Tensei Kizoku no Isekai Boukenroku ~Jichou wo Shiranai Kamigami no Shito~ - Ch. 61

[Mr_Detective]

Some of these Asian supremacists are funny with how insane they are. A little dose of Stockholm syndrome in the mix, too. For someone so ignorant and lack understanding of the world, they sure got a big mouth. Whatever helps them get mommy and daddy's love, or they're gonna give them some lovely "disciplines".

"I beat you because I love you, and because I am an adult, I am always right." - What you can expect to hear from people who are most likely going to be wrong.

Sheesh, no wonder how their kids are forbidden from expressing any critical thoughts and to just blindly obey the adults, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. What's even more terrible is that they carry this mentality with them even when they immigrate. No critical thinking means it's more difficult to break traditions, outdated beliefs that don't make sense anymore. A sure way to obstruct progress and development of society. A reason why freedom of speech is much more restricted in Asian countries.

Back to the chapter: I hope this rotten big boy gets his well-deserved "disciplines" soon. He can take what he dissed out, yes?

 

[Mits26]

Honestly this is getting annoying now. Waiting a month for these…I get it we need a bad guy but like come one Cain you all the power and influence to find Cogino bad deeds to finally end him but yet… so naive.

 

[WillLi]

You are absolutely belittling and insulting their intelligence, whether you realize it or not. The language barrier is not the issue, the issue is your complete inability to grasp what the other side is thinking and how to address/counter their arguments and points. I laid it out for you in simple form and you reacted by calling it intellectually dishonest, demonstrating that you lack the ability to see outside your narrow mindset. Language barriers are not the cause of most disagreements, different ideologies are, whether it's on a personal or worldwide level.

For the record, I have nothing against corporal punishment within reason, as I established from the beginning. However, I will take the anti-corporal stance to address how a hypothetical argument could have went and what it is you need to think about when you choose to engage someone in a conversation or debate.

The core position of the argument is that non-corporal punishments are just as effective, if not more effective, than corporal ones, while carrying none of the possible mental damage risks of corporal punishments. This is the core argument you have to counter, everything else is secondary.

In your counter-arguments, you claim that there is no risk as long as limits are adhered to. The primary counter to that is why introduce the risk at all when alternative methods don't have the risk? Secondary counters could include: every child's limit is different and parents themselves might not be an accurate judge of where the limit is.

I didn't have evidence backing corporal punishments as more effective than non-corporal ones so I didn't bother pushing that point. That is why rather than claiming corporal punishment is safe within limits, I tried to demonstrate that non-corporal can be abused just as easily as corporal punishments. To which it was brushed of as things like the kid's stamina is the built in safety limiter- it can't be exceeded, and basically ignored the story of Ruby Franke. This is where I decided they weren't interested in listening to the reason of opposing viewpoints. Without objective and irrefutable proof, they would not change their mind.

Maybe, hopefully, you learn to open your mind a bit from this. If not, you can continue to wonder why you can't convince people to see your side of things if they weren't already on the same side.

You really are an absolute idiot. You need to go back and read like I suggested. Because one, you got my "primary counter argument" completely wrong. You have no idea what I was actually even arguing. You just think you know something but you actually know nothing. If I wanted to persist in arguing, I could've. But unlike idiots like you I'm not here to gain internet points. After my opponent literally gets my statements backwards twice and then says that English is not their primary language, I'm not going to continue an argument that requires nuance.

You're talking so much shit to try and look like you know something. But literally everything you said is just wrong. You clearly have no idea of what actually happened. You spoke up about me telling someone there was no point because they didn't know English well enough. And you said that was false. Now you're realizing that no I was right and you're trying to cover your own ass. Like I pointed out they started misunderstanding you as well. You also stopped engaging them I wonder why? In fact, you've stopped engaging everyone who was arguing with you that isn't Guda who is on roughly the same side as you. Hmm I wonder why that is? Stop acting like you know anything about me and just shut up dude. You were wrong there was a misunderstanding, be an actual mature adult and realize you were talking out your ass and get out of my face.

Some of these Asian supremacists are funny with how insane they are. A little dose of Stockholm syndrome in the mix, too. For someone so ignorant and lack understanding of the world, they sure got a big mouth. Whatever helps them get mommy and daddy's love, or they're gonna give them some lovely "disciplines".

"I beat you because I love you, and because I am an adult, I am always right." - What you can expect to hear from people who are most likely going to be wrong.

Sheesh, no wonder how their kids are forbidden from expressing any critical thoughts and to just blindly obey the adults, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. What's even more terrible is that they carry this mentality with them even when they immigrate. No critical thinking means it's more difficult to break traditions, outdated beliefs that don't make sense anymore. A sure way to obstruct progress and development of society. A reason why freedom of speech is much more restricted in Asian countries.

Back to the chapter: I hope this rotten big boy gets his well-deserved "disciplines" soon. He can take what he dissed out, yes?

First off, I'm a black American so lumping this argument into 'Asian supremacy' shows how little YOU understand the world. It has nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome either. But since you're such an enlightened person. Let's pose a question to you then and you should have an answer that works.

If you have a situation where your child is misbehaving of course you punish them. You keep punishing them over and over, but the behavior is escalating, and they keep repeating the problem. It's getting to the point where it's potentially dangerous, and you've literally run out of things to punish them with that they care about, how do you fix it? Do you just let them continue with the behavior?

Edit: Actually I'll speed this up. Since I went back and read your post and you have some brains on you. The child in the story, he literally hired MERCENARIES to pick on someone he didn't like. Yeah he told them not to hurt them, but they're shady mercenaries in the first place of course they wont listen to that. If it wasn't Cain the child could've ended up in the hospital or dead. And this punk LITERALLY said "I thought you were just going to use your power to wipe it under the rug." That is behavior that has crossed a massive line that needs to be dealt with IMMEDIATLY. It doesn't matter if the father failed to stop this kind of behavior until it got that far, it needs to be stopped either way. But you are also making a huge assumption that the father didn't try to stop it. What if he has disciplined the kid in the past? And sure lead by example is fine and all to say, but kids don't always follow their parent's example no matter how good it is or how bad.

In short discipline is about TRAINING people to follow rules, and using punishment of some kind to correct disobedience. What makes it abusive is the severity, not the action. Flicking a child on the head is technically corporal punishment. But would you rather that or someone berating their kid and insulting them? Yes talking and explaining things to them is the most preferred option, but that is because that is literally the lowest intensity option. Everything is worse than that, but talking is also the easiest to ignore. And when the child starts not responding to talking you need to do something else. And that is escalate severity and/or change the subject of the punishment. The difference between you and people who are pro-corporal punishment is that a lot of us don't restart the escalation process on every single case, because we know it's a waste of time to start back from teh beginning.

 

[Tsumi]

You really are an absolute idiot. You need to go back and read like I suggested. Because one, you got my "primary counter argument" completely wrong. You have no idea what I was actually even arguing. You just think you know something but you actually know nothing. If I wanted to persist in arguing, I could've. But unlike idiots like you I'm not here to gain internet points. After my opponent literally gets my statements backwards twice and then says that English is not their primary language, I'm not going to continue an argument that requires nuance.

You're talking so much shit to try and look like you know something. But literally everything you said is just wrong. You clearly have no idea of what actually happened. You spoke up about me telling someone there was no point because they didn't know English well enough. And you said that was false. Now you're realizing that no I was right and you're trying to cover your own ass. Like I pointed out they started misunderstanding you as well. You also stopped engaging them I wonder why? In fact, you've stopped engaging everyone who was arguing with you that isn't Guda who is on roughly the same side as you. Hmm I wonder why that is? Stop acting like you know anything about me and just shut up dude. You were wrong there was a misunderstanding, be an actual mature adult and realize you were talking out your ass and get out of my face.


First off, I'm a black American so lumping this argument into 'Asian supremacy' shows how little YOU understand the world. It has nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome either. But since you're such an enlightened person. Let's pose a question to you then and you should have an answer that works.

If you have a situation where your child is misbehaving of course you punish them. You keep punishing them over and over, but the behavior is escalating, and they keep repeating the problem. It's getting to the point where it's potentially dangerous, and you've literally run out of things to punish them with that they care about, how do you fix it? Do you just let them continue with the behavior?

Edit: Actually I'll speed this up. Since I went back and read your post and you have some brains on you. The child in the story, he literally hired MERCENARIES to pick on someone he didn't like. Yeah he told them not to hurt them, but they're shady mercenaries in the first place of course they wont listen to that. If it wasn't Cain the child could've ended up in the hospital or dead. And this punk LITERALLY said "I thought you were just going to use your power to wipe it under the rug." That is behavior that has crossed a massive line that needs to be dealt with IMMEDIATLY. It doesn't matter if the father failed to stop this kind of behavior until it got that far, it needs to be stopped either way. But you are also making a huge assumption that the father didn't try to stop it. What if he has disciplined the kid in the past? And sure lead by example is fine and all to say, but kids don't always follow their parent's example no matter how good it is or how bad.

In short discipline is about TRAINING people to follow rules, and using punishment of some kind to correct disobedience. What makes it abusive is the severity, not the action. Flicking a child on the head is technically corporal punishment. But would you rather that or someone berating their kid and insulting them? Yes talking and explaining things to them is the most preferred option, but that is because that is literally the lowest intensity option. Everything is worse than that, but talking is also the easiest to ignore. And when the child starts not responding to talking you need to do something else. And that is escalate severity and/or change the subject of the punishment. The difference between you and people who are pro-corporal punishment is that a lot of us don't restart the escalation process on every single case, because we know it's a waste of time to start back from teh beginning.

This will be my last reply to you. You can't help but resort to insults in your replies. You claim to be the more mature one here yet you can't even keep it civil. You're just knee-jerk reacting to every response I make to you instead of addressing anything I said, nitpicking phrases that you disagree with while ignoring everything else.

Again, there is no nuance. No matter how much you want to massage in that there are levels of corporal punishment that are okay, they are of the position that corporal punishment is never okay. That is an absolute fact you cannot reconcile no matter how much you want to honey your words.

Your hypothetical scenario of where corporal punishment becomes necessary after exhausting all options does not apply because they are of the belief that there is no scenario where non-corporal punishment will be ineffective. If you cannot open your mind to see what you need to prove to them, you will forever be locked in your narrow-minded view. And proof means hard evidence like established studies, not hypothetical scenarios. Hypothetical is not reality until proven to exist.

 

[YoraeRasante]

Man, you guys are annoying AND way out of line.
This is not even an argument in any way relevant to the chapter anymore. I honestly stopped reading most of what you guys post for a while.

So, to abridge the chapter:

Trigger Warning was way overblown. Yes, a kid gets slapped by his asshole dad because he did something stupid, it is not discipline because the father does not disagree with his actions but the consequences but there was much worse things done against children here with no trigger warning.

Cain was an idiot in letting him go with just a promise not to do it again. Yes, he lost his career, but that means any punishment would be personal and anything related to war would be on someone else's shoulders anyway. Dude got away with as much power and money as he still can have, a grudge, and thinking Cain is soft and there would be no true consequences for retaliation.
I am not even sure if he knew about his relation to child trafficking anymore, if he didn't it is still stupid but if he did that was the perfect opportunity to get proof.

Either way, this is a terrible chapter. None of the actions and reactions seem to make sense in-character, more like the author had a plan and is forcing things into place.

I once read that a good writing is when you are frustrated with the characters for doing something stupid, a bad one is when you are angry at the actors for the characters doing something stupid.
I think there was a comparison about how two of shakespeare's tragedies would not have happened if we inverted the protagonists because one did not have the flaws it needed to cause all the issues in their story the other did, so the only reason the story progressed as it did was because the characters were idiots in their own way, we knew that and understood exactly how and why things went that way even if they only did because they are idiots.

 

[WillLi]

This will be my last reply to you. You can't help but resort to insults in your replies. You claim to be the more mature one here yet you can't even keep it civil. You're just knee-jerk reacting to every response I make to you instead of addressing anything I said, nitpicking phrases that you disagree with while ignoring everything else.

Again, there is no nuance. No matter how much you want to massage in that there are levels of corporal punishment that are okay, they are of the position that corporal punishment is never okay. That is an absolute fact you cannot reconcile no matter how much you want to honey your words.

Your hypothetical scenario of where corporal punishment becomes necessary after exhausting all options does not apply because they are of the belief that there is no scenario where non-corporal punishment will be ineffective. If you cannot open your mind to see what you need to prove to them, you will forever be locked in your narrow-minded view. And proof means hard evidence like established studies, not hypothetical scenarios. Hypothetical is not reality until proven to exist.

"Oh this is my last reply because you're immature. But I'm still gonna say everything I wanna say after that because really I'm just looking for a way out so I resort to the lame excuse of "insults are immature" When in reality being distracted by an insult in an debate just shows you don't have your own arguments together."

nu·ance
/ˈno͞oˌäns/

noun

1. a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
   "the nuances of facial expression and body language"
   

"There is no nuance" Your very statement on the two opposing points is a relfection of nuance in itself. But that's the not nunace in discussion. The nuance is in the details and explanation. This is at least the fourth time I have told you teh nuance mentioned has nothing to do with a comparison of our stances

So yeah I'll keep calling you an idiot dude, because you are one. You've been told multiple times you're literally looking at the wrong thing but you keep looking.

And you're literally rambling off nonsense at the end. I need to see what I need to prove to them? The hypothetical scenario is literally a "What do you do if it your method fails?" They either have to answer, or admit their own lack of understanding of reality and claim that something "fool proof" exist. At which point you have a lot to work with to reshape their notion by instead of attacking their beliefs, but by getting them to apply what any intelligent and experienced person would know to their own logic, that nothing is 'perfect' or 'fool proof'. From there you don't need to 'prove' anything to them but rather you can gauge if they are sincere, or just trying to win. And if they are sincere, they have to at least accept that there will be situations where their method fails, and something else has to be done.

That's how a real discussion about these kinds of things works. Not by just throwing your beliefs at each other. You use their beliefs to allow them to see a new perspective. You'd know that if you actually knew something about people and not just fancy platitudes designed to make it look like you were winning.

 

[WillLi]

Man, you guys are annoying AND way out of line.
This is not even an argument in any way relevant to the chapter anymore. I honestly stopped reading most of what you guys post for a while.

So, to abridge the chapter:

Trigger Warning was way overblown. Yes, a kid gets slapped by his asshole dad because he did something stupid, it is not discipline because the father does not disagree with his actions but the consequences but there was much worse things done against children here with no trigger warning.

Cain was an idiot in letting him go with just a promise not to do it again. Yes, he lost his career, but that means any punishment would be personal and anything related to war would be on someone else's shoulders anyway. Dude got away with as much power and money as he still can have, a grudge, and thinking Cain is soft and there would be no true consequences for retaliation.
I am not even sure if he knew about his relation to child trafficking anymore, if he didn't it is still stupid but if he did that was the perfect opportunity to get proof.

Either way, this is a terrible chapter. None of the actions and reactions seem to make sense in-character, more like the author had a plan and is forcing things into place.

I once read that a good writing is when you are frustrated with the characters for doing something stupid, a bad one is when you are angry at the actors for the characters doing something stupid.
I think there was a comparison about how two of shakespeare's tragedies would not have happened if we inverted the protagonists because one did not have the flaws it needed to cause all the issues in their story the other did, so the only reason the story progressed as it did was because the characters were idiots in their own way, we knew that and understood exactly how and why things went that way even if they only did because they are idiots.

intentionally separating this from the other post. But yes this is a 'horrible chapter'. Because what Cain did isn't in character at all. It's a forced situation stimming from Japanese culture. There is a trend that unless a story is 'dark' the MC will not 'kill' or 'punish' people unless it's directly in a fight. From my understanding this has to deal with their views on what is a 'proper main character'.

 

[Mr_Detective]

idiotic rambling

You imbecile. I wasn't replying to you. You didn't even read what I commented properly. Don't call other people stupid not being able to read, if you yourself have piss poor reading comprehension. Dumb fuck.

As I stated, corporal punishment can be used as a last resort. However, parents and older siblings, especially Asian ones, love showing off their power status by beating their kids. It's much more common with the previous generations. I do not trust them to know to use appropriate punishment for kids. It's like a badge of honor to them. You think it's as simple as slapping them on the face after they don't listen to you 2-3 times? If you are among the lucky minorities, you might get parents who aren't so eager to use force on you. Most Asian parents are never that lenient. You get smacked with a broom or a wooden stick before you even know what you did wrong. Or even if they do explain to you, a beating is still coming after. That kind of corporal punishment is just going to result in submissive, or broken adults, who hides things from their parents, and strain their relationship. You fucking yanks I bet have never seen how horrible it gets. So pipe down. Loud-mouthed idiots who love to brag about using corporal punishments are the last people I would trust to not abuse kids.

Like I also explained, this kid was enabled by his father. How did he learn to use his status to abuse other people? How did he get away with it? His father taught him, that's how. Look at his demeanor and dialogues again. This is something he's used to. This is the norms for them. With someone his status, he had no reason to stop his son or teach him what he does is wrong. That's because to them, it's not wrong, it's normal to abuse their power. So him beating the kid is not discipline, not because he wants the kid to not do the wrong thing. It's just because he's mad that his career is in danger, because his son messed with the wrong person, so he took out his rage on the kid. That is not child raising. The kid did not understand that abusing other people is bad. He understood that picking on Cain is bad. So he will continue his behaviors on other people. Basically, he learned nothing. Do you idiots understand this yet?

Rules for thee, but not for me. The kid got slapped, the father didn't. And in real life, that is most likely what is going to happen. Kid fucks up = gets beaten. Adults fuck up = use their power in family/society to get away. "I am old, I can't be wrong." - Asian proverb. If you can't admit when you are wrong, good luck teaching your kids to admit when they are wrong. A trash human like the father had no right to be talking about disciplining his son, who was just following his example. And again, what the did was not discipline. Excessive use of corporal punishment will teach children to use violence to solve problems. They grow up thinking beating other people is the norm, of course they will choose to use violence on others instead of talking. Most pro-corporal punishment people are only good at beating kids. Once the kid gets to 15-16, starts to be more able to fight back, they stop, because bullying a teenager is harder than bullying a kid. Repeat: if you have to rely on beating your kids to teach them anything, the problem most likely lies not at the kid. Maybe make sure you aren't an incompetent parent first. If disciplining people to follow rules requires corporal punishment, I would love to see more adults, of all status, getting beaten the fuck out of them, because they seem to get away with doing shitty things that kids can't. Old people be shivering right now.

The fact that you people, in this particular scenario, absolutely cannot see that there is no real disciplining at all from the father, is evidence that corporal punishment tends to result in adults with poor critical thinking skills. Which is not a surprise, given how it is often used to punish kids to oppose their parents, even when they are wrong. It's not that they respect you because of what you do, or who you are. They fear you, because you are a nasty piece of work. There seems to be a correlation between countries with high rate of use of corporal punishments, with those with more restricted freedom of speech, and slower developing level. Not a surprise at all. I still facepalmed thinking back at the other one's posts bragging about his supreme Asian disciplines aka beatings creating respectful people. I forgive them if they are still young and ignorant, full of ethnic pride or whatever and try to convince random internet strangers how awesome Asian countries are. But if they are older than 25 and still say something so stupid I will seriously judge their intelligence. His complete bullshits fall apart when another Asian, who isn't fueled by some ridiculous Asian pride crap, reads them.

I've wasted enough time here with you morons. Welcome to the shit list.
But I hope the translator continues putting in warnings like this just for the lols, to troll these people.

 

[YoraeRasante]

intentionally separating this from the other post. But yes this is a 'horrible chapter'. Because what Cain did isn't in character at all. It's a forced situation stimming from Japanese culture. There is a trend that unless a story is 'dark' the MC will not 'kill' or 'punish' people unless it's directly in a fight. From my understanding this has to deal with their views on what is a 'proper main character'.

I see, I didn't know about that.
And... I can see the idea. Shonen is for teens and young adults, so they want to keep the main character as moral as they can. Issue is, just like we can see here, sometimes it makes no sense for someone to do so.
Are they fearing people at the age to read this to still be young enough to be influenced by such things?

This kinda reminded me of Jojo's change from shonen to seinen at part 7, yet it somehow feels like it is pushing less barriers in parts 7 and 8. Always thought it was because there were not barriers to be pushed so he felt with more freedom to focus on the story.
Think it may be related? Now that I think about it, Johnny was also the first Jojo that was more active. There was even some focus on when the eyes start burning, something that in previous parts was a visual effect given to determination in anger or big fights but in there was pushed more into a willingness to kill in a fight (if I remember right it was by that guy with a Stand that resets time for duels?).
Even Giorno, the one about mafia and crime, was more reactive, his own stand having reflecting physical damage as part of the power.

 

[WillLi]

You imbecile. I wasn't replying to you. You didn't even read what I commented properly. Don't call other people stupid not being able to read, if you yourself have piss poor reading comprehension. Dumb fuck.

As I stated, corporal punishment can be used as a last resort. However, parents and older siblings, especially Asian ones, love showing off their power status by beating their kids. It's much more common with the previous generations. I do not trust them to know to use appropriate punishment for kids. It's like a badge of honor to them. You think it's as simple as slapping them on the face after they don't listen to you 2-3 times? If you are among the lucky minorities, you might get parents who aren't so eager to use force on you. Most Asian parents are never that lenient. You get smacked with a broom or a wooden stick before you even know what you did wrong. Or even if they do explain to you, a beating is still coming after. That kind of corporal punishment is just going to result in submissive, or broken adults, who hides things from their parents, and strain their relationship. You fucking yanks I bet have never seen how horrible it gets. So pipe down. Loud-mouthed idiots who love to brag about using corporal punishments are the last people I would trust to not abuse kids.

It's irrelevant that you were not talking to me. Because the thing that makes you an idiot you just fell back in to. You're being racist and lumping this with a "Asians love beating their kid" And that's simply not true. There are of course people that do. But there are plenty that don't. Also the worst cases of child abuse as discipline stem from North Africa. And there are plenty of black American families that do the exact punishments you described. The point being your statements are way too generalized and anecdotal to have any actual meaning other than being racist. There are literally LAWS in North African countries that excuse physical assault against minors as 'education'. But "Asians are the ones that are the worst"

Like I also explained, this kid was enabled by his father. How did he learn to use his status to abuse other people? How did he get away with it? His father taught him, that's how. Look at his demeanor and dialogues again. This is something he's used to. This is the norms for them. With someone his status, he had no reason to stop his son or teach him what he does is wrong. That's because to them, it's not wrong, it's normal to abuse their power. So him beating the kid is not discipline, not because he wants the kid to not do the wrong thing. It's just because he's mad that his career is in danger, because his son messed with the wrong person, so he took out his rage on the kid. That is not child raising. The kid did not understand that abusing other people is bad. He understood that picking on Cain is bad. So he will continue his behaviors on other people. Basically, he learned nothing. Do you idiots understand this yet?

You're saying his father taught him. But we do not know that. Remember we might consider paying off problems as wrong, but that is literally the LAW of their country. Like that is probably considered noble education 101. We have ZERO knowledge of if the father is the kind of person to hire mercenaries just because he doesn't like someone. We know he's doing such now, but it's literally because his career is over if he doesn't. And no I'm not excusing him, what he's doing is wrong with that. But you are making a lot of assumptions about how he educated his child based on only having seen him for 2 chapters. And only seen him interact with his child once. Also you're saying "he learned nothing" but that is also a massive assumption. he could've learned "Don't abuse people because SOME of them could be dangerous" but also he could've learned "Things escalated because you were too naive and thought those people were going to listen to your orders." You also have no idea what is or was said and did later, but either way. Even if the father set down right there and then and explained things to him. There was zero chance of the child learning "It's bad to abuse people never do it again" because you don't change behavior in one instance. Yes that is something he should've learned from the start and was probably the father's failings. But you can't go "Because he failed in the past that effects the judgement of the now." Because as I mentioned, the behavior is dangerous and needs to be addressed now. So you deal with how the child currently is, not dwelling on the past and what you should've started back then. You address the severity of the situation at hand.

Rules for thee, but not for me. The kid got slapped, the father didn't. And in real life, that is most likely what is going to happen. Kid fucks up = gets beaten. Adults fuck up = use their power in family/society to get away. "I am old, I can't be wrong." - Asian proverb. If you can't admit when you are wrong, good luck teaching your kids to admit when they are wrong. A trash human like the father had no right to be talking about disciplining his son, who was just following his example. And again, what the did was not discipline. Excessive use of corporal punishment will teach children to use violence to solve problems. They grow up thinking beating other people is the norm, of course they will choose to use violence on others instead of talking. Most pro-corporal punishment people are only good at beating kids. Once the kid gets to 15-16, starts to be more able to fight back, they stop, because bullying a teenager is harder than bullying a kid. Repeat: if you have to rely on beating your kids to teach them anything, the problem most likely lies not at the kid. Maybe make sure you aren't an incompetent parent first. If disciplining people to follow rules requires corporal punishment, I would love to see more adults, of all status, getting beaten the fuck out of them, because they seem to get away with doing shitty things that kids can't. Old people be shivering right now.

This first part is just wrong. The father would've gotten punished in this case. When the court heard about it. And if it was any noble other than Cain the father would've gotten in trouble. That's literally why he's trying to get rid of Cain now, because he knows the hammer is on it's way, despite Cain forgiving them. And you've back to making assumptions again. You're saying this guy relies on beating his kid, but this is one extreme example. That's all you have. However the kid knows proper noble manners, and he does actually know a good bit about the laws of their country, how did he learn that? That didn't all just magically pop into his head, and there was problem discipline involved in his learning those things. We could just as easily say "This is the only time he's gotten this violent and it was because the intensity of the situation". Is that the case? Dunno' but you're basing your entire arguments on things you don't actually know and are conjuring up in your head that could easily be wrong.

The fact that you people, in this particular scenario, absolutely cannot see that there is no real disciplining at all from the father, is evidence that corporal punishment tends to result in adults with poor critical thinking skills. Which is not a surprise, given how it is often used to punish kids to oppose their parents, even when they are wrong. It's not that they respect you because of what you do, or who you are. They fear you, because you are a nasty piece of work. There seems to be a correlation between countries with high rate of use of corporal punishments, with those with more restricted freedom of speech, and slower developing level. Not a surprise at all. I still facepalmed thinking back at the other one's posts bragging about his supreme Asian disciplines aka beatings creating respectful people. I forgive them if they are still young and ignorant, full of ethnic pride or whatever and try to convince random internet strangers how awesome Asian countries are. But if they are older than 25 and still say something so stupid I will seriously judge their intelligence. His complete bullshits fall apart when another Asian, who isn't fueled by some ridiculous Asian pride crap, reads them.

I've wasted enough time here with you morons. Welcome to the shit list.
But I hope the translator continues putting in warnings like this just for the lols, to troll these people.

You say poor critical thinking but you literally did nothing but things that weaken your points by introducing fallacies into your arguments. So yeah I'm not sure I really care much about your evaluation of who what critical thinking. Also in 2016, the vast majority of the countries that allow corporal punishment were not Asian. They were African, Australia and the USA were also on that list. So there goes your "Asia is the problem" argument again.

There is also no "Asian supremacy" here, there is explaining how Asia is different, and a bunch of people like you attacking the people trying to explain for it. Saying "A country/region is better at doing this than another" is not supremacy it's comparison.

Edit: For clarity the "allowed corporal punishment" is in school. And it is dominated by the MENA region. (Middle East - North Africa), not Asia.

 

[WillLi]

I see, I didn't know about that.
And... I can see the idea. Shonen is for teens and young adults, so they want to keep the main character as moral as they can. Issue is, just like we can see here, sometimes it makes no sense for someone to do so.
Are they fearing people at the age to read this to still be young enough to be influenced by such things?

This kinda reminded me of Jojo's change from shonen to seinen at part 7, yet it somehow feels like it is pushing less barriers in parts 7 and 8. Always thought it was because there were not barriers to be pushed so he felt with more freedom to focus on the story.
Think it may be related? Now that I think about it, Johnny was also the first Jojo that was more active. There was even some focus on when the eyes start burning, something that in previous parts was a visual effect given to determination in anger or big fights but in there was pushed more into a willingness to kill in a fight (if I remember right it was by that guy with a Stand that resets time for duels?).
Even Giorno, the one about mafia and crime, was more reactive, his own stand having reflecting physical damage as part of the power.

Separated post again.

I do know that this trend is a lot less with the seinen demographic, but I don't read Jojo so I don't know exactly what you're talking about. However there is less of a trend to try to be 'edgy' when they're seinen as well, and when they are it tends ot be more organic. Assumption is that it's because it's for an older audience that will see trying to hard as 'cringe' like in most of the world.

 

[YoraeRasante]

Separated post again.

I do know that this trend is a lot less with the seinen demographic, but I don't read Jojo so I don't know exactly what you're talking about. However there is less of a trend to try to be 'edgy' when they're seinen as well, and when they are it tends ot be more organic. Assumption is that it's because it's for an older audience that will see trying to hard as 'cringe' like in most of the world.

while it does make sense to just be due to "edgy" and "cringiness", I personally still believe it partially is because of pushing bondaries. At least to some authors.

I mean, Toriyama had to fight to let Goku age up as time passed instead of just continuing his young size forever (something the fandom later explained as being due to his sayian blood, but was not really planned).

Togashi claimed he did not plan for a gay pairing in YuYu Hakusho, despite how much chemistry the fans saw between Kurama and Hiei, but that he would try it in the future - that is, HunterxHunter.

And, while it won't make sense if you are not into Jojo, Araki was one of the first to kill his protagonist at the end of part 1 to start with a new one in part 2, LisaLisa was one of the first female fighters to not be based solely in magic (although she used Hamon to increase her fighting), and according to rumors the only reason we don't have a lesbian pairing at the end of part 6 (the last one before moving to seinen) is because the editors fought back.

You may also notice that these three are among the most respected and admired mangakas, too. Not limiting themselves to what is already the norm is a gamble, but it is also a path to making things better.



Looping it back to this particular story,

While I can understand not going for a direct punishment at that point, this "just apologize" is still stupid.
This would be the perfect opportunity to at least put him under investigation to see if there is something else - he knows there is a conspiracy involving nobles against someone allied to him, and his trial would be just for his son's actions - and the results are already guaranteed, so I doubt any further investigation will be officially made either.

I can only think of it as not only bad plot-wise, but also a bit cowardly of the author. If there was no want to push deeper into this path, then should not have brought it up in the first place.

 

[WillLi]

while it does make sense to just be due to "edgy" and "cringiness", I personally still believe it partially is because of pushing bondaries. At least to some authors.

I mean, Toriyama had to fight to let Goku age up as time passed instead of just continuing his young size forever (something the fandom later explained as being due to his sayian blood, but was not really planned).

Togashi claimed he did not plan for a gay pairing in YuYu Hakusho, despite how much chemistry the fans saw between Kurama and Hiei, but that he would try it in the future - that is, HunterxHunter.

And, while it won't make sense if you are not into Jojo, Araki was one of the first to kill his protagonist at the end of part 1 to start with a new one in part 2, LisaLisa was one of the first female fighters to not be based solely in magic (although she used Hamon to increase her fighting), and according to rumors the only reason we don't have a lesbian pairing at the end of part 6 (the last one before moving to seinen) is because the editors fought back.

You may also notice that these three are among the most respected and admired mangakas, too. Not limiting themselves to what is already the norm is a gamble, but it is also a path to making things better.



Looping it back to this particular story,

While I can understand not going for a direct punishment at that point, this "just apologize" is still stupid.
This would be the perfect opportunity to at least put him under investigation to see if there is something else - he knows there is a conspiracy involving nobles against someone allied to him, and his trial would be just for his son's actions - and the results are already guaranteed, so I doubt any further investigation will be officially made either.

I can only think of it as not only bad plot-wise, but also a bit cowardly of the author. If there was no want to push deeper into this path, then should not have brought it up in the first place.

Oh there is for sure a desire to 'push boundries' from artist. What I mean with my post though is that, because the audience is older and more aware, the artist try to do things more organically instead of forcing it. (Like Chinese comics where the MC kills everyone that looks at them wrong) So even if they push boundaries more you don't notice it as much because it's not forced.

As for this story, yeah there is really no real in character reason for him to be handling this situation like this. It doesn't even fit his character. It's 100% to drive a narrative. Probably because the father had not actually done anything to the MC yet, so the author/editor wanted him to do something directly before the MC reacted.

 

[theldras]

very weak and stupid choise of Cain here, he did not show kindness by forgiving them for their actions, he showed weakness, the only correct choise is to hold them accountable in accordance by law and make a example out of them.
they wont suddenly become good people just because he decided to forgive them for trying to assassinate him.

 

[whermit]

This little scheme corgino's plan better be damn good to be brewing for a good couple of chapters now, i swear if its something stupid like tryna poison cain or kidnapping him or his fiancees... Imma go nuts

 

[Stratomizer]

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.

Yeah you're right, that's why i like Cain's character but also hate him at the same time, it's actually annoyed me that he's often doing like " Yeah, you can go now, but there won't be next okay". Funny enough, the target that they do "next" is still the same, cain himself, somehow i'm speechless how stupid they are, but that's part of the story i guess and maybe they don't know how strong Cain is, i mean they do see him as a teenager, so i kind of not that surprised about the corrupted Noble behaviour towards Cain and somehow i kind of understand why Cain always doing something like that, he's not political smart "yet", he doesn't know that mich about how noble lives, still it's ticking me off. I mean just make them dissapear already, basically he can do anything, if he can't using violence directly just use another way, not by letting them go like that.

 

[Wyrm]

i guess and maybe they don't know how strong Cain is, i mean they do see him as a teenager, so i kind of not that surprised about the corrupted Noble behaviour towards Cain

Except both Corgino and Malph both know that Cain is an S-rank adventurer, plus Corgino knows about the dragon Cain has slain when he was even younger than he is now. Among other achievements. They might have seen him as a teenager at first, but they know that he's dangerous enough that a whole city could be leveled to the ground if he rampages. (pages 22 and 23 on the previous chapter)

And that's what they know about his strength even as they don't know that he's a demi-god. With this, he could likely erase a whole country or two.

Corgino at least has the advantage to live in the same country, so it's unlikely that Cain would take action to such a broad scope there. But Malph here risks creating an international incident, possibly up to a war, and that means having Cain as an official enemy, fully allowed and expected to raze a city or two. (Not that he actually would, I think. He probably wouldn't want to involve innocent citizens.)

 

[tristan9]

I'm not reading pages of these walls of texts to find out who started it, but that's enough now.
You clearly disagree, move on or block each other.

 

[Ollie178]

Another corrupt nobleman goes without punishment, and gets to continue doing shi**y things.

 

[Dwarfy2k]

Cain: Dont be evil

........ is he the stupidest motherfucker to ever live? Remember he basically has every form of magic and nothing to enforce that? Also he is way too lenient for the crimes they commited.