You are a stubborn fool. This is a HARRY POTTER site. (I can use caps too)

The books are the ONLY CANON SOURCE we have to go on. Therefore, in an argument on canon truths, the only source you CAN pull from is canon.

If you think canon has failed then get the hell off a Harry Potter site.

 

I knew that was coming when I wrote that canon is failed.

Yes, the books are the only source we have to go on, but they are so full of plot holes and illogical things that you could go one forever finding arguments about something and then pull from the same canon other arguments that contradicts it.

If you don't include at some point fanon elements, or at the very least elements from outside the books (physics laws, biology, etc.) then the discussion wouldn't have been as interesting and as long as it is now.

If everyone who thought that canon is failed had to get off this site, there wouldn't be a lot of people left here.

 

It is true that canon has inconsistencies and so forth, but it is also all we have to work from. If you take away canon as a base source, then every discussion becomes completely arbitrary.

 

^ That is what I meant. Yes, we all know canon has its major faults, but we still frequent a Harry Potter forum and even argue the finer points about magic and the books in general. If you don't use as much fact from canon in your arguments as possible then your argument has lost every bit of credibility it could have. I believe that there is enough direct canon facts to support Wizards > Muggles.

 

There is electrical activity, what do you think an EEG is registering, but it is true that it is a byproduct of chemical activity. Epilepsy, in particular, is a disorder of electrical activity in the brain. Also, there is still the activity in the heart.
The electricity in a battery is stored through chemical means, that doesn't mean there is not electrical activity if you use it.

Magic belongs to the universe in the Harry Potter canon--its activity isn't in any separate realm, so its behaviour by definition is governed by laws of the universe, though they may be different from known physical laws, just like quantum mechanics are different from classical mechanics.

 

This one actually annoys the hell out of me. Muggle repellents would be completely useless in a war. In case you're wondering why, it's because of the section of the quote I bolded. It simply gives them some other thing to do. When you're on a mission that's your top priority, how the hell is the thought that you need to go to the dentist going to stop you? Self control is amazing, you know that?

For that matter, we don't know enough about notice-me-nots to really use that as an example, too. Does a notice-me-not stop people from seeing it altogether, thus making it impossible to find regardless of who it is? If that's the case, why weren't the horcruxes under notice-me-not charms? That charm would be better protection than anything else in existence.

See, here's how I think notice-me-nots work. Simply put, you won't notice it - unless you're specifically looking for it. For that reason, Voldemort didn't put his horcruxes under notice-me-nots; when someone's actively looking for them, the charm would be useless.

In regards to this, I can see how your theory would work with the idea that magic has quantifiable energy or force. Your theory states that the wizard does not have a quantifiable source of magic within himself; that is, the only difference between wizards and witches is their skill. However, nowhere in your theory does it say that magic isn't a completely-quantifiable outside source. That "quantity" might be infinite, but in that regard, there is a quantifiable source of energy.

The wizard requires your skill and focus to draw upon it. As he increases in skill, he is capable of drawing more magic, or focusing more magic from this outside source. The spells get stronger because of that. Because this energy is an outside source, all wizards and witches can access it.

I see no reason why that disagrees with your theory, but if you find one, please, do tell.

 

It's not even about Self Control. If you are on a mission, alone, then the charm will work.

Think about the Quidditch World Cup. If there's a group of Muggles wandering nearby, and some of them suddenly have the urge to go somewhere else, wouldn't the other people of the group find it suspicious?

With some tries it's not hard to determine that whoever walks through that spot get some mysterious urge to do something else; and with a little observation see some strange individuals with hats and robes on. Doesn't take much intelligence to understand the facts.

Rowling made Wizards eccentric, narrow minded. But she made Muggles stupid too.

What I tried to explain in my latest post isn't just about Magic vs Guns. It's about the whole Wizarding World.

Why does Voldemort torture his followers? Because Rowling wanted to make him look like a evil villain. Why do the followers actually follow Voldemort? She doesn't care, thus the reader shouldn't care.

Why does Hogwarts has a talking hat to sort the students? JK Rowling wrote that for children, using strong metaphors, and she thought that a Hat that sort you to a house is a good idea. Nothing more than that.

Why does such a reputed school possess teachers like Severus Snape who can't properly teach some children, harbor childish hate toward some persons, or even teachers that try to kill other students? Better yet, why does the school serves as a secure storage place for dangerous artifacts that can potentially draw dangerous people?

Because JK Rowling needed things to happen in her books otherwise it would have been dull to describe Harry's school year.

And why are those valuable artifacts protected by obstacles that could be passed by any first year? Because Rowling needed Harry and his friends to reach the Stone while making it so Harry gets to show his broom skills, Ron his chess skills, Hermione her brain skills... nothing more. She didn't think that it would seem strange to protect the stone with those petty obstacles, all she cared was that 10 year old girls enjoyed those books and we all know ten year old girls have no brain. 40 year old girls like Rowling don't have one too.

When she wrote the plot, she made a very simple and basic one. She didn't bother to explain things because it's easier to say "it's magic!" rather than explain the reasoning behind.

Maybe it's one of the reasons why those books were so popular. We enjoyed the books as if we were children; we didn't pause to think whether it's possible or contradictory to physics laws. We just enjoyed it.

The canon isn't clearly the ideal source to work on. In canon, everything is possible because it's magic! No kidding. It's like trying to rationalize what cannot be rationalized. Or trying to find a pattern in completely randomly generated numbers.

What you're really working on is just your (rationalized) view of canon. Real canon is like chaos; there's no rules.

To express myself a little clearer:

If J.K. Rowling decided to write an eight book, she might write in one chapter that a Muggle killed 10 Wizards with a gun, who could do nothing about it because their shields were ineffective against bullets. What are you going to do? Sue Rowling? Magic was clearly superior in her previous books.

She doesn't care at all. She wanted ten Wizards killed, to justify for example the Pureblood hate of Muggles. She wanted it so she made it happen and killed them with the first thing that came to her mind.

Now, seeing how she made the HP universe, do you really think that you could find a decisive answer to any topic here? Whether it's Magic vs Guns, or why Snape lived mysteriously long enough to give some memories? There are so many questions, and there are many answers to them. But for Merlin's sake, don't use the "It's in canon".

 

To quote myself in the other thread quoting Rowling:

Just as music is unscientific.

I think you're rather missing the point. The magic overrides the faculty of self-control. Think about it. If you're on a vacation in Scotland, and you suddenly feel like you need to see the dentist, rationally you'd just do it later, and carry on with your vacation. Yet all the Muggles are turned away. Apparently, the magic doesn't let a person's rationality enter into it.

It's not electricity in the traditional sense. An electrical circuit is the movement of electrons. A battery may be chemical, but the circuit it powers is still electrical. This is not what occurs in the nervous system, which is chemical all the way.

 

Are you by any chance related to Amer? Just curious, that's all.

Um....what? Wait. We're arguing if our present-world technology could defeat a fictional universe. We can't base arguments on anything else BUT canon.

Okay, lets hear them then.

...why not? It doesn't matter how flawed and fucked up canon is, it's CANON. It's an imaginary fictional universe. We can hypothesize all we want but to be as accurate as possible, we need to base everything we can off it. Otherwise, what do we have?

Hey, if I knew that God Himself had come down and wrote the bible, I'd be a little more religious. But God didn't write Harry Potter, JKR did. If she puts something in her books, then it's canon, whether we like it or not.

If we don't have canon, what do we have? Your opinion? My opinion? Any scientist can tell you that if you try to propose something without proper study and experimentation, you're going to fail. But, hey, if you want to discount canon then I'll work it in the wizards favour.

No muggle can kill a wizard because Merlin enchanted them that way.

Disprove that without using canon.

 

Unfortunately for you, while Magic certainly isn't scientific, you can't really disprove that idea from canon alone. We don't know where magic comes from - that's why your theory works. My addendum to your theory - that the source of magic is an infinite energy from somewhere - works with the books.

It allows for it to be possible for magic to be overcome by specific things, thus making the idea plausible. I can't think of a single instance where a magic shield was overpowered, no. But then, I can't think of a single instance where a magic shield was peppered with spells. If you can find an instance where a spell is hit with enough that it might conceivably break (assuming it can), show me. If you can't, then you have nothing to discount the idea with save for the basic - and pathetic - "It's Magic!" excuse.

If the Imperius curse can be shrugged off with free will alone - and again, if you can find proof otherwise - so can the Muggle Repelling charm. Beyond that, a simple vacation is a little less important than a military assigned mission.

 

And I think you completely missed how the muggle-repelling charm works. There is no rationality, there is no reasoning. You walk into a MR charm and you have to go, and I'm loving being able to quote this , maybe it's like when you need to take a piss or something. When you gotta go, you gotta fucking go.

Though it raises the interesting question of what would happen to a muggle who was forced to go over the line, or one who had been imperioused into doing it? Would there be detrimental effects to his mind? Does the charm actually end after a set space, like a dome, or does it permeate all the area inside the dome as well? Still, there is no way a muggle could get through a muggle-repelling charm without magical assistance.

Aekiel

 

In GoF Harry is told the the world cup stadium is covered in muggle repelling charms, quote is something about "every inch" being covered in them. To me that means the more there are the more effective they are. And bear in mind that the muggles who were charging for the camp ground were unaffected by the charms, indicating they were out of range. (They were confused but that was from frequent memory charms)

And I always imagined that the charm would radiated in all directions, its not like an age line designed for muggles (so that if you can get past you aren't affected any longer), it will work on the muggle so long as they are in range. I would think that if a muggle was forced to remain within their influence they would suffer severe psychological stress, and possible trauma.

And as to the idea that the charm would simply tell the soldiers that they have an urgent dentist appointment, I would think that the charm would be cleverer than that. It would tell the person something will work to make them leave. Like it might tell the soldiers they were going in the wrong direction, or that they had been recalled, or that their home base was under attack and needed them, or anything else that would get them the fuck away. Yes, they wouldn't leave for the dentist, but any of the above and they would.

 

I don't know about this. Squibs, who are the same as Muggles, are able to be within the area of Hogwarts, once they are inside (Filch).

There are other interpretations though. There could be a single charm with an area of effect covering every inch of the stadium, or they could ahve been speaking figuratively.

I'm not so sure about this either. The charms appear to serve a dual purpose. Step 1 is that it makes you think of the dentist, or whatever. But they also seem to have the effect of making you think that whatever is presented to you in step 1 is more important that anything else. It overrides your rationality. So it's not really accurate to say that a person with something more important to do than go to the dentist would be able to get through, because the charm also makes them believe that the dentist is the more important thing.

 

I have a question:
does the wizard have to know what's happening to shield against it?
Assuming that any Hogwarts Graduate can cast a shield that will protect against a nuclear blast - would it also protect against radiation? A shield can't Just Block everything; it'll get dark and quiet and the air would go bad FAST. Therefore there are conditions to the "perfect" shield. I'm going to assume that Neville has NEVER heard about DNA or gamma radiation.

Is a magical shield a ... preset set of conditions - someone somewhere created a defense that would stop everything except breathable air, visible light of defined intensity, and sound within a certain number of decibels? This genius named it, patented it, and they teach it in schools under the name protego.

If so, I hope he's getting rich.

 

NO. Squibs can see Dementors, if you recall. Muggles can't.

 

If you use visual acuity as a metaphor for magical power, Dumbledore, Voldemort and Harry are the equivalent of Ted Williams and Tiger Woods. Most are around 20/20. Squibs are "legally blind," and muggles are Stevie Wonder.

 

No they can't. This has been rehashed over and over. Figg obviously didn't see the dementor and was lying, as became obvious when she couldn't descrive them...

 

And more importantly, as JKR has told us.

 

I object. Harry is in no way at the same level as Voldemort or Dumbledore.

 

I think the pro-muggle side is feeling a wee bit outnumbered in this debate, so I'm going to make a contribution.

1) We can infer from canon that muggles beat wizards. I feel a sudden urge to give the reason for this, but I must resist the impulse.

2) Muggleborns will help muggles.

3) Not every wizard is James Bond, you know. Just because there's a possibility that Dolores Umbridge can use super-hacks to break into the water system (that she doesn't know exists) and use a super-potion that doesn't get diluted (b/c it's magic!!!!!) doesn't mean that it is remotely realistic.

For more, go to the old Wizard v. Muggle debate and search Belerdorhan's posts.

And Vorpal, you rock.

P.S. From now on, I will only be using quotes from the Wizard v. Muggle debate to respond to the pro-wizard side.