Webnovel Author: MegaMacho - Fanfic Collection

Fair enough.

Last chapter at the end is literally him going around the world while being philosophical about it, coming to the conclusion that different places have different standarts, and as long as both parties are happy and no one is hurt, it is okay. He already explained a while ago. This explanation, of his chapter, is him adressing people like you, who didn't like what he did and are crying about it, saying he "F-up" even when he already made the reason why heard loud and clear, a reason that is logical and believable. YOU didn't like it, that doesn't mean he made a mistake or a "F-up". "Divide readers in two sides" oh please, if you really believed that you wpuld have left ages ago when Shego, despite all her possesiveness, wished for Hector to get a harem. That was by far the biggest stretch the Author make. After that, everything just fell in line. He started to care about One piece, to the point of the double quirk not working on whitebeard as MC sees him as a real and important person, and Hector is all about knowing himself by deliberately feeling situations firs hand. What he did is perfectly in line with his persona, especially since One Piece is not as dangerous as Marvel as he doesnt have to worry about their safety that much, plus a bunch of examples in One Piece of mothers and children not blaming the husband's abscence, making Hector see that he was the one against, not the mother or the children that would follow. I really don't get your dislike, not when you read all those previous chapters and indured way worse things and still chose to read, i really don't

First of all, I actually looked over the 'most of the time' my fault. Second, just because he is explaining it, it doesn't mean it is a F-up. He only did it because of senseless haters who have no clue to hints and as dense as uranium. This is a fanfic, and the public ranges from children to adults and more, he is explaining to the range thaat literally has no ability to pick up the obvious, that honestly should not have been here to begin with, as this fanfic is pretty philosophical at the end of the day, and require a bare minimum of cognition.

And you are right, it IS a plot device, and he wouldn't come back without it as there would be no reason anymore. The thing is is that you called it a F-up, that is doesn't make sense, which it does. A plot device is not senseless, especially in this case. You may not like it, though a F-up is a tad much no? And saying it doesn't make sense is just insulting you comprehension at this point.

One kid he doesn't know it exist. Not only that, but the whole point was that this is one piece and that they see parenthood diferently, and how judging things from his modern perspective alone isn't fair, making him more understanding of other cultures and what nots.

Except not. Plenty of times the readers are just wrong, and mistake disagreement for "not making sense", many of them even ask things that are literally written in the chapter, since they just skip through by speed reading. I don't know what fanfics are you reading, but the good ones at least explain because of polemic, rather than lack of logic, because surprise, life has more than one solutions, and many right answers for infinite circunstances. Seems more like spite to me the way you said it, accusing him that angrily.

... And I guess I owe you an apology. Seeing as you are now, I misjudged you on past experiences here in this plataform and my own frustations. I see now that you were genuine and not a troll, or a karen, like I initially thought. You at the end maintaned you composure far better than I, which is honestly an embarassement given my job. Better things could have been done from you and me, but I ended up more agressive than deserved in the end. So, I apologize. I'll sleep now I'm dead tired, perhaps that's what i shoud have done from the start.

It's been a long time now, but it's basically what Buddhism adapted from the Christian Garden of Eden and made a lesson about it. They also have another quote about how people are entitled to dignity and have an equal (this equal part is the most important) and inalienable right to liberty. Your freedom should not affect the freedom of others, as it comes back to you in a cycle that results in less freedom for anyone, or the majority at least.

And as the final comment, how do I know all this? I work in public clinics and health posts since I study medicine. I have the data. I SEE the data every week. Kids with crack, thank God, are very rare. Don't assume things you don't know. Assuming is something you do to virtual, metaphysical things, not physical ones, and you should still exercise caution in those too. By the way, this logic I initially did was based on the garden of Buddah that his father/guardian had put him in, surrounded by walls or something like that, to protect him until he could protect himself, highlighting the good parenting that Buddah praises his father/guardian for. And this is Buddah, a very open religion compared to others. My memory of it might not be the best, but the lesson from it is "Too much freedom imprisons the person." If you can't understand this phrase and the limitations of freedoms and their clash with itself, I have no words, as I can't see how can I teach you them.

By the way, why did you delete your reply? Hmm? I'm not a clown, I know what you are on.

Too much freedom imprisons the person. Give freedom to a kid to inhale crack, and they will be trapped for the rest of their life, not able to get away from the crippling addiction of crack and be trapped, having their very will sapped by the drug, directly affecting their freedom, all because of the product of manipulation and evil (if someone offered said kid the drug, knowing its effects), ignorance and nativity (not knowing what crack is and being too trusting of strangers), or others. By prohibiting this drug as a whole, you protect the people from its devastating effects, regardless of their age, intention, or knowledge. This limits your freedom as you will not have access to crack, but also free you from terrible fates that were bound to limit your freedom even more and irreversibly should you had access to crack.

The ultimate freedom is the one that doesn't interfere with the freedom of another, since the moment you interfere with another, you are inviting others to do the same to you.

Complementing this example for a better closure: "Authorities acting on these laws are the ones that imprison people. Freedom has little to do with the actions these people take." Congratulations, you just played yourself with your own confusion. Let me use your logic here: A shooter doesn't actually kill people, but the gun is the one who killed it. A guy threatens you with death by having a bomb on your neck and forces you to kill people, so, even if you hundreds, you did not kill them, but the guy with the remote detonator. You could have said no, and accepted your death instead of killing so many people, but you used your freedom of thought and action to choose the option you come out alive instead, despite the casualties.

First of all, yes, I made an statement with an obvious ending since it alludes to a very popular abstract saying of cause and effect, which was omitted due to its obviousness. You are the one who started talking about "argument". Do you want me to argue with myself with no outside input? Coming here with all this pretentiousness, and even say that my explanation is flawed with no legitimate hold in a discussion. How so? Where is this flaw? Why it isn't legitimate? Show me, if you aren't just self-serving your ego by just saying empty words and know how to argue like you oh seem to love. Spell it to me exactly why I am wrong and engage in my view, instead of dismissing it with no substance except "faulty explanation built on a flawed statement has no legitimate hold in discussion". Stop being lazy. How about you? "Kids can and do use crack" Where do you even live? I live in Brazil, I know ghettos, I know favelas, and you go and tell me kids use crack? Maybe one in a thousand or more. People know its effects, and they prefer weed and really any other drug over crack, since its literally the worst one. "despite laws in most modernized contries existing disallowing production, sale, and consuption of the substance" Just because it can still happen, it doesn't mean you are free to do so. You are not free to murder anyone with no reason, and yet, cases like that still happen. Was it because the guy was free to do so? No! The legal system is now after him to jail him, take away the freedom he abused. "Authorities acting on these laws are the ones that imprison people. Freedom has little to do with the actions these people take." Congratulations, you just played yourself with your own confusion. Let me use your logic here: A shooter doesn't actually kill people, but the gun is the one who killed it. A guy threatens you with death by having a bomb on your neck and forces you to kill people, so, even if you hundreds, you did not kill them, but the guy with the remote detonator. The whole legal system is based on freedoms and not freedoms, rights and wrongs, duties and not duty. By your logic, the only way to not have freedom is by mind-controlling people with a device, literally brainwashing beyond indoctrination, which is beyond extreme, it is unreal. The sheer ignorance to say that "Freedom has little to do with the actions these people take" is baffling to astonishing. "Billions of people have the freedom to do crack. Have they, or will a significant portion of them ever be imprisoned." ...Are you for real? Do you watch the news? The constitution? Anything at all? Do you even hear yourself? Crack absolutely destroys you. Almost all of them turn into criminals to sustain this overwhelming addiction, and are subsequently caught. What country are you from that managed to be even worse than Brazil, to twist your view on societies in general, as a whole? "The freedom to do something does not force one to do that thing." The only thing you said that makes sense, props to you. In this, you are totally right, but naive. The reason I used a kid and crack in my example is to show in a raw and unmasked way why this is not absolute, especially since people can be tricked by their lack of knowledge, experience, intelligence, and wisdom. A kid, depending on the age and way it was raised, or the carelessness of parents, are easily guided to bad behaviors. If you offer a kid candy, they will most likely say yes if their parents haven't taught them properly, and even still it might fail since kids are limited intellectually. Someone for some forsaken reason, may offer a kid crack, or they may find it on the ground somewhere, and put it in their mouth in their lacking common sense, resulting in previously said tragedy. Tell me, did your parents not restrain your freedom to protect you from bad things? "Don't go to parties too late since at night is dangerous?" "I forbid you from touching that racoon, it might have rabies!"

I used an extreme example to contextualize this conundrum, such as a kid using crack, which has almost 100% addiction rate, make him a junkie and bring all consequences of that to himself and to those around him, whether they are family or strangers in his community. Is this more clear now?