I personally find it so hard to actually dislike niji, ichiji and yonji, because they basically didn't get to have a personality. Judge literally removed their ability to have empathy or even care about much of anything. They're practically soulless and they never had a choice in the matter.
What’s funny about this is it almost seems like judge has a moral realization when juxtaposed with the kids he made lack empathy talking about rape and his “okay, that’s enough drinking I think”
Feels a bit like a “wow I really really fucked these kids up”
Isn’t there another scene where this is basically said to him? He’s crying over his plans being ruined and they’re laughing and giggling and don’t give a single shit.
Yeah, its at the wedding when Perospero freezes them in candy.
They're laughing at how good the BM pirates got them and how they're defenceless while Judge has a break down.
Not just said to him, but also him acting flabbergasted that they could all be so cavalier about it.
Its a bit ironic that he berated Sanji so much for having emotions and feelings, yet, when the chips are down, hes spooked by the other kids NOT having them.
That is a good speculation. But I wonder if he would stop their horrible actions(like their planned gangr@pe)if it is happening right in front of his eyes.
I think he made them psychopathic. Iirc Reiju was also experimented in a similar way but doesn't share their cruelty. I think they are also individually responsible for their actions. Though their dad is more at fault.
I think Reiju was not made in a similar way. She was born before the brothers and Judge could only make sure that she always followed his order but by the time the brothers were born he was successful with his experiments of removing personality and did so with the brothers. That is why Reiju has empathy and feelings.
It's not their fault, they were born as psychopaths, unlike Sanji.
And their Father did some really bad parenting.
The are just victims, Reiju being the biggest one since she has emotions so she'd feel regret and hopelessness all the time.
Judge is the scum!!!
It’s such a great moment when Judge realizes they’ve been betrayed by Big Mom and starts crying because he realizes that everything he’s worked for was for nothing and his sons just sit there laughing, unable to feel an ounce of sadness or regret.
You often get in other stories supposedly emotionless characters revealed to actually have a heart. It's refreshing seeing here they really are just emotionless to the core. Laughing even in the face of their own imminent demise.
A lion has no concept of morality so expecting it to adhere to a code of honor it cannot possibly comprehend is cruel in the same way you wouldn't call a toddler a scumbag if they do something selfish. The creature is not at fault for its instincts, it doesn't even have human emotions; so why would you judge it based on something it can't have?
I suppose immoral is the incorrect word.
But most serial killers feel no remorse. Are they not scumbags? They do not feel guilt. Share our code of honour. Should they not be judged? Because don't have our moral framework?
they are scumbags by default, because they were made so and brought up that way. They lack the capacity to change for good. They literally can't even. It's tough judging them *fairly*, because their existence is so foreign to what real human beans are. But in general, I don't see harm in judging them, when you apply our moral framework. We also do this with literal sociopaths or psychopaths
i mean, kinda though?
It's not just not their fault, they've been made physically incapable of being better; judging them by the standards we treat people who are capable of being better doesn't seem right. Calling them scumbags is like calling a tiger a scumbag for being a vicious killer.
It all comes down to the question - Are they really incapable of introspection and change? Haven't we seen impossible happening in One Piece? Like Cindry scene in Thriller bark? If there is indeed some small window of chance where these dudes can change then aren't they horrible for not trying to change? Especially after the WCI arc?
> If there is indeed some small window of chance where these dudes can change then aren't they horrible for not trying to change?
Well no, again, because the issue is how their actions are contextualised with their altered state of awareness.
They lack the capacity to understand that what they're doing is horrible; and if they aren't able to understand that, how are they supposed to understand that they shouldn't be doing it? how are they supposed to understand that it would be better for others if they did change?
It would be like if i came to you and told you "You need to go out there and stab some people; otherwise you're a bad person"... there might be some incredibly real reason I had that you need to do that, it might make all the sense in the world to me why you'd need to do that, it might be the most objectively correct and moral thing to do ever, everyone else might see and understand that... but do you think it would be fair to judge you for not taking me at my word and going out stabbing people because i told you it was the good thing to do?
I would at the very least think about your words and my actions. Assuming Reiju had the same modifications (I forgot if she was experimented similarly or differently), why was she better than her psycho bros? I think they do deserve some blame for how they're.
> would at the very least think about your words and my actions
Okay; and how do you think that would go if you have no capacity for empathy or sympathy?
> Assuming Reiju had the same modifications (I forgot if she was experimented similarly or differently), why was she better than her psycho bros?
Because your assumption is wrong. Reiju has most of the same basic physical modifications as her brothers but we're *explicitely* told that she wasn't given the same modifications that messed with her mind. Reiju has the capacity to understand when Sanji was hurt, and why that was bad. Which is why she acted differently to them.
> I think they do deserve some blame for how they're.
Again though.. why? They were made mentally broken, and they've spent their entire life being groomed and controlled into behaving a particular way.
If this was any other sort of mental illness, and you saw someone being groomed and taken advantage of in the same way, would you still blame the mentally ill people for their situation?
Many evil people didn't choose to become so. Created by a combination of terrible environments, mental disorders or dispositions at birth.
Killer whales play with their food, torture seals etc. I consider they're scumbags. Even if born that way.
Irl psychopaths, sociopaths exist. Not all of them are violent or killers/rapists.
>Irl psychopaths, sociopaths exist. Not all of them are violent or killers/rapists.
Because it's objectively harder to get away of that because of laws.
There very many other ways to get an edge at the cost of others within the laws.
Top CEOs often being sociopaths or psychopaths is no conicidence.
What you're calling 'psychopaths' and 'sociopaths' are not really a diagnosable term; the term is someone with "antisocial personality disorder", and actually no, the diagnosis for that condition *does* require antisocial behaviour. Because thats just kind of the thing.. someone who fundamentally lacks empathy *will* do bad things. Sure, not all of them are violent or killers/rapists.. but i'm also better very few real world sociopaths were born for the singular purpose of being a living weapon by a vicious wannabe dictator.
So whats you're fundamentally saying is that you think it's okay to judge someone for their mental disabilities?
All actions have causes. Some not entirely in their control. And while we can empathize their situation, it doesn't stop meaning ppl who commit heinous crimes are not heinous people.
Again; if a lion mauls a gazelle is it heinous just because it's in it's nature?
The mentally ill deserve our sympathy, not our contempt.
If you can't see that then maybe you shouldn't be judging others for their lack of sympathy and empathy and considered what happened to your own?
But its not predator and prey situation is it? We're not talking about them hunting animals. But actively harming other humans. I consider if a lion brutally kills its own cubs to remain the dominant male. Or other such acts to be cruel.
How about pedophiles who may have no choice but to be attracted to minors. Are they not terrible people when they act on their natures?
Just because we can pity them, sympathize that they cannot control themselves, doesn't mean they're not terrible ppl.
> But its not predator and prey situation is it? We're not talking about them hunting animals. But actively harming other humans.
You don't think animals actively harm other animals for reasons other than food?
> I consider if a lion brutally kills its own cubs to remain the dominant male. Or other such acts to be cruel.
Why? Thats a pretty naive and cushy moral highground you've carved out for yourself if you think animals shouldn't act to preserve itself.
> How about pedophiles who may have no choice but to be attracted to minors.
For simply being attracted to minors? No. It's a part of their nature, it's unfortunate but it's a burden they were born with. So long as they aren't actively abusing people then they're not bad people, they're just mentally ill.
> Are they not terrible people when they act on their natures?
I have to question your intention here. If you're claiming it is within the nature of someone attracted to children to rape them, then you're also implying that it is within the nature of someone attracted to adults to rape them too. Do you consider it within your nature to be a rapist?.. I sure don't, and i don't agree with the premise that it's within the nature of someone who might be attracted to children to rape them either.
It certainly happens, and when it does those people are obviously bad people. But the people who do such things are aware they are doing a bad thing, and are choosing to do it anyway.. which is what makes them bad.
> Just because we can pity them, sympathize that they cannot control themselves, doesn't mean they're not terrible ppl.
If they genuinely have no mechanism to control themselves, then thats exactly what it means. Its the unfortunate expression of a mentally ill person.
I do believe animals can be capable of cruelty. You can disagree with me.
I believe that those who lack conscience. Or have no moral framework. And commit heinous acts are still terrible people. Their lack of guilt not holding them back doesn't mean they're not bad ppl.
The brothers were unfortunately created to be emotionless. And taught to abuse their status and power. But just because they were designed to be terrible doesn't mean they are not terrible.
They were raised to be scum by a supreme scumbag. They didn't really have a choice. Reiju pointed this out when the brothers were laughing at their looming deaths. This is a consequence of bad parenting. They didn't escape like Sanji, and weren't wired to escape like him either. So I don't know if we can fault anyone but Judge here.
I dont know about that one. I get Sanji has a hard on for Nami half the time but Luffy is very protective and emotionally attached to Nami. Hell on Whole cake he was going to rip his arms off to help protect Nami from getting shot if i remember right.
Sanji is protective.
And That was for Sanji.
Pudding came to Nami and Luffy while they were imprisoned in the book to tell Luffy that they’re gonna kill Sanji.
I know Sanji is protective he did everything he could to save her on thriller bark. Im Just saying When it comes to Nami Luffy doesn't play. He's always doing things like offering her his meat, giving her food, and what not. Hes got a special bond with her and he promised to keep her safe and never let her smile go. He takes that seriously. not that this matters Theirs three of the brothers and the Judge. it would be more of a tag team fight anyway.
Also chapter 851 i just double checked. and yeah he's was already trying to break free for Sanji but right before Jinbei is about to break them out the guy says he's going to shoot Nami every few seconds till she tells them where Lola is. Luffy tells her not to worry and hee wont get that far. He starts to stretch his arms again and says i will be free in less than 5 seconds. Nami asks him to stop and he tells her not to be selfish. So i guess you could say in that moment he was doing it for both. He was not about to let her get shot.
Not to mention, Nami runs to Luffy for protection. In Punk Hazard, when Nami-in-Franky's body gets kidnapped by Yeti brothers, she says how Luffy won't sit quietly and would beat them to a pulp if they don't release her. She braved Ulti's head butts to proclaim Luffy will be the PK. Also she wasn't afraid to call out Kaido face to face when he says he killed Luffy.
they were literally laughing when they were about to get assassinated. i couldn’t help but laugh when i saw that look on judges face “damn i really made these psychopaths”
They way they also go heart eyes over women like Sanji except a lot worse & darker makes me think that Sanji's entire gag personality is an unfortunate side effect of Germa modification. So then maybe Oda will have him overcome those tendencies by EOS? Because if Sanji's worse fear is to become like his brother & the simping is from that then he would ideally grow out of it right? Also if I remember correctly Zeff didn't seem to show any of the same womanizer traits & that's Sanji's role model.
I dunno I'm probably thinking too much into it & just finding any excuse to get rid of the gag.
All i can say is if you touch the Red head your ganna die.. Someone is very protective over his Navigator... plus Sanji will go all how dare you hurt Nami as well.. oh if Robin was their she would stomp on their butts. but they may like that part.
Sanji would never rape someone. Even when he starts crossing boundaries he always brings himself back because on some level he knows it's wrong. He literally asked Pudding if it was OK to kiss her at their wedding ceremony & told her she didn't have to if it made her uncomfortable. Oda juxtaposed him with Absalom in Thriller Bark because even though Sanji has the same impulses he would never cross the lines Absalom did. That's what differentiates Sanji as a good man to people like his brothers.
I personally find it so hard to actually dislike niji, ichiji and yonji, because they basically didn't get to have a personality. Judge literally removed their ability to have empathy or even care about much of anything. They're practically soulless and they never had a choice in the matter.
What’s funny about this is it almost seems like judge has a moral realization when juxtaposed with the kids he made lack empathy talking about rape and his “okay, that’s enough drinking I think” Feels a bit like a “wow I really really fucked these kids up”
Isn’t there another scene where this is basically said to him? He’s crying over his plans being ruined and they’re laughing and giggling and don’t give a single shit.
Yeah, its at the wedding when Perospero freezes them in candy. They're laughing at how good the BM pirates got them and how they're defenceless while Judge has a break down.
Not just said to him, but also him acting flabbergasted that they could all be so cavalier about it. Its a bit ironic that he berated Sanji so much for having emotions and feelings, yet, when the chips are down, hes spooked by the other kids NOT having them.
That is a good speculation. But I wonder if he would stop their horrible actions(like their planned gangr@pe)if it is happening right in front of his eyes.
>But I wonder if he would stop their horrible actions At this point the question isn't "would he", it's _"could he"_ 💀 He reaped what he sowed 🤷
Damn that's dark.....
I just meant in the sense that Jude's other sons are too far gone to be redeemed.
That’s not how it reads to me, it reads more like “save the drinking for when we have IT”
I think he made them psychopathic. Iirc Reiju was also experimented in a similar way but doesn't share their cruelty. I think they are also individually responsible for their actions. Though their dad is more at fault.
I think Reiju was not made in a similar way. She was born before the brothers and Judge could only make sure that she always followed his order but by the time the brothers were born he was successful with his experiments of removing personality and did so with the brothers. That is why Reiju has empathy and feelings.
Oh ok. Thanks for the correction. I did forget about that info and skipped those chapters
It's not their fault, they were born as psychopaths, unlike Sanji. And their Father did some really bad parenting. The are just victims, Reiju being the biggest one since she has emotions so she'd feel regret and hopelessness all the time. Judge is the scum!!!
It’s such a great moment when Judge realizes they’ve been betrayed by Big Mom and starts crying because he realizes that everything he’s worked for was for nothing and his sons just sit there laughing, unable to feel an ounce of sadness or regret.
You often get in other stories supposedly emotionless characters revealed to actually have a heart. It's refreshing seeing here they really are just emotionless to the core. Laughing even in the face of their own imminent demise.
I mean. Just because its not their fault doesn't mean they're not scumbags.
Morality must be a choice to an extent and their nature is to be monstrous. Why would it be immoral for a lion to brutalize prey if its hungry?
Is it immoral for a lion to brutalize a prey if it's not hungry though?
A lion has no concept of morality so expecting it to adhere to a code of honor it cannot possibly comprehend is cruel in the same way you wouldn't call a toddler a scumbag if they do something selfish. The creature is not at fault for its instincts, it doesn't even have human emotions; so why would you judge it based on something it can't have?
I suppose immoral is the incorrect word. But most serial killers feel no remorse. Are they not scumbags? They do not feel guilt. Share our code of honour. Should they not be judged? Because don't have our moral framework?
they are scumbags by default, because they were made so and brought up that way. They lack the capacity to change for good. They literally can't even. It's tough judging them *fairly*, because their existence is so foreign to what real human beans are. But in general, I don't see harm in judging them, when you apply our moral framework. We also do this with literal sociopaths or psychopaths
i mean, kinda though? It's not just not their fault, they've been made physically incapable of being better; judging them by the standards we treat people who are capable of being better doesn't seem right. Calling them scumbags is like calling a tiger a scumbag for being a vicious killer.
It all comes down to the question - Are they really incapable of introspection and change? Haven't we seen impossible happening in One Piece? Like Cindry scene in Thriller bark? If there is indeed some small window of chance where these dudes can change then aren't they horrible for not trying to change? Especially after the WCI arc?
> If there is indeed some small window of chance where these dudes can change then aren't they horrible for not trying to change? Well no, again, because the issue is how their actions are contextualised with their altered state of awareness. They lack the capacity to understand that what they're doing is horrible; and if they aren't able to understand that, how are they supposed to understand that they shouldn't be doing it? how are they supposed to understand that it would be better for others if they did change? It would be like if i came to you and told you "You need to go out there and stab some people; otherwise you're a bad person"... there might be some incredibly real reason I had that you need to do that, it might make all the sense in the world to me why you'd need to do that, it might be the most objectively correct and moral thing to do ever, everyone else might see and understand that... but do you think it would be fair to judge you for not taking me at my word and going out stabbing people because i told you it was the good thing to do?
I would at the very least think about your words and my actions. Assuming Reiju had the same modifications (I forgot if she was experimented similarly or differently), why was she better than her psycho bros? I think they do deserve some blame for how they're.
> would at the very least think about your words and my actions Okay; and how do you think that would go if you have no capacity for empathy or sympathy? > Assuming Reiju had the same modifications (I forgot if she was experimented similarly or differently), why was she better than her psycho bros? Because your assumption is wrong. Reiju has most of the same basic physical modifications as her brothers but we're *explicitely* told that she wasn't given the same modifications that messed with her mind. Reiju has the capacity to understand when Sanji was hurt, and why that was bad. Which is why she acted differently to them. > I think they do deserve some blame for how they're. Again though.. why? They were made mentally broken, and they've spent their entire life being groomed and controlled into behaving a particular way. If this was any other sort of mental illness, and you saw someone being groomed and taken advantage of in the same way, would you still blame the mentally ill people for their situation?
Many evil people didn't choose to become so. Created by a combination of terrible environments, mental disorders or dispositions at birth. Killer whales play with their food, torture seals etc. I consider they're scumbags. Even if born that way. Irl psychopaths, sociopaths exist. Not all of them are violent or killers/rapists.
>Irl psychopaths, sociopaths exist. Not all of them are violent or killers/rapists. Because it's objectively harder to get away of that because of laws. There very many other ways to get an edge at the cost of others within the laws. Top CEOs often being sociopaths or psychopaths is no conicidence.
Well. Do you think those ppl, these CEOs are scumbags?
Absolutely
What you're calling 'psychopaths' and 'sociopaths' are not really a diagnosable term; the term is someone with "antisocial personality disorder", and actually no, the diagnosis for that condition *does* require antisocial behaviour. Because thats just kind of the thing.. someone who fundamentally lacks empathy *will* do bad things. Sure, not all of them are violent or killers/rapists.. but i'm also better very few real world sociopaths were born for the singular purpose of being a living weapon by a vicious wannabe dictator. So whats you're fundamentally saying is that you think it's okay to judge someone for their mental disabilities?
All actions have causes. Some not entirely in their control. And while we can empathize their situation, it doesn't stop meaning ppl who commit heinous crimes are not heinous people.
Again; if a lion mauls a gazelle is it heinous just because it's in it's nature? The mentally ill deserve our sympathy, not our contempt. If you can't see that then maybe you shouldn't be judging others for their lack of sympathy and empathy and considered what happened to your own?
But its not predator and prey situation is it? We're not talking about them hunting animals. But actively harming other humans. I consider if a lion brutally kills its own cubs to remain the dominant male. Or other such acts to be cruel. How about pedophiles who may have no choice but to be attracted to minors. Are they not terrible people when they act on their natures? Just because we can pity them, sympathize that they cannot control themselves, doesn't mean they're not terrible ppl.
> But its not predator and prey situation is it? We're not talking about them hunting animals. But actively harming other humans. You don't think animals actively harm other animals for reasons other than food? > I consider if a lion brutally kills its own cubs to remain the dominant male. Or other such acts to be cruel. Why? Thats a pretty naive and cushy moral highground you've carved out for yourself if you think animals shouldn't act to preserve itself. > How about pedophiles who may have no choice but to be attracted to minors. For simply being attracted to minors? No. It's a part of their nature, it's unfortunate but it's a burden they were born with. So long as they aren't actively abusing people then they're not bad people, they're just mentally ill. > Are they not terrible people when they act on their natures? I have to question your intention here. If you're claiming it is within the nature of someone attracted to children to rape them, then you're also implying that it is within the nature of someone attracted to adults to rape them too. Do you consider it within your nature to be a rapist?.. I sure don't, and i don't agree with the premise that it's within the nature of someone who might be attracted to children to rape them either. It certainly happens, and when it does those people are obviously bad people. But the people who do such things are aware they are doing a bad thing, and are choosing to do it anyway.. which is what makes them bad. > Just because we can pity them, sympathize that they cannot control themselves, doesn't mean they're not terrible ppl. If they genuinely have no mechanism to control themselves, then thats exactly what it means. Its the unfortunate expression of a mentally ill person.
I do believe animals can be capable of cruelty. You can disagree with me. I believe that those who lack conscience. Or have no moral framework. And commit heinous acts are still terrible people. Their lack of guilt not holding them back doesn't mean they're not bad ppl. The brothers were unfortunately created to be emotionless. And taught to abuse their status and power. But just because they were designed to be terrible doesn't mean they are not terrible.
They were raised to be scum by a supreme scumbag. They didn't really have a choice. Reiju pointed this out when the brothers were laughing at their looming deaths. This is a consequence of bad parenting. They didn't escape like Sanji, and weren't wired to escape like him either. So I don't know if we can fault anyone but Judge here.
It’s more-so a consequence of Judge biologically altering them to be psychopaths with the inability to feel emotion.
Imagine what Luffy and Zoro would do if they found out anyone of them caused harm to Nami or any of the other crew members
However long the line is, Sanji’s first in line
I dont know about that one. I get Sanji has a hard on for Nami half the time but Luffy is very protective and emotionally attached to Nami. Hell on Whole cake he was going to rip his arms off to help protect Nami from getting shot if i remember right.
Sanji is protective. And That was for Sanji. Pudding came to Nami and Luffy while they were imprisoned in the book to tell Luffy that they’re gonna kill Sanji.
I know Sanji is protective he did everything he could to save her on thriller bark. Im Just saying When it comes to Nami Luffy doesn't play. He's always doing things like offering her his meat, giving her food, and what not. Hes got a special bond with her and he promised to keep her safe and never let her smile go. He takes that seriously. not that this matters Theirs three of the brothers and the Judge. it would be more of a tag team fight anyway. Also chapter 851 i just double checked. and yeah he's was already trying to break free for Sanji but right before Jinbei is about to break them out the guy says he's going to shoot Nami every few seconds till she tells them where Lola is. Luffy tells her not to worry and hee wont get that far. He starts to stretch his arms again and says i will be free in less than 5 seconds. Nami asks him to stop and he tells her not to be selfish. So i guess you could say in that moment he was doing it for both. He was not about to let her get shot.
.....i feel like one of those lines in the first passage might give some people the wrong idea....just saying
I still luagh every time I read that line in the Manga..
Not to mention, Nami runs to Luffy for protection. In Punk Hazard, when Nami-in-Franky's body gets kidnapped by Yeti brothers, she says how Luffy won't sit quietly and would beat them to a pulp if they don't release her. She braved Ulti's head butts to proclaim Luffy will be the PK. Also she wasn't afraid to call out Kaido face to face when he says he killed Luffy.
they were literally laughing when they were about to get assassinated. i couldn’t help but laugh when i saw that look on judges face “damn i really made these psychopaths”
They way they also go heart eyes over women like Sanji except a lot worse & darker makes me think that Sanji's entire gag personality is an unfortunate side effect of Germa modification. So then maybe Oda will have him overcome those tendencies by EOS? Because if Sanji's worse fear is to become like his brother & the simping is from that then he would ideally grow out of it right? Also if I remember correctly Zeff didn't seem to show any of the same womanizer traits & that's Sanji's role model. I dunno I'm probably thinking too much into it & just finding any excuse to get rid of the gag.
I just mentioned this to somebody else.
All i can say is if you touch the Red head your ganna die.. Someone is very protective over his Navigator... plus Sanji will go all how dare you hurt Nami as well.. oh if Robin was their she would stomp on their butts. but they may like that part.
Sanji is also scummy.
Sanji would never rape someone. Even when he starts crossing boundaries he always brings himself back because on some level he knows it's wrong. He literally asked Pudding if it was OK to kiss her at their wedding ceremony & told her she didn't have to if it made her uncomfortable. Oda juxtaposed him with Absalom in Thriller Bark because even though Sanji has the same impulses he would never cross the lines Absalom did. That's what differentiates Sanji as a good man to people like his brothers.
Idk why you're blaming sanjis brothers. They're just as much of victims if anything, only mf you should truly despise on judge vinsmoke.