No more so than my opponents.

 

Nice backpedaling. You say this after an attempt of constructing a logical argument about it.

If your argument was "it's not canon that wizards can be felled by machine guns, so this story is crap, because it introduces limitations on wizard capabilities not explicitly demonstrated in canon," I would simply judge it a silly matter of taste rather than completely broken.

But that wasn't the argument you made.

I don't see a reason why a story needs to be completely canon-compliant with this particular issue in order to be good. But in any case, I already said I could be wrong about that claim--perhaps stories such stories inevitably fail. I don't see a reason why that would be true, but if there is one, it is definitely not the amount of joules conjuration ex nihilo represents.

 

When? Everything I've said is either canon examples or what can be inferred from those canon examples.

This is a far cry from putting something forward and saying "it's not impossible" (i.e. it's logically possible). That's the Creationist analogue.

Picture can paint a thousand words, since apparently there's a lot of confusion here:



You're using your "no" from the answer to the first question to object to the mathematical argument. But that's just ridiculous, because the mathematical argument isn't directed at someone who answers "no" to the first question.

 

The step between "yes" and "wizards can stop bullets", of course.

Your mathematical argument establishes* that wizards can perform some feat that requires more energy than it would take to stop a bullet. That does very little to establish that they actually can stop a bullet by means other than conjuration.

*Given some assumptions, which I'll accept.

ETA: Hell, with some simple devices, I can perform some physical feats that are more energetic than a bullet impact. It doesn't mean I can stop a bullet. The logic is just broken.

 

Yes, I agree. I'm pulling my hair out here, lol.

If you reject the assumptions that the mathematical argument rests upon, then it's ridiculous. But the mathematical argument rests upon the acceptance that a wizard has a store of energy which they use for all their magical feats - i.e. conjuration and the shield charm do something, and the magnitude of that something depends on how much energy it draws from the unitary magical storage. This is how the vast majority of fanfics are written. Especially the ones where it's wizards vs. Muggles. They almost always talk about how a wizard doesn't have the requisite energy to stop the energy that bullets possess.

If you reject this, as I do, then the mathematical argument is ridiculous. But if you reject that then you're already on the same page as me in saying "magic is magic, don't treat it like physics". You've answered "no" to the question at the top of that flow chart. The mathematical argument regarding energy etc. is something that just doesn't apply to you.

 

The way I see it, the whole argument about wizards stopping bullets is completely meaningless in terms of the canon. Why bother when one Disillusionment Charm later no Muggle knows they are even there?

 

As a matter of personal taste, I've more recently come to share your dislike of those assumptions when they are used as a plot-driving force of a story, though nowhere near to your level. But for the purposes of this argument, I answer "yes".

But if I answer "yes", your argument still fails. That's what I'm saying. Because it only establishes that:
(1) Magical effect A can draw at least X amount of energy.
That's all well and good, but that doesn't mean that magical effect B is capable of drawing as much. To use your comparison to a battery, the juice is there, but some wires can support it and others can't.

 

Can we please stop?

The whole wizards vs. muggles argument is pointless for two reasons:

(1) People who have already made up their mind about how things work aren't going to be swayed to the other side by well reasoned argument

and (2)

It's completely retarded to try and apply logic to something that, by it's very nature, defies all logic. It's fucking magic - do with it what you will.

To that end, who the fuck cares. You either can buy the premise or not. In this case, more people can't than can.

/thread

 

There's only one wire though. The wand. And if the wand can support an energy flow large enough to create those sleeping bags, it'll also be able to support an energy flow large enough to stop bullets.

That would only leave the possibility that the spell needed to stop bullets has some sort of energy cap, that's lower than the needed amount of energy to stop bullets. There's nothing in canon however, that provides arguments for any other 'cap' than a wizards skill, talent and connection with his wand. Although that might just be, because energy sources for spells have nothing to do with canon.

 

Truth in advertising is what was achieved. But seriously, I guess I need to go see that review for myself, but if it's as long winded and tl;dr as I suspect, I need to budget some time for it beforehand.

Word, bro.

QFTMFT

Fixed and clarified.

This is merely another example of this aspect of Taure that comes out on occasion - thankfully less often now than when I first joined. I don't know if it's a form of OCD, Asperger's, narcissism, or some other issue, but every time I see it now (and not just with Taure, 'cause I've been guilty of it as well) I think of that xkcd cartoon where the guy's typing away at the computer when his wife comes in to tell him to come to bed. He says, he can't, she asks why not, and he replies, "Because someone on the internet is wrong."

Found it:


EDIT for relevance:

This thread is exactly the reason there ought to be an "Ignore Thread" function. Lulz is/are great, but come one.

 

I don't deny it. What I don't understand is why it's considered to be anything unique to me. Half of DLP displays exactly the same behaviour. For a start, it's hard to have an argument with yourself, so in any thread with a long argument involving me, the argument also involves others displaying exactly the same mentality. And it occurs without me too. I mean, did you see the argument between Ryuugi Shi and Aekiel in the Dresden plot bunny thread?