Originally posted by Nephthys
Its.... like you're some kind of beaver, thats jus- just eating up all the logic and squeezing out bullshit. You are a bull beaver hybrid. A Bulver.And thats just terrible.
I'm not even going to bother to explain why this is so incredibly stupid. Just leave. I really hope you were being sarcastic.
Cower before the might of that argument and suck right on its hairy balls. Afterwards, it is you who should GTFO.
P.S. No napkins will be provided. Use your sleeve.
Originally posted by Nephthys
There is no such fvcking fallacy. facepalm
There is simply because I say there is. It's just as stupid and "lame" as the no-limits fallacy. Some nerds thought it up during a vs. discussion.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, we are saying that in a forum thread something (the barrier) cannot be block something vastly greater than what its been shown to be able to (Superman). To say that it can is pure conjecture and baseless speculation. And also very, very stupid.
What's stupid...
**** it. I've already explained why your line of reasoning is stupid. Deal with it instead of making circles.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, you idiot. If the barrier had the feats to back it up I would freely admit that Superman would be unable to brake through. As shown it has been shown to block [b]Smoke. Whoopdy fvcking do! Supermans powers are not unlimited, but they have been shown to be vastly superior to what the barrier has shown. End of discussion.[/B]
Again, that's a fallacy: you have no P yet you're concluding Q.
GTFO with that shitty logic and don't come back until you:
A. Admit you were making a retarded claim.
B. Admit that it's a futile line of discussion that cannot be proven either way.
Originally posted by Nephthys
We don't need an upper limit.. There is no such thing as a limits fallacy. You made it up.
You need to support your upper limit. There is a such thing as a limits fallacy as you've just committed it.
Additionally, I've also provided a REAL label that shows exactly what type of fallacy it is so stop pretending like "limits fallacy" does not exist when there's an actual REAL label for it. It's just a giant red herring on your part to pretend that there's a debate to be had by "NUH UH! LIMITS FALLACY DOESN'T EXIST! NARF!"
Originally posted by Nephthys
Um, where teh fvck are you getting this from? Was this actually stated in the movie, or is it another thing that you just pulled out of your ass and are now parading as fact?
How can the shield charms be taken down under normal circumstances? (You know the answer.)
How were they taken down in abnormal circumstances? (You know the answer.)
GTFO with your retarded questions, please.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Fixed.
To your edits, edit by edit:
1. That's a complete waste of space and adds nothing to the point. In fact, it only adds to the futile approach your retarded line of reasoning was trying to inject. Additionally, that's a linguistic ellipsis as it's directly implied. Stop wasting your time.
2. You didn't answer the question. Your answer was "just because". GTFO. You are just proving exactly why I called that bullshit out: you're applying arbitrary limits. You could just as well apply the arbitrary limit just outside of Superman's ability to break it and that is still just as logical sound as what you're doing.
3. You're such a ridiculous hypocrite. What you just said can be equally applied to your side. Don't you see what a moron you're being? It's like you've never had a versus discussion before in your life.
4. Again, this is why I put the ellipses there because YOU HAVE YET TO PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANCE! What you have used is absolutely WORTHLESS! It's a waste of space, time, etc. You have done nothing but make your point even more hypocritical.
5. Only if you're the "bear" that does the plowing. 313
Originally posted by Nephthys
HAH! GTFO noob.
It's not my fault that she's an idiot. 🙂
There is simply because I say there is. It's just as stupid and "lame" as the no-limits fallacy. Some nerds thought it up during a vs. discussion.
Yes dadudeman, thank you for inventing a new form of fallacy for us. You're such a pioneer in logical reasoning. *slow clap*
The No-Limits Fallacy is actually a fallacy because, get this, it is actually a fallacy. Your thing is stupid and and in fact propagates a fallacy. Nothing short of an omnipotent force is infinate. To assume the shield is is fvcking retarded.
What's stupid...
'The barrier has no defined limits THEREFORE IT IS LIMITLESS!1!'
Stupid.
**** it. I've already explained why your line of reasoning is stupid. Deal with it instead of making circles.
Your inability to address my points has been noted.
Again, that's a fallacy: you have no P yet you're concluding Q.
I'm concluding Q because there is no P! The barrier has shown Nothing! to suggest it can stop Superman. Nothing.
B. Admit that it's a futile line of discussion that cannot be proven either way.
Occam's Razor.
You need to support your upper limit. There is a such thing as a limits fallacy as you've just committed it.
The upper limit is what it has shown itself to be able to block. Are we to assume that because Superman was walking through gatling gun fire that he is utterly impervious to harm. No, because that would be stupid. And yet you're claiming teh very same thing for the barrier.
Additionally, I've also provided a REAL label that shows exactly what type of fallacy it is so stop pretending like "limits fallacy" does not exist when there's an actual REAL label for it. It's just a giant red herring on your part to pretend that there's a debate to be had by "NUH UH! LIMITS FALLACY DOESN'T EXIST! NARF!"
Well then use the actual word for it rather than trying to claim you've invented a new form of fallacy. Just say non sequitur fallacy. Which by the way does not reply here.
How can the shield charms be taken down under normal circumstances? (You know the answer.)How were they taken down in abnormal circumstances? (You know the answer.)
GTFO with your retarded questions, please.
No, seriously, why the hell do you think the shield can only be brought down by magic? Because you absolutely have no fvcking proof of that, so you? You just made that up. Again.
1. That's a complete waste of space and adds nothing to the point. In fact, it only adds to the futile approach your retarded line of reasoning was trying to inject. Additionally, that's a linguistic ellipsis as it's directly implied. Stop wasting your time.
5 > 1. Superman is the 5. The Shield has shown it can block 1. It is baseless and a fallacy to assume that it can therefore stop 5.
A>B
C>B
Therefore C>A?
No.
2. You didn't answer the question. Your answer was "just because". GTFO. You are just proving exactly why I called that bullshit out: you're applying arbitrary limits. You could just as well apply the arbitrary limit just outside of Superman's ability to break it and that is still just as logical sound as what you're doing.
EVERYTHING. HAS. A. LIMIT!
Magic is not an infinate, omnipotent force. It has limits. To assume, which is what you're doing, as I've said, you have absolutely no proof of this and seriously are just making this up as you go along, that something has no upper limit is a logical fallacy.
3. You're such a ridiculous hypocrite. What you just said can be equally applied to your side. Don't you see what a moron you're being? It's like you've never had a versus discussion before in your life.
No, it can't. If you actually had the feats to back it up you damn well could prove your side. But you don't. I do have the feats. Superman's feats are better than the barriers. Therefore, via Occam's Razor etc, he can logically brake through it. It's called evidence. Use it.
4. Again, this is why I put the ellipses there because YOU HAVE YET TO PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANCE! What you have used is absolutely WORTHLESS! It's a waste of space, time, etc. You have done nothing but make your point even more hypocritical.
I've proven that Superman's abilities are beyond what the barrier has been shown to block. Thats real. You've speculated that it might be beyond his ability to brake through. You have nothing to back up your argument. Zero. Absolutely Nil. So do us a favor and don't bother replying until you have more than rainbow dust and happy thoughts.
It's not my fault that she's an idiot.
It's called Word of God for a reason numnuts. What Rowling says is law in her universe. It is absolute fact.
Superman heatvisions everything out of existence. Hancock punches the ground and disintergrates the Earth. They were never shown to have upper limits so obviously their abilities are without them.
/thread.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yes dadudeman, thank you for inventing a new form of fallacy for us. You're such a pioneer in logical reasoning. *slow clap*
You do realize that I can make the "limits fallacy" more official on the internets than the "no-limits fallacy" currently is, correct?
You do realize how utterly stupid it is to pretend that the "no limits fallacy" is more cemented, just because some comic book geeks invented it a few years ago, than a limits fallacy, right?
Additionally, Mr. Circles (you are debating worse than RJ, at this point):
"I've also provided a REAL label that shows exactly what type of fallacy it is so stop pretending like "limits fallacy" does not exist when there's an actual REAL label for it. It's just a giant red herring on your part to pretend that there's a debate to be had by "NUH UH! LIMITS FALLACY DOESN'T EXIST! NARF!""
Originally posted by Nephthys
The No-Limits Fallacy is actually a fallacy because, get this, it is actually a fallacy. Your thing is stupid and and in fact propagates a fallacy. Nothing short of an omnipotent force is infinate. To assume the shield is is fvcking retarded.
It's actually not a fallacy, at all. It's an invented term that just popped up on the interwebz in the last few years because "just because some comic book geeks invented it a few years ago."
I have every right to describe and label a specific non sequitur fallacy as anyone else on the internet.
You can kindly shove that faux elitism up your ass without lube.
Originally posted by Nephthys
'The barrier has no defined limits [b]THEREFORE IT IS LIMITLESS!1!'Stupid.[/B]
WRONG!
At least learn what the other side's argument is before you argue against it.
Try again.
I'll give you one chance before I start ignoring your already quite stupid posts.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Your inability to address my points has been noted.
Your inability to read has been duly noted in the very same section you just quoted. Look at me, I one-upped you before you could even make a comeback. dur
Originally posted by Nephthys
I'm concluding Q because there is no P! The barrier has shown [b]Nothing! to suggest it can stop Superman. Nothing.[/B]
"At least learn what the other side's argument is before you argue against it.
Try again."
In order to prove your side, you must do the following:
1. Show the shields' upper limits to physical force.
2. Prove the Superman exceeds this upper limit by even a tiny little bit.
Since 2 directly depends on 1 and 1 cannot be determined, you cannot make any conclusions.
Now haven't I already explained this? Do you see how you're worse than RJ (at this point, you're worse than anything you claim he is, by far.)
Originally posted by Nephthys
Occam's Razor.
Yes, Occam's Razor would lead you to believe the following:
"Only magic can defeat magic."
Not:
"Only a large blunt physical force can take down magic that is resistant to blunt physical force."
Using Occam's Razor is also committing a logical fallacy: oversimplification.
Maybe you've met the contemporary detractor known as the anti-razor?
Originally posted by Nephthys
The upper limit is what it has shown itself to be able to block. Are we to assume that because Superman was walking through gatling gun fire that he is utterly impervious to harm. No, because that would be stupid. And yet you're claiming teh very same thing for the barrier.
WRONG!
At least learn what the other side's argument is before you argue against it.
Try again.
I'll give you one chance before I start ignoring your already quite stupid posts.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Well then use the actual word for it rather than trying to claim you've invented a new form of fallacy. Just say non sequitur fallacy. Which by the way does not reply here.
It does apply here. It's been explained to you by not just me but Blaxican, Nemebro, and Ares.
Do the following:
1. Show the shields' upper limits to physical force.
2. Prove the Superman exceeds this upper limit by even a tiny little bit.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, seriously, why the hell do you think the shield can only be brought down by magic? Because you absolutely have no fvcking proof of that, so you? You just made that up. Again.
I asked you two questions; stop dodging.
How are the shields taken down through normal means?
How are the shields taken down through abnormal means?
This directly applies to your side of the argument (before you get all ***** on me, again, I'm not on the opposite side of your argument).
Originally posted by Nephthys
5 > 1. Superman is the 5. The Shield has shown it can block 1. It is baseless and a fallacy to assume that it can therefore stop 5.A>B
C>B
Therefore C>A?
No.
Prove that.
You have not proven ANY of that. Not one iota of that have been proven. You cannot make any of those points. Good god, man: why the hell don't you understand something so simple!
Originally posted by Nephthys
EVERYTHING. HAS. A. LIMIT!
This is incorrect, by far. Surely you don't believe something as retarded as that?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Magic is not an infinate, omnipotent force. It has limits. To assume, which is what you're doing, as I've said, you have absolutely no proof of this and seriously are just making this up as you go along, that something has no upper limit is a logical fallacy.
WRONG!
At least learn what the other side's argument is before you argue against it.
Try again.
I'll give you one chance before I start ignoring your already quite stupid posts.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, it can't. If you actually had the feats to back it up you damn well could prove your side. But you don't. I do have the feats. Superman's feats are better than the barriers. Therefore, via Occam's Razor etc, he can logically brake through it. It's called evidence. Use it.
Covered your retarded idea on Occam's Razor, already.
Do the following:
1. Show the shields' upper limits to physical force.
2. Prove the Superman exceeds this upper limit by even a tiny little bit.
Go ahead: I'm waiting on both.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I've proven that Superman's abilities are beyond what the barrier has been shown to block. Thats real. You've speculated that it might be beyond his ability to brake through. You have nothing to back up your argument. Zero. Absolutely Nil. So do us a favor and don't bother replying until you have more than rainbow dust and happy thoughts.
WRONG!
At least learn what the other side's argument is before you argue against it.
Try again.
I'll give you one chance before I start ignoring your already quite stupid posts.
Do the following:
1. Show the shields' upper limits to physical force.
2. Prove the Superman exceeds this upper limit by even a tiny little bit.
Go ahead: I'm waiting on both.
Originally posted by Nephthys
It's called Word of God for a reason numnuts. What Rowling says is law in her universe. It is absolute fact.
Except it's not. They are not God, they are subject to mistakes. It's just the same as George Lucas and Star Wars: he has made many mistakes on things he's spoken about concerning his own creation.
Only an idiot would assume that JK Rowling's obviously incorrect statements would be absolute. Call shit for what it is: shit.
So what did we learn about your posting style? It's wrought with immature insults (which I parodized), red herring come backs, and absurdly obvious misunderstanding of the other's argument. Add in two heaping scoops of raging circular arguments and what we end up with is your current posting style at me.
Surely you can do better than single me out when there's a minimum of 3 other people that are in agreement with me? Why would you single me out instead of beating on the others? hmmm?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Superman heatvisions everything out of existence. Hancock punches the ground and disintergrates the Earth. They were never shown to have upper limits so obviously their abilities are without them.
That's not the way things work in here though. Upper-limit is what is shown.
Superman's heat-vision is hot enough to drill through the earth as seen, so that's its limit.
Hancock has enough strength/speed to carve a giant heart-shape into the moon and arguably in less than one full day. So that's his.
Superman alone has enough ridiculous abilities to win, let alone with Hancock and Hulks. No need to go overboard.
Originally posted by dadudemon1. But... **** Neph I'm more important than he is. D: WHY DIDN'T YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ME!?
I was talking about an argument that Nephthys and I had in the past: it looked like others were bringing it up, again. I actually didn't read your posts in this thread because:1. They were too long.
2. You were most likely correct.
You took that quote way out of context and she's also wrong: the wizard could easily apparate away, apparate back with an anvil, and drop it on the muggle. 🙂
She's not smart enough to understand vs. debates. 🙂 She's also not smart enough to understand her own universe.
Why is this?
Here's why:
"You took that quote way out of context and she's also wrong: the wizard could easily apparate away, apparate back with an anvil, and drop it on the muggle. 🙂
She's not smart enough to understand vs. debates. 🙂 She's also not smart enough to understand her own universe."
You also have to prove that she didn't have "shields up before the fight starts" in mind, as well.
It doesn't even come close to supporting superman being able to destroy shields: she's also wrong even IF shields are not up.
I was never offended, at all, in the other thread. No harm done. I do not think you have some sort of ulterior motives: it's all fun. Some people just don't understand that.
2. How did I take it out of context? Muggle with shotgun>Wizard. Not ALL Wizards, obviously, but the intent is clear. She's wrong? She wrote the series, created the world, she is its God. Where would they get an anvil by the way?
Keep in mind, I am not saying Wizards have no advantages against Muggles, but the masquerade exists because Muggles are the superior power.
3. Yeah no. Fact is, no spell a Wizard has ever used begins to rival the raw destructive power of an atomic bomb, although that is a bit higher than I need, no spell has shown to be as powerful as a MOAB bomb, although I could go lower if I was not lazy, since that is still overkill. The masquerade does exist, this is undeniable, and the Wizarding community goes to great lengths to maintain it, because they cannot combat the Muggle world. That's obvious.
4. Okay seriously, IIRC, the single most impressive physical object Protego has defended against were... Arrows. 😐 When Umbridge protected herself from arrows shot by Centaurs. She then proceeded to nearly get killed by those centaurs. Hell, Protego Totalum has NO feats of protecting something physically, actually, I just looked the spell up, it only says it protects from magic. Is it "possible" that they can repel Superman? Yes. Is it "plausible?" Not based on any evidence, no. Both Superman and Protego have shown no upper limit, Superman in terms of physical strength, and Protego in terms of defending against physical attacks. But a VERY weak Superman's upper limit was billions of times more impressive than the only physical attack I can recall being deflected by Protego. Protego has never been proven to be able to defend against something nearly as powerful as Superman, why assume it can?
Anyway, I gotta go, will embarass Borborad later.
Originally posted by NemeBro
For instance, Lord Voldemort could kill any random muggle with a shotgun, but in all-out war, he and his forces would be stomped out. Which is likely why he never to my recollection went into all-out war with Muggles.
I think the other reason was that he was busy battling the rest of wizards. I have to put it lightly a whole different perspective on a battle between Muggles and Wizards, but that is for another time and another place.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Yes dadudeman, thank you for inventing a new form of fallacy for us. You're such a pioneer in logical reasoning. *slow clap*The No-Limits Fallacy is actually a fallacy because, get this, it is actually a fallacy. Your thing is stupid and and in fact propagates a fallacy. Nothing short of an omnipotent force is infinate. To assume the shield is is fvcking retarded.
*Applauds*
Brilliant. You do realize that, when you presume that the upper limit of the barier is less than the force Superman can deliver at it is an argument ex silentio and therefor a logical fallacy. You likewise realize, that nobody here did assume the power of the barier having no limits at all, meaning you were attempting to call people out on a fallacy that nobody commited.
In addition, you're clearly taking Superman's speed feat out of context (fallacy called contextomy): He is clearly not capable of using this speed usually, because if he could, he would have rescued Lois without having needed to turn back time. So, apparently, this feat is just applicable in space while Superman does focus on nothing else but this speed. Assuming anything else would be a no limit fallacy.
On top of that, you're simply assuming that Superman can simply shrug off the force of impact against the shield without any effect. For a man at speed of light, this would be force somewhere in the Exajoule range. This is the second no limit fallacy in your argument.
And, to add the icing on the cake, this entire stupidity is commiting ignoratio elenchi all the way through.
Five logical fallacies for one argument? I guess, that doesn't work.
'The barrier has no defined limits THEREFORE IT IS LIMITLESS!1!'Stupid.
'Superman has no defined limits THEREFORE HE IS LIMITLESS!1!'
Stupid, indeed. You realize that this kind of game can be played for a virtual unlimited amount of time, correct? Yet, I've not seen any proof that Superman can move with this speed in any given situation and can focus on anything else but this kind of speed while doing so. Or, assuming that he can, would survive the resulting impact. Where is it?
Your inability to address my points has been noted.
Your inability to realize that your single point (because there isn't more than "speedblitz!"😉 has been challenged multiple times now has also been noted.
The barrier has shown Nothing! to suggest it can stop Superman. Nothing.
Superman has shown Nothing! to suggest he can keep up that lightspeed in atmosphere, can utilize it at any given time or can pass through magical barriers (or survive the impact hitting them). Yet, you assume this all to be true.
Occam's Razor.
...would be cutting your head off here.
The upper limit is what it has shown itself to be able to block. Are we to assume that because Superman was walking through gatling gun fire that he is utterly impervious to harm. No, because that would be stupid. And yet you're claiming teh very same thing for the barrier.
Yes. You are assuming this, provided that your argument not only has him utilize FTL speed at will (which he seems incapable of according to the movie), survive FTL speed in an atmosphere (which he never demonstrated to be capable of, and physics can tell you why) and surviving the impact against the shield at that kind of speed, which is a little more than gun fire and even absorbing the complete power unleashed by a nuclear bomb.
No, seriously, why the hell do you think the shield can only be brought down by magic? Because you absolutely have no fvcking proof of that, so you? You just made that up. Again.
Why the hell do you think Superman wouldn't be vaporized when even touching the shield? It's magic! But how about this: Wizards can't teleport through it, so it must be capable of shrugging off the movement energy of people trying to break through with speed approaching C, meaning it will shrug off Superman just as easy. Wouldn't it? 🙄
5 > 1. Superman is the 5. The Shield has shown it can block 1. It is baseless and a fallacy to assume that it can therefore stop 5.
The fallacy lies in the presumption that Superman = >1 in this case.
EVERYTHING. HAS. A. LIMIT!
THAT. YOU. DO. NOT. DEFINE!
No, it can't. If you actually had the feats to back it up you damn well could prove your side. But you don't. I do have the feats. Superman's feats are better than the barriers. Therefore, via Occam's Razor etc, he can logically brake through it. It's called evidence. Use it.
We just have proof for Superman being capable of flying at that speed while in outer space. Nothing else. So would you please stop telling lies?
I've proven that Superman's abilities are beyond what the barrier has been shown to block. Thats real. You've speculated that it might be beyond his ability to brake through. You have nothing to back up your argument. Zero. Absolutely Nil. So do us a favor and don't bother replying until you have more than rainbow dust and happy thoughts.
In short: No. You have not.
You have proven that there was an exceptional instance, in which Superman utilized a power, that he has never used before or after and apparently couldn't use before or after, certainly not at any given point in time. So you were trying to sell of the exception as the rule, by presenting the feat out of context (hint: the rest of the movie). This is a great way of arguing. Not.
It's called Word of God for a reason numnuts. What Rowling says is law in her universe. It is absolute fact.
And you can, of course, deliver a source for that quote, correct? 🙂
Superman heatvisions everything out of existence. Hancock punches the ground and disintergrates the Earth. They were never shown to have upper limits so obviously their abilities are without them.
Yeah. Voldemort raises his wand to the sky and obliterates the opposition with an killing curse thunderstorm.
/thread.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Now we just have to make sure no one posts after you and we can make that true!
... 🙄
Originally posted by Nephthys
It's odd. You explictly tell me not to reply to you and that the thread is pointless and then you reply to me.Odd odd odd.
Actually, I told you to focus on your essay, rather than wasting time with this thread. Since you decided to go on with the time wasting...
Originally posted by Borbarad
... 🙄
Oh shi-
Originally posted by Borbarad
Actually, I told you to focus on your essay, rather than wasting time with this thread. Since you decided to go on with the time wasting...
But essays are boring! Even ones about District 9 and science fiction!*
* I love my course.
Originally posted by NemeBro
1. But... **** Neph I'm more important than he is. D: WHY DIDN'T YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ME!?
I told you why: those arguments were too long (just like mine) and you were most likely correct.
Any time you argue, you are always correct with one exception: when you argue with me. 😄 hehehehehe
Originally posted by NemeBro
2. How did I take it out of context? Muggle with shotgun>Wizard. Not ALL Wizards, obviously, but the intent is clear. She's wrong? She wrote the series, created the world, she is its God. Where would they get an anvil by the way?
I was hoping you would make that distinction.
I agree that any first -5th year students would have quite a bit of difficulty starting a fight with the shotgun pointed at their face. After that? The ones that could decently apparate would win almost everytime.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Keep in mind, I am not saying Wizards have no advantages against Muggles, but the masquerade exists because Muggles are the superior power.
I disagree: Voldemort's whole outlook on the world was that the magical folk should be ruling it beacuse they are vastly superior. That was what the whole thing was about: "**** the muggles because we are much stronger than they are. Why should we hide when we should be their rulers?"
So, if what you say is what JK Rowling said, she can't even get her stories right.
Originally posted by NemeBro
3. Yeah no. Fact is, no spell a Wizard has ever used begins to rival the raw destructive power of an atomic bomb, although that is a bit higher than I need, no spell has shown to be as powerful as a MOAB bomb, although I could go lower if I was not lazy, since that is still overkill. The masquerade does exist, this is undeniable, and the Wizarding community goes to great lengths to maintain it, because they cannot combat the Muggle world. That's obvious.
See what I said above. You're not only wrong about the "power" of the muggles, you're taking a crap all over the entire point of Voldemort's first wizarding war. That's like...the entire reason for the war: thinking the muggles should be ruled over and dominated, not catered to.
That's a huge piece of the story so I'm not sure why you are overlooking that.
Originally posted by NemeBro
4. Okay seriously, IIRC, the single most impressive physical object Protego has defended against were... Arrows. 😐 When Umbridge protected herself from arrows shot by Centaurs. She then proceeded to nearly get killed by those centaurs. Hell, Protego Totalum has NO feats of protecting something physically, actually, I just looked the spell up, it only says it protects from magic. Is it "possible" that they can repel Superman? Yes. Is it "plausible?" Not based on any evidence, no. Both Superman and Protego have shown no upper limit, Superman in terms of physical strength, and Protego in terms of defending against physical attacks. But a VERY weak Superman's upper limit was billions of times more impressive than the only physical attack I can recall being deflected by Protego. Protego has never been proven to be able to defend against something nearly as powerful as Superman, why assume it can?
Why assume it can't? Neither side has any logic to stand on. ALL of it is just speculation and we can't deal in speculation. You can claim "doesn't have the screen feats" just the same as I can can "doesn't have the screen feats."
I'm saying that the whole argument should be abandoned/ignored unless the thread starter specifies one way or the other. This is thep problem with threads that have unknown elements: you need to define the unknown's just for a particular thread.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Anyway, I gotta go, will embarass Borborad later.
Poopin'? awesome
And, I highly doubt you can embarass that dude: he seems to handle himself. 😄
Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD, I get where you're coming from, but it is much less fallacious to put an arbitrary finite cap on someone's abilities than to assume that abilities are infinite.
I apreciate you words as you're one of the more level headed posters around here.
I just don't see either side's argument as being supportable. I do think that there could be an upper limit. It's possible. I just don't know what it is and if it even exists. I also think the "line" that is being drawn, for either side, is just arbitrary. I don't like that. I want facts/truths/exactitudes. Not randomly drawn lines that have 0 support. If someone says that the shields can be taken down by blunt physical force, I want to know why. If someone says that the shields have no upper limit OR that they can withstand extreme blunt forces, I want to know why. I want both sides to support themselves. Neither can do it so neither should use the argument.
I disagree: Voldemort's whole outlook on the world was that the magical folk should be ruling it beacuse they are vastly superior. That was what the whole thing was about : "**** the muggles because we are much stronger than they are. Why should we hide when we should be their rulers?"
Note that Voldemort is pretty fvcking insane and overconfident about his own powers. That is his major weakness after all.
Originally posted by dadudemon1. Pft, that is no excuse. Get to doing yer readinz.
I told you why: those arguments were too long (just like mine) and you were most likely correct.Any time you argue, you are always correct with one exception: when you argue with me. 😄 hehehehehe
I was hoping you would make that distinction.
I agree that any first -5th year students would have quite a bit of difficulty starting a fight with the shotgun pointed at their face. After that? The ones that could decently apparate would win almost everytime.
I disagree: Voldemort's whole outlook on the world was that the magical folk should be ruling it beacuse they are vastly superior. That was what the whole thing was about: "**** the muggles because we are much stronger than they are. Why should we hide when we should be their rulers?"
So, if what you say is what JK Rowling said, she can't even get her stories right.
See what I said above. You're not only wrong about the "power" of the muggles, you're taking a crap all over the entire point of Voldemort's first wizarding war. That's like...the entire reason for the war: thinking the muggles should be ruled over and dominated, not catered to.
That's a huge piece of the story so I'm not sure why you are overlooking that.
Why assume it can't? Neither side has any logic to stand on. ALL of it is just speculation and we can't deal in speculation. You can claim "doesn't have the screen feats" just the same as I can can "doesn't have the screen feats."
I'm saying that the whole argument should be abandoned/ignored unless the thread starter specifies one way or the other. This is thep problem with threads that have unknown elements: you need to define the unknown's just for a particular thread.
Poopin'? awesome
And, I highly doubt you can embarass that dude: he seems to handle himself. 😄
No u.
2. You know what? I'll go ahead and say that any Wizard who is skilled at apparating can handle a Muggle with a shotgun, sure, that is fine. But to go into war with the Muggles, would be suicide.
3. Dude. Voldemort is not only a fallible character... He is the main villain, and is typically meant to be thought of as wrong. Voldemort was blatantly racist against Muggles, he can think whatever he damn-well pleases, that's not evidence, that's a very biased, and fallible opinion.
4. Voldemort's Wizarding War. Voldemort was wrong. He thought he was the shit, and thought he>POWAH OF LURVE. He became something less than a ghost, proving him very much wrong. And of course he dies at the end of the series, because he was wrong. Voldemort is wrong about most things, the only thing credible to come out of Voldemort's mouth is anything regarding how Dark Magic works, that's basically it. He is a biased, racist moron.
I am not, but Voldemort is, as I said, a biased, fallible character.
5. This is technically true, but I find it much more plausible that Superman can break it than I do it stopping Superman. It has stopped arrows. Superman can hit with much more force than arrows. Much more. Like, a SUPAR DEWPER LAWT moar. So I find it more likely that Superman would break it, if it was intended to be this strong, the books/movies could have done a better job of showing it.
But that's boring. Keep in mind, I am not really placing a "hard" limit on Protego, were you to ask me how durable I think it is, I would say "Fawk if I know." Oh, another thing that supports Protego not being invulnerable, is that there is in fact a stronger version of the same spell, if it was already invulnerable, why would it need to be better? Although that just serves to complicate shit even more, making me wish I did not bring this up.
6. Nah, went out for a bit. Raped a dog, burned down a mom, and killed a house. Good times.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was hoping you would make that distinction.I agree that any first -5th year students would have quite a bit of difficulty starting a fight with the shotgun pointed at their face. After that? The ones that could decently apparate would win almost everytime.
I think it fair to make a distinction between the Wizards shown in the movie and those in the books. Those in the movies seem to be portrayed as more powerful and apparation being one of the main distinctions. In the movies it can allow them to not only teleport almost instantly but fly. In the books it requires a wizard to spin in a circle (probably why it is used rarly in duels) and I'm sure Rowling's quote applies to the books rather than the moives.
Still a skilled wizard would likley win, but as she claims an average one wouldn't.
See what I said above. You're not only wrong about the "power" of the muggles, you're taking a crap all over the entire point of Voldemort's first wizarding war. That's like...the entire reason for the war: thinking the muggles should be ruled over and dominated, not catered to.
True. But Voldemort wasn't yet openly taking over England. Rather it seems more likely he would conquer the muggles through secret and subtlety like he did the wizarding world. Having him use the imperious curse on top ranking gov't and military officals will allow him to bascially win the war without effort, which is why the OotP placed gaurds around such officals.
So yes, I think the wizards would win. However, if one took all the wizards and one took all the muggles soilders and had them fight my bet would be on the muggles. Which is what Rowling seems to be suggesting with her quote.
As for the International Statute of Wizard Secrecy, I always believed the major reasons why they enforced it was to protect their children and to prevent muggles from asking wizards to magically fix their problems.