What Peter did to Scott was a utter and complete violation.

Peter was the same kind of evil that Kate Argent was.

These two both chose to violate, abuse and harm children for their own selfish needs. And did so fully aware of what they were doing.

Yet Peter knew what he was doing, he was fully aware, and it's part of what made him a psychopath, and what made him evil.

I never said it wasn't a violation, it was a violation. I never said it was ok for him to do that to Scott. What I am saying is that his reason for doing it was most likely because of Scott's comment because Peter can be vindictive. That's literally the only point of my post.

I don't compare trauma that characters have, no matter what kind of trauma or the amount of trauma, it's all harmful.

I don't know why you're bringing up Kate, but I disagree. Kate is clearly worse than Peter, not because he's more likeable, attractive, and sometimes on the good side, but because the reasoning behind why they do the things they do is completely different.

Peter has trauma which twisted his mind, Kate does what she does out of pure hatred and enjoys causing pain, just like her dad, Gerard.

Peter had issues before the fire, yes, but most of what he does that we see is due to his trauma from the fire and being catatonic for 6 years healing super slowly and in severe pain while aware of his surroundings but unable to interact. He's able to stew for 6 years in that hurt which turns to anger.

He kills the people responsible for the fire to get revenge. He acts out and does whatever makes him feel better (like he's trying to self soothe but in all the wrong ways). Peter does things for a reason, I'd even say Peter doesn't do anything on whim, it's all calculated and planned out to reach a goal.

Kate doesn't have trauma (that we know of), she has a father who raised her to hate werewolves and enjoy the hunt, no matter how wrong or illegal it is. And given how much she clearly enjoys torturing werewolves, there was already something wrong with her from the start.

The things that Kate and Peter do are bad, but Kate and Peter are not the same.

Reasons for why people do the things they do are important. It's why I see Kate as a worse person than Peter. Because she liked hurting people and she hated werewolves for no reason. Peter is an ass and an awful person, but I don't see him as pure evil like Kate and Gerard. His trauma shaped him into the person we see. Doesn't excuse his actions, but trauma causing bad actions is not the same as hatred causing bad actions.

Not to mention that Kate doesn't actually care about anyone. She doesn't have any capacity of love, not even for her family.

But we are able to see that Peter is capable of love and actually does care about a few people, like Cora, Derek, and Stiles.

Again, I'm not excusing what Peter did. Peter and Kate both do horrible shit, but Kate is clearly worse than Peter. It's ok if you disagree, but the intent and the reasons why are huge factors I take into account.

One Peter and Kate are just as evil. They both violated children out of selfishness.

Kate did it to gain her father's approval, Peter did it out of want for power, because he couldn't handle that Scott rejected his control, because Scott wouldn't blindly obey him and do as Peter tried to force him to, when Peter tried to control Scott's mind, and tried to make Scott murder his friends, including Stiles.

Peter did NOT do what he do out of trauma, sure he had trauma, but he was already manipulative and abusive before the fire, just look at how he manipulated Derek, when Derek was a teen.

But Peter's trauma does not excuse the harm and suffering he caused to innocents like Scott, like the janitor, like Lydia, like Derek...

Peter did not care about others. Just look at how he hurt everyone around him. And no, he most definitely did not care about Stiles in the slightest.

That's a fantasy fanon built up, not based on canon. He wanted to use Stiles to manipulate Scott, that's all,that's the only reason he offered the bite. Just like he tried to use Stiles to manipulate Scott, by trying to mindcontrol Scott into murdering Stiles in Night School.

Peter didn't kill Stiles in co-captain, because at that point Stiles was still potentially useful to manipulate Scott, and killing him at that point would have turned Scott against him forever, whereas turning Stiles against his will, would have just added another werewolf in the fight against Peter.

The moment stiles was no longer useful to him, Peter would have killed him, just like he did to the nurse that helped him in s1 just like he assaulted, bit and turned Scott, just to use him, to take advantage of him, to violate his mind and body, so he could use him as a distraction for the Argents.

Peter is inherently selfish and cruel. He will always put himself and his need for power first. His family only mattered to him in how they were his, aka his property... Which is the only way he saw Derek and Cora, and Malia... just look at how easily he was willing to sacrifice Malia for his own needs both in s4 and s6...

But most of all, the fact that you think Scott saying something mean to Peter makes it ok for Peter to physically and mentally violate a child in a scene very much reminiscent of a rape scene... That's one of the worst things you ever could have typed.

That's like saying Sties deserved to be beaten up by Gerard because he said something mean to him.

That's like saying Isaac deserved to be beaten up by his father

that's like saying a rape victim deserved it...

Because that's how the scene in the showers was filmed, how it was presented.

a halfnaked child comes out of the showers, he finds himself cornered by two grown man, one of them stops him from running away,while the other assaults him, and violates him. And when it's over, he's left violated, tormented on the floor shuddering in pain, utterly vulnerable to anyone who comes in next...

and you claim 'he did it to himself 'payback is a bitch'?

Seriously?

Oh my God, can you please show me where I said it was ok for Peter to do that? I have repeatedly said over and over again that it’s not ok and that his reasoning doesn’t make it ok!

I’m not claiming Scott did it to himself. I’m not saying that Scott saying something mean makes it ok for Peter to violate him like that. The paybacks a bitch part is what I see Peter thinking, not me.

You keep saying that I said what Peter did was ok and I keep saying it wasn’t ok. So I don’t know why you keep insisting I’m saying what Peter did was ok when I haven’t said that at all.

So please show me where I said that because I haven’t said that at all. I can give reasons why I think someone did something without thinking it’s ok. I don’t understand why you keep thinking I’m justifying that act. I even agreed with you and said it was a violation!

Since the scarring is on the side of her neck, it's very likely her vocal chords weren't damaged at all. But if they were damaged, there are treatments and speech therapy exercises that can help with being able to speak again if the damage isn't too severe.

As for scratches causing someone to turn, it can only be by an alpha werewolf, and it has to be really deep in there, like when Peter slashed Kate's throat with his claws. In all honesty, Kate shouldn't have survived long enough to be able to turn since it takes a while to turn.

Even when having your throat slashed and hitting both arteries, it's not an instant death, its fast, but if you are able to quickly put pressure on where the arteries are cut, it can keep the person alive long enough to get medical attention.

Only one side of her throat was cut, so to me it's more believable for Braeden to survive the wound than for Kate to survive her's.

It's also possible that Braeden's cut wasn't as deep as Kate's. Scarring can make things look worse than what they were, especially if someone scars easier than most (like me).

With what it is that turns someone into a werewolf, I think it has to do with the bloodstream being infected with whatever it is that infects someone. I agree it can't be the saliva, because that wouldn't explain why the claws can cause someone to turn at times, it can't be the fangs because then the claws wouldn't turn anyone.

I'm guessing that the writers didn't really think about the lore on this. It never made sense to me that a deep enough scratch could turn someone.

Yeah, I don't think they (the writers) thought about the lore very hard.

I know humans can heal from serious injuries, I just figured that if the claws went so deep then using Kate as reference Braeden should have turned or died but I guess it didn't fit or the claws don't work every time.

Yeah, gotta love plot holes lol

What Peter did to Scott was a utter and complete violation.

Peter was the same kind of evil that Kate Argent was.

These two both chose to violate, abuse and harm children for their own selfish needs. And did so fully aware of what they were doing.

Yet Peter knew what he was doing, he was fully aware, and it's part of what made him a psychopath, and what made him evil.

I never said it wasn’t a violation, it was a violation. I never said it was ok for him to do that to Scott. What I am saying is that his reason for doing it was most likely because of Scott’s comment because Peter can be vindictive. That’s literally the only point of my post.

I don’t compare trauma that characters have, no matter what kind of trauma or the amount of trauma, it’s all harmful.

I don’t know why you’re bringing up Kate, but I disagree. Kate is clearly worse than Peter, not because he’s more likeable, attractive, and sometimes on the good side, but because the reasoning behind why they do the things they do is completely different.

Peter has trauma which twisted his mind, Kate does what she does out of pure hatred and enjoys causing pain, just like her dad, Gerard.

Peter had issues before the fire, yes, but most of what he does that we see is due to his trauma from the fire and being catatonic for 6 years healing super slowly and in severe pain while aware of his surroundings but unable to interact. He’s able to stew for 6 years in that hurt which turns to anger.

He kills the people responsible for the fire to get revenge. He acts out and does whatever makes him feel better (like he’s trying to self soothe but in all the wrong ways). Peter does things for a reason, I’d even say Peter doesn’t do anything on whim, it’s all calculated and planned out to reach a goal.

Kate doesn’t have trauma (that we know of), she has a father who raised her to hate werewolves and enjoy the hunt, no matter how wrong or illegal it is. And given how much she clearly enjoys torturing werewolves, there was already something wrong with her from the start.

The things that Kate and Peter do are bad, but Kate and Peter are not the same.

Reasons for why people do the things they do are important. It’s why I see Kate as a worse person than Peter. Because she liked hurting people and she hated werewolves for no reason. Peter is an ass and an awful person, but I don’t see him as pure evil like Kate and Gerard. His trauma shaped him into the person we see. Doesn’t excuse his actions, but trauma causing bad actions is not the same as hatred causing bad actions.

Not to mention that Kate doesn’t actually care about anyone. She doesn’t have any capacity of love, not even for her family.

But we are able to see that Peter is capable of love and actually does care about a few people, like Cora, Derek, and Stiles.

Again, I’m not excusing what Peter did. Peter and Kate both do horrible shit, but Kate is clearly worse than Peter. It’s ok if you disagree, but the intent and the reasons why are huge factors I take into account.