Think carefully.

Beast or Human, which is more fair?

At first glance, the answer feels obvious. Too obvious to second-guess. Humans, with their rules and reasons, claim to be the torchbearers of justice. Symbols of peace. Builders of systems that weigh the scales, right the wrongs, and deliver happiness.

But step closer. Look past the polished smiles and noble speeches. Beneath the surface, fairness bends to power, tilts under pressure, and shatters in the shadows. For all their laws, humans rewrite fairness when it suits them. They disguise cruelty with kindness and call control "order."

Beasts, however, wear no masks. They do not lie. Born raw, they live raw, and they return to the rawness of the earth. Their fairness lies in instinct. Take what you need. Defend what is yours. Survive. There are no debates, no councils to argue right or wrong.

The wild doesn't waste time on words like "justice" or "murder." There is no prison for a lion that hunts, no trial for a wolf that kills. They hunt or are hunted. They mark their territory without paperwork. They live without apology.

It sounds brutal, doesn't it? But brutality isn't unfair—it's honest. A predator doesn't deceive its prey. A hawk's talons show no pity, but neither do they lie.

And yet, can beasts truly be called fair? After all, fairness implies choice, and in the wild, there is no choice—only survival.

Their actions may seems cruel by humans standards, but they are not tainted by malice, hate and are not clouded by hypocrisy, or made to believe what is not true, like humans.

No offence.

Humans, choose their cruelty. They dress it in silk and call it civilization.

So, who is more fair? The beast that kills without malice, or the human who destroys with a smile?

Perhaps fairness isn't the real question. Perhaps it's survival. Both man and beast are bound to it. One through instinct. The other through control.

But what happens when these worlds collide? When law meets instinct, when power clashes with survival? Can either side learn from the other, or will they only destroy what they don't understand?

The lives here are not based on fairness. It is a world of chaos and survival, of alliances forged in fire and trust tested in blood. A world where man and beast must share the same fragile space, whether in peace or in war.

And so I ask again: Beast or Human?

Kaito Shizukawa's reply was, "If I had to choose, I'd say humans don't deserve to exist. Their greed wipes out entire species without a second thought. Beasts are brutal, yes, but their reasons make sense. Humans? Their reasons are excuses.

"Then again, I don't really care. Fairness, survival—it's all the same to me. I'll take what I want, how I want it, and when I want it. Human, beast, or something else entirely, it doesn't matter."

Now, what's your answer?