(L) One-Punch Man

[bakato]

Originally Posted by Benigmatica

Episode 7:
Well, those citizens are ungrateful bastards for bashing Saitama. I mean, it wasn't his fault for destroying the meteor into smaller bits instead of vaporizing it!

On the other hand, I'm surprised that he jumped to 5th place in the C-Class ranking.

Genos said the Hero Association assumed the S-class heroes did most of the work.

[thundrakkon]

Wow, this conversation about Saitama has gone off in so many different directions, with misunderstanding and accusations abound.

Quote

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I can let other misunderstandings go, but not this one. The discussion was never about Saitama being weak. It was originally about him not being as strong as some suggested (i.e. universe destroying). It then relates to the situation at hand and his train of thought on the situation, which there was practically none.

Let's use an example, for simile sake. Say for example, Saitama sees a fire at a forest at the border of his city. He puts it out only enough at that border and walks away since he believe he has done what he needs to. However, this fire was actually created by firefighters in order to create a border and not allow the main fire in the forest to further spread causing more destruction. Because of Saitama's actions, a larger fire occurred completely destroying the whole forest and neighboring cities.

So the question is, is Saitama responsible for negligence and exasperating the probelm because he was thoughtless in his actions? Or is he fine because he put out a fire he saw in front of him?

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by bakato

But can we see what was being talked about? I imagine it was about Saitama's rock-bottom popularity.

Vallen Chaos Valiant mentioned the following:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In the scene when we see the OPM version of Japanese 2ch, one post on the internet was "We have opened a new Takoyaki Restaurant, and our cook is a Gorilla! Please come and try some! sinkanotakoyaki.co.jp

sinkanotakoyaki = House of Evolution Takoyaki.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by thundrakkon

Let's use an example, for simile sake. Say for example, Saitama sees a fire at a forest at the border of his city. He puts it out only enough at that border and walks away since he believe he has done what he needs to. However, this fire was actually created by firefighters in order to create a border and not allow the main fire in the forest to further spread causing more destruction. Because of Saitama's actions, a larger fire occurred completely destroying the whole forest and neighboring cities.

So the question is, is Saitama responsible for negligence and exasperating the probelm because he was thoughtless in his actions? Or is he fine because he put out a fire he saw in front of him?

But he didn't cause more destruction in the meteor incident. Many parts of the city were destroyed, but no one died. The alternative was everyone died and the entire city became a crater and parts of the adjoining cities did too.

That's a VERY different situation than you proposed, wherein someone causes more damage by trying to help without knowing the circumstances.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by GDB

But he didn't cause more destruction in the meteor incident. Many parts of the city were destroyed, but no one died. The alternative was everyone died and the entire city became a crater and parts of the adjoining cities did too.

That's a VERY different situation than you proposed, wherein someone causes more damage by trying to help without knowing the circumstances.

Exactly. Saitama's action did in no way worsen any aspect of the situation, unless someone wanted to make the argument that "because of Saitama the people have to demolate the damaged buildings as opposed to them being completely destroyed by the meteor", which would be a ridiculous argument.

And Saitama, as far as I know, never promised to protect any material property, nor is that part of his job description. Unless anyone can prove the opposite, he has absolutely no obligation to do that.

[bakato]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Vallen Chaos Valiant mentioned the following:

Oh thanks. I must've overlooked it because it wasn't in spoiler tags.

[thundrakkon]

Quote

Originally Posted by GDB

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

The point was not about creating more or less damage. It was the responsibility of an action taken, even with good intentions.

Another example, not particular similar to this case but a case of good deeds doing more harm without thought afterwards, is the case of an abused child. If someone sees that and takes the child away from the abusive family, then it seems like they are saving the child. However, the saver does not want the responsibility afterwards of looking after the child, so he leaves the child and never thinks about the child again. So is what he did considered a good deed?

It is all about "can a person be blamed for the damage done after a good deed because that person did not care enough to think things through?" There is also the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," or "no good deed goes unpunished."

Could Saitama have done things better? Maybe. Is he responsible for taking a half-hearted action instead of doing things to the best of his abilities? That is the real issue here.

Yes, the city would have been destroyed (actually, the world would have faced an extinction level event if a meteorite of that size actually hit the planet, but again... details) if not for his interventions, but going at it half-heartedly and without much thought for the consequences, is that ok?

[bakato]

Originally Posted by thundrakkon

Quote

Originally Posted by GDB

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

The point was not about creating more or less damage. It was the responsibility of an action taken, even with good intentions.

Another example, not particular similar to this case but a case of good deeds doing more harm without thought afterwards, is the case of an abused child. If someone sees that and takes the child away from the abusive family, then it seems like they are saving the child. However, the saver does not want the responsibility afterwards of looking after the child, so he leaves the child and never thinks about the child again. So is what he did considered a good deed?

It is all about "can a person be blamed for the damage done after a good deed because that person did not care enough to think things through?" There is also the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," or "no good deed goes unpunished."

Could Saitama have done things better? Maybe. Is he responsible for taking a half-hearted action instead of doing things to the best of his abilities? That is the real issue here.

Yes, the city would have been destroyed (actually, the world would have faced an extinction level event if a meteorite of that size actually hit the planet, but again... details) if not for his interventions, but going at it half-heartedly and without much thought for the consequences, is that ok?

First, regardless of what you say, Saitama's actions, half hearted or not, brought about a positive result superior to the alternative in every way. I retain my previous stance. Saitama saved the lives of everyone who would've died had he not acted. To expect anymore would just be whining.

Besides, you speak about long consequences, but what about the long term effects? Who can foresee how today's good deed will affect the future? Would destroying the meteor have caused an exponentially worse crisis a hundred years later? What about a thousand years?

Second, what makes you think it was half hearted? We argued the physics a while back, but judging from how Saitama's jump crushed the building he jumped from we know that at least for this episode Newton's Third Law of Motion was in effect. The strength necessary to pulverize the meteor would have wiped out the city instead. Well, it doesn't change the fact that he didn't think about it.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by thundrakkon

Quote

Originally Posted by GDB

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

The point was not about creating more or less damage. It was the responsibility of an action taken, even with good intentions.

Another example, not particular similar to this case but a case of good deeds doing more harm without thought afterwards, is the case of an abused child. If someone sees that and takes the child away from the abusive family, then it seems like they are saving the child. However, the saver does not want the responsibility afterwards of looking after the child, so he leaves the child and never thinks about the child again. So is what he did considered a good deed?

It is all about "can a person be blamed for the damage done after a good deed because that person did not care enough to think things through?" There is also the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," or "no good deed goes unpunished."

Could Saitama have done things better? Maybe. Is he responsible for taking a half-hearted action instead of doing things to the best of his abilities? That is the real issue here. Partial help is met with hostility. How could one still blame Saitama in such a situation?

Yes, the city would have been destroyed (actually, the world would have faced an extinction level event if a meteorite of that size actually hit the planet, but again... details) if not for his interventions, but going at it half-heartedly and without much thought for the consequences, is that ok?

Name at least 1 negative consequence from his involvment, as opposed to the lack of his involvment. Also please state for what reason Saitama was obliged to defend the personal property of people he didn't even know.

Otherwise the complaint against Saitama is like saying "someone needed 100€ for a life saving medicinal operation and Saitama donated 50€. Saitama is an asshole because he dared not give the complete necessary amount by himself, instead merely giving 50€! What a bad guy!"

The idom "Give somebody an inch and they'll take a mile" or rather a modified version like "Give somebody an inch and they'll demand a mile" is a perfect fit for this.



But seriously, where is this so-called "road to hell"? What exactly did Saitama supposedly do that can be considered a "road to hell"? That makes it sound as if Saitama was responsible for the Meteor falling in the first place. The only thing that Saitama did compared to the lack of his involvement was:

1. preventing any deaths. 2. lowering the amount of collateral damage.

That's all he did and there is nothing wrong about any of this I can see, unless you think otherwise? Not to mention that "2." is a bonus that he usually doesn't even care about. I guess he made the people angry that the houses were only partially destroyed and couldn't get the complete insurance paid, instead having to be content with only getting the repairs paid...

[Sixth]

Originally Posted by thundrakkon

Also, this episode showed that Saitama is not as strong as some have speculated. If he was able to destroy half the universe, then he should have been able to disintegrate the meteorite. The fact that he only shattered the meteorite indicates that his strength is only so much.

You should stop questioning Saitama's strength because it is almost impossible not to spoil you without using manga spoiler.

I mean, how are we suppose to answer you on that without spoiling you?

[CrowKenobi]

I think that it's time to move on from the current argument since it looks like we're starting to go in circles with it.

Also, remember the MST3K mantra:

Quote

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[chaos_animagic]

Originally Posted by Benigmatica

Episode 7:
Well, those citizens are ungrateful bastards for bashing Saitama. I mean, it wasn't his fault for destroying the meteor into smaller bits instead of vaporizing it!

On the other hand, I'm surprised that he jumped to 5th place in the C-Class ranking.

well... one of those citizen just lost their new car, a lot of guys in RL would know that feel when your car gets totaled.

as for jumping in ranking... did the Hero Association actually "saw" Saitama destroying the meteor? or was it just a report from Metal Knight, Bang and Genos?

tho... interesting thing is... can Saitama even go that high up in Ranking? cause remember he was placed low because of how stupid he did on the written tests...
Can you get to Rank A or S even if all you did is beat up super villains or those threat levels? even if you remained part stupid? IE: All Brawn, No Brain.

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by chaos_animagic

well... one of those citizen just lost their new car, a lot of guys in RL would know that feel when your car gets totaled.

as for jumping in ranking... did the Hero Association actually "saw" Saitama destroying the meteor? or was it just a report from Metal Knight, Bang and Genos?

tho... interesting thing is... can Saitama even go that high up in Ranking? cause remember he was placed low because of how stupid he did on the written tests...
Can you get to Rank A or S even if all you did is beat up super villains or those threat levels? even if you remained part stupid? IE: All Brawn, No Brain.

the hero system is very messed, they are based on "rumors" or reports from the associated heroes or media, they don't really carefully try to check if what happened was really how happened, like if a hero come and defeat a big guy then vanish and a "commoner" appear and say "hey i beat that monster" then they will somehow believe, or if a strong hero defeat a strong monster and leave then a weak hero come and get the credit over it they will take it, they system is really terrible that is why your have many weak heroes or some sort of "imbalance" in the ranks, like you can have a more strong hero ranked low or a weak hero ranked high.
Get geonus a exemple he could even had become a associated hero without make the exams, they don't really based his aprovation in his test but on what they followed about him, for they believing which was him which defeated the house of evolution, regarding despise the fact which was saitama the one which did it.

[The 48th Ronin]

Hero Association really needs to buy some spy drones. At least they can confirm which here actually did the job.

[Gan_HOPE326]

And thus this One-Punch Man discussion degenerated in the eternal debate between virtue ethics vs. consequentialist ethics .

[quigonkenny]

Originally Posted by chaos_animagic

cause remember he was placed low because of how stupid he did on the written tests...

Actually, they don't specifically lay it out, but the implication (since Genos was also put at the bottom of his tier) is that the tests only determine which tier you place in (S, A, B, C), and all new heroes start at the bottom of whichever tier that is. A better score from Saitama wouldn't have started him at C-50 or C-25 or so, but rather at the bottom of B or of A. The focus on work being required for advancement only further supports that implication.

[Patriot's Blade]

i think Saitama & Genos's bromance just put the most romantic couple title from an actual romance anime to shame

Genos was right when he said that all heroes would just work together, that would help minimize the damage by the meteor even greater & for some stupid retard reason which i am still not sure is so true to real life involving mob mentality or whatever Bang just said about the realities on how the human nature works,
the public f##king BLAMED Saitama, the hero who willingly appeared at the scene while other heroes were doing their own shit at that time & manages to save everybody's lives despite the loss of personal property & they blamed him for not being able to save their personal property,
what? do they rather choose to die than losing their stuff that could be replaced? your stuffs is more important than you & your loved ones irreplaceable life?
to rub more salt on the wound is the Hero Association failed really hard at intelligence gathering, of not knowing any of Saitama's helpful deeds even as a registered hero, but still manages to find out about the other heroes doings despite not being as good as him, possibly because they were more popular with the crowd's judgement thus they don't care about a no name like Saitama who they may consider unappealing,
the worst of all is all the heroes who were called did not even came to the scene to help & a lone guy who appeared to save the day & all lives, was blamed for crime of not being able to save their stuff instead, yeah logic of people,

also Bofoi = Tony Stark

[quigonkenny]

I love the fact that from top to bottom this series has a Dream Team staff. The producers and animators are all highly accomplished and clearly in love with the material. The cast is easily the most experienced since Kill la Kill, down to the smallest parts (Tessho F**king Genda for Metal Knight!?). In a day and age when considerations in anime adaptations often don't get much further than "get attention for the source material", finally a worthy property gets the love it so dearly deserves...

[Kafriel]

On Saitama's strength: dude shatters a walking star in the opening (GOD knows why), so his power level is at least that high

On Saitama's attitude: he's a hero for a hobby, haters can try and stop him. If he comes off as half-assed, well...that's kinda his thing.

[Gan_HOPE326]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

On Saitama's strength: dude shatters a walking star in the opening (GOD knows why), so his power level is at least that high

On Saitama's attitude: he's a hero for a hobby, haters can try and stop him. If he comes off as half-assed, well...that's kinda his thing.

Considering OPM logic, that probably is just ASTRO-KUN, an astronomer who spent too much time watching the stars and thus transformed into a walking star himself. He's now intent on destroying electrical power and killing all those who work to produce it so that people can get rid of excessive lighting and go back to watch the night sky without any disturbances.