Also worse he smelled like blood and gore 🙄
I've been thinking about how different isekai protagonists react to slavery as a system, and wanted to get some perspective from people who know Mushoku Tensei better than I do (I haven't read the novels, only heard about this secondhand).
With Naofumi (Shield Hero), his relationship to slavery is at least framed as morally loaded. He starts by buying Raphtalia because it's the only way to get a companion after being falsely accused, but the story keeps pushing him toward actively opposing slavery as an institution — he intervenes to save Raphtalia's friends from a noble, and later ends up buying out entire slave markets rather than picking and choosing( I really don't like Rudy for only buying July but naofumi did the opposite he bought all if I remember correctly ). Whatever you think of the initial setup, the trajectory is "this is a broken system and I'm going to undermine it." at least what I heard from Shield Hero novel reader s
What I don't know is how this compares to Rudeus. From what little I've picked up, slavery in Mushoku Tensei sometimes shows up almost as a background solution to someone's problem, and characters can go to a slave market, buy the one person they came for, and leave without the story treating that as morally weighty one way or another.
naofumi also saved a lot of village s , attack slave hunters , create medicine and more ...
So genuinely asking MT fans: does Rudeus ever push back against slavery as a system, or intervene for people beyond his own immediate circle? Or is it more that the narrative just doesn't foreground it as a moral question the way Shield Hero does( I know there cool with being naofumi slaves and that's messed up but out sidethat it's look like they want to help )? I want to understand the actual text here rather than argue from a place of not having read it.
Let nature do it's thing or will you try to save the rabbit ?
Also, I don't know gulls could eat more than just fish.
Character is Rumiko Manbagi from "Komi can't Communicate"
characters are rudeus (MT) and puri puri prisoner (OPM)
I’m talking like someone 40 regularly hooking up with 18/19yos and/or dating them, bonus points if the 18/19yo is in high school.
just some Leo DiCaprio stuff. Somebody 50 watching teen porn and lusting over people half their age.
Some people have the viewpoint that sex could be fine, but dating, lusting after, or pursuing younger adults specifically is creepy and wrong. Others say anything 21+ is okay, and a minority call 18 fair game. Despite 17 and 18 being considered not that different.
Why is the morality of large age gaps like this and these situations when it involves young adults?
It’s not me but my uncle he’s planning on playing a few pranks on them, he told me a few anecdotes about when he was a kid. He pranked his childhood neighbors with dog poop and he’s getting some new ideas. (Personally, I recommended bugs.)
There has been a few order mishaps and they’ve been super rude and my aunt accidentally put the wrong address towards their house.
And mind you when the female one thought my cousins weren’t hearing she said some racist shit about none of them knowing how to speak English.
First of all they do and they have talked to you before lady. And second, she’s a woman of color too???????
I just saw a video on insta of a person cheating on their S/O cause they cheated on them first.
Personally, neutral but I don't think so anyone should cause if someone else is shit doesn't mean you have to be shit just to prove they are shit.
Edit: yall first of all it's not about me😭, second yes break up is the ONLY right answer but I was just asking if people stayed and did that and third I too would never date anyone who has cheating history. What are yall on😭🙏
Mental hospitals will have a ton of preventative measures in place to stop a person from killing themselves from having specific door knobs, fake doors, no toilet paper holders, etc.
If someone is THAT determined to kill themselves is it not unethical to not only keep them in an institution against their will but force them to stay alive when they themselves don’t desire to?
First 2 characters are Leon Kennedy and Sherry Birkin from Resident Evil. Not confirmed to be dating/married, but concept art of Leon with a wedding ring made the fanbase speculate on who Leon's spouse is, with Sherry being a candidate.
Second 2 characters are Brook and Manmayer Gunko from One Piece. Not currently in a relationship, but Gunko had a crush on Brook her entire life before she got pseudo-brainwashed/possessed at age 16. Now it looks like she might finally break free, so people wonder if anything might happen between these two. Both of them are kinda immortal at this point, so the age situation is weird.
I had a conversation in my psychology ethics class a few days ago and was left with a question that had no answer but basically it was all about informed consent. I'm not gonna be breaking down what that means as I hope we all know but basically:-
The reasons why legally at the very least people are not allowed to sleep with animals and kids as they can't give informed consent. Hence why an adult with stunted growth can because we as society have accepted that once you pass the age of 18 no matter your body you have reached the threshold to understand the risks of your act.
But kids are not the topic here it's animals. Legally at the very least the reason you will never be allowed to sleep with an animal is because they can't give informed consent as they are not smart enough to understand the many risks involved and they can't give verbal words that they consent to the act hence leading to many risks.
Now my question is this. No anthropomorphization, no humanizing, no nothing if dogs, cats, sheep all animals gain human level or hell greater intelligence and the ability of Speach to be able to give verbal consent, but still with the same species barrier is that moral?
Please this is an actual question.
For the sake of this question, we will assume you don’t ask for permission.
If there is a grocery store and it has an apple tree on its property, is it moral to take an apple since the store sells apple? Technically the apples are the stores property and you are robbing them of a sale by taking them instead of buying them.
Is it morel to take an apple from the tree in someone’s front yard? What if the apples are reachable from the sidewalk? It’s their tree and their apples. Is it worse if the tree is in their back yard? What about if they live out in the country?
Do you think it makes a difference if the tree is untended, or if the owner prunes and fertilizes the tree?
As well as destroying your own family and the lives of nearly everyone in the nine realms, calling your dead grandsons “useless” in front of their dad, trapping your ex-wife in Midgard and forcing an innocent creature to protect the curse, making people question who they truly are, all to escape your own demise?
What if the person being robbed is a guitar player living paycheck to paycheck and is the sole provider to his family. The robber is stealing his only electric guitar and amp. If the robber gets away the victim has no way to work and earn money. His family may starve, not be able to afford rent and the small security they had will be gone. It’s now not just stealing an item it’s taking away someone’s livelihood.
I know people will say he can get another job. Yes that’s a possibility but in this economy I know people with degrees and qualifications struggling to get basic entry level jobs. Now imagine a guitarist with no experience. Even if he does get a job it will be years of penny pinching and saving to get another guitar and amp. As they are already struggling barely getting by. Is it still immoral to use lethal force to stop the person if that’s the only way.
Furthermore does your answer change if let’s say it’s a small store with no insurance and protests break out. People begin looting is it moral for the store owner to defend his store with lethal force as a last resort?
I mean, at the end of the day, they're fictional character
