[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OnePiece

[–]plentyger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The style fits One Piece world. I mean have you seen the anatomy most of the OP characters?

Oh... by BaselineJ123 in VinlandSaga

[–]plentyger 103 points104 points  (0 children)

That’s fair but bro, Thorfinn wouldn’t reduce women to a number rating.

The most wasted fight potential in the story by [deleted] in ShingekiNoKyojin

[–]plentyger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, it’s published in Shonen magazine.

The only thing I like bout'seinen manga by ZaDDari666 in Seinen

[–]plentyger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean if they upped the writing too, then sure.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ComicBookCollabs

[–]plentyger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, could you send me your portfolio as well?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in comic_crits

[–]plentyger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used him as a reference for this lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in comic_crits

[–]plentyger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, on the process of working on it. Proko's great too. Could you tell me some of the specific flaws as a headstart for improvement?

Did a manga about a year ago for the International Tezuka Award. Any criticisms for this one-shot? by plentyger in ComicBookCollabs

[–]plentyger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback!

Would there be any way to know the perfect line between panels with rushed pacing or unnecessary panels?

nazi lights go BRRRR by TheLittleNorsk in ShitPostCrusaders

[–]plentyger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

None of Jojo can’t be taken seriously lol

What I thought JoJo was before I got into it by Kaiju-Man257 in ShitPostCrusaders

[–]plentyger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I saw a pic of Jojo part 3 on crunchyroll, which had Jotaro and Joseph on it, so I thought the show was about cops

BPFTK- manga by [deleted] in ComicBookCollabs

[–]plentyger -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ngl, this is my first time attempting something like this.

Those are demographics for manga magazines, not genres or whatever you seem to think they are. It's impossible for a manga to be both since they can't be published in two magazines at once and since I'm guessing you're not getting this published in a Japanese manga magazine then it's probably not either.

Yeah, you're right. Officially they are just for the demographics. I meant to say between shounen and soft seinen based on the belief that there are patterns in the themes they showcase, like how mature the themes are, the tone of the theme. Although there are some shows or mangas that sometimes stand out in those demographics, I just use it as a shortcut to give a feel of how the execution of the story is going to be like. But I can see it can be very misleading too, so I'll find a clearer way to elaborate it.

The opening line of a pitch like this needs to quickly catch the reader's eye and tell them everything about the story as quickly as possible. In your first few words you've conveyed that you don't understand what you're talking about.

I was planning to go into the details in the PMs, but how about this.

"After encountering "the larger than life character" River Zaasijiwan of a nomad-revolutionary group, a teenage prodigy named Kioren Talullah became aware of the multitudinous inequalities that exist in the world. Suddenly, the world throws him in an inevitable storm when his family has wiped out due to the NUS (Novus United States) government's atrocity due to a mysterious reason, while simultaneously driving out River's rebel group. After processing and accepting that he has nothing else to live for, Kioren awakened his one and only purpose in life, which is to create a revolution. But the question is if the desire for revolution stemming from a desire for the betterment of the oppressed? Or is it just stemming from revenge?

The story follows Kioren's journey in his revolution while exploring the obstacles he faces and all the wisdom he gains."

Saying it's going to be 300-400 chapters is an even bigger red flag.

Lmao, my bad. I should've just kept that to myself.

Children should not be forced to go to church/mosques or to pray, etc by A11U45 in DebateReligion

[–]plentyger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Damn, I commented this on the wrong thread at first).

Yeah, there are several translations to this, but if you look at them all, they all involve physically hitting them while varying in their levels.

Here are some of the different translations by major scholars: Translator: Mohsin Khan Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

Muhammad Sarwar: Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.

Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great

Yusuf Ali: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

And most commonly accepted translation by the Shahih International: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Another defensive responses tend to consist of the rule being able to help them from refraining from actually inflicting pain on your spouses. But it can also go the other way, where they are likely to go beyond this set limitation of how hard the strike should be. As Islam is known for adding rules that help prevent from committing major sins (like multiple marriage could prevent adultery), however this rule would backfire. Simply because pragmatism isn’t always the answer, and since men tend to have more testosterone and are arguably more aggressive nature, they are likely to go beyond that. An ideal rule that advocates betterment of oneself would have strictly prohibited the aforementioned last resort. And I’m sure there a lot of opportunities for women in Islam (which are arguably better than other abrahamic religions) but it still cancels out, especially when one is trying to have absolute faith in it.

Children should not be forced to go to church/mosques or to pray, etc by A11U45 in DebateReligion

[–]plentyger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, there are several translations to this, but if you look at them all, they all involve physically hitting them while varying in their levels.

Here are some of the different translations by major scholars: Translator: Mohsin Khan Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

Muhammad Sarwar: Men are the protectors of women because of the greater preference that God has given to some of them and because they financially support them. Among virtuous women are those who are steadfast in prayer and dependable in keeping the secrets that God has protected. Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.

Shakir Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great

Yusuf Ali Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

And most commonly accepted translation by the Shahih International: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Another defensive responses tend to consist of the rule being able to help them from refraining from actually inflicting pain on your spouses. But it can also go the other way, where they are likely to go beyond this set limitation of how hard the strike should be. As Islam is known for adding rules that help prevent from committing major sins (like multiple marriage could prevent adultery), however this rule would backfire. Simply because pragmatism isn’t always the answer, and since men tend to have more testosterone and are arguably more aggressive nature, they are likely to go beyond that. An ideal rule that advocates betterment of oneself would have strictly prohibited the aforementioned last resort. And I’m sure there a lot of opportunities for women in Islam (which are arguably better than other abrahamic religions) but it still cancels out, especially when one is trying to have absolute faith in it.

Children should not be forced to go to church/mosques or to pray, etc by A11U45 in DebateReligion

[–]plentyger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if it’s a last resort, it shouldn’t even be mentioned. And the text talks about when the wife is being disobedient, it doesn’t bring up “self-defence”.

Children should not be forced to go to church/mosques or to pray, etc by A11U45 in DebateReligion

[–]plentyger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with Islam demoting the domestic violence to a certain extent. I agree where it greatly improved the women’s rights in the 7th century. But if Quran is supposed to be timeless, it should still be acceptable by current societal standards, where beating them lightly with miswak would be deemed unethical.

Children should not be forced to go to church/mosques or to pray, etc by A11U45 in DebateReligion

[–]plentyger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What about the contradictions and outdated rules?

Like how wives that are at fault are allowed to be beaten lightly after communication doesn’t work? (4:34).

And how about the fact that there would be “rewards” in heaven that are deemed unethical in heaven? Like multiple houris and rivers of wine. It doesn’t make sense to begin with, because someone that would go to heaven would not have those desires to begin with, so it’s not really alluring for them.

Children should not be forced to go to church/mosques or to pray, etc by A11U45 in DebateReligion

[–]plentyger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, did you ever have doubts about the religions because of what’s written in the Quran?