it's not an opinion it's a loophole in your proposal
you'll leave and disappear into the wilderness to become one with the insects that are more your speed whenever you find someone to take care of sho you need to understand this person in order to let him go but your understandings of people are shit because you're kind of a twisted fucker with no room for forgiveness or imperfection so there's a chance that there's never going to be anyone good enough for you
set some objective criteria that isn't based on your fantasies of ~*understanding people*~ and then we'll talk about who matches up
The imperfections have to be reasonable. If Shouto's life is spared because Elda allows someone else to die to save him, that sort of situation would make both of us regret leaving her with him. And her regret having thought she had decided to watch over him.
[ Though, he realizes the thought also amuses him. ]
see the thing is that's an imperfection you made up assuming worst case scenario of people is fine if you're not judging the worst case scenario as the only evidence of their rationality and potential so shut up about the elda thing for a while
also i don't trust your sense of morals make it more objective what do you want on the list "has never killed a man"?
My therapist told me I would never live a normal life. I agreed with that. Now that we're both uncomfortable with that topic. Let's never speak of it, again.
Non-violent. Drinking may be fine, but no reason to be alcoholic to avoid the truth of the matter. I suppose smoking is acceptable. Only killing yourself with that one.
you're not wrong that i don't want to hear it but i'm not buying it.
being self-sacrificing is fine in the right doses at the very least it's nothing that'd hurt sho otherwise anyone who's a police officer, a firefighter, or in any occupation that involves danger for the sake of helping others isn't up for consideration so no
pick some other aspect of being self-sacrificing if you want it on the list or be more specific
Someone who will ensure the ratio is balanced. Someone who will not constantly be 80% of doing everything for him. Indeed, it is the right doses. I believe that he should be spoiled some. But not so much that he ends up smothered.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
it's a loophole in your proposal
you'll leave and disappear into the wilderness to become one with the insects that are more your speed
whenever you find someone to take care of sho
you need to understand this person in order to let him go
but your understandings of people are shit
because you're kind of a twisted fucker
with no room for forgiveness or imperfection
so there's a chance that there's never going to be anyone good enough for you
set some objective criteria that isn't based on your fantasies of ~*understanding people*~
and then we'll talk about who matches up
[1/4]
The imperfections have to be reasonable.
If Shouto's life is spared because Elda allows someone else to die to save him, that sort of situation would make both of us regret leaving her with him.
And her regret having thought she had decided to watch over him.
[ Though, he realizes the thought also amuses him. ]
no subject
no subject
no subject
But will he be happy about it?
Anyway, objectively, it should be someone a little less morally ambiguous.
no subject
that's an imperfection you made up
assuming worst case scenario of people is fine
if you're not judging the worst case scenario as the only evidence of their rationality and potential
so
shut up about the elda thing for a while
also i don't trust your sense of morals
make it more objective
what do you want on the list
"has never killed a man"?
[he will draft up a fucking contract for this]
no subject
But for the sake of working together, I will.
Fine.
Never killed someone.
Never wished someone dead.
Those two seem fine, yes?
no subject
sure.
not homicidal?
i can agree to that.
what else is on your list
[1/2]
We're making a list.
no subject
Pettiness is inescapable.
But no need to go overboard and burn a man's house down.
no subject
fine.
no subject
no subject
everyone needs to see a therapist eventually.
what are you trying to avoid
purposeful harm to sho?
no subject
And yes.
Someone who would purposely attempt to harm him.
Actual reasonable coping mechanisms.
no subject
do some yoga
smoke a joint
[BAREN]
fine
no purposeful attempts to harm sho
define reasonable coping mechanisms
everyone deals with shit differently
non-violent?
[1/2]
I agreed with that.
Now that we're both uncomfortable with that topic.
Let's never speak of it, again.
no subject
Drinking may be fine, but no reason to be alcoholic to avoid the truth of the matter.
I suppose smoking is acceptable.
Only killing yourself with that one.
no subject
meditation
sitting underneath a waterfall
[moving on,]
no alcoholism
only non-violent coping mechanisms
next?
no subject
Do you want to come with me.
Mass is every Sunday.
[ Moving on. ]
A good person but not necessarily kind.
no subject
"good"
are you even trying for objective anymore
no subject
I apologize.
The non-self-sacrificing type, then.
no subject
[now he's just trying to make himself laugh.]
is that really what good means to you?
not about to throw themselves into a fire?
no subject
It's kind.
But it is not "good."
I'd get into the explanation.
However, that would require a long-winded story.
Which neither of us want to get into.
no subject
but i'm not buying it.
being self-sacrificing is fine in the right doses
at the very least it's nothing that'd hurt sho
otherwise anyone who's
a police officer, a firefighter, or in any occupation that involves danger for the sake of helping others
isn't up for consideration
so
no
pick some other aspect of being self-sacrificing if you want it on the list
or be more specific
no subject
Someone who will ensure the ratio is balanced.
Someone who will not constantly be 80% of doing everything for him.
Indeed, it is the right doses.
I believe that he should be spoiled some.
But not so much that he ends up smothered.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)