[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 183 KB, 495x700, corgibeer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4457565 No.4457565 [Reply] [Original]

Dear /sci/

If friendship is magic, shouldn't magic be friendship?

We are having an argument, and would appreciate logic help.

Thanks

/mlp/

>> No.4457574

im pretty sure that its already been established with a 2 week argument on ponychan that friendship is a subset of magic, meaning not all magic is friendship. as proven by the magic that discord used not being friendship but chaos.

>> No.4457579

All magic isn't necessarily friendship, even if all friendship is magic.

>> No.4457581

Thanks, ill leave your board now.

>> No.4457585

equivocation

especially turning the adjective "magic" into the noun "magic"

if the sky is blue, is blue the sky?

>> No.4457591

All friendship is magic, but not all magic is friendship.

>> No.4457594

>>4457585
I don't think either fit solidly into categories like that. They're both descriptors of phenomena, meaning "the set of things with these properties" (noun-ish) or "having these properties" (adjective).

If friendshipness is magical, are all magical things friendshippy?

>> No.4457595

>>4457585

That's a poor example of equivocation and I'm not even sure it's true because it doesn't make sense to say "is the blue sky".

I'll give you a better one;

Atheists have a belief there's no God. People with beliefs are religious. Thus, Atheists are religious.

>> No.4457596
File: 19 KB, 858x724, diagram.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4457596

Here's a diagram

>> No.4457597

magic aint real
and /sci/ cant into magic, ponies, friends, or love.

/thread

>> No.4457598

>>4457565

Yea, magic is friendship, but not all magic isn't friendship. Example, all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats.

>> No.4457601

>>4457596

Got it reversed, bro

>> No.4457602

>>4457596

if magic is a subfield of friendship, how is possible that Lord Voldemort, a dark magician, didnt had any friends nor loved anyone ever?

>> No.4457603

>>4457595
>people with beliefs are religious

Not really. It is very possible to have beliefs that have nothing to do with religion. For example, "I believe I will have lunch today". Surely that statement is not religion, even though it is impossible for me to prove it true or false presently.

>> No.4457604

>>4457597
Magic is a descriptor, as in "magical". It's not meant in the supernatural sense. Would you call bullshit on someone who said they had a magical evening at the beach?

Also, /sci/ cannot into friends or love? That's sad.

>> No.4457605

>>4457603
Well yeah, this is the point. He's switching what he means by "belief" halfway through his set of statements, and that's a logical error.

>> No.4457606

>>4457603

having lunch is a religion. you are arguing that the entire universe wont do absolutely nothing to make it not-possible. so, in extension, you are saying that there is a great force that controls the universe , allowing you to have lunch.

>> No.4457609

>>4457602
Yeah, see
>>4457601

>> No.4457611

>>4457604

/sci/ cant argue with someone saying they had a "magical evening". not because its bullshit or fake, but because /sci/ doesnt know anything about pretty things, the magic of love or the beauty of a nice day. /sci/ just see waves of light coming into the eyes and stimulating them in a way they cant process rather than with numbers and physics.

>> No.4457614
File: 8 KB, 690x560, thep.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4457614

>>4457603
>>4457603

>> No.4457613
File: 8 KB, 225x225, sadfrog17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4457613

Can magic get me gf?
Please respond.

;_;

>> No.4457615

Friendship is pretty fucking regular if you aren't a shut in asshole.

>> No.4457616

>>4457613

no, but science can give you a virtual waifu.

>> No.4457618

>>4457611
Understanding the world does exclude appreciating it. For me, it enhances it. Though I'm sure there are people who never had the ability to appreciate beauty who eventually learn something about science, so I don't doubt that such people exist.

Do aspies have this problem?

>> No.4457619

>>4457615
Magic can be familiar, just like flowers can be common.

>> No.4457620

>>4457614

he goes to deep down the point?

>> No.4457622
File: 176 KB, 720x540, 1320544308173.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4457622

>>4457606

No. I'm the one who made the example atheist example, and he just pointed out why what i said was an equivocation. No one's "arguing that the entire universe wont do absolutely nothing to make it not-possible."

You trollin' or something?

>> No.4457625

>>4457618

this can only be logical if you think people in /sci/ are normal when its full of aspies with a math degree.

>> No.4457630

>>4457620

It's either way over his head or he just missed the point.

>> No.4457629

>>4457622

indeed, i was trolan. how much did i get for this shot? you cant give me less than a 2, i make you answer me bro!

>> No.4457631

>>4457625
>>4457618
Oops, I meant to say "does NOT exclude appreciating it".

>> No.4457633

>>4457629

A weak 2. Not mad but intrigued. Also, you were called out on it.

>> No.4457638

so many aspies who turn language into set theory ITT

it's not possible. read some wittgenstein

>> No.4457645

>>4457638
For someone citing Wittgenstein, you sure are letting semantics cloud the issue for you. You're cherry-picking word meanings that make the issue go away as a contradiction, rather than showing that the issue is fundamentally due to an error in language.

>>4457594
>>4457604

>> No.4457646

>>4457638

Frankestein?

>> No.4457661

>>4457638

It IS possible, to read Austin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9BXHqiosnI

>> No.4457664

>>4457645
that's a lot to get from my first post ITT

>> No.4457674

>>4457664
>so many aspies who turn language into set theory ITT
>it's not possible. read some wittgenstein
You're discarding the discussion, calling some aspect of it "not possible", and by referencing Wittgenstein it can be reasonably inferred that you are implying that the discussion is pointless due to stemming from a question that doesn't mean anything because of an abuse of language (one of Wittgenstein's main topics of contribution to philosophy).

If you'd like to clarify and/or correct me, feel free.

>> No.4457676

>>4457565

Quality thread!