]

No, it doesn't. What it says is

Abuse is a broader category, containing all of violence but not entirely contained by violence. Everywhere that “violence” is used, “abuse” can be substituted; but not vice versa.

"Domestic Violence: Domestic violence (also called domestic abuse or family violence)"

seems pretty interchangeable to me
but yeah, you do you
clearly you are the smartest person here



edit:
here the 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on from that google search query results
you can search it yourself, I'm just showing the data
but well, google lies all the time, right?

 

[Oeconomist]

"Domestic Violence: Domestic violence (also called domestic abuse or family violence)"

seems pretty interchangeable to me
but yeah, you do you
clearly you are the smartest person here



edit:
here the 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on from that google search query results
you can search it yourself, I'm just showing the data
but well, google lies all the time, right?

Y'know, I had added a remark

Abuse is a broader category, containing all of violence but not entirely contained by violence. Everywhere that “violence” is used, “abuse” can be substituted; but not vice versa.

exactly because people like you don't recognize that all Y are X doesn't imply that all X are Y.

Congratulations on confirming what everyone knows, that domestic violence is domestic abuse. Pity that you screwed up from there.

By the way, Google is a search-engine. The pages to which you linked are content to which Google links. If you're going to appeal to authority, then it has to be the authority of those pages.

 

[undeed]

Y'know, I had added a remark

exactly because people like you don't recognize that all Y are X doesn't imply that all X are Y.

to me, you are like comparing the word "up" and "down" in the phrase "I'm up for it" and "I'm down for it"
yes, "up" and "down" are the opposite, but when you use it INSIDE the phrase, those two phrases are practically the same meaning

I mean, I never compared the word "violence" and "abuse" in my comment
I compared the phrases, in which you commented in your very first comment

The word “violence” is being used by the translator where, instead, the proper word is “abuse”.

which then the translator explained it was translated that way because it is in the phrase DV

phrases which you agree that those two are interchangeable

Congratulations on confirming what everyone knows, that domestic violence is domestic abuse. Pity that you screwed up from there.

the word by itself?
sure, yeah, words "up" and "down" are a complete opposite of each other

 

[Oeconomist]

it was translated that way because it is in the phrase DV

I've already pointed to something that he and you and everyone else here knows: Japanese does not map one-to-one with English. Japanese bundles concepts differently.

The most noted case is “青い”. Translating this as “blue” when an Anglophone would use “green” or vice versa cannot be justified by pointing to a Japanese dictionary. (The error of using “blue” for green lights can be found in some scanlations.)

The fact that Japanese might often use a term to mean violence doesn't mean that the term meant violence in a case where in fact there was no violence.

to me, you are like comparing the word "up" and "down" in the phrase "I'm up for it" and "I'm down for it"
yes, "up" and "down" are the opposite, but when you use it INSIDE the phrase, those two phrases are practically the same meaning

I mean, I never compared the word "violence" and "abuse" in my comment
I compared the phrases, in which you commented in your very first comment

which then the translator explained it was translated that way because it is in the phrase DV

phrases which you agree that those two are interchangeable


the word by itself?
sure, yeah, words "up" and "down" are a complete opposite of each other

I draw the attention of everyone else to undeed's avoidance of the central point: “abuse” is a general term that includes violence but has a wider scope.

Every Anglophone here understands that one can be abusive without being violent. The behaviour described to the character in the story was abusive; it was not not violent. So some of us suggested a better translation.

Since then, we've had a dust-up involving two sorts. Those of the first sort just don't know English as well as they think. Those of the second sort want to expand the scope of “violence” even while holding onto the ethical force that can only obtain in cases of real violence; with this verbal bullshit, they can make treating non-violent acts as warranting a violent response, as in the slogan “Silence Is Violence”, which is used to attack people who have literally done nothing.

 

[Eighty-six]

The Japanese does not map one-to-one with English.

It's not a pseudo-anglicism-- it's an initialism of "domestic violence", and it's allegedly the term that was used in the raws.

This is literally the only thing that matters-- if "DV" was short for a pseudo-anglicism (i.e. ifドメスティックバイオレンス is a Japanese-coined English term that is not used to refer to domestic violence), then it would make sense to not render it as "domestic violence"-- but then, one would render it as its actual meaning as a pseudo-anglicism. If it was an idiom, then it would make sense to take liberties in order to render an approximate English equivalent.

As it stands, this is a pointless conversation because the character chose that term, for whatever reason that may be. It's not for you or any translator to try to rewrite that because you understand the story in a particular way-- especially not when the language that is being used can easily become important later, meaning that you created a plot hole or some other loss of meaning through an intentional decision to not faithfully translate the text.

The character could be deliberately written to use inaccurate verbiage. The author herself could be unwittingly using imprecise verbiage. Regardless, it's what's written.

That, and the wife literally chucked stuff at him in this chapter.