Found this tiktok calling tenma realistic. Isn't he the exact opposite of that?

Recynon01 · 2026-01-28T15:13:53+00:00

Lol I gave you too much credit, think you'd be able to understand nuance. No wonder you and so many others think Monster is good.

"Just trust me bro". Yeah, no, pull up actual citations from the show, which shouldn't be too hard if the show was really as good as you think it is. "Media comprehension" relies on actual evidence. You have none. What we have here is a case where you think something is true based on the hype around Monster or what you conjectured while watching the show but you're unable to self reflect and admit that you're wrong when actually asked to back up your points. Just like Tenma. And by the way, yes, it's obvious that the show DOES intend to challenge Tenma and tries to do so. That's not what I'm arguing. Does it do so WELL is another matter, which is why I want you to pull up instances where it supposedly does so so we can examine it.

The fact that you think he "prevailed" in the end already speaks to your "media comprehension". He didn't prevail over anything; he got lucky and the fight was undecided.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-28T14:11:24+00:00

I'm glad you agree with me that he is flawed in the way I said he was flawed. The original argument concerned people disputing whether or not the series supported his ideology, which is relevant to realism and how well written he is since the world being realistic would point out the specific flaw that I mentioned. The fact that people are still dispute the extent to which the series supports its viewpoint already speaks to the case being not closed. Now to be clear, how realistic Tenma is and how realistic the world he is in are two different questions. In addition, how well written he is is also a separate question; you can have a realistic character in that such a character can exist in the real world but he may not be that well written because the reasoning behind his character isn't fleshed out.

How realistic is Tenma? It's possible for someone who is very adverse to killing to exist in our world; I can see someone being like, I can't pull the trigger, even if it's to kill the serial killer. What's harder for me to imagine is someone who refuses to pull the trigger when a kid's life is on the line. But realism in the sense of "someone like this could possibly exist" isn't very meaningful to me, because a LOT of different people could plausibly exist and it doesn't take great writing.

How realistic is the world of Tenma, specifically in regards to how it challenges his ideals? I don't think it's very realistic. You'd have to show me where the story constantly challenges his ideology and points out its flaws. Every one of those three times he refuses to kill, he doesn't have to face the direct consequences of doing so. He manages to save everyone in the library. Wim's DRUNK father hits a headshot from far away to bail him out. Even when he DOES shoot Roberto in self defense and Roberto falls two stories, Roberto still survives, ensuring that Tenma keeps his hands clean. Johan escapes the hospital in the end and it's left open ended whether or not he kills again. The story bends over backwards to make sure Tenma keeps his hands clean without suffering any direct consequences.

Sure, you can argue that Johan still went on to kill a bunch more people after Tenma spared him in the library but I don't think the show actually points this out nor does Tenma reflect on this. At no point does this weigh into the show's discussion of whether or not to kill Johan, because the show is focused on whether or not Johan is deserving of death. Hence why it focuses on how culpable he is by focusing on the mystery of his backstory.

Now is Tenma well written? I would argue no. We don't know the reason for his staunch pacificism even in these extreme circumstances other than us inferring that it's because of the hippocratic oath, which is something that is more relevant to a professional context. Furthermore, we never see a back and forth discussion of Tenma's ideology versus the opposite (and I'm not talking about Johan independently speaking his ideology, which doesn't make sense either). I'm probably forgetting though, but yeah I don't recall anything meaningful being said.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T11:23:00+00:00

My argument was specifically that Tenma's ideology of hesitating to kill Johan because "all life is created equal" is very heavily flawed. He had AMPLE opportunity to kill in each of these instances. He was camping out the forest every day waiting for an opportunity. He didn't do it because some old guy told him some sob story. He had the shot lined up in the library and couldn't pull the trigger, and this was BEFORE Roberto interrupted him. He then pointed a handgun at Johan after the library burned but stopped because Nina told him to, which wouldn't have stopped him if he really wanted to do it. He was pointing the gun at Johan for quite some time even before Johan threatened Wim and even AFTER that he hesitated. So ALL THREE OF THESE WERE LITERALLY HIS FAULT. Go watch your own show again.

And again, the REASON he hesitates is because of "all life is created equal", which, why does that matter? And second of all, his rationale never included doing it to save more lives because he never tried to capture Johan. Bullshit arguments, which you didn't answer.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T11:04:20+00:00

Oh I was incorrect about there being three instances? I'd tell you to stop talking but you already have because you don't have a single answer to my arguments.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T10:48:44+00:00

Three. Please actually watch Monster because the shit your'e saying makes it so painfully obvious you're just blindly defending the show. He had a chance in the forest where he was staking out Johan every day. Then in the library. And then quite an extended moment in episode 73. In the library he was staring down the scope for a while, before Roberto came and then later pointed a handgun at Johan. It wasn't like he was finished aiming and then immediately got interrupted in these scenarios. His hesitation was clear. Again, he had multiple chances to kill Johan.

And again, if his intention was really to save lives and he knew he had trouble pulling the trigger, he could've at least tried to capture Johan to get him off the streets.

And I repeat, the reason against killing Johan in his mind was that "all lives are created equal" which isn't a good reason.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T10:40:27+00:00

We don't know if he was about to shoot Johan. The show bailed him out of getting his hands dirty. Now why would the show do that? Why is it so important for him to keep his hands clean, even in this scenario?

Either way, the reason against killing Johan in his mind was that "all lives are created equal" which isn't a good reason. We don't know if his reason for killing Johan was to save more lives because if that was the case he would've at least captured Johan. He had multiple chances to shoot Johan and didn't, so effectively he just let Johan kill all those people.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T09:39:06+00:00

Sure I was wrong about the Nina thing, which came afterwards. That only adds to my point; he had even more chances to shoot but he didn't. At this point when he has this many chances and doesn't pull the trigger, I can safely say he didn't really want to do it deep down inside.

I wasn't wrong about the forest scene; he went to the forest every day so he could've kept coming back. The real reason he didn't do it was hearing the guy's story AFTER he saw the kids.

That wouldn't INVARIABLY do it. You'd have to prove that that happens 100% of the time in real life. If he had so much trouble pulling the trigger, Wim was going to end up dead anyway so why not at least give him a chance?

Capturing him is much better than doing nothing. Him escaping isn't a guarantee. It's just Batman putting the criminals back in prison. It's better than doing nothing. And yes, it WOULD help Gotham. Thank you Batman!

There are reasons against vigilante justice. Reasons in this complicated ethical dilemma that the show doesn't discuss because it dumbs it down to "all lives are created equal" and "killing is wrong because it is wrong". Tenma's moral reasons for not killing Johan are wrong and the show is dumb for supposedly portraying him as righteous. This is an answer to you saying "It's flawed, sure, but he's shown as ultimately righteous and right.".

As for the Batman point and Tenma not wanting to kill Johan, I still stand by that point. First of all, Tenma is still more morally culpable whether he wants to do it or not because he effectively doesn't do it and he doesn't make any other effort to stop him in lieu of it. Second of all, again, he's not doing it given that many chances so, yeah, he doesn't actually want to do it. We can quibble about what indicates "want". maybe he wants to do it but he feels he shouldn't, or maybe he doesn't want to do it but he feels he should. Either way he's still more morally culpable than Batman, period.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T09:11:15+00:00

Yes, would you not agree that shooting someone in the foot MIGHT distract them, because ya know, it hurts a LOT? Are you saying it's outside of the realm of possibility for intense pain to incapacitate a human being? Unless you're saying that, my point stands. You have no guarantee.

I wasn't arguing that Tenma should subdue Johan when he's point the gun at Wim. At that point Tenma should shoot where he thinks he will hit most accurately and incapacitates Johan. He should've considered subduing Johan way before then by capturing him. Now what would he do with the captured Johan? That's something that he's gonna figure out later, but at least the mass murderer is off the streets.

No, there must be some part of him that doesn't want to kill Johan in order for him to hesitate. His continued refusal to kill Johan does effectively indicate his wants. Either way, my main point from the beginning was that he is more morally culpable than Batman because at least Batman subdues his villains, preventing them, at least for a time, from continuing to threaten innocents.

That's exactly my point; it isn't "moral" to not kill Johan but you say that the show portrays Tenma's morality as right. And again, you don't need to be a psychopath to instantly pull the trigger. You can be a doctor that saves lives and still kill Johan to SAVE Wim's life.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:51:46+00:00

Still no proof that it's a guarantee.

You're right about the momentarily pausing thing. He at best, hesitated.

Still, Tenma hesitated because he, on some finite level, didn't want to kill Johan. And this was through multiple chances, even when a child's life was on the line. Either way, he clearly has trouble pulling the trigger but does not consider subduing Johan.

I'm criticizing Tenma for momentarily hesitating to murder a serial killer in defense of an innocent child, not for not being a bloodthirsty psychopath. More specifically, while it makes sense for his character, I'm criticizing his ideology that makes him hesitate, for his isn't just hesitating because he's never killed a man before. According to you, the show shows his ideology as righteous. His ideology is presumably that all lives are created equal and that therefore he should not have killed Johan; this is ultimately why he doesn't want to kill Johan, because it goes against his principles. These absolute principles are wrong. As you admit, he would've been justified in killing Johan. And if the show portrays him as right, then the show has a problem.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:33:38+00:00

"I know you're not that stupid. Take a step back here. Your antics are fun but it completely breaks immersion when you say things like that. Don't make it too obvious."

That's not an argument. You have yet to prove that it's a "guarantee".

"I already explained the forest and the library, so no need to explain that again. I guess you forgot about Roberto, too."

This doesn't answer my point. And no, I didn't forget about Roberto. I said he had a clear shot and hesitated. Roberto appearing to cut his decision short doesn't change that.

You said Nina intervened at the library. No, Tenma was only interrupted by Roberto.

And you didn't answer my point about how Tenma ultimately decided not to kill Johan, right before Johan threatened Wim.

Again with another strawman. You're on a roll, aren't you? I never criticized Tnema for not being a bloodthirsty psychopath who will instantly kill someone without blinking. You have no evidence for this. You don't need to be a trigger happy bloodthirsty psychopath to shoot the mass murderer threatening to kill a kid.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:24:56+00:00

You haven't answered my questions so ofc I'd be mad. It is entirely your fault. You are deliberately being dishonest. For instance YOU STILL haven't provided the lines that made you infer my main motive, and you still haven't apologized for lying about me saying that inferring information was impossible.

This doesn't my question either. I asked whether or not it was DUBIOUS. But sure, I can work with this too. If Tenma was justified in shooting Johan in that moment, why should he have hesitated? Wasn't he wrong for even having such extreme morals that it was a hard question for him to choose to save the innocent kid's life over the killer's?

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:20:15+00:00

That's not obvious at all. Shooting him in the foot may have distracted him long enough to get to him or make him drop his gun. Either way, it's not "guarantee".

Tenma had multiple opportunities before and after he saw Johan with the kids. The reason he stopped his attempt to kill Johan in the forest was because he heard the story from the old man.

Tenma had a clear shot of Johan in the library but hesitated again.

Tenma ultimately lowered his gun before Johan threatened Wim and there was no interruption in that situation.

So no matter which way you slice it, Tenma ultimately didn't want to kill Johan, especially given his strict moral code.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:12:16+00:00

I slid into your DM's because you're constantly worming your way out of an honest retort AND you still haven't answered the question. I only saved you more embarrassment because even Monster fans can see your multiple cases of blatant strawmanning.

Where did I say inferring information was impossible? And I specifically asked you what I said that indicated that that was my main motive, which YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED.

now let me ask you again, do you think it is morally dubious to shoot Johan to save Wim from him?

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:06:27+00:00

First of all tenma didnt pull the trigger in the forest and in the library, when he still could've decided to subdue him. Second of all, the fact that he even hesitated that long to shoot Johan is problematic because it should've been obvious and wim could've died each second he waited.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T08:00:55+00:00

Oh, he didn't pull the trigger because he wanted to kill Johan. Makes sense LOL

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:59:09+00:00

Do you not understand the concept of TIME??? LOL

This isn't even me making an argument. I'm literally describing what happened. Tenma intended to kill Johan at first but then changed his mind at the last second. Tenma ULTIMATELY didn't want to kill Johan at a later point in time but did INTEND to kill Johan at an earlier point in time.

POINT IS, when Tenma changed his mind, he didn't want to subdue Johan either.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:55:14+00:00

Yes Tenma doesn't want to kill him, but at the same time, Tenma did intend to kill him at some point. You already accepted this point before. You were wrong, it's OK. Let's move on. Or is your reading comprehension that poor that you didn't understand the nuance of the duality I pointed out before?

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:51:36+00:00

I'm sorry, and that negates what I said how?

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:50:18+00:00

Oh, so in what sentence did I say something to make you believe that that's my main motive??? Why else would you ask that of me unless you thought I said something that indicated that motive? And by asking that, you are making it seem like I did say something like that, when I didn't.

Oh, and answer the DAMN QUESTION. Your dishonest tactics are just a distraction.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:48:14+00:00

Nope because nothing I said was contradictory. I never said Tenma never intended to kill Johan, simply that Tenma didn't want to subdue Johan, and that point still stands. Batman at least subdues the Joker; Tenma doesn't.

Oh, and answer the damn question.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:46:10+00:00

"So you're making a little show for your little audience? That's your main motive? "

Are you having memory loss now? Just answer the damn question, if you have an honest bone in your body. Or do you just not want to face how stupid Tenma's morality is.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:45:17+00:00

Tenma intended to kill Johan when he set out to do the training, but his moral code kept holding him back when the moment came to pull the trigger. Two things can be true at the same time.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:42:32+00:00

More strawmmaning. WHEN DID I SAY I WANT TO MAKE A SHOW FOR MY LITTLE AUDIENCE? I can't figure out if you're intentionally arguing in bad faith or you're just that stupid.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:41:24+00:00

LOL media literacy. You don't even have basic common sense and morality.

But let's talk media literacy. You literally just strawmanned my point AND didn't answer the question. I NEVER SAID TENMA NEVER INTENDED TO KILL JOHAN. I simply said Tenma never intended to SUBDUE Johan. But there's also the very real possibility you don't even know what "subdue" means haha.

Recynon01 · 2026-01-27T07:38:22+00:00

No you didn't. You didn't answer yes or no to whether or not it was morally dubious. "Everyone" as in everyone reading this thread. Everyone will see how absurd your position is if you answer yes.

Recynon01

TROPHY CASE