/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>1519584
>If you will not eat your kind and better starve to death it's moral principles.
Personally I'd consider THAT to be amoral and quite stupid (Assuming the choices are everyone dying and some people dying with the survivors being cannibals). If you've ever played Terranigma, think back to the scene in Chapter 2 where Ark is stuck with a goat and her dead husband; the goat chooses to eat her husband.

If that Reimu doesn't have morals, then why doesn't she kill her children? She obviously hates them (meaning they're human enough to do that, at least). She obviously has no intention of supporting them. Why bother keeping them alive, when their existence is bothersome? The same applies to any alice-rape victim; supposedly the victims are left to care for the alice children (Any waterduct readers here? Are there ANY stories other than KMR and the inspiration that deal with the origin of Alice rape troupes and/or what happens to most rape-children?). If the victim is capable of moving (pic unrelated), why would they care for them? Why not just kill them outright? They certainly wouldn't be able to put up a fight, and killing them would be beneficial to the victim's survival; possibility of tearing them right off the stalk, can regain nutrients lost by eating the corpses, and no longer a need to feed the children.