So i just got through the current chapter of One Punch-man and this page got me thinking. Is he right /a/? What do you think?
>>147724650
He's taking eventual failure for granted, as if he knows what the future is going to be like. Given that he hasn't experienced the future there is no reason for him to assume success or failure, and thus it is possible that the heroes are helping.
He's also making claims about other peoples' motivations based on the assumption that they agree with him on a point he has to explain to them. Essentially, he's saying that all they seek is self satisfaction because of his assumption that what they're doing is futile, but if the heroes don't think that what they're doing is futile then they could be motivated by a real desire to help people.
His logic is terrible.
>5 watermarks
>>147724650
>niggerstream
>watermarks
Absolutely disgusting.
>>147725476
i know right? it needs MORE!
>>147724878
No i don't think so. I don't believe he's saying they are intentional seeking self satisfaction for there actions but that they're very actions are self-satisfying when the rules of nature dictate that those who are strong will survive so even if they earnestly wish to save the weak,the weak will eventually die out while the strong will continue to prosper since the strong don't need to saved.
Essentially(in my opinion) i think he is saying that there is no way to alter the outcome of the future because those who can protect and help themselves(the strong) while those who can't protect themselves and need others in order to do anything (the weak) will always end in the same places in the end irregardless of any hero's or monster's intervention making heroes ultimately useless
>>147725539
Oh yeah, I probably should have re-read that as I was writing that.
My first point still stands though, he's just assuming that they'll fail to protect the weak due to his typically misinterpreted Darwinian beliefs. "It's nature" isn't an argument, and he's using it as the crux of his statement. He hasn't justified his belief that they can't actually save anybody in any way other than conjecture.
So his logic is still bad.
>>147724650
So now that they announced the second season, is the anime going to finish the Garou arc before the manga does?
>>147726030
Besides, he's too confident about the "strong" surviving, most of the S class almost got killed in the MA arc, he wouldn't have done any better against the Dragons. He underestimate monsters.
>>147724650
I cant wait to saitama to slap this bitch.
>>147726030
not in their world... remember that City A just got deleted and the rest of the cities don't look much better... citizens die on mass every day in the OPM world so he's not so far off saying that the weak will die...
>>147726376
He's still assuming that the people who die are weak, and that everyone who is weak will die. I understand how he would come to this conclusion, but he's still wrong. He's also generalizing these events. He's basically saying that this is something that is intrinsically true about reality, and that no matter what happens it cannot be prevented. Anyone that you try to save will, no matter what, end up being killed anyway. The major issue here is that he's just assuming failure from the start, and he isn't using any of these examples to back it up. He's just saying "it's nature", and even if that is natural, which is questionable in it's own right, that still doesn't make his point any more valid.
Also, as >>147726228 mentioned, he's assuming the strong will survive, and humanity will continue, and if entire cities are getting wiped out that's pretty questionable too.