There are moments in life, when you can do no more, than cross your fingers and hope for natural selection to hurry the fuck up.

 

That was also a bit of a non-sequitor, as it had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about- unless you are really still a phoetus and just got transfigured.

 

I am going to try to explain this in the most clear way possible.

Your suggestion is that a thing having a prior form - a history - necessitates that it has a base form - that is, a true nature beneath its appearances which is different to that appearance, and is the prior form.

It has to be that the one notion follows necessarily from the other, otherwise your notion would just be a suggestion, and a non-canon one at that.

If it follows necessarily that prior form -> base form, then it applies in all circumstances. That is what necessity means.

As it is meant to apply in all circumstances, if we can find a circumstance in which it does not apply, then we have shown that it is not necessary.

I have shown that prior form -/-> base form in the case of the biological development of a person, in particular, the case of a person growing from a foetus (yes, foetus. That's the British English spelling. American spelling is fetus. "Phoetus" isn't anywhere's spelling).

Since it is not the case that base form follows necessarily from the existence of prior forms, your suggestion in post #97* - that prior form means that there must be a base form - is false.

Is this clear enough for you?

*

 

/relevant!

And will someone go ahead and ban this Hmizzle retard already? It's clear that coherent arguments are unable to penetrate his thick skull.

 

Let me try and explain this to you in a way that should be fairly easy for you to understand. I, am talking about TRANSFIGURATION. When you transfigure a rock into a shoe, it still has the base form of a ROCK. When you grow up, you may have all of the ageing differences from the years, but that has absolutely nothing to do with transfiguration.

Let me say it one more time:

TRANSFIGURATION.

---------- Post automerged at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

And just because you disagree with my argument, really doesn't mean that your argument is correct.

 

You have no argument. No reasoning, nor any part of the books or word of God to back you up. You're just shouting fanon ideas while you stick your fingers in your ears.

You're either a troll or quite possibly the most stupid person this board has seen - which is quite the claim.

If you're a troll, you're a bad one. We enjoy arguments such as these. So, er - thanks for the fun, I guess.

 

Wait, wait, wait. Where is your evidence saying that my argument is false?

 

Look up four posts for why your assertion is false.

 

Canon evidence fool.

 

Evidence would be required for positive assertion, such as the proposal that Transfiguration changes a thing's physical nature. This I gave, in the form of the JKR quote.

The argument you find above asserts nothing itself. It is a negative argument. It doesn't contradict your idea with another idea. It merely shows that your idea is false by demonstrating how the reasoning you use is not deductively sound.

It's now almost certain that you're a troll. Either that or you've realised how stupid you are and figure it's better to look a troll than an idiot.

 

On base forms. I realise this is a specialised branch of transfiguration but the animagus transformation suggests a base form. If it were a complete structural change, once you turned into your animal form you would be incapable of turning yourself back. You wouldn't remember who you were before and even if you could, you wouldn't retain the intelligence to be able to turn back (think of Rita skeeter and the beetle)

Honestly, I think I have given up on this. I merely pointed out that what Portus stated as extreme stupidity was not actually that stupid. It may not be what actually happen's in canon (and I fully admit that probably isn't) but there is enough evidence that I was easily able to prepose a reasonable theory for it. If it was that daft or illogical (Portus' words, not mine) I don't think this debate would have stretched as long as it has.

People have pointed out counter arguments to the premise but no-one has explained what is so failtastic about a concenpt that underlies most fanfiction that I have read, ironically including most of yours.

 

Allright, allright. I give up. Consider yourself the victors.

 

Alright, then.

 

Hw: In Tales of Beddle the Bard, Dumbledore explicitly names the Animagus transformation as an exception to the normal rules of human-animal transfiguration:

p.83.

 

On a side note though, I just saw a man walk past my house wearing a suit of armour.

 

Please die.

 

Pencils are used to write on paper. If pencils do not exist, paper is useless. Paper comes from trees. Therefore, trees are useless.

 

I'm not even going to try and understand why you feel that you must say something that odd.