Growing...

[jaspertjie]

[SkieFireYokana]

Read my argument. A bachelor is defined as someone who is not married; so when I say that there is no such thing as a married bachelor, I am using "bachelor" as a contraction meaning that. So I'm saying "There can be no one who is married and is not married at the same time." What you're doing is taking what I say and manipulating it into cases that I didn't intend for it to cover--the use of one arm to lift a car, for instance, didn't specify not using tools, so you loopholed your way out of it, when you know what I meant was something else--or else misunderstanding the argument at hand. A square is not a circle even if you draw it inside one. A circle is a collection of points that are equidistant from one point, the center, on a two dimensional plane. A square, on the other hand, has all straight sides of equal length and 90 degree angles; these are incompatible with the idea of points all an equal distance from one point, as to have that you need to have a curved shape, a circle, with no straight sides.

My argument, meanwhile, was simply that certain things are not logically possible, and certain things are not physically possible. True, the original statement was that people usually set their own limitations: but it was much more than that, it was also saying that they had no real limitations. I disagree, and I wasn't trying to say anything else but that. How is providing examples proving my two points straying from the topic in any way?

As for the college thing, it was actually written while i was in a class at the time. I don't see why you have such a problem with using the proper term for things, because that's all it is when I use a word I learned in my logic class or any other class. I COULD simply call a bad argument a bad argument, or I could call it a fallacy and specify exactly which one using accepted terms such as "Strawman Argument" or "Argumentum ad Hominem". Perhaps it'd be better to conserve my use of them for conversations with reasonably educated debaters, one of which you appear to be since you recognized the terms yourself. So, to help you out, the term which you might want to use for my argument is "Red Herring" which states that I'm starting on one topic and arguing another as though it proves or disproves the first. I also would like to make clear that I didn't. My train of thought was completely logical: Original statement: The only limits are x, but x is not actually a limit. Implied conclusion: There are no limits. My argument: There are limits other than x, for example y and z.

I don't see what's wrong with that train of logic at all. Seems alright to me.
_________________
Happy Fourth of July everybody! The funniest thing about this signature is that I wrote it on the fourth of July, 2010, and it's probably going to be here for several months.

[CB]

The only problem with constitantly using textbook logic in every single scenario you come across is it is only effective really when used in thought to help reinforce your conclusions...but when used out of context, for example in this forum post, it becomes counterproductive.

And im saying your argument is out of context not because it isnt valid, but because it is poorly executed...a few sentences saying something along the lines of "I dont think that quote is right because there are things that can set you back other than yourself in alot of scenarios, such as for example not having a way to get to get ahold of someone over an important thing they forgot to do" would have been EXPONENTIALLY (typo yes i just dont feel like looking up the spelling) more effective in-

a) demonstating your veiwpoint, and

b) providing a reasonable and understandable example to convince others of your point: the topic was about limitations, and the previous is an example of limitation, where as the examples you provided where about logical consistancy and the construct of reality, which is relavant but =/= the topic of limitations

Presentation is everything. An otherwise undeniable point can be shattered in an overcomplicated arguement: generally the simpler an arguement is presented the harder it is to disprove. I proved this by finding a hole in your original arguement and making it bigger.

Plus i doubt anyone read your entire post, i had to force myself through it honestly. There isnt really any reason such a simple point had to explained so in depth using textbook termonology and the use of x, y, and z as variables, so the longer the post becomes the more complicated you make your point and the less relavant it becomes.

Long story short the longer you have to explain something the less true it seems, I honestly think the point you were making could have been made and demonstrated as undeniable fact in just a few sentences instead of giving the illusion that something had to be gone to great lengths to be proven by making such a complicated arguement...

...though I am being contradictary to myself by myself making such a large post, but I will dismiss that because i know you enjoy a good read.

[dfangd]

I'm way too lazy to type out a nine page response like everyone else has, but I'm 100% behind SFY on this one.
_________________
.:. Nasroniala .:.

[SkieFireYokana]

What hole? I didn't see any hole. You took my well-reasoned arguments out of context and warped them until it seemed I was saying something I originally wasn't. I saw you fabricating holes where there weren't any, not you finding a hole and making it bigger. What I said (paraphrasing here) is simply this: contrary to what is presented as true, there are some limits and they are as follows: physics, logic, and probability. I then demonstrated certain cases which they limit, which have been taken out of context (when I say lift a car with one arm, who would assume I mean "with any tool at all under any circumstances ever"?) and launched back at me. The problem with doing that is this: if I show one instance each of the three limits I proposed--probability would be hardest one--then I have undeniably proven that there are certain situations in which they limit you, whereas if you show me one instance of them sort of applying but not really stopping you, that doesn't prove anything. Using the adrenaline-lift-a-car thing, well, why not lift the car with one arm? Without adrenaline in your system? What about two cars at once? There must be some limit, right? And therein is the proof of my argument. For every one situation you throw at me that is seemingly impossible but has been accomplished, I can respond with ten more that are physically impossible. Doesn't matter if they're small. They still prove the principle.
_________________
Happy Fourth of July everybody! The funniest thing about this signature is that I wrote it on the fourth of July, 2010, and it's probably going to be here for several months.

[Hyraxylos]

On original topic, this applies very strongly to myself. There are multiple "levels" of limits in place, based on things that I could never do within my present human lifetime, and things that I could potentially do but would like to create boundaries for myself if I can't think of any positive reasons to go through with something.
Example: suicide. Could I kill myself by conjuring a piano spontaneously from the air? (dreams in which Hyrax does this to me don't count ) The answer is no; this is effectively "impossible" within constraints of physics. Could I kill myself period? Physics says yes, but the true answer is still no because of certain "locks" I've put upon myself mentally, preventing me from even considering it. I only want myself to extend my reach in specific directions that are of use to me, not in the "wrong" areas that can lead to annihilating myself.

CB: "Strawman argument" and "ad hominem" aren't that infrequently known in debates. If someone tries to attack an argument I propose by attacking the wrong thing, then I'm going to point out that it's a strawman fallacy since the label fits, such as in my rant about people complaining about President Obama unnecessarily. This list can help. They get a lot easier to keep track of and recognize as time passes, believe me.
Also:

[Shiari]

[SkieFireYokana]

Thank you both for your defense, but I think this has gotten off-topic enough. When it gets to the point of arguing whether or not using technical terms is valid in public conversation, from a discussion of limits and whether they exist, then we've all strayed off the course significantly.

So yes, now in a move that I wasn't considerate enough to make in my original post, I'll explain my own limits just like Hyrax has done.

My limits are, aside from those of physics and logic and whatnot that I already went over, my fears, my prejudices, my comfort levels, and--ironically--my rationality. I won't exert myself to my fullest, to the point that I know I can reach, unless I'm surrounded by people who won't let me not do it. I didn't even realize that I was limiting myself in this manner until I had to go through a PT session where I went further than I've ever gone. First time I've ever gotten tunnel vision from exercise, and I kept going until I was done because there were fifteen or twenty people around me shouting that I could do it. That also was the first time I felt like throwing up after exercising. I've never reached that point since, and it's simply because I've been able to rationalize not reaching it.

Similarly, my fears are another thing. I am afraid to do certain things, which obviously limits what I can do. I am, for example, afraid of falls, which for a long time limited me in gymnastics and ironically caused me to fall more. I have to train myself out of my fear, and that takes time as well as a lot of effort. This is for good reason: I am afraid to hit my head on things, which enables me to fall effectively and take hits on parts of my body other than my head. This helped me just this past Saturday, where I lost control of my bike on a particularly rocky section and landed on my right side, my hip, elbow, and shoulder taking the brunt of the impact. My worst injury was a hyper-extended left middle finger, which is still swollen but should be fine soon enough. So my fears have a good purpose.

As for my prejudices, those are what prevent me from making certain friends. Not because I don't give them a chance, but because I assume they fit a stereotype until they show otherwise. Certain people are offended by this, and I've jumped to several wrong conclusions in the course of my life because of this.
_________________
Happy Fourth of July everybody! The funniest thing about this signature is that I wrote it on the fourth of July, 2010, and it's probably going to be here for several months.