Tensei Kizoku no Isekai Boukenroku: Jichou o Shiranai Kamigami no Shito - Vol. 12 Ch. 61

Double-page supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
169
Cain gave anyone a second chance, but if that anyone waste the chance, Cain going to kill them. He's actually not that naive but too kind for a Noble. He can't just let them slide like that, He needs to gave a severe punishment. But this guy won't have a third chance, this is his last chance and he's a dead meat 😂
 
Double-page supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
169
Friends, we are about to enter perhaps uncharted territories of "Fuck Around and Find Out" for these two fuckwit families.
It is literally "Fuck around and find out" situation. Cain is unworldy strong, not only his physical and magic but position as a noble. Who the hell is stupid enough tried to mess around with this kind of person 😅😅
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
738
Cain gave anyone a second chance, but if that anyone waste the chance, Cain going to kill them. He's actually not that naive but too kind for a Noble. He can't just let them slide like that, He needs to gave a severe punishment. But this guy won't have a third chance, this is his last chance and he's a dead meat 😂
Giving someone a second chance only works when you first establish that you won't give a third one.
Cain has let Corgino off twice at least. More if you consider instances of political obstruction rather than outright evil acts.
I understand that Cain couldn't directly retaliate without endangering his relation with the king and possibly the public at large... but he definitely can do so indirectly. At this stage, I'm surprised he hasn't asked his demon butler to put Corgino under 24/7 surveillance. (There are quite a few insect puns to be made here, but I'll abstain for once.)

The only case where Cain has retaliated pretty seriously was the four stooges in the city he was put in charge of. And even then this was an outright attack on him and his mansion, so violent retaliation was mandatory. However, this is not a very public achievement, so it doesn't count as a clear message to others.

Evil people won't take your kindness seriously until you first show them that it is a deadly mistake to mistake kindness for weakness. At least, I've not seen a case of a truly evil individual in fiction changing his ways with a simple negotiation outside of some form of magical constraint. In the counterexamples I can remember, the villain was actually a nice guy, or at the very least a honorable type, doing bad things with the wrong reasons. Not the truly evil kind like here.

So what Cain does isn't "kindness", it's simply giving another opportunity for criminals to commit crimes. Which would be stupid if the criminals were at least cautious enough to not directly target him right after the warning. If this guy here was a little bit smart, he would wait for Cain to get out of the picture, then resume his normal criminal activities while trying his best to not get anywhere near Cain.
Cain has never shown himself as smart and conscientious enough to monitor the evil people he let go once before. He just expects them to do something evil to him again so he can catch them in the act. Which funny enough, they are indeed stupid enough to do.

An example of non-violent retaliation that sends the message... that I've seen used in a few mangas... is a cordial greeting accompanied by a traumatic level of bloodlust. There are variation in how conspicuous this is, from targeted to spilling out for everyone to feel, but the idea is basically to communicate "I can kill you anytime, anywhere. I won't be bothered to restrain myself next time." No outright violence, no actual action at all. For someone with no apparent battle ability at all, this should be very efficient.
I can think of a few other ideas with various degrees of involvement. Social shunning, economic interference... and I'm not even starting on his powers as a demi-god.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
169
Are you mentally deficient? For the at least THIRD time. We are not talking about a misunderstanding of positions. We are talking about a misunderstanding of details and explanations.

I will say nothing else in this post because until you understand that you are not worth talking to. And it seems your mental capacity can't do more than grab a few sentences at once.
Misunderstanding of details and explanations, or different perceptions and interpretations of the same subject matter? Because it seems to me the latter was the case, which is invariably shaped by our opinions on things. From what I saw, they understood and countered just fine, so it seems almost like an insult to their intelligence by claiming they misunderstood the details.

Additionally, all that was offerred in this thread were anecdotes and assertions with little to no proof on either side. Pull out the evidence, link the studies, then we can talk about whether or not we are understanding and interpreting the details correctly. Otherwise, it's all just posturing and irrelevant testimony from a sample size of 1. Maybe up to 20 if you can include immediate friends and families as examples, but still irrelevant in terms of statistics.

That's on you if you can't differentiate the difference between anecdote and evidence. Or are you trying to claim that if somehow you could explain things to them better, they would budge off their position of all corporal punishment is bad? They didn't seem like the type that would budge without hard, concrete, and overwhelming proof.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
419
Never listened to anything from Joe Rogan, so no comment on that, but what's wrong with Jordan Peterson? He's an academic and his lectures are great and factual for the most part, with some personal interpretations of his thrown in there sometimes, but it still makes sense what he thinks as he motivates them with persuasive reasoning and experiences of his own from when treating people, and quotes studies as well.

Wth is wrong about that?
He seems persuasive because he talks with confidence no matter how absurd what's falling out of his noise hole sounds to people who see past the dog whistles. Peterson is a radical reactionary who cosplays as a conservative. Demographic and societal trends threaten his position of power as a white male with wealth and so he spends his time convincing people that those trends not only need to be halted but reversed back to some fictional time in the past when everybody was happy, but the reality is that they just want to go back to when women and minorities knew their place. Now that a similarly reactionary Supreme Court has overturned the right to privacy that formed the foundation for the right to an abortion so-called conservatives have moved on to non-heterosexual marriages, no-fault divorce, and contraception in any form. After that they'll move on to miscegenation, revive eugenics as policy, outlaw unions, and put down protests with lethal force. Peterson is right there with them cheering it on because his position of privilege means he has nothing to lose by these policies and with the common right wing view of zero-sum politics other people losing means he gains.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
737
Misunderstanding of details and explanations, or different perceptions and interpretations of the same subject matter? Because it seems to me the latter was the case, which is invariably shaped by our opinions on things. From what I saw, they understood and countered just fine, so it seems almost like an insult to their intelligence by claiming they misunderstood the details.

Additionally, all that was offerred in this thread were anecdotes and assertions with little to no proof on either side. Pull out the evidence, link the studies, then we can talk about whether or not we are understanding and interpreting the details correctly. Otherwise, it's all just posturing and irrelevant testimony from a sample size of 1. Maybe up to 20 if you can include immediate friends and families as examples, but still irrelevant in terms of statistics.

That's on you if you can't differentiate the difference between anecdote and evidence. Or are you trying to claim that if somehow you could explain things to them better, they would budge off their position of all corporal punishment is bad? They didn't seem like the type that would budge without hard, concrete, and overwhelming proof.
Then you're not actually reading what was said. Here is a post about them responding to you in relation to "all kids" you both thought the other said it but neither of you said it. So if you can't see stuff like that happening your eyes are just closed.
 
Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
71
He seems persuasive because he talks with confidence no matter how absurd what's falling out of his noise hole sounds to people who see past the dog whistles. Peterson is a radical reactionary who cosplays as a conservative. Demographic and societal trends threaten his position of power as a white male with wealth and so he spends his time convincing people that those trends not only need to be halted but reversed back to some fictional time in the past when everybody was happy, but the reality is that they just want to go back to when women and minorities knew their place. Now that a similarly reactionary Supreme Court has overturned the right to privacy that formed the foundation for the right to an abortion so-called conservatives have moved on to non-heterosexual marriages, no-fault divorce, and contraception in any form. After that they'll move on to miscegenation, revive eugenics as policy, outlaw unions, and put down protests with lethal force. Peterson is right there with them cheering it on because his position of privilege means he has nothing to lose by these policies and with the common right wing view of zero-sum politics other people losing means he gains.
Uh, what? That seems like a whole lot of speculations and reading into things that isn't there. He sticks to his subject matter as a psychologist and focuses on the subconscious mechanisms. For real, check out his lectures. They're really good.
 
Group Leader
Joined
May 13, 2023
Messages
32
I think the Saint poison incident was worse, as it showed how the assassin guild used a kid to not only poison the Saint but also used the same poison to kill that kid to remove evidence (we even see the dead body of that kid), as if the kid was just a tool.

Compared to that, a pre-teen getting slapped twice isn't that big of a deal, especially in the eyes of Asian kids (because sometimes it's much worse than just two slaps).
It's more like, those guys are just bad guys no question, so I'd expect them to kill off a kid after they used them - also for that at least we only got the after scene, not the kid dying in front of us (my own double standards I suppose). This tipped me off because we didn't know who this guy was at all 2 chapters ago, and it's a single person instead of a conglomerate of criminals.

Also I meant the worst episode not only because of Ralph getting hit (though that's a big part, I just don't vibe with that at all personally), it was also that Cain just... sits there? While a kid who looks his age is getting walloped? Right in front of him? What the fuck.

Like the kid did something stupid yes, I won't deny that, but his specific request was to "threaten" and Cain is aware of that - it was the thugs who escalated. The dad is infinitely worse by trying to bribe Cain with hush money / abusing his authority and local laws to cover up the incident. And then the slaps. I think Cain would've at least like, stepped in the middle and tried to save the kid instead of just letting him get hit.

And then he... forgives them???? Forgives the dad because "I understand using every method to bail your kid out"???? Bro you JUST witnessed him slapping him TWICE. And that was after finding out that his fiancées are really powerful people. It was out of genuine anger. But nah, bro just sits there and lets them go with a "pwomise pwetty pwease : (". Like yeah the dad will lose his position either way because the parliament, not wanting to go to war with two of the biggest powers over a piece of shit, will likely just retire him, but why would you forgive the fucking dad???????????

And, if that wasn't enough, we learn at the end that he's a bastard anyway! He's the one who helped Corgino with trafficking children. SO THE LAST PART AND ALL THE PLOTTING WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF CAIN ACTUALLY KILLED CORGINO AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The WN readers say the two get their comeuppance later on so I'll just have to wait I guess. I just think context wise, this is genuinely the worst chapter because Cain is out of character (imo) and the new character is a genuine piece of shit that I would only forgive (lol) if he dies immediately in the next chapter. I won't include the Ralph thing because that's personal, but just those two reasons are enough to make me actually want Cain to start killing the big bad guys now. > : (
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
169
Then you're not actually reading what was said. Here is a post about them responding to you in relation to "all kids" you both thought the other said it but neither of you said it. So if you can't see stuff like that happening your eyes are just closed.
I did see it. I just didn't address it because it was irrelevant to the other points they were making and was just nitpicking at minor details.

Also, you are even moreso guilty of not comprehending their points and failing to address them adequately. Instead, you just gave up and chalked it up as a misunderstanding due to a language barrier. It gets even worse as you keep equating their anti-corporal punishment stance to a gentle parenting stance (I did a bit of that at the beginning too I will admit). Gentle parenting is anti-punishment and anti-discipline.

Their main three assertions are as follows:
1. Corporal punishment encourages excessive submission to authority.
2. Corporal punishment encourages violent behavior.
3. The most important point: non-corporal punishments can be just as effective, if not more effective, than corporal ones.

Nothing you two said addressed point 3. The only thing you attempted to counter on was point 2, claiming that Asian countries were less violent than the US where corporal punishment was looked down on. However, US violence is due to a myriad of factors, including a lack of parenting. This is NOT the same thing as gentle parenting and it's important to make that distinction. A lack of parenting is neglect.

In fact, Asia can be pointed out as poster child for point 1. Corruption at high levels go ignored/lightly punished in South Korea. At least one fatal Asian airline crash was caused due to excessive deference to authority (first officer didn't intervene when he noticed a problem that the captain was not correcting). China- Hong Kong, need I say more?

The other things attempted, like explaining how far to go when to perform corporal punishments, how to do it, and where thesholds are, do nothing to address the 3 points above.

The reason I did not attempt to do more than I did is because the field of psychology is extremely complicated, conflicting papers and studies exist all over the place, and there is no definitive proof as to what is best.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
419
Uh, what? That seems like a whole lot of speculations and reading into things that isn't there. He sticks to his subject matter as a psychologist and focuses on the subconscious mechanisms. For real, check out his lectures. They're really good.
He's a climate change skeptic for starters. He thinks poor people are poor because of poor financial management, rather than capitalism being rigged against anyone who doesn't start with capital. And I guess you either agree with or just don't care about his anti-transgender stances. His so-called "crisis of masculinity" highlights his own mental fragility and inability to accept that gender roles are not hard-coded in someone's psyche from birth and people should be free to, within the limits of the rights of others, express their identity however they like. He thinks using a person's preferred pronouns fosters an environment of hate against cisgender people. Lastly, if you want to entrust your views to someone who thinks order is inherently masculine and chaos is inherently feminine then I just don't know how to communicate with you.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
1,393
In fact, Asia can be pointed out as poster child for point 1. Corruption at high levels go ignored/lightly punished in South Korea. At least one fatal Asian airline crash was caused due to excessive deference to authority (first officer didn't intervene when he noticed a problem that the captain was not correcting).
Let me guess you watched moon channel because of the limbus company gender war thing didn't you? :meguu:
China- Hong Kong, need I say more?
i think China's case is more of they're like that because of the government too..

Hong Kong idk, were they known to be submissive? didn't they protest a lot there too?
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
737
I did see it. I just didn't address it because it was irrelevant to the other points they were making and was just nitpicking at minor details.

Also, you are even moreso guilty of not comprehending their points and failing to address them adequately. Instead, you just gave up and chalked it up as a misunderstanding due to a language barrier. It gets even worse as you keep equating their anti-corporal punishment stance to a gentle parenting stance (I did a bit of that at the beginning too I will admit). Gentle parenting is anti-punishment and anti-discipline.

Their main three assertions are as follows:
1. Corporal punishment encourages excessive submission to authority.
2. Corporal punishment encourages violent behavior.
3. The most important point: non-corporal punishments can be just as effective, if not more effective, than corporal ones.

Nothing you two said addressed point 3. The only thing you attempted to counter on was point 2, claiming that Asian countries were less violent than the US where corporal punishment was looked down on. However, US violence is due to a myriad of factors, including a lack of parenting. This is NOT the same thing as gentle parenting and it's important to make that distinction. A lack of parenting is neglect.

In fact, Asia can be pointed out as poster child for point 1. Corruption at high levels go ignored/lightly punished in South Korea. At least one fatal Asian airline crash was caused due to excessive deference to authority (first officer didn't intervene when he noticed a problem that the captain was not correcting). China- Hong Kong, need I say more?

The other things attempted, like explaining how far to go when to perform corporal punishments, how to do it, and where thesholds are, do nothing to address the 3 points above.

The reason I did not attempt to do more than I did is because the field of psychology is extremely complicated, conflicting papers and studies exist all over the place, and there is no definitive proof as to what is best.
And this is where you're an idiot. You just want to win. You're not here with any sincerity.

let me ask you. What is the point of presenting your case to someone, if they can not understand the nuance of your case? What hope is there of convincing them, or even getting them to partially understand you if they literally misunderstand what you are saying?

Also I'll quickly run down your 3 points, because there again is no intellectual sincerity in them. So this is all you'll get.

1. This is not true. The easy way to tell you say "excessive" meaning there must be an appropriate amount, but you also have to accept that corporal punishment is a sliding scale. So you can tune the punishment to just enough to make sure this isn't a problem. What actually encourages excessive submission is abuse. So this statement is intellectually dishonest.

2. This is just plain false. "Monkey see monkey do" applies to repeated constant action. But even if it didn't, again corproal punishment is a gradient. So if they only saw you use physical punishment as a last resort after expending every other option, that would be a trait they follow. So again an intellectually dishonest argument.

3. This one is just stupid, no one addressed there were other methods because no one ever said "Corporal punishment is the best tool" there is no need to bring up there are other methods because we're not trying to prove superiority, only that it is not in and of itself detrimental, it's how it's used. So another intellectually dishonest argument.

Also you absolute gibbon. I never said anything about Asian countries in relation to punishment. Get your facts straight.


However calling 'Asia a poster child' and citing corruption is stupid. Because AMERICA is just as bad. But in a different way. America is FAMOUS for not doing their research and believing the first thing they hear. Like I mentioned in this thread. You have university students going on tirades over "The constitution calls Native Americans savages." when no place does it actually say that. But they believe it because an authority figure told them. Is that not excessive submission as well?

And you have some fucking nerve to say that last part. If you are aware that it's a nuanced and complicated topic and that you don't have the answers. The fact that you're arguing with someone who does not fully understand your language should be a key indicator to you that you should stop. Because they're not gonna understand the nuance of everything, when nuance is important. But instead here you are trying to WIN internet points. Instead of being a mature person.

Edit: Also an addition, to the point about difference to authority. There is literally a show in the west called Air Disasters. That recounts real investigations into airline crashes. And there are AT LEAST 2 episodes where WESTERN airlines crashed because the co-pilot did not want to disagree with the captain. One where the co-pilot literally got new information and was told it was a change, and when the captain gave the old info he told him once he was wrong, and then stopped. Despite knowing explicitly that information had changed.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
1,245
i see, no wonder back then they love to destroy the whole family because of the head faults
it's hereditary
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
1,393
He's a climate change skeptic for starters.
you SHOULD be a skeptic of everything, before believing it, i believe in climate change for one because I've seen effects of the thing and i questioned it first before believing, if you just believed everything presented to you without trying to verify then that really just ends up in poor judgement on your part also pretty contradictory to what you say after, since the only reason you came up with capitalism being rigged is because you doubted the system you were born into and were a skeptic of it.
He thinks poor people are poor because of poor financial management, rather than capitalism being rigged against anyone who doesn't start with capital.
debatable, that's like saying people from poor countries that start off dirt poor can't climb up the ladder at all because capitalism is just against them and working hard does nothing to them which is already proven false, there are numerous cases of people doing just that and yes it took them longer than the rest of their peers but it still happened and you can look it up yourself, unlike the west there aren't privileges given to poor people in say Southeast asia, the barrier to climb up the ladder is hard but not impossible and yes some people are poor because of poor financial management, some people are born into poverty, here where i'm at there are cases where people in the past thought being in the capital region was where all their dreams would come true so they sold their possessions to get here and work here then some of them did fall off due to poor financial decisions despite their lives where they were at being sustainable and decent. I do agree that there is some truth to the system being rigged against people who don't start with capital but that's not the only way to go to the top. there's no one size fits all answer when you're talking about people and their financial status, what would your alternative be to capitalism then? i get the system itself isn't perfect but i don't think its as bad as people think


i think overall if you're a parent and say your kid views people you personally don't agree with, you should look at their views educate your kid what you think is wrong from what they say and teach them what things are right from what they say(there's no such thing as an individual who is just wrong every time with their takes, human beings aren't made that way), there's nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with points of certain people. idk who peterson is but from what i've seen you say, he's a normal human with points you can agree and disagree with.
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
1,393
i see, no wonder back then they love to destroy the whole family because of the head faults
it's hereditary
pretty much, they also made it sure before to end them up to the 3rd degree or something which is pretty brutal but family loyalty is very strong in these stories
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
2,465
I re read the previous chapters and boy that Ralph kid is an idiot. Cain's name was literally on a list of "do not offend", plus he's the fiancé of the princess.

Does Ralph have no brainchild that he could put together to think this Cain guy is a bigshot or did his dad's stupid evil tendencies rub off in him.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
169
Let me guess you watched moon channel because of the limbus company gender war thing didn't you? :meguu:

i think China's case is more of they're like that because of the government too..

Hong Kong idk, were they known to be submissive? didn't they protest a lot there too?
Nope, no idea what that even is. My point is that if you want to make gross generalizations about the US, I can do the same about Asia as well. It's to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to make generalizations.

But yes, the majority of Hong Kong chose to roll over and submit to authority. The ones that protested were stamped out or fled.
And this is where you're an idiot. You just want to win. You're not here with any sincerity.

let me ask you. What is the point of presenting your case to someone, if they can not understand the nuance of your case? What hope is there of convincing them, or even getting them to partially understand you if they literally misunderstand what you are saying?

Also I'll quickly run down your 3 points, because there again is no intellectual sincerity in them. So this is all you'll get.

1. This is not true. The easy way to tell you say "excessive" meaning there must be an appropriate amount, but you also have to accept that corporal punishment is a sliding scale. So you can tune the punishment to just enough to make sure this isn't a problem. What actually encourages excessive submission is abuse. So this statement is intellectually dishonest.

2. This is just plain false. "Monkey see monkey do" applies to repeated constant action. But even if it didn't, again corproal punishment is a gradient. So if they only saw you use physical punishment as a last resort after expending every other option, that would be a trait they follow. So again an intellectually dishonest argument.

3. This one is just stupid, no one addressed there were other methods because no one ever said "Corporal punishment is the best tool" there is no need to bring up there are other methods because we're not trying to prove superiority, only that it is not in and of itself detrimental, it's how it's used. So another intellectually dishonest argument.

Also you absolute gibbon. I never said anything about Asian countries in relation to punishment. Get your facts straight.


However calling 'Asia a poster child' and citing corruption is stupid. Because AMERICA is just as bad. But in a different way. America is FAMOUS for not doing their research and believing the first thing they hear. Like I mentioned in this thread. You have university students going on tirades over "The constitution calls Native Americans savages." when no place does it actually say that. But they believe it because an authority figure told them. Is that not excessive submission as well?

And you have some fucking nerve to say that last part. If you are aware that it's a nuanced and complicated topic and that you don't have the answers. The fact that you're arguing with someone who does not fully understand your language should be a key indicator to you that you should stop. Because they're not gonna understand the nuance of everything, when nuance is important. But instead here you are trying to WIN internet points. Instead of being a mature person.

Edit: Also an addition, to the point about difference to authority. There is literally a show in the west called Air Disasters. That recounts real investigations into airline crashes. And there are AT LEAST 2 episodes where WESTERN airlines crashed because the co-pilot did not want to disagree with the captain. One where the co-pilot literally got new information and was told it was a change, and when the captain gave the old info he told him once he was wrong, and then stopped. Despite knowing explicitly that information had changed.
The three points are not mine, you couldn't even comprehend that much? Those were the points that other poster was making that you were incapable of even recognizing were made, instead just dismissing it as a misunderstanding due to language barrier. But now that I put it into plain words for you to understand, it lacks intellectual sincerity and is dishonest? Also, way to go dismissing everything as intellectually dishonest. The last thing you want to do if you want to engage in a conversation is call the other person dishonest, dumb, or stupid. Who is the intellectually immature one here?

What nuance is there in that poster believing any form of corporal punishment is bad in their view? What nuance is there in them believing that alternative forms of punishment are superior to corporal punishment? There is none, there is only an opinion. I said it several posts back, if you want to get into a discussion about the nuances of human psychology, bring out the studies and papers that discuss the matter and their contents can be debated over. All that exists here is an expression of opinion, not a debate on scientific studies and papers. No matter how much you want to assert your opinion as fact, it's still an opinion at the end of the day. They are not wrong and neither are you.

Forgive me if I mix up yours and Gudachiz's posts. You're both arguing the same point with similar justifications.

I am well aware of Air Disasters. And Mentour Pilot too. The Asian crash stuck with me because the FAA investigation specifically called out Korean culture of that time as a direct contributor to the crash. I will admit that pilot seniority overriding all is not unique to Asian cultures and seems to be prevalent in any country just getting their airline industry off the ground. The Air Disaster video on Flight 8509 seems to have been removed from Youtube, maybe because it included bad information from Malcolm Gladwell's book (recently learned). The Air Disaster video as I remembered it placed more emphasis on culture being a contributing factor than Mentour Pilot's video.

Also, I'll throw the accusation right back at you. Just what are you trying to prove here? That that person's English skills are too poor to have a proper discussion with? That they're incapable of comprehending the subtleties of the English language? That your inability to convince them of why you're right is only due to a language barrier? All of that only serves to belittle their intelligence and efforts learning the English language, especially when they have been clearly articulate in expressing their views.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
1,393
Nope, no idea what that even is. My point is that if you want to make gross generalizations about the US, I can do the same about Asia as well. It's to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to make generalizations.
Perfectly fine, the US however is a country that just happens to be too big, you'd get generalizations about it regardless and the generalizations mostly vary from good to bad anyway, majority is due to the loud side of the states. Its very easy to make negative generalizations of the country due to its strong presence everywhere(this is not something the states can deny too) they're also one of the few countries in the world that's openly very nationalistic but its people for whatever reason see that as a bad thing all in part of the history its had, slippery country tbh, My whole shtick with it is, the people who are often against spanking, GENERALLY comes from there, same country couldn't discipline its kids enough not to openly record crime, has a number of cases of criminal acts by the youth and i believe is the largest one with the most number of acts done by said juvies, also a country that has sadly a lot of gun related violence in schools done also by the youth. I'm talking about them in particular, they're quick to judge how asians, latinos etc discipline their kids and are quick to call it "violence" when there's a way of disciplining with spanking that is acceptable and doesn't end in trauma(my whole stance there is, "discipline should never end in injury") but couldn't manage their own kids and get them out of trouble or crime.

oh and do check out Moon Channel, he's very entertaining with his video essays, its mostly how i found out about the Korean Air plane situation, which doesn't really surprise me, that country like the other 2 stereotypical Asian countries the west recognizes(JP,KR and CN respectively) always put seniority and the elderly in high positions and finds it hard to dissuade them.
But yes, the majority of Hong Kong chose to roll over and submit to authority. The ones that protested were stamped out or fled.
not like they had much of a choice tho, didn't the English abandon them anyway? the US couldn't intervene as the deal wasn't even between them and China, it was between the crown and China, anyone would've fled and unlike the states, much of asia doesn't have a strong arms culture, if the US did regardless of the appeal of the HK nationals they'd be considered invading, which really doesn't sit well with the rest of the world, TW, PH and other related allies are the ones they can interfere with. So its not like the HK Nationals who fled and didn't protest, did it because they agreed, they did it to survive, because the crown, which still half-owns the country didn't send aid
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
169
Perfectly fine, the US however is a country that just happens to be too big, you'd get generalizations about it regardless and the generalizations mostly vary from good to bad anyway, majority is due to the loud side of the states. Its very easy to make negative generalizations of the country due to its strong presence everywhere(this is not something the states can deny too) they're also one of the few countries in the world that's openly very nationalistic but its people for whatever reason see that as a bad thing all in part of the history its had, slippery country tbh, My whole shtick with it is, the people who are often against spanking, GENERALLY comes from there, same country couldn't discipline its kids enough not to openly record crime, has a number of cases of criminal acts by the youth and i believe is the largest one with the most number of acts done by said juvies, also a country that has sadly a lot of gun related violence in schools done also by the youth. I'm talking about them in particular, they're quick to judge how asians, latinos etc discipline their kids and are quick to call it "violence" when there's a way of disciplining with spanking that is acceptable and doesn't end in trauma(my whole stance there is, "discipline should never end in injury") but couldn't manage their own kids and get them out of trouble or crime.

oh and do check out Moon Channel, he's very entertaining with his video essays, its mostly how i found out about the Korean Air plane situation, which doesn't really surprise me, that country like the other 2 stereotypical Asian countries the west recognizes(JP,KR and CN respectively) always put seniority and the elderly in high positions and finds it hard to dissuade them.

not like they had much of a choice tho, didn't the English abandon them anyway? the US couldn't intervene as the deal wasn't even between them and China, it was between the crown and China, anyone would've fled and unlike the states, much of asia doesn't have a strong arms culture, if the US did regardless of the appeal of the HK nationals they'd be considered invading, which really doesn't sit well with the rest of the world, TW, PH and other related allies are the ones they can interfere with. So its not like the HK Nationals who fled and didn't protest, did it because they agreed, they did it to survive, because the crown, which still half-owns the country didn't send aid
The problem with generalizing it like that is the US population itself is very divided. You have the liberal cities where theft, vandalism, and gang violence run rampant. The liberals are the ones most likely to be anti-corporal punishment and easy on crime, but they're also the ones more likely to be foreign culture aware. Conservatives, more likely to be found in rural areas, are generally in favor of the corporal and heavy discipline approach. They are also the least likely to be foreign culture aware. Rural and small suburban schools are where the majority of school shootings occur, so it's incorrect to correlate liberal gentle parenting to school shootings. Everything else is fair game.

As for shame of the past and nationalism, once again it's two different populations at play here. You have the liberals that want to correct for America's dark past by dragging it into the light and making amends for it, mostly by reparations of some kind. Then you have conservatives like MAGA that are proudly American first, America is always right, and want nothing from outside diluting the American identity, whatever that identity means at this point. Really though, you can trace much of America's history and current motivations to just greed. The war for independence was started out of greed rather than any righteous conviction, the Manifest Destiny and western expansion was motivated by greed, and so on.

As for Hong Kong, yeah, they didn't have much of a choice. The UK abandoned them and no one else could intervene. If they didn't roll over, it would have been a repeat of Tienanmen Square all over again. However, if you ask mainland Chinese people, most will say that the government's actions were in the right, which demonstrates the authoritarian grip the government has on them.
 
Group Leader
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
2,399
I don't think the child abuse warning was necessary, but I didn't care much about it, either. The translator didn't have to remove it if they wanted to add it in the first place. All this drama just for something so trivial?

Couple of things:
  • There was no discipline in this chapter. If your child does something wrong, you explain to them why it's bad, and warn them to not do it again. If they repeat, give another stern warning, and some sort of punishment. The third strike is when a slap is coming. So, in this chapter, the kid got beaten, not because what he did was wrong, but because his action put his father's career in jeopardy. He never explained to his son why bullying other people, abusing their power and status, is wrong. He didn't care about that. He was perfectly okay with it, as we can tell from the dialogues, that this is the norm for them. Therefore, him slapping the son was not an act of discipline, but an act of taking out his anger. The kid is a scumbag, and so is the father. They both should have gotten capital punishment for corruption. If the father was the one who pissed off Cain, who gets to smack him in the head? Can the kid do it? Corgino has yet to face any consequences for his actions. Can't talk big about disciplining children if the adults are such garbage human beings.
  • Using corporal punishment without consideration or restraint will destroy your child's confidence, and even traumatize them. I am okay with it being used as a last resort, because clearly there are brats who deserved to be smacked at least once. Unfortunately, many parents and siblings are idiots and see it as a way to consolidate and display their power in the family. Their children grow up, think domestic violence is normal, repeats the cycle.
  • Only kids get "disciplined" and corporal punishments. Adults get away with doing unethical things. Want kids to respect you? Be good role models for them to learn from.
  • No, Asians aren't more respectful because they got beaten too often when they were kids. They either pretend to respect you, then talk mad trash about you when you are out of sight. Or they are brainwashed to think that older people are always right, no matter what, as if they are some kind of dictator. Of course, when they get older, they'd be doing the same thing. "I'm old, everything I say and do is right". It's anti-critical thinking, that's it.

tl;dr: if the dude really wanted to discipline his son, he would have done so a long time ago, not wait until his son picks on the wrong person, then slap him out of anger because his career is done for.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top