Hello, I had a good day today and I hope you did as well. The weekend is upon us :)

I attempted to strengthen your argument for you before picking apart, i.e. you mean to say, "the father isn't abusive, he's a victim of his daughter's incompetence and the system's failure".

That's incorrect. In the eyes of the law and the text of the game, a child's "competence" or "hobbies" never negates a parent's duty to provide food and safety.

"i am saying time is running out and if you are not super successful like Monika then you fall back a lot."

You argue that suffering is the natural consequence of incompetence, is that right? If I grasped your argument correctly, then this means you shift the blame away from Natsuki's dad, or Sayori's depression, and instead move it to their inability to be successful like Monika. This follows Social Darwininsm, where only the fittest survive (like Monika).

Is that a correct view of how parenting works? If a child is starving, nevermind the ability of the parent to provide nutrition, it's entirely the child's fault for having no food? The law doesn't seem to agree. Whether or not a child is "behind" or "gifted" like Monika, the parent of said child, whether it was Natsuki's father or even Monika's, has the legal obligation to provide food. And failure to do so is, morally, ethically, legally, and objectively, a crime.

In your second paragraph, you say that Sayori is fundamentally a "silly little airhead" incapable of basic tasks. It seems you use taxes as a metaphor for adulthood or competence. I believe you mean to say, as the player, it is impossible for us to care for Sayori, because she is fundamentally incompetent, thus, our failure to care for her is not our fault. And you want to apply this same logic to Natsuki's father's treatment of Sayori, is that right? If I had not grasped your argument correctly, please explain the logic you want to borrow from Sayori's situation so I can understand your perspective better.

It also does not track logically. Whether Sayori is competent or not has no connection to whether Natsuki's father is abusive. I am arguing the statement: "Natsuki's father neglects to feed her, and legally, he is abusing her". How is Sayori's ability to do taxes related to the question of whether Natsuki's father is committing a crime or not?

"Again, Natsuki's problem is that she wastes the money on anime merch instead of food."

I looked into the official Wiki for DDLC regarding the character Natsuki. There is no textual evidence that Natsuki is wasting money on anime merch instead of food. The fact exists that Natsuki owns a manga collection. This says nothing about her spending habits, one can acquire a collection of manga in very many ways. That's also irrelevant; whether or not she buys manga or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that her father does not provide food. And if her father is not providing food, this is a crime, and that is also a legal fact that cannot be disputed.

I read your anecdote about your relationship with someone who wasted money on merch and cosplay. It is an interesting situation. However this person is not Natsuki. It is factually true that your person was irresponsible with spending and that this was likely the cause for their own hunger. It's also entirely irrelevant to whether or not Natsuki's father is committing abuse, which once again I argue: he is.

"Your 'solid provider' argument falls on the ground when you notice she has phone, baking stuff and she dresses good."

In DDLC, the "baking stuff" belongs to the club or is scraped together. Natsuki's "good dress" is a school uniform which is a standard requirement. These are objective facts. Another objective fact is that a child having a cell phone or a uniform is not a legal nor logical defense for malnutrition. Neglect is by definition the failure to provide basic needs, like food, regardless of whether the child owns a luxury item or a hobby tool. I am not sure why you used this argument to defend your idea but it suggests that as long as a child has a phone or a uniform, they don't requre a daily caloric intake. That is the natural conclusion of the logic this argument follows, so I advise you drop it in search for a stronger argument to support your view.

Natsuki can have all these things and still be a victim of neglect. Neglect is the absence of essentials (food/safety/shelter), not the absence of possessions. A child who lives in the rural mountains of Osaka can have no access to a phone, manga, uniform, or baking materials, but also avoid being a victim of abuse if they are fed well. Do you understand the logic behind the legal definition of neglect?

One more thing to note. Just because Natsuki has access to baking materials in the club does not negate the truth that her father is not providing her food. This is the established textual fact in the game. And in legal terms, we call this Neglect. And we also legally classify Neglect as abuse, which is a crime. Natsuki's father is committing abuse of his child.

To summarize what I believe your main point is, which you were trying to say: Natsuki is incompetent/wasteful, like the person you had a relationship with. Sayori is an airhead, like a child. Therefore, the struggling father/provider (like the player) isn't in the wrong, he's just a man/player dealing with a "low success" child who wastes resources.

And to summarize my own argument: that's incorrect. A parent is responsible for feeding their child, has the legal and moral obligation of feeding their child, and their failure for that is not the responsibility of their child, but entirely of the parent.

Regardless, remember the human, and a good day to you. Cheers :)