For real
. To be clear, despite the repurposed Makima panel in my signature, I lean towards Gojo winning this matchup on average, in the 65-70 wins out of 100 fights sense, but he's winning thanks to his vastly superior AP/firepower, abilities that are much more optimized for combat, and much better defence, not because, "UV isn't an attack." There's no proof that Makima can regenerate from nothing, and basically all of Gojo's regular techniques can be used to completely destroy her body if he manages to hit her in the right way and completely vaporize her, and that's what's winning this for him. I get that a lot of 15-year-old JJK fans love the mental image of their favourite character winning this highly debated fight with his coolest and ultimate technique, instead of his regular techniques having to do the job, but the tortured logic they are using to justify it is painful to read.
"It's not an attack, it's just information overload!" Yeah, and? It's an attack via information/sensory overload, then. Anything that incapacitates you and sets you to die unless you get help (all of those poor suckers in Shibuya who got 0.2 seconded would've died from dehydration unless they got hospitalized) is an attack, there's absolutely no way around it. Saying that something isn't an attack just because it doesn't kill you instantly or "just" paralyzes/incapacitates you is a pure "I'm 14 and this is deep"-tier "argument." If something takes aways someone's ability to fight back against you and allows you to kill them at will, it's an attack, it's that simple.
By that same logic, tasering someone wouldn't count as an attack, because it's non-lethal and "just" overwhelms a target's nervous system to paralyze them, which is exactly what UV does as well, it's just focused on the brain instead of hitting the wider nervous system, unless the argument is that tasering hurts, and that makes it an attack.
"It's just sensory overload, that can't count as an attack!" OK boyo.
en.wikipedia.org
Do I even need to provide a more thorough argument than just linking this article. The mere fact that stun grenades exist and aren't being freely sold in malls or whatever is proof that, in real life, sensory overload leading to people being temporarily incapacitated and helpless is a dangerous attack and that access to weapons capable of causing it must be tightly regulated.
. To be clear, despite the repurposed Makima panel in my signature, I lean towards Gojo winning this matchup on average, in the 65-70 wins out of 100 fights sense, but he's winning thanks to his vastly superior AP/firepower, abilities that are much more optimized for combat, and much better defence, not because, "UV isn't an attack." There's no proof that Makima can regenerate from nothing, and basically all of Gojo's regular techniques can be used to completely destroy her body if he manages to hit her in the right way and completely vaporize her, and that's what's winning this for him. I get that a lot of 15-year-old JJK fans love the mental image of their favourite character winning this highly debated fight with his coolest and ultimate technique, instead of his regular techniques having to do the job, but the tortured logic they are using to justify it is painful to read."It's not an attack, it's just information overload
!" Yeah, and? It's an attack via information/sensory overload, then. Anything that incapacitates you and sets you to die unless you get help (all of those poor suckers in Shibuya who got 0.2 seconded would've died from dehydration unless they got hospitalized) is an attack, there's absolutely no way around it. Saying that something isn't an attack just because it doesn't kill you instantly or "just" paralyzes/incapacitates you is a pure "I'm 14 and this is deep"-tier "argument." If something takes aways someone's ability to fight back against you and allows you to kill them at will, it's an attack, it's that simple.By that same logic, tasering someone wouldn't count as an attack, because it's non-lethal and "just" overwhelms a target's nervous system to paralyze them
, which is exactly what UV does as well, it's just focused on the brain instead of hitting the wider nervous system, unless the argument is that tasering hurts, and that makes it an attack."It's just sensory overload, that can't count as an attack
!" OK boyo.
Stun grenade - Wikipedia
Do I even need to provide a more thorough argument than just linking this article
. The mere fact that stun grenades exist and aren't being freely sold in malls or whatever is proof that, in real life, sensory overload leading to people being temporarily incapacitated and helpless is a dangerous attack and that access to weapons capable of causing it must be tightly regulated.Me going to the court after a spree of throwing flashbangs at kindergarteners, knowing that my attorney found a bunch of Gojo fans who will explain to the judge that overwhelming someone's senses isn't actually an attack be like:
