Makaze

Actually... Spoilers stop content from being loaded before being opened, so they solve most all problems. The line limit is still an issue, though.

No. I haven't seen anything NSFW in all of my time here.

They are. Codec Pack logo:

Combined Community Codec Pack?

Browser: Chrome IM: Pidgin & Skype IRC: Irrsi Music Player: Banshee Text Editor: gedit Image Manipulation: GIMP Video Player: Totem Torrent Client: Transmission

Quoted for truth.

Surely you can't be Sirius.

Didn't the justification for studying being weak jump straight to the dictionary definition?

Studying being for the weak makes perfect sense in this context. Only the weak need to study to survive; stronger species can get by without it.

Ah, well. The ego comment is a jab and the reason doesn't affect the problem with doing it. You shouldn't be mixing for any reason because it only hurts communication. If you forgot then you don't even know what point you would be making. It's not worth my trouble to do your work for you.

Your post managed to ignore everything I said. You can use the word strong to mean different things in different contexts, but you can't mix contexts for the sake of your ego. Because the context was defined before you got here, strong meant the dictionary definition when you got here. You could only say that humans were strong as well as weak if you were comparing the weakest person to the strongest person, physically, and noting the contrast. Otherwise you are making the word 'strength' meaningless. You agreed, strength is determined relative to circumstance and task. Well, this is what happened. Someone said that humans were weak in contests of strength, exposure, endurance, and many other things. Then you came in and said they were strong at other tasks, ignoring the previous context. Using this method, I could find a scenario in which a mosquito would survive where a human would not and thus claim that mosquitoes are 'strong' too. While this would be valid in a discussion where everyone was talking about that scenario, no one was, and that makes me wrong to interject. I would be missing the point of the discussion completely. If I did not miss it, then I would be trying to warp the result by making the word strong mean whatever I want it to mean for the sake of making mosquitoes look not so bad after all.

It is a contradiction because they are contradictory terms. This why semantics are important. Strong should not be used to describe multiple concepts in the same discussion. If I beat you in a fight and call you weak and you come back with, 'But I'm strong in chess!', you have not made a point, discounted me, or changed the result of the fight. The only reason to change the subject in this way is to give yourself an ego boost. Bonus points for changing the meaning of strong; that way you don't have to admit that you are 'ultimately' weak. For the purposes of this discussion, strong is the dictionary definition. You are strong only if you are truly strong. Thus, you are weak. That is the end of it. You do not even disagree. You can say that you are smart and weak, but why? What purpose does that serve? You are still weak. It seems that you are bringing up your intelligence simply so that you are not being represented in a purely negative light. Nothing changes but how you feel.

Being weak and strong is a contradiction. For the purposes of the discussion you must accept that only one of them means strong, otherwise this contradiction will arise. And it has. From where I am standing it looks like you wanted to create a second meaning for strong because you didn't like the idea that you are weak. Qualifying the claim because you couldn't disprove it.

Yes. Someone says 'Humans are weak (not strong).' You say 'Humans are intelligent, which is a strength.' What you said doesn't stop humans from being weak.

That definition does not translate because it is metaphorical and does not increase what we mean when we say 'strong'. Saying 'intelligence is a strength' is the same as saying 'being intelligent is like being strong'. Another case that makes me wonder why people say semantics don't matter.

It isn't a strength because it depends on way too many things which are mostly luck-based. You can succeed, but that doesn't make you strong in itself. It would be foolish to judge strength based on who won instead because right now we're assessing who would win, not who did. We not determining the strength of the species or its ability to survive as a group because that defeats the purpose of analyzing strength. We are assessing the strengths of individual members of each species. Let's go to the definition of strong. strong strôNG adjective 1. having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks. 2. able to withstand great force or pressure. Humans need intelligence to survive because they are not strong under this definition. Their intelligence more than makes up for their weakness, but it does not make them strong. It makes them clever and efficient. For a human example, being good at martial arts does not make you able to lift bigger rocks or withstand stronger pressures. Contrary to what you have been saying, humans are very susceptible to death by exposure to extreme temperatures and varying air and water pressures. Humans cannot survive without creating clothes and shelter for themselves. As such, there are many environments humans cannot live in without borrowing resources from other environments. I could get into other things like disease and cancer (which humans are very prone to) but that shouldn't be necessary.

Animals do not have equal intelligence because they are not as capable of adapting their behaviors as humans. Humans can gain a vast array of skills and combine skills to create new ones. Humans are physically and mentally capable of intricate tasks enabled by their opposable thumbs. They have extensive and clear memories that extend through almost the entirety of their lives. They can learn from their predecessors and build on their knowledge ad infinitum. Humans naturally grow more successful over time while animals stay more or less the same throughout hundreds of generations.

Then I assume you realize how weak you really are. Despite your intelligence, you would die if left to your own devices without the help of others. Most pack animals are able to survive individually, but modern humans are pathetically weak without padding from others.

You would need to borrow the intelligence of others for this. If we are measuring strength, it will be individual strength and individual growth. One human with only its own knowledge and skills versus a bear with only its own knowledge and skills. After all, you can't expect the first humans to have done studies on bears or vice versa. Who has the upper hand?

What good is intelligence if you are up against a bear, lion, tiger, wolf, or another predator by yourself?

Missing the point again.

And winter is coming.

Seconded.

I thought I knew people who were bad with directions. I now know the true meaning of terror.