Spoiler One Piece Chapter 1126 Spoilers Discussion
- Thread starter Absalom
- Start date
- Tags barto >>> kidd barto put up a better fight than kid nami strongest black blade user oh no janitor bros wami black blade yasopp hype
- Status
understandable
D
This matter is quite straightforward, yet you are unnecessarily complicating it by introducing false and slanderous claims about a character without any basis in the story. You are suggesting things that have not been revealed or confirmed.
The ones truly at fault here are Kid and Bartolomeo. They attack and kill people simply because those individuals disagree with their beliefs. Kid murders those who mock his dreams and is planning to launch an attack against Shanks' fleet with the intent to kill, just because they are defending their leader and territory. Bartolomeo is no different; he has attacked and wounded a member of Shanks' crew within his own territory. Given this, what do you propose we do? Are you suggesting we approach these acts of aggression with a "reasonable" or "diplomatic" solution when the wrongdoers are so obvious?
When it comes to matters of life and death, the principle of "an eye for an eye" is essential. Life is not something trivial.
Shanks has shown that he can shrug off insults and ridicule directed at him without resorting to violence; he does not use his power to demean others, demonstrating true humility and maturity. Yet you label him as immature simply because he chooses to fight back when defending someone he cares about? If someone were threatening your family or friends with death, would you just stand by and allow it to happen? How could anyone think that is a rational response?
Maybe you have never lost someone close to you due to violence, and that is why you cannot grasp Shanks' actions or his belief in "an eye for an eye." This approach is necessary when an action is extremely evil or unjust.
I need to highlight this point: Shanks didn’t let them go when they surrendered because he knew they had terrible reputations and a history of wrongdoing. He understood that they wouldn’t stop their malicious actions unless they faced proper consequences. Simply surrendering after being defeated was not enough. The attackers needed to realize that they couldn't evade accountability so easily. And you accuse Shanks of being like a Celestial Dragon because of that? What kind of flawed logic brings you to such an absurd and offensive comparison?
The ones truly at fault here are Kid and Bartolomeo. They attack and kill people simply because those individuals disagree with their beliefs. Kid murders those who mock his dreams and is planning to launch an attack against Shanks' fleet with the intent to kill, just because they are defending their leader and territory. Bartolomeo is no different; he has attacked and wounded a member of Shanks' crew within his own territory. Given this, what do you propose we do? Are you suggesting we approach these acts of aggression with a "reasonable" or "diplomatic" solution when the wrongdoers are so obvious?
When it comes to matters of life and death, the principle of "an eye for an eye" is essential. Life is not something trivial.
Shanks has shown that he can shrug off insults and ridicule directed at him without resorting to violence; he does not use his power to demean others, demonstrating true humility and maturity. Yet you label him as immature simply because he chooses to fight back when defending someone he cares about? If someone were threatening your family or friends with death, would you just stand by and allow it to happen? How could anyone think that is a rational response?
Maybe you have never lost someone close to you due to violence, and that is why you cannot grasp Shanks' actions or his belief in "an eye for an eye." This approach is necessary when an action is extremely evil or unjust.
I need to highlight this point: Shanks didn’t let them go when they surrendered because he knew they had terrible reputations and a history of wrongdoing. He understood that they wouldn’t stop their malicious actions unless they faced proper consequences. Simply surrendering after being defeated was not enough. The attackers needed to realize that they couldn't evade accountability so easily. And you accuse Shanks of being like a Celestial Dragon because of that? What kind of flawed logic brings you to such an absurd and offensive comparison?
Assuming shanks has all 4 and laffitte is about to steal Blackbeards 4th from dragon aka the man with the burn scar the strawhats need something to make up for being behind
I’m not saying it is but the mystery guy in elbaf being gaban could be that thing. Him being the navigator on Roger’s ship means he’d better than anyone would know how to get there
I don’t think he’d just casually hand them the information because it just seems to anticlimactic but what if he puts the crew under some test to determine if he wants to give them that information. From the little we know about him it does seemingly fit his character. He was the main guy not sure about automatically trusting oden until he gained his respect
I’m not saying it is but the mystery guy in elbaf being gaban could be that thing. Him being the navigator on Roger’s ship means he’d better than anyone would know how to get there
I don’t think he’d just casually hand them the information because it just seems to anticlimactic but what if he puts the crew under some test to determine if he wants to give them that information. From the little we know about him it does seemingly fit his character. He was the main guy not sure about automatically trusting oden until he gained his respect
- Status