#not logic

[allastoredeer]

I have no problem with al being a bottom, I just have a hard time with bottom king lucifer as a top. May I have examples to try and see your side?

Exhibit A:

Dat smirk.

Exhibit B:

Soft Top Lucifer

Exhibit C:

Demon Top Lucifer

Exhibit C:

That sexy shoulder bop

Exhibit D:

Look at this guy.

Exhibit E:

Obvious one.

Exhibit F:

I just wanted to post this one cuz I like his smirky little face.

LOL no, seriously though, there's no specific way a character has to act or behave to be deemed a top, bottom or switch. It's a preferred sexual position that isn't dependent on outside factors, it's just what a person enjoys, and what the reader/viewer wants that character to be. That's essentially what it is. It's not based on logic, it's based on what position the fan prefers for them to be in.

Lucifer could do his sexy little shoulder bop and still be a bottom. He can give the most suave, seductive smirk and still be a bottom. It's different for everyone.

But as for why I like top!Lucifer, here are a few reasons:

A) I really like it when shorties top. So often, in almost all fandoms I've been in, the default for a popular ship is the shorter one bottoming and the taller one topping. As a shortie myself, I just...ugh, I get so tired of it. Especially since the bottom is typically softened, UwU-ified, and turned into this delicate little flower. Bringing personal feelings into this, I've been very short and very thin all my life. I've literally been described as "delicate" before, and as someone who enjoys sports, running around, and is just a loud, rough and tumble person by nature, I absolutely hate it. It's given me a lot of mental and emotional issues, and a lot of the treatment and comments I've gotten has made me feel belittled, vulnerable, and weak. So, while being a bottom doesn't mean you're any of those things, short characters have been treated like that for a majority of the fandoms I've been in, no matter what their personality, stature, behaviors, or attitude was, and seeing it brings out of love of dark and negative feelings that I'd rather not re-live when I'm trying to enjoy myself in fandom. (Which is another reason why I dislike so much bottom!Lucifer because he's so often softened down and turned into this naive, dare I say, helpless little lamb. The moment Alastor overpowers him or easily manipulates him into a deal, I am outta there.)

B) Lucifer has that top energy. Can't explain it. He just does. To be clear, I don't see him exclusively as a top. He's a switch. But I do headcanon Alastor as exclusively a bottom, so in any radioapple relationship I write or draw, Lucifer will top.

and C) the most important reason: I like seeing Alastor get railed.

Alastor bottoms in all the ships I have for him and Lucifer is no exception. Besides, I find a lot of versatility and potential in Lucifer being with/fucking a sinner, especially considering his distaste of them. Makes for a good hate-fucking scenario, or a very emotional and in-depth character deep dive of him coming to terms with his own bias and internalized hatred of them and finding love and companionship in one of the very people he despised. That's some delicious mental turmoil and the perfect opportunity for character development.

(LOL there's a lot of talk of Alastor not bottoming because of his ego, and yet nobody considers that maybe Lucifer wouldn't bottom for Alastor because he's a sinner. He is the embodiment of pride after all. So, combining that with his disdain for sinners, would he really "stoop" so low as to let one of them fuck him? Food for thought).

But seriously though, when it comes down to it, I just like Alastor bottoming and Lucifer topping. Yes, bottom!Lucifer and top!Alastor has been soured for me due to popular fandom depictions of it, but even before those were popular, I simply preferred Alastor bottoming. I enjoy it more, not just for his character, but just...because. I just do.

Thing is, I don't think there has to be a list of reasons for why you prefer a character topping, bottoming, or switching. People are allowed to do whatever they want with these characters. It's fandom. This is a playground. We don't have to have a reason, we're just here to have fun.

If you can't see Lucifer as a top, Anon, that is a-okay 👍👍Thanks for asking for a different perspective though, it's always awesome when a person seeks to understand someone else's point of view. I don't know how well of a different perspective I offered, though. I have a hard time answering questions like these bcuz they just don't make a lot of sense to me. It's hard to say why I like something when I just...do. I just vibe with it.

To boil it all down, my examples/answers are all based on what I like and how I feel. I like bottom!Alastor cuz I enjoy it. I like top!Lucifer because I love seeing Alastor get railed - especially by a big, powerful demon king. Very yummy.

Also, LOL, considering Alastor is exclusively a bottom to me, anyone I do ship him with will automatically be the top, regardless of who they are XD So I guess that's an important factor to consider too 😂

I don't know how well I did with answering this, but I do want you to get the perspective you were looking for, so! My fellow bottom!Alastor truthers who are reading this, drop why you like bottom!Alastor in the comments below for our lovely Anon!

I'm curious about what you guys have to say too.

[logic-of-posts]

The premise of this blog is self-evident. If you want to refer to me for some reason then use it/its pronouns.

I have nothing else to say so I may as well write a primer to concepts on this blog.

Propositions

A proposition is a statement that can either be true or false. Here are some propositions and their truth values:

"This is a blog on Tumblr." (true)

"1+1=2" (true)

"Gravity is a repelling force." (false)

"5<2" (false)

Propositions are represented as propositional variables. For instance, the proposition "It is raining" might be represented as r. I will be using p, q, and r as example variables henceforth, but keep in mind that each does hypothetically correspond to a proposition.

Connectives

There are three fundamental logical connectives:

Conjunction, ∧, "and"

Disjunction, ∨, "or"

Negation, ¬, "not"

The statement p∧q is only true if both p AND q are true. If either, or both, are false, then it is false as well.

The statement p∨q is true if at least one p OR q is true. The only way that this statement can be false is if neither p nor q is true.

The statement ¬p is true if p is false. If p is true, then ¬p is false.

I would love to demonstrate this with truth tables but Tumblr doesn't support tables :(

Derived Connectives

There are three other connectives worth mentioning, but they are technically just combinations of the three connectives mentioned before. I will give them as part of a logical formula because it is easy to say what they are equivalent to

Conditional, p→q ≡ ¬p∨q

Biconditional, p↔q ≡ (p→q)∧(q→p)

Exclusive or, p⊕q ≡ (p∨q)∧¬(p∧q)

For whatever reason, XOR is probably the rarest connective? You don't really see it a lot. But it is a valid connective, and you might see it here.

That symbol with the three lines (≡) represents equivalence, which I will discuss slightly later.

Equivalence

The "slightly later" is NOW!

Firstly: a propositional formula is a tautology if it is always true and a contradiction if it is always false. The most simple tautology is p∨¬p, and the most simple contradiction is p∧¬p. Anything that is not a tautology or contradiction is a contingency.

If the logical formula p↔q is a tautology, then p≡q. There are a whole host of equivalence laws that can be used to simplify logical formulas, which I don't feel like listing out, so go read this Wikipedia article and come back, I guess.

I use my shitty plagiarized hodgepodge program to find the logically equivalent formula that has the smallest possible amount of connectives. It uses truth tables, which means it's globally minimal, but takes a really long time :(

First-Order Logic

First-order logic is like propositional logic, except it also includes predicates and quantifiers.

Open Sentences

Just as a heads up, this whole section will be more mathy than the previous, because I'm most familiar with these concepts in a math way. But, as you'll see, they don't have to be applied in a math way at all.

That being said. Look at these two propositions:

1>2

3>2

The first one is false, and the second one is true. But is this true or false?

x>2

Well, it can't be said because x is undefined. But how would one define it? Well, that's done via

Predicates

So. Let me define "x>2" as P(x). And I'll gloss over this right now but let's say the universe of discourse of x is integers. But now I have done that:

P(1) is false (because 1>2 is false)

P(2) is false (because 2>2 is false)

P(3) is true (because 3>2 is true)

P(4) is true (because 4>2 is true)

And so on.

I will say that the the vast majority of people will, when discussing a predicate, use x, y, and z as placeholder variables. I will do that in this very post. But everywhere else, I will use Greek letters. Because they are fun.

Quantifiers

There are 3 main quantifiers, though the last one is quite rare.

Universal quantifier, "∀"

Existential quantifier, "∃"

Unique existential quantifier, "∃!"

Using these, we can turn predicate statements back into nice easy propositions:

∀x(P(x)) "For all x, the statement x>2 is true." (false)

∃x(P(x)) "There exists at least one x to where x>2 is true." (true)

∃!x(P(x)) "There exists exactly one x such that x>2 is true." (false)

Again, the placeholder variables are usually x, y, and z. I will probably stick by that as well but I might use different letters if I want.

Now to discuss the universe of discourse, which I will represent with 𝔻 for convenience. Earlier, I said it was integers for x, but it can be any set. It could be all real numbers. It could be all natural numbers that are a power of 2. It could be all kittens in the world. As long as it is a set. It represents all possible variables that those quantifiers can check for.

But let's say the universe of discourse of, say, k, is simply {1, 2, 3}. And let's say that Q(k) is just some predicate. I really don't know or care what it is. These equivalences follow:

∀k(Q(k)) ≡ Q(1)∧Q(2)∧Q(3)

∃k(Q(k)) ≡ Q(1)∨Q(2)∨Q(3)

∃!k(Q(k)) is more complicated unfortunately...

Theoretically, this means that any of those equivalence laws from before can be applied. But since the universe of discourse is incredibly large or infinite in the majority of cases, these equivalences do not mean much. But the most important thing is probably De Morgan's laws:

¬∀x(P(x)) ≡ ∃x¬(P(x))

¬∃x(P(x)) ≡ ∀x¬(P(x))

Unfortunately ∃! has nothing like this.

Advanced Quantifiers

I don't know know how to define this generally, so I will do some symbolization and leave you to do some inductive reasoning. I hope I don't mess up symbolization here because that would be awkward.

So! I shall define a few things:

The universe of discourse of all variables is all types of living creatures

E(x,y) = "x eats y"

C(x) = "x eats animals"

H(x) = "x eats plants"

L(x) = "x photosynthesizes"

A(x) = "x is an animal"

P(x) = "x is a plant"

Now. Here are a couple of symbolization examples.

"All plants photosynthesize." ≡ ∀x(P(x)→L(x))

"There exists at least one animal that eats plants." ≡ ∃x(A(x)∧H(x))

"Everything eats plants, animals, or photosynthesize." ≡ ∀x(C(x)∨H(x)∨L(x))

"No animals photosynthesize." ≡ ¬∃x(A(x)∧L(x))

Now. Time for nested quantifiers:

"All animals eat something."≡ ∀x(A(x)→(∃y(E(x,y))))

"There exists at least one thing that eats everything." ≡ ∃x(∀y(E(x,y)))

"There exists at least one animal that eats all plants." ≡ ∃x(A(x)∧(∀y(P(y)→E(x,y))))

Again. Please tell me if I fucked up the symbolization here.

[fruit-salad-ship]

What would each of the trio’s reactions be to Jesse, James, and Meowth showing up on the island after being thrown out of Rocket? I think Peach would appreciate them trying to go clean, Grey would fall in love with their levels of gay bumbleheadedness, and Pearl would hate them at first only interacting well with Meowth as the straight man in each group.

(I know you mainly focus on the games and the like but the idea of them finding themselves shipwrecked there was just to cute to me.)

Peach would be quietly glad they’re trying their best, may even take interest in James, he’s competent and concerned with the welfare of his mons even if he acts a dope. She however is not often socially available, or emotionally open enough to concern herself with others in meaningful ways. So long as they cause no trouble and stay out of her way, she’s indifferent at best. Typical of her, she slaps a traditionally pleasant expression on to answer the questions or help visitors, and as soon as she is of no use, she turns the public-service face off and gets back to her job. She would be this way with them.

Grey would be the same to some degree, they have very little time to hang around and socialise, and while he’d be fine with them around, he’s busy all day and has more important things to handle. He would enjoy their extra personalities/showman ship however, and appreciate the oddity of a talking meowth. Gush over bottle caps with James for sure! Far friendlier than peach, may even humour more than basic questions if he’s not swamped with work.

Plum would be sus. No other way to put it. Those three are so seemingly bad at being evil, it must be a ploy, or a scam. She warms to them the most of the three over time, having more hours to spend interacting. Her meowth may even like their one, who knows. Jessie and plum may get along with time, the pair share a lot of love for luxury, could happily bond over the finer things.

[princeofdoomrps-archive]

Me: Lets make this character reptilian maybe

Also me: fishnet shirt aesthetic for him

[vidcundnerdsims]

I imagine that the taxi crosses the street as indicated by the red line, the yellow line tries to cross but can not because there is no road.

[m4cravings]

Basically, It’s Never Logical When It Comes To Love

[accidentiaituoiocchi]

-accidentiaituoiocchi