Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

[KnY] Entertainment District Arc E7 Reaction & Review (Patreon)

Published:
2022-01-17 15:33:46
Imported:
2022-01

Content

DISCLAIMER: You are obviously here to watch my reaction/listen to my review and have already seen the original episodes on legal streaming sites like Crunchyroll or Funimation or Hulu or Animelab.

Make sure to support legal streaming sites and buy the manga! (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧


Watch my reaction/review on Dailymotion or Google Drive or Streamable

Files

Comments

Anonymous

Its poetic that daki hates "ugly" people but relies on her brother who is "ugly", and her brother gyutoro envies "beautiful" people yet he's caring for his sister who is "beautiful"

Anonymous

I think it's a fallacy to consider that the reason animals killing each other cannot be considered evil/bad is because of their inability to know that evil is done to them. babies and mentaly underdeveloped people also cannot understand that evil is done to them or if they are harming others the same as animals, yet we dont justify it when something bad was done to them, the reason we treat animals differently in these cases is simply because they are not humans. our moral compass simply doesn't encompass other species because it would complicate things in our daily life period, it has nothing to do whether a being is sentient or not thats just something humanity tell itself to not complicate things. I mean we already have enough moral dilemas dealing with humans alone if we bring other species into the mix our morality would need an entire reform. I'm not a vegetarian or vegan but when I eat meat I know the death of the animal that I'm eating is not something that I would call ''good''. I think nature itself is immoral, to me this entire system where an organism need to kill and eat another organism to survive is morally wrong in the first place. that's why the best thing to do is simply to include in our moral compass priorities based on what important to us. for instance humans first, dogs/cats second, other species based on their importance and benifit to us and so on...

animaechan
>>75878085

Nature itself is immoral? But morality itself is a word we invented. Or do you prescribe to some kind of faith where god decides that for us? Because before you can convince me that nature is immoral you must first convince me what your morality is based on. Some kind of immutable law, like gravity? Regardless, you’re first sentence tells me that you didn’t listen to my thoughts on the matter, or even to the end of the that part of the video. You seem to just have jumped at the chance to Lord your presupposed beliefs in morality over others.

Anonymous

I did apologize for that, i admit i was in the wrong to think that you did that. but this is different I'm not accusing of anything nor trying to put words on your mouth, it's really what i understood from what you said. my english is like my fourth language after arabic darija ( I'm morrocan), french and spanish, so maybe my comprehension is rusty. but I swear I have no ill will

animaechan
>>75881907

I’m sorry but I am not going to have a in depth debate with someone about morality who is trying to tell me what I said (or what you understood from what I said), when they themselves in one moment uses bigger words than most first language English speakers and then in the next moment claims that the reason he put words in my mouth is because his English comprehension is rusty 🙄

Anonymous

I can't respond to this because i can't have a discussion while worring at the same time if every word i write is going to start some conflict or be interpreted as having bad intent or something, so better we end it here. To me a discussion of ideas shouldn't have filters, you can disagree and critisice my ideas and i can disagree and critisice yours nothing wrong with that, but since i can't do that so there is no point.

animaechan
>>75918232

I never said you can’t criticise my thoughts. I said you can’t criticise things I never said and act like that’s what I said. All I did was ask you not to put words in my mouth - then you said there must be a misunderstanding since English is your fourth language and I tried explaining to you what it is you said I said that I DID NOT say. Now you’re just going back to “I can’t criticise you”. 🤦‍♀️ there’s really no talking to you.

Anonymous

Don't usually comment cause I'm a silent viewer. But I thought I might weigh in on the morality discusion. Morality is a point of view because morality was a concept invented by humans. Nothing in nature was ever immoral and nothing in human nature is ever truly moral. There is a universal morality but that in itself is still a construct of humanity. Before human nature was as it is, Morality played no part because there was no one to judge it. Now as humans we perceive everything to be either on the side of morality or immoral. As for the nature of reasoning, animals have a limited capacity to reason but it does not rise to the level of critical thinking. Humans developed this ability which therefore gave birth to the concept of Morality. We are no less valuable than any other life, we merely have a skill that other beings do not possess. This skill provides us with the ability to observe ourselves as different from the other lifeforms surrounding us. We act morally or immorally based on standards, feelings, views and beliefs created by human intelligence (whether or not god exists)... Even if you believe in a god that has creates a world with morals, the animals were created without this concept. It was humans that manifested it. once again implying that morality was never part of the original design, it was created by humans. In other words morality has always been a human construct because the circle of life was not judged until WE humans became conscious enough to judge it. But us being morally conscious does not mean we are objectively right when we distinguish between what is moral and what isnt. Because all of that is based on our own perception of morality, which is our own creation. So in truth we created the concept of morality and gave it meaning and purpose. Then we all decided individually that we know what morality was, despite its original purpose. Only to create further divide and argue with one another about what morality is and when it applies. In world that was probably never meant to be judged, we created morality in order to understand the world we live in. While it has allowed us to be better than the average animal who kills indiscriminately, we have become a society that judges ourselves and eachother too harshly, and probably has unnecessary debates over the concepts of morality. One last thing, if God exists he also kills indiscriminately. Which is why all people die no matter how innocent or not they are. That in itself proves that morality is a human invention. Because only humans judge death. Everything else in nature just accepts it without question.

Anonymous
>>75949969

PS. I'm not even saying I'm right. This is merely all an observation I have made over the years of my understanding of Morality and Human Beings. In my humble opinion i don't believe animals and humans are at all that different morally because morals are just a construct. The only difference is our ability to critically think which therefore divides us from the animals. Allowing us to judge our world rather than just accept it. But that doesnt make the animals less moral than us. If anything it makes them more innocent. They're just existing to exist. Whereas we exist with the intention to make our existence matter. Anyways thats all from me <3