[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

I don't remember the events of OOO very well, but in the Date situation, he used to yell at Eiji to get out of the line of fire before or right after the shot. It seems to me that there was more of a story about the fact that two strangers cannot work together, and there was no particular desire initially. As for the danger for Eiji, Date did not know him as a person + initially had a negative impression after the events before the show. And Neon knows Keiwa much better and even defended him in front of Saya. Which at least shows that for the sake of her desire she is ready to go to great lengths. And one more difference: Date is a doctor. If he seriously harmed Eiji, he would have cured him himself.

Why "not knowing someone that well" should diminish this? As they're still people with human rights that deserve to be cared for, not only exclusively closed ones. And I mean the beatdown Eiji got by some Greeeds still canonically happened, and after that Date temporarily left the show (it's ep. 38) to return in ep. 46 later as Proto Birth. I mean if you'd think Eiji was fine afterwards, then so does Keiwa which you seem to exaggerate the consequences of the trap. And I guess you'd still depict her as "go to great lengths" for her desire because as for below, you seem to dismiss predicaments that isn't death, cuz she takes defeat well but this one has more consequence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

The victims of all the examples you have given can recover. Not all and not always, but they can. The resurrection from the dead is from the realm of fantasy and is impossible in real life.

Yeah, they may can recover, but this shouldn't be used to dismiss or downplay those bad things done in that examples, allowing them to keep happening. It's actually a callous outlook, especially if to dismiss those bad things, or what those people are going through due to this, victim blaming happens to depict them as being weak or snowflakes or such. Something being good or bad isn't determined by its outcome. It's how I value those caring not only to save lives but also help others in any way. a.k.a "protecting smiles".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

That is why you should not write down all good people as heroes, so as not to be disappointed later. But since we cannot read other people's thoughts, it remains to be judged by actions.

I mean why do you seem to lump those harmless people I mentioned as "good people"? They'd be neutral at best, but already suspicious if they already have warped mindset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

My position is that the causes must be taken into account in order to be eliminated. Punishment for bad deeds must follow and its severity must be determined by those whose eyes are not blurred. Here, perhaps, a strong problem in our different backgrounds. There are no jury trials in my country, which means that the attempts of criminals to play on feelings are more of a fantasy for me. All indulgences that they can receive depend on specific, predetermined circumstances. But I believe it is possible.

There can be varying reasons of why heroes can get bad publicity, but there are no bad deeds in cases of them getting slandered by bad guys or hated for something beyond their control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

I cannot agree here. If a person's father is a thief, his mother is a thief, all his friends are thieves and the most watched movie is "Ocean's 11", then shouldn't this be taken into account? That is, he, of course, heard that stealing is bad from some strangers who did nothing good for him. Therefore, simply punishment is clearly not enough here, a person needs to be explained why this is wrong. And be prepared that he will not understand and appreciate it.

As you said there, it's still something wrong and has to be corrected by explaining it to them. Thus he'd be someone bad at that time (if he regularly steals, and never perform any something good), and then the next outcome will determine (because people's alignment can change; nice guys can turn bad like Yuji or Aruto, assholes can become better like Takumi, etc.); If he'd understand and not repeat it, then he'd get redeemed. If he doesn't, then it'd reaffirm and solidify that he's bad. This is also used to justify villains when they have reasons like parents upbringing or such, but this just feels like pulling double standard, it's ok for named characters to do that, but not for those nameless backstory characters to do that. There's a case of obliviously evil, and for KR, it's something more severe, but there's Parado who doesn't know the difference between lives in game and real life.