This Girl

Why do you think I meant anger when I said emotions?

Giving the nature of these sort of accusations involving arguments/debates/discussions in IB, I did make that assumption.
Can't speak for the other guy but it didn't make me feel grief or happiness.

I'm in love.

.

Fujisawa's actions towards Takeshima were immoral. She fed sensitive information to Takeshima's parents with the intent of stirring them into harming her and succeeded in causing that harm while also showing no remorse over that harm. The act was manipulative and caused pain to the victim, that's immoral enough for me.

I tolerate Takeshima's mistakes more than Fujisawa's, not condone them. As I said before "it won't undo what has been done" and neglect of her duty to protect Fujisawa is certainly one of her more critical mistakes.

Fujisawa did not say said she was the only one receiving abuse from her classmates, only that she was receiving excessive abuse and it's possible that Nomura could be her replacement in the event of her absence. It's implied but currently there is no evidence.

Notably Takeshima's interruption ceased their bullying at the time, why not just let them continue bullying Fujisawa then tell them to clean up afterwards? It's because she wanted to stop them in the act. Her thoughts at Club Moon reflected her motivation to act in defense of Fujisawa, she clearly showed then that she was somewhat willing to step in for Fujisawa. Therefore while the reverse can be true, it's entirely possible Takeshima was secretly helping Fujisawa there. I'm lead to believe a bit of both.

In the end, I don't believe anyone in this manga is morally just. I believe that (putting it roughly)Fukushuu Kyoushitsuu is a collection of undesirables committing actions unfavorable by societal norms.

I'll listen to what you have to say next(if you'll allow it) and I'll stop there. I don't think this manga is worth the effort and I'm satisfied with your performance.

You fucked up

As parents they had a right to know. She's not responsible for her parents actions, she didn't manipulate them into being abusive but did nothing but let them know of their daughter's actions, not telling them would have been immoral. Intent was irrelevant. Actions were not immoral as no wrong doing was done to make her parents mad, nor did she trick the class president into doing what she did. Again you have to prove why whistle blowing is bad in cases were false information was not given.
>there is no evidence
There's also no evidence of anyone else being bullied. Class president also admits to "taking it out her too". Her thoughts on the Club do reflect her contempt for her classmates, not understanding for the person who was going through serious shit. ("I hate my classmates")

The main reasons why I want to stop conversing with you is becoming you're because you resort to victim blaming to absolve one of them from responsibility. Saying, "Hey I know you were harassed, beaten and raped, but because you could have done something you're partly responsible for those things happening to you, even if you feared retaliation from your abusers". (something common in victims who suffer constant abused)

Talking with someone who believes that loses it's amusement rather quickly, and all I'm left with is disappointment.

It definitely was manipulation, she gave the information so that the parents would punish their child. You are right that the act of letting her parents know isn't immoral, but the fact that she did not do this for the child's well-being makes it so.

Otherwise you are right, she has every right to take revenge, if you aren't solving the problem you are the problem.

Except she didn't control her parents. Again this is more akin to whistle blowing.

Even if a spiteful employee reveals the misdeeds on an angry public and govt., they're still not doing anything wrong. Even if they're motivated by revenge or if an angry group take legal action putting the management in jail where they'll suffer, they spiteful employee didn't do anything wrong. Manipulation would mean she's taking agency from her parents, or falsifying something for her benefit, which she's clearly not.

The fact that you are willing to justify her actions through debate signifies that you have some form of invested emotions in the action.

What kind of emotions I don't really know as it could vary from person to person depending.

Actually no it doesn't. You can experience any form of media and talk about it's themes, characters, etc. etc. without getting "emotional". Take your logical fallacies elsewhere sonny.

That would be somewhat incorrect.

To objectively discuss something, is beyond pretty much anyone. This especially applies to stories. As you invest emotions any time you read a story.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean you have invested a great deal of emotion into something.

But the more you are willing to defend and argue a characters actions, the more it emotion it shows you have invested in said character and story.

That is, after all, the reason we read and watch stories. To invoke our emotions.

If you simply wanted to invoke just your thought processes, you would read technical manuals and the like, not stories.

Bullying is always a touchy subject, but the fact of the matter is the only fault there is lies with the bullies themselves. Rather than saying someone should stand up for themselves, they shouldn't have to deal with bullying in the first place.

Obviously a world without abusive people is almost impossible without some serious mind control (which obviously opens up a whole nother can of worms) so we tell people to stand up for themselves. But then you remember that in a school setting anyone taking action is treated as a delinquent, even if it is in response to someone else. I don't know the Japanese school rules, but in America if someone physically harasses you if you fight back you get in trouble as well. If you fight back you get in trouble. If you don't fight back the ostracization by your peers increases, multiplying the problem. Since image and respect is much more important in Asia than in other cultures it adds on to the problem.

Anyways I don't really care for the manga (sounds too edgy for me) but I do want to point out that too many people have this misconception about how bullying actually works and why it's an issue. Telling people to nut up is only appropriate when it is minor things, like insults or disagreements. When it comes to full on physical contact and group harassment, then it's an actual issue.

Or maybe I'm just defending my viewpoint? Or maybe I find another person's conclusion to be illogical so I question it?
You're not proving your point by saying "NUH UH", maybe your way of thinking applies to you but it's pretty irrational to want to apply it anyone else. I can invoke my thought process by questioning different aspects of a characters thought process and actions. I can question whether they're moral or ethical in some cases. None of this requires me to be "emotional invested".

>mfw walls of text discussing the morals of a bullying-gone-bad manga with only 2 chapters so far



Meanwhile I'm going to enjoy the sweet revenge.

People read stories to emotionally invest themselves in them.

If you can't emotionally invest yourself in a story, then you do not like the story or anything about it.

I can tell why you are confused. It's because your impression of emotions is that of the extremes. Someone irrationally angry. Unbearably sad and depressed. Inexplicably happy.

It is true that when someone tells a person they are being emotional they are referring to them being at an extreme point.

But that is not what I mean when I say you are using emotions and being emotionally invested.

It'd be similar to the pathos side of argumentation.

It's not a matter that I believe you are invoking emotion when reading a story.

It's that you HAVE to invoke emotions to legitimately read a story and identify with the characters.

And I know you have done that because of two things.

One, you have actually read through the story so far. Even though there is not much there, it is extremely difficult to read much in a story that you have no investment in.

Two, you are arguing viewpoints of one of the characters as well as trying to describe things as you see them from her point of view. If you failed to invest in the character then you would not be able to address them from this manner. Instead you would be using a completely factual point of view.

A potential example of what it is like to read a book you are not emotionally invested in would be the required reading from schools.

It reads dry, slow, and you find it hard to retain information. If you ever read a chapter of a book and realize you don't remember the majority of it then you were not investing in it.

And that's all on top of the sole purpose of stories being to get you emotionally invested in them. Characterization, plot, setting. All the story elements are designed to get you connected so the story can convey a message. Whether that message is entertainment, sharing a vision, inciting an action or whatever is up to the device of the author. Or even the reader. But the story is written as to convey the message by getting an emotional connection.

Yeah, no both assertions are full of shit. Literature does not have a sole purpose nor does it need any purpose to exist. There is no objective reason for it to exist. Just because that's what you think makes a story worth while doesn't mean it's the reason it exist.

And again, you're arguing people need to invest themselves emotionally to understand something, or argue a point outside and maybe inside the sphere of context in the book.

No it isn't, they give you enough context to come to some conclusions. Not to mention I've read series in both western and eastern works.

None of these assertions have any merit to them. Everything else was fluff for those 3 points.

[edit]
If you want argue about emotions though, you could claim that I'm getting irritated towards some people's conclusions on the material in the story but that stems from disagreement and belligerence. If you're arguing I have to be empathetic (a state of understanding and reasoning not an emotional state) to make my own assessment of what's going on in a story you'd still be wrong.

This shit is more intelligent than SD ever was.

If this is what actually happened in SD on a regular basis, it wouldn't be so shit.

The fuck is Cram School?

You provide no justification to support your claims.

If you want to keep your standpoint, actually supply justification and not more "Nu uh, you're wrong." and then I'll respond more.

But as it stands, you've offered nothing insightful or new so bai.

it's like an after-school school you can go to