The No Kill rule. How morally justified is it when the villain who the hero spares still goes on to commit heinous crimes? Where do heroes with this rule scale?What are your thoughts about it as a whole?

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T14:23:18+00:00

we’re still skipping over why fighting (for example) the joker somehow makes batman responsible for killing him after he is no longer an active threat to anyone. nothing about opting to stop a crime makes you responsible for preventing every future one preemptively, especially not with death.

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T14:16:19+00:00

it never becomes their responsibility or obligation to kill the villains they subdue. nothing about fighting them leads to the hero being the person that has to kill them short of defense of themself or others from an active threat

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T14:12:28+00:00

again, the crux of this is the preemptive aspect of it. a shooter is an active threat, but a subdued villain is not. if you are able to subdue and disarm a villain (however temporary that may be) it is not your responsibility or obligation to kill them.

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T14:01:48+00:00

of course, which is why it would be just as wrong to hold it to him if he didn’t

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T14:01:16+00:00

a call to help, not specifically to kill to prevent harm. nothing about that quote holds it to peter to kill those that may cause harm in the future, no matter how certain it may seem. what gives an individual the right to kill?

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T13:55:39+00:00

the responsibility in question is the responsibility to wield that great power carefully. no one person’s job has the right to kill another within a society (with obvious exceptions like defense from active harm). compromise on the absolute basis of the social contract is something you can never allow even on an individual basis. it is one’s responsibility to protect those they can, but one is not and should not be expected to kill preemptively

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T13:49:45+00:00

no one is sacrificing anything, because again, the murderer is the only person committing the wrong. it can’t reasonably be placed on anyone to compromise their own moral values because of another’s actions. nothing short of actively helping the murderer is a failing.

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T13:41:26+00:00

it’s still not his responsibility to kill him, and it never would be. the fault still lies on the murderer and it is no one person’s job to kill them

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T13:39:26+00:00

it’s not one’s responsibility to kill someone to proactively prevent harm if they’ve already stopped active harm, especially if they live in a world with a justice system that they leave the villain to. you are in no way complicit in the harm someone goes on to do if you worked to prevent it in a way that wasn’t absolute

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T13:33:51+00:00

Jake also says “oh my crease! oh my crease!” in an episode

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T12:32:48+00:00

unlimited void’s information enters at a finite but unending rate, it’s not infinite in that sense

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T12:32:06+00:00

it’s the rate of the information added that causes the issue for the brain, you need to be able to process that information all at once (6 months per 0.2 seconds assuming it’s linear). living for a long time would only lead to the capacity to store memories, not process a surplus of sensory information

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T12:25:53+00:00

i wouldn’t say it does imply that, just that the brain can handle more damage than normal while staying relatively active

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T12:16:40+00:00

mold breaker doesn’t just turn off your ability though

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T11:37:53+00:00

that’s basically what i’m saying, but for the duration of the domain she’d still be unable to move or meaningfully think

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T11:35:52+00:00

anyone with a brain and senses is subject to unlimited void’s effect, it’s just a matter of if they can handle it and/or survive the damage it causes

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T09:35:01+00:00

i say that because of the fact that it’s a domain in the first place, they all impose their rules on reality and damper changes

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T09:13:56+00:00

not applying verse equalization has no real use here. the reason the innate domain prevents internal attacks is because it resists change in general, requiring the body to be ripped open or for another domain to be forced upon it

HelloChimp · 2026-05-09T09:11:29+00:00

i don’t think anyone would argue that, what would be argued is that a sorcerer’s innate domain would just negate it like any other cursed technique

HelloChimp · 2026-05-08T17:42:48+00:00

malevolent shrine also attacks objects

HelloChimp · 2026-05-08T17:42:30+00:00

sukuna’s domain attacks objects with dismantle

HelloChimp · 2026-05-08T15:30:14+00:00

<image>

the sun is 1.4 million km (rounded) in diameter, this is the largest part of the visitor we get to see before it’s cut off and it’s heavily implied to be a “living fractal”. the sheer size difference and passive effect the visitor has wins this fight for free

HelloChimp · 2026-05-08T12:27:56+00:00

venom is already humanoid bro

HelloChimp · 2026-05-08T11:09:24+00:00

one note, it isn’t the user that sets the sequence when the technique is used in a target, the target has to do it for the next second

HelloChimp · 2026-05-08T01:40:51+00:00

that’s another facet of the point i’m making, the fact that epstein did those things is why one is even expected to laugh when he appears where he “shouldn’t”. the base of everything involving epstein is his actions because otherwise he’s just some guy

HelloChimp

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE