You are not understanding my point. Empirical data isn't used without understanding why it yields those results. You are trying to impose empirical data from irl people onto fictional people, in which case it becomes important to understand how things work. Scientific method uses empirical data to create predictive formulae. They don't just look at empirical data and form conclusions. Which is why the whole correlation =/= causation argument exists.
Yeah i’m just gonna be straight up with you, this statement you keep making makes no sense because we already know all factors involved, why it’s happening, what’s happening, how it happens, etc. You’re trying to spin it off into something it’s not. You yourself aren’t
understanding how this works, and yet you keep trying to tell me to.
My entire point of presenting exceptions was to show how the body works. Just because most humans end up having higher striking strength than their own durability doesn't mean that the body functions in a way that you'll automatically have high striking strength if you increase durability.
You are actually trying to argue
against how the body works. Your “exceptions” are margins and doesn’t negate the fact that is present in the entire group. They are not even major enough parts of the group to be relevant to the conversation. At worst we can account for those exceptions and that STILL wouldn’t have any bearing what is a standard human capability. It’s not something people just “
end up able to do” by chance, lol. It’s an inherent quality of human anatomy and that is what you are not understanding.
The problem is you are trying to argue that just because we use the third law which is rooted in reality, we need to use all observations and trends that are in reality. But we use the third law because we understand it's mechanics, not because it tends to happen most of the times. Fact of life isn't enough is what I'm saying.
I don’t know what part of my argument you’re lost at but it is not a happen stance thing and keep trying to assert that it is. It is a capability under human anatomy. It is the same reason why we can kick a ball at great speeds, heights and distances vs other animals on the planet. It’s not a “
trend” just because amputees and disfigured people exist who can’t “
kick” a ball, lmao!
Like seriously, is that what this is? You don’t think this is the case? It’s a trend, not inherent?
The only one throwing logic out of the window here is you. Based on your responses, you don't understand my central point.
No. You are throwing logic out the window and your central point seems to just be a lack of understanding of human anatomy. Let’s do a little experiment…
If we had 2000 people in a room (Different backgrounds and professions) and of that 2000, 600 were “Hyper Obese” (Since this is one of the categories you threw out). Every day, we have that remaining 1400 punch themselves in the face, leg, wherever… not at their hardest but what they could consider “serious”…. Every single one of them would develop bruising and soreness to varying degree’s, and depending on where they hit themselves, bleeding. The 600 would be unable to because they are fat and can’t move right? You call this a “
trend” because a portion themselves can’t do it. And to you, this is logical…
I tell you this not a “
trend” and that it is inherent to human anatomy, right? So if your disqualifying factor is that they are fat and can’t move to generate the force to hurt themselves, is it not true that if they lost this weight, they would then be able to hurt themselves, just like 1400 others?
They would, and this is because the human anatomy allows us to swing our arms, extend our arms, engage our muscles and generate force through these actions that exceeds our body’s thresholds for said force. And that’s just a fact. Feel free to punch yourself or a solid wall if you disagree. Being obese or having a physical disability can prevent this depending on the degree of that impairment,
you are right here… but that doesn’t negate what human anatomy affords us the ability to inherently do, and if you are doing so, you are “arguing the margins”, which is inherently illogical because they don’t represent the whole group.
We say high striking strength implies high durability because the durability needs to be high enough to sustain the recoil. This is logic. Saying that high durability implies high striking because that's what usually happens isn't logic, it's a set of observations to establish likelihood.
You see, you are not representing my stance correctly at all. I’ll say it again,
I never said or implied durability doesn’t scale in part from striking. What I
AM saying is, irl, our bodies can’t withstand the entirety of that force. Understand that nothing you say here changes that fact. Period. So when discussing Newton’s Third Law in relation to this… understand it is “
up to a point”.
Now, in discussing it’s relevance to fiction… If a verse doesn’t showcase Durability being > one’s striking outside of exceptions (Third Raikage, Cloaks, Jutsu Enhancements, etc), what is the
BASIS for applying that logic (Striking Can’t scale from Durability) to the verse?
THIS is where I will say, if we are applying N3rdL, remember that even irl, in regards to what bodies can handle, it is “
up to a point” because people can strike harder than their bodies can handle as a matter of anatomy.
And honestly, as I said, I concede because it is a clearly pointless endeavor, but at this point, if you disagree, go punch something hard and “
observe” what happens next.
