Didn't you see I was using my sarcasm font?

 

"Is it X?"
"What else would you call Y?"
Something like that means that the second person says that "X" is what you should call "Y". Normally I would assume that you are backpedalling hard but considering how gibberish some of your other statements were, I'm not really sure.

Like this. What the hell do you mean here?

What are those rare cases?

Actually, it's the contrary. If the magic were like a muscle then the training from his excellent memory charms would strengthen it in it general. But his overspecialization shows that magical ability is not a singular thing.

 

Please note I wasn't supporting GreatRedDragon's points about tangible magic sources inside one's body in any shape or form; was just proffering my own headcanon for magic that has yet to be disproven by any canon source or word of god to date.

As to your question, off the top of my head, the most oft cited case is the accio practice exhaustion in GoF (and we have debated the exact nature of that exhaustion to no end on these forums so please Jesus let's not do it again), but there are a few other less clear cut examples. Go look through the four separate threads we have on magical fatique if you're actually interested because this thread has probably been derailed enough.

 

I have always believed that there is some wizards that just have more or less magic than others. This gives rise to wizards that are just above a squib. Otherwise, why would that even be a thing if all wizards have equal magic. The main example being Merope Riddle and to a degree Draco's comments about Neville. It was proven that Neville wasn't near a squib, but that Draco would even think that was possible seems to imply that there are wizards that are very weak. Just my thoughts on the argument. This helps explain people like Grindelwald who can take on dozens of trained wizards by himself. That seems a little silly if the only difference between wizards is 'genius'.

 

Out of interest how do you think that a muggle born witch/wizard would fit in tho this because they obviously would reject the fact that actual magic was responsible for the things that they did while growing up.

Sorry to be a pain, but please could you either give me the cliff notes version or send me the link of these forums.

 

Glad we got one good post out of this tangent.

I think the rejection is less the child rejecting the existence of magic by not knowing about it, and more the child rejecting their own ability to use it and trying to actively suppress it. If it was the former, the Ministries would have a massive problem on their hands. The concept couldn't conceivably fit into canon if that was the case.

 

Here's one...
https://forums.darklordpotter.net/threads/magical-fatigue.15205/
... but I know there were other discussions because I remember posting in them. That said, you can use the site search engine to try and find the others just as well as I can.

 

Would they? The wizarding world doesn't run on logic. Muggles in the Potterverse are established as profoundly unmagical. They explain away magic even when they see it. Vernon and Petunia, who knew of magic and wizards, still lived insisting neither existed. And accidental magic happens to kids, who are--I imagine--more prone to assume magic than an adult, who would scoff at shit floating and look for fishing lines.

If you're magical, you seem to just know it (though you might not know the word for what you are yet, but you know you're different), like gay people who say they knew from a very young age they were gay but no one believed them. HP draws parallels like this to the real world, I don't think this one is out of the question. Or maybe I'm just overthinking what wasn't meant to be dissected.

 

If Magic is not inside a Wizard, then it is a Universal Force that they channel, they shouldn't be able to actively suppress it then, as that's like saying we could reject gravity if we wanted to and gravity would suddenly stop working. If the Obscurus then occurred but in the sense of there being no personal Magic for Wizards, it would go where vanished objects go, into 'everything'.

Is that the argument you're going to stick with? Ad Hominem in fictional debates huh.

Oh god, I physically cringed at this.

 

Is it just me or anyone else not really into this? Newt is just too overpowered and boring. He is not an interesting protagonist like Harry. Honestly it would have been better if they just had Dumbledore as the protagonist. Also anyone else think Newt could be time travelling Harry?

 

I can definitely understand the position of Newt being boring and unrelatable, but Overpowered? Not really, he was zapped once and he was out of the game. Dumbledore protagonist is hard to pull off, non-genius' trying to write a genius is incredibly hard, I mean, look at half of canon Dumbledore's quotes, gibberish, other half, basically quotes from the bible re-phrased.

Newt being time travelling Harry falls into the same vein of theory as Dumbledore being a time-travelling Ron, absolutely not, but it's interesting to the think about. Like how we then have to assume being with Hermione turned Ron into a homosexual.

 

I like how this thread devolved from a discussion of the trailer into a shitfest and then when someone tries to bring it back to topic time travelling Harry is brought into play.

Clearly this thread has been tainted.

 

Harry is more interesting than Newt? Harry is literally the Chosen One trope with little outside of that. Newt is defined more by his passion, something he is clearly skilled at.

 

With just a dash of mild autism.

 

Harry or Newt?

 

That's like saying a morbidly obese man who sit still and eats a lot should be fighting fit because he carried heavy bags of junk food home from the super market on a regular basis...

Why makes you say that?

 

Newt, obviously. Harry's many things but a sperg he ain't.

 

Newt looks like he's constantly constipated.

 

Thanks, I'll have look at those.

Merope was uneducated and in care of her abusive father and brother, it's not really a wonder that she wasn't magically proficient and is no real argument in terms of inborn magic.

Also

http://web.archive.org/web/20061210165501/http://www.jkrowling.com:80/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=91

So you need to be aware it's magic and hate it.

Now, I understand what you mean. But your problem is easy to solve and really, FB didn't add anything new to it. We always knew that certain things are magical. Magic manifests in different ways (wizards, rules of the universe, plants and creatures, even weight of certain actions).

That was actually a lack of argument. I assumed that you weren't intentionally backpedalling, but instead misphrased your opinion earlier because of your low proficiency in English.