Argument - Blog Posts
Angry dabi (heavy dabi simp alert)
Reader got into an argument with Dabi at the bar and dabi accidentally burned a certain part of the reader (arm, wrist, etc) then reader runs to they're room and hides from Dabi(due to past trauma or something)
Have a good day/night/evening also fluff/angst~
“I’m sorry”
Dabi x Reader
warnings: angst, fluff, trauma dump, Dabi gets emotional in this one, and less of an ass. Hope you enjoy.
He didn’t mean it. Honestly he just..he just didn’t wanted you leaving him. Truth be told Dabi was attached to you though he would never admit. So when he saw how terrified you where of him he was a bit startled. “Doll please come out.” He needed you to come so he could help you and apologize.
“What so you can’t hurt me again!?” You where crying trying to find some bandages or something. “Can you please stop being dramatic and let me help. I’m sorry okay I just..I just lost control.”
“Me being dramatic!? You burned me Dabi and now your just making it worse.” How dare he even-! “I’m sorry for calling you dramatic I just don’t know what to do and you won’t let me in and I just don’t want you leaving me okay!? I love you dammit and I just don’t want to lose you, I don’t want you to leave me.” It was silent after that and you opened the door.
“Well if you love me help me with what you caused.” You where still made but your temper dialed a bit. He took you in, hair all messy, tears stained eyes, and slightly burned arm.
“Okay” he agreed and got the burn ointment form the cabinet and smoothed it on your arm. You winced a bit biting your lower lip while he tightly wrapped bandages around your arm.
“I’m sorry for hurting you I just..I just lost control and it reminded me of my old man and I was acting just like him a-and your important to me I can’t imagine you leaving me okay..?” He stared into your eyes before bringing you closer to him.
“Forgive me?” His voice was quiet like he was afraid you where going to yell at him. “I forgive you just try not to do it again okay?” You punched him in his shoulder. Before giving him a kiss on the cheek. “Okay” he said amused.
Authors note: okay you do not know how long this took me. Sorry for the long wait and hopefully you didn’t hate it.
I think the reason a lot of leftists struggle with disability justice is that they haven't moved past the concept that discrimination isn't bad because it's objectively "wrong." yes, sexists are objectively wrong when they try to claim women are dumber than men. yes, antisemites are objectively wrong that jewish people are inherently greedy and run the state. yes, racists are wrong when they try to claim that white people are the superior race. and so on.
but then with disabled people, there are a lot of objective truths to the discrimination we face. people with IDs/LDs do fall behind and struggle with certain concepts. physically disabled people are often weaker and less capable of performing demanding tasks than able bodied people. many of us with mental illnesses are more reckless and less responsible. a lot of us are dependent on others and do not contribute much "worth".
and guess what? disabled people still deserve a place in the world. disabled people still deserve the supports they need. because they are people, and that should be enough to support them and believe they deserve a place at the table.
if your only rebuttal against discrimination is its objective inaccuracies, you are meeting bigots where they are at. you are validating the very concept that if and when people are truly incapable of being equal to the majority, that means they are worth less. this causes some leftists to then try to deny the objective realities of disabled people and/or become ableist themselves.
your rallying behind marginalized groups should start and end with the fact that people are completely worthy of life and equity, because they are fellow human beings and that should, frankly, be enough.
Conspiracy theory mfs can be some of the most annoying people on planet earth.
The second you point out any flaw in their logic, it's always "your giving into the propaganda man". Or, if you ever call them a insane dumbass, they will always say "wow, my ideas are making you mad, it must be because you know I'm right" thinking they are witty.
I'm not afraid of conspiracies because I don't want to hear the truth, I am afraid of conspiracy theories because they are very much capable of spreading dangerous misinformation as fact and harming people in the process.
I am willing to listen to any ideas, but you can't just present your far-out speculation based on cherrypicked evidence and get mad when people have the nerve to question your ideas.
Anyways, that's my rant. Just decided to blow off some steam because I got into an argument with some right-wingers on reddit who were going off about the "Jewish elite".
Unpopular Opinion Time
I don’t ship Sirius Black with Remus Lupin and while I’ve read good fics with them as a couple it usually strikes me as a lazy pairing.
The basis of their relationship seems to be that hey were friends for years and they hugged after being reunited.
I actually got into a legit argument about this once and was accused of being a homophobe. Personally, I think that turning them into a couple based on this scant character development is perpetuating a culture of toxic masculinity. Two men showed love and relief and are now ‘super gay for each other omg otp’
I think Sirius Black is hetero pre-Azkaban and too mentally injured to call himself by any labels post-Azkaban. (He spent ten years having portions of his soul sucked out of him, it was going to take a lot more years than he was given after that to rediscover who he is, let alone have a sexual identity.)
Remus I can see as hetero or pan. He would likely focus on pursuing female companionship over male simply because he is already ‘different’ enough as a werewolf and would desire a sense of normalcy.
And even if they were both gay, that does not necessitate that they would automatically be attracted to one another. It’s a common theme found in a lot of amateur stories that the token gays must be paired with each other rather than seek a single life or date outside of the friend group.
Anyway, it’s 6:30 AM and that argument from my high school years is running around in my head, so here’s my belated rebuttal being tossed into the internet.
(Also I got a discord? https://discord.gg/qwPzVtr I still don’t know how to technology very well, but I’ll hopefully be more active over there. Tumblr’s editing system isn’t all that intuitive for me unfortunately.)
Literally any two people will be arguing and I WILL dramatically go “The girls are figtinggg” to immediately make myself the common enemy. It works so well. No more argument, only disgust for the little guy in the corner who just said those words.
Why do y'all do this
Got the best comment in an argument at at university last night; "You don't go to university so you don't know what your talking about" I'm sorry but not attending a university dose not disable me from be able to think critically!
THE O.C. ( 2003 - 2007 ) ↳ season 2 episode 9
What they argue about + how they apologize
(prompt from anon !! i'm a little behind on requests at the moment, but I hope you all can forgive me and enjoy these headcanons 🌼)
John
John's most passionate arguments tend to center around about social issues, political ideologies or creative direction
he's often perceived as too radical or unconventional by those around him, even including you on occasion
other times he'll take a joke too far or cross the line with his teasing, causing your feelings to be hurt
his apologies aren't the most straightforward, but are still genuine with a touch of self-awareness... he's trying
often, he'll bring you a cup of tea or small treat as a peace offering once things have blown over
Paul
Paul might argue about musical arrangements or creative differences, and can be a bit controlling when it comes to his work
he has the capacity to be rather egotistical at times, seemingly dominating important conversations
he's also a huge perfectionist and would often bicker with you over meticulous details of ordinary tasks
he always wants the laundry folded or the bed made the "right way"
his apologies come quickly and would be warm and very sincere, accompanied by lots of physical affection and perhaps a sweet gesture like inviting you to share a cup of tea with him
George
if ever George sparked a serious argument, it would likely be over artistic integrity or personal boundaries, sometimes feeling misunderstood or undervalued
on the more lighthearted side, he would argue about you having eaten his food or not sharing yours
he'll pretend to be offended if you don't offer him a taste of whatever you're having, much to your chagrin as he's very convincing
George's apologies would be thoughtful, sincere and reflective, offering insights into his perspective and seeking mutual understanding and respect
Ringo
Ringo is rather carefree and tends not to make a fuss, but he may (rarely) blow up over practical matters or interpersonal dynamics
he sometimes feels overlooked or taken for granted, even when it may not be the case
he can also become passionately defensive about his preferences, such as the way he likes his tea or his favorite vinyl records
Ringo's apologies would be humble and down-to-earth, maybe with a touch of humor to diffuse tension, as well as lots of hugs and kisses
*having dinner with Anakin and Obi-wan*
Y/N: The food is too cute, I just can't eat it!
Obi-wan:
Anakin: You're cute, but I'd still eat y-
Obi-wan: ONE DINNER
Y/N: *sighs* here we go again
Obi-wan: ONE NORMAL DINNER IS ALL I ASK!
Y/N:*bursts into room, starts panicking*
Anakin:
Anakin: what happened?!
Y/N: no one died.
Anakin: WHAT KIND OF AN ANSWER-
Y/N: do you trust me?
Liam: no.
Y/N: smart man-
Y/N: If karma won't fuck you, I will.
Liam: Is this a pickup line or a threat?
Y/N: Both.
*Anakin and Y/N arguing*
Y/N: Y’know what? Fuck you!
Anakin: I already did!
Y/N: …
Anakin: - and I did it real good!
Y/N: …
Anakin: …
Y/N: - you did.
Anakin: I have something to ask you.
Y/N: *looks at watch* uhm, we should hurry up, but, okay, Ani, sure go ahead.
Anakin: I’d like to know if you really, huh, like me
Y/N: …
Anakin: …
Y/N: Ani, we’ve been together for 7 years and we’re getting married in 10 minutes-
Anakin: Fuck you
Y/N: No, fuck you. You’re the bottom in this relationship.
Anakin:
Anakin, confused: We haven’t even banged.
Y/N: Did you eat all the powdered sugar donuts?
Colby: *mouth full of donuts* No...
Y/N: Then what's that on your pants?
Colby: That's cocaine.
Y/N: *does something cute*
Colby, under his breath: I'm in love with you
Y/N: What was that?
Colby: I said I'M SELLING YOU TO THE ZOO
Colby: *sneezes*
y/n: *who is invisible* bless you
Colby: god?
The Observer: Well, at least I didn't reveal my true form to them!
The Guardian: Oh yeah? Maybe because your true form is just the FONT!
Anne and Seeker: Uhm...
thinking abt amphibia's guardian and serina's observer again. i think they should be rivals
An Argument for God - The Genuine Nature of Christianity
This post is a product of a heated conversation I’ve had very recently. The argument I will present is in no way a proof, rather a compelling line of reasoning, supporting the legitimacy of the Christian faith.
First of all, religious beliefs have been present since the naissance of our race, as evident from numerous archeological findings of ritual items. Although primitive iterations of different faiths can be connected to the lack of scientific understanding. For example it could seem logical for groups of humans to praise the sun, as they had no distant idea of its inner workings, and as something beyond their comprehension, yet observably powerful, it appeared to be an entity far above them, ergo a god of sorts. Similar patterns can be found in countless natural religions, as usually their objects are things or persons of immense influence and/or outside the intellectual and physical grasp of their subjects. This mode of religious faith (or fear) is thus very natural, almost inherent to the unknowing masses of the distant past. Opposite to this, the Judeo-Christian tradition had an original birth, meaning it was not connected to observable objects, rather an entity outside of the physical and intellectual realms, through revelation through a long line of prophets and inspired people. In comparison the natural religions had an understandable reason to be invented because their objects were things overpowering humans, whereas Christianity’s roots came from a place outside of the boundaries of rationality, ergo, as far as religions are concerned, the birth of Christianity is genuine.
Secondly, in the stratum of religions from revelation, there is a great amount of corruption and an even greater amount of dubious sources. Many faiths come from the preaching of inspired individuals, who have claimed to have some supernatural knowledge, and usually these persons even had miraculous happenings in their close proximity. Whenever one such individual could amass a cult, a new religion was born and very often their teachings remained the core of their religion ever after. Now this is problematic because the only convincing power of these faiths is that of their missionary’s, the original prophet (or anyone called by any name, serving as such) is completely at the mercy of the skills of the coming teachers and preachers of given religion. Even more severely so, when history discredits the original bringers of revelation. Probably the most outstanding example of this is the case of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam. First, his first amanuensis left him. It is extremely alarming, when the person, who writes down the words of a prophet reports that he lost his faith in the prophet’s revelation’s genuineness. Second, when the prophet’s teachings became self-contradictory, evidently along the lines of personal interest, a large group of people left the prophet. Third, the prophet had to discard parts of his teachings, attributing it to deception from Satan, when its contents found no popular acceptance. Mohammad thus seems like a hardly credible source. Of course his revelations are very compelling to many people, who choose to overlook all these three discrediting instances. The Bible, at the same time, has been created in the span of thousands of years, written by many dozens of inspired people. The revelation, to be so spread out, is quite unique in this manner, unlike any other out there. It can be thus said that, in comparison, Christianity’s revelation -- again, as far as religions from revelations go -- is genuine.
Thirdly, the Judeo-Christian revelation claims to have been proven and fulfilled. Like religions in a large percentage, Christianity also operates with many prophecies. Yet, it is quite exquisite in that its prophecies have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ(1). This is some two thousand years worth of texts, which have been completed in a real persons life and death and his message. Now at this point, to accept the above sentence, it requires faith, however, the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition counts Jesus Christ as fulfillment to its prophecies and expectations is very unique and can be counted as a genuine basis of faith.
And lastly, the inspiration behind the text is very credible. Most likely in connection with the long time span, the revelation of the Bible doesn’t follow lines of interest. Quite the contrary, often great historical influences were opposed by actual revelations and sacred guidance. Even socio-economic contexts were ignored or opposed time and time again, which again, proves that the revelations are genuine. Now whether or not to believe them still can be a question but not whether or not the claims are genuine.
Note: I’m aware of the possibility my above argumentation might be plagiaristic but as this is not published as a scholarly work I feel I don’t need to go source-hunting. Originally the basic concepts presented here are used in a novella I’m still trying to write and I put it out here in this shape and form because I’ve been deeply inspired by a personal conversation (see preface).
(1) Jesus is, historically, better recorded than Julius Caesar, so his earthly existence can be regarded as historical fact (as long as one accepts such things, since they can sometimes seem questionable), his metaphysical significance and the truth of his message is what is usually argued.
Being Sherlock
Have you ever felt, that someone was talking to you like they were absoutely superior? As if they positioned themselves far over you intellectually? I suppose you hate those people but sadly... I am them.
The thing that bugs me the most in this wide world is stupidity and slow-thinking, thus I am impatient, egoistic and of course high-minded. But let's just take a step back: from my point of view, in obvious situations, I simply point out trivial truths. A phrase, which I find extremely fitting to use in most of the cases is "because I am right". How arrogant, isn't it?
But then, why do I treat people like that? It's because I've grown accustomed to behaving this way. When in an argument with my father, I never was (and still am not) allowed to reason because he considers that to be disrespect. What I've learned from this is, that though I am 99% right, reasoning and negotiating are not options. I know it's not good, sorry...
Taking it to a little more universal level: Why are there people, who have no compassion? Why can't we simply talk through things? What could be done?
Well, I must say, Sherlock is not Sherlock out of will but out of inevitability.
Randomness rules!
Broken from the sart
"Tonight honey, I'm gonna break your heart, mine was broken from the start" sings Jon Foreman. I've always been wondering what it really means. The most obvious and seemingly most at-hand answer was something about love and break-ups. I thought I had nothing to do with it because I live in a very merry relationship and I have no reason to actbroken.
This simple line, however, uncovers something I am born into. But not only me, I'm convinced it's the same with almost all of us. What I'm talking about here is a mere detection of a common state of life. In fact I've heard of this so much, that I've even grown accustomed to it. It's the cycle. The cycle of what my heritage is...
Recently I created a huge deficit to my family, unconsciously and unintended. To be able to pay for this, my father had to give up few of his plans for the summer. I understood, that he was mad at me, this is alright after the monetary loss. But you know, what he kept saying was somewhat misled and unjust. He said I'm not grown-up, I'm a child, I can't make good decisions and I need supervision. Well, I am an adult in every aspect, though I moved back in with my parents because they live close to the university I'm in... Anyway, I tried to reason with him and be generous, so I offered to pay it all back and then came thebest: he said I cannot give him money I didn't get from him and I won't have a salary at least in the coming five years. (Momentarily I don't have a paying job, that's true, but I put up my pricey bow for sale, for which I worked very ardently a couple of years ago) I told my dad (with the hint of sarcasm, I admit), that it's improbable, that I wouldn't get a job soon. Then he started shouting and I lost interest...
First thought: this man's a fool, it was a wrong decision to move in with them, when I get paid for my book, I'll leave. But you know, this is it. I know my father had a very narcistic and controlling father. I know he tries very hard to be a good parent, though he never had a grown-up son. He might've simply reacted so strangely because of his anger and pain, I don't know. And really, this whole thing, this fighting and hurting penetrates through my family-line. I am predestined to be broken. I am predestined by my father, and his father and his father and so on. I heard countless family stories, how the fathers hurt and betrayed their sons. All differently. My father tries to do good but it comes out all wrong because he was broken from the start, and he didn't even know it... But I do. I now know and understand it. The question is, whether I break the cycle, or simply try hard, like my dad does...
And then, isn't it somewhat universal? Aren't we all coming up with secret burdens? Why do we see faulted and wounded people everywhere? And ultimately: what does it mean to break this cycle? I'm not giving you answers because this is not an open argument, it's just a pile of questions...
Randomness rules!
Okay, as an American studying to become a botanist I’m about to fire shots in every direction. None of you are safe, not even myself, but there are things about this post that have pissed me off to the point of righteous anger.
American chestnut is functionally extinct yes, except for a few remaining colonies, however, that’s not because of most Americans, just as you, previous person, said your issues are not because of most of the British- as Americans relied on chestnuts as a cultural symbol and a food source as they taste arguably better (or so I’m told) than the European chestnuts that were exported to us carrying chestnut blight that killed our chestnuts. Those same stumps ARE STILL TRYING TO SEND OUT SUCKERS, and are STILL DYING BECAUSE OF AN INTRODUCED BLIGHT BY EUROPEAN NEGLIGENCE.
I understand you’re mad at the lack of education on our side, I am as well- the American education system FAILS at teaching botany on a MULTITUDE of ENORMOUS levels, and you and I both know that plant life is the basis of an ecosystem, but don’t you dare think that this means I’m not infuriated by the same from you- I am. I KNOW FOR A FACT that Europe is no better in its failure to find value in botanical studies, and I’m still pissed about it, but I’ve at least seen a few papers about the subject and written a few essays myself, and at least Europe isn’t the near-dead-static radio silence about botany the way America seems to be. But at least know that this is a two way street, and don’t deflect about that shortcoming when we’re both at fault.
The prairies??? That was misguided science and capitalism instilling laziness. We had rules and laws about rewilding areas post mining expeditions and construction, but those were ignored by greedy corps who figured slapping some trees on an area that didn’t have trees before would solve their problem. And the people in charge weren’t ecologists, but government officials who heard in school that trees give us oxygen and are therefore better than grass, and so with being slid a little extra cash, shrugged their shoulders about it and turned a blind eye to the issue because “well it’s just trees” and BOY, AM I MAD ABOUT THAT TOO, but being MAD, and BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT are two very different ball parks, babe.
Then there was climate crisis attention in the nineties, and although the intentions of the campaigns were pure-hearted, they were misleading in the idea that planting trees Willy-nilly would solve our problems, and while yes, trees are larger organisms that need more co2 to grow to max size, and therefore absorb more carbon, not all trees are created equal, and while some non-natives might absorb more CO2 or do better in certain regions, more of the people supplying and planting those invasive trees have no ability, much less a concept of even recognizing the potential for something to become invasive. Another failure of our shitty education system, but we already know it’s shit, so that’s besides the point.
The grasses and monocultures of lawns we have are a direct spawn of English colonialism. Lawns were managed by slaves and considered a sign of wealth- and non-natural ornamental landscapes were seen as a sign of knowledge and skill to tend.
American pioneers and natives didn’t give two shits about those things, and though we aren’t blameless for the slew of invasive ravaging our ecosystems, Britain is no saint in this either. Y’all have a government that fears and respects Its people and their voices; do not squander your opportunity, when here in America, trying to get through to a politician bought out by lobbyists to get off their asses and do something is clearly MUCH HARDER than you all seem to think it is because capitalism is unchecked over here.
You have the science. You have the opportunity. Fight the status quo and take a risk while you have a chance to. Right your wrongs. There’s no excuse to not. At least we make an effort and fight, even though every step forward feels like a step backwards because politicians and public figures here usually have their pockets and offices lined so thick with wads of cash they can’t seem to hear us screaming in the streets. So many organizations out here are all desperately scrounging for donations and support individually to step up where our governing bodies ran like cowardly father figures going out for milk and cigarettes and then simply ignoring the issues we’ve being screeching about like it’s not something young people are mad about on the daily. Also, you lost lynxes??? Reintroduce them. Yes you’re on an island, that doesn’t stop animals, and it hasn’t before. They will adapt so long as you let them. You can fix the damage that’s been done, all it takes is effort and time, and a willingness to take a chance to make a change.
Moreover. You ALSO EAT THOSE STOLEN CROPS.
TOMATOES. CORN. SQUASH. BEANS. TOMATILLOS.
YOU EAT THOSE TOO!
And what about the Cinnamon? The Mace? The nutmeg? The British stole those from the people of India. The tea you’ve monopolized as your own? That’s from China and Japan. You don’t even drink it right. You’re suppose to pour out the first steep according to Chinese tea practices. And they sold it for far cheaper to the British at the time. The wheat? Grains? Ethiopia, that’s from the Fertile Crescent. Your very bread is made of a stolen crop.
Your fruits? All of it, stolen. The Mediterranean originally grew mint, oregano, rosemary, olives, and cabbage.
Do you indulge in chocolate? That was stolen by your Spanish neighbors from the Aztecs and Mayans darling. Chewing gum too.
We didn’t even steal half the crops we grow, imperialism did, so don’t even start there. Many of the natives crops are viable solutions to local food, but guess what? WE DONT FREAKING USE THEM!
You wanna get mad at us for something? Get mad that we don’t use acorn and coontie flour instead of wheat. Get mad that we don’t use elderberries and American cherries in jams as much as we should. Get mad that we haven’t cultivated the pawpaw or Florida plum as much as we should. Get mad that we don’t use sumac, or Kentucky coffee. Get mad that blueberries and cranberries aren’t a main staple in our diets, and because of capitalism-caused food deserts and absurd prices. Get mad that we don’t eat local meats, but farm instead of forage when there’s so much we could be eating to cut back on our waste, but we don’t because humans are prissy and don’t want to put the effort into making things taste good by selective breeding like we did when we were nomadic and still figuring out agriculture. Get mad that we could be eating our way through our kudzu problem in the south, but we aren’t because it’s just not something we do culturally.
Get mad about the things we can be faulted for, because at least we can actually try and control those.
The moral of the story here is we should be fucking mad at the GREED OF THE FEW. At the end of the day, that’s what’s caused us the most problems isn’t it? Instead we sit here and we bicker about who’s worse, instead of making each other better. Like you said, let’s not throw stones at each other from our stupid glass houses, and burn down the people who are actually responsible and have the means to do something but instead choose to do nothing.
Actually your society is the freaks for shooting everything that moves and burning half your "nature reserves" every year so that upperclass dandies can eat leaded pheasant. North Americans are the well adjusted ones here, your country has become a desolate suburban lawn in island form
One of Nico's weakest points is his instability. Throughout most of the original series Percy never knew what to make of Nico and was never sure if he was falling into a trap or not.
Nico has also fallen for his fair share of traps, being used as a means to get to Percy.
And Percy has been able to talk Nico down time and time again. Nico's loyalty to one group or another is always being questioned.
So, in other words, another way Percy can defeat Nico is by using Talk No Jutsu.
No no no, you don’t understand.
When it comes down to it, Percy can hardly win against Nico.
Okay I’m definitely taking bias here bc srsly, who in Riordanverse I love more than Nico anyway, but let’s humor me a little, shall we?
A hypothesis: Nico turns evil and Percy is put to stop him.
Firstly, their fighting style. Nico’s swordsmanship is assumed to be taught by Minos and skeleton soldiers, whereas Percy’s is taught by Luke. That’s a difference in varieties right there. Nico fights like… no one, while Percy would most likely follow a particular style, with patterns and such. Nico has a certain element of surprise.
Their purposes. Percy fights to protect. Nico fights to survive. Yes ofc he fights to protect those he loves too, but he has this survival mode which enables him to take advantage of everything, and I mean everything, to win.
Yes, I’m talking about dirty tricks. Because when it comes to life and death, moral means nothing. Nico is the kind that would do the things he needs to do to get work done. He can be cunning, cold, devious. He has literally murdered people for gods’ sake.
Whereas Percy is, literally, a hero. Yeah he has his own demigod instincts too. But can he use it against his own friends? He’s terrified of himself for killing Anklys. It’s a scenario wherein Nico would go all out, tearing his way to get what he wants when Percy has his own morals to keep. It’s unbalanced.
Percy couldn’t kill Luke. And definitely not a Nico towards whom he still bear guilts.
You’re gonna say that Nico has an, ah, affection for Percy, too, which may hinder his actions. However, believe me when I say guilts are much more resilient than romantic attractions. And love can turn into hate, mind you.
Taking in account of their powers, Nico posses a ridiculously wide range of abilities. All of which can be utilized in combat, and Nico knows it.
Firstly, Nico has shadow-travel. Which literally disables any attempt to get a grasp of his actions. If he wants something in somewhere, he would be one of the firsts to get it - with a proper plan, ofc. It would be like a race in which he literally jumps through space while you have to travel by feet. And when it’s you who has to stop him, Nico can prolong your encounter all he wants.
Nico controls ghosts. Now, ghosts and living beings are, without a doubt, completely different. Ghosts don’t have blood. Ghosts can’t be touched. Ghosts can clip through walls. Lord above I honestly can think of barely anyway to defeat them. Nico can simply tell the ghosts o terrorize one’s mind and they would finish it with ease.
In the other hand, Percy is capable of controlling every kind of liquid, blood included.
However, Percy needs to concentrate hard enough to get a hold of someone’s circulation. And gods forbid Nico would stay still at one place to let him do it. Nico’s strong points are literally agility and speed, which can be countered by an AOE attack, for ex., Percy summoning a tsunami to sweep the whole arena and catch Nico in the process, that kind of attack. But again, Nico’s capable of cracking open the ground, and earth absorbs water. So he can either raise a wall of dirt or opening a crack to swallow the whirlpool.
Did I mention Nico’s freaking soul-sucking, insta-ghosting Stygian Iron sword because it’s hella terrifying, btw. That alone is a force to be reckoned with. A cut and you soul is gone. It’s insane.
And Percy would have a hard time disarming him bc while Riptide re-appears in his pocket, Nico’s sword just comes from… thin air? Gods I can’t believe this.
And not just his sword btw, Nico can insta-ghost people. Ridiculously over power.
So technically, if you let him touch you for too long, you’re officially gone. Dead. Game over. You lose.
Ofc he would have to concentrate hard to do it, too. And while one may argue that Percy would wriggle his way out of the hands of a few skeletons, but if you take in account how Reyna tokes on the crossfire when Nico erased Bryce, Nico’s darkness can… weaken people? His pains, his sufferings can be used as a weapon. His aura kills off grass, you can’t possibly tell me it wouldn’t work on a demigod, now can you?
And because it’s Percy, they’re not just simply another’s pain. It’s Nico’s. And Percy has always been guilty when it comes to one Nico di Angelo, believing all those sufferings and anguish has something to do with his mistakes. And because Percy is loyal to a fault, the guilt would only amplify the agony.
Nico’s main weak point is his low stamina. So when it comes down to it, the problem is that whether Percy can prolong the fight enough to get him weakened or not. Provided that he doesn’t fall into any crack and into the Tartarus. That he doesn’t get caught by any zombie hands. That he doesn’t get drown in Nico’s waves of pains. And that Nico doesn’t just… leave. Log out in the middle of the game so that Percy wouldn’t get his win.
End of story.
I have a chem test in less than 12 hours and i’m here writing this essay I can’t believe this.
“there is a violence between words”
i’m all about short lines that just sound good these days, it just sounds….cool
I guess never bet against experience?
Option on GILFS with younger men?
If a GILF wants to land herself a younger guy, go for it. From a real life perspective I’m 100% okay with any two consenting adults hooking up no matter how different they are.
From a porny/sexy perspective, depends on the GILF, but that’s true with anything. I’ll totes admit that in my recent watchthrough of Golden Girls I was all “Stop shitting on Dorothy’s looks you old crows, she’s the hottest one out of all of you.”