|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 2, 2013 5:23:55 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 2, 2013 5:27:24 GMT 5
I have now gotten bored and thus no longer get amusement from this "sprint" ordeal.
:Ring any bells VD:
Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Nov 2, 2013 5:36:35 GMT 5
really? because im looking at its Embedded ass right now. Im not false assuming and you just proved it, thank you. When a snake constricts/attemps to constrict its prey, the prey resists, this simple fact makes the snakes action both constriction and grappling therefore in this scenario the two are effectively the same. CONSTRICTING IS NOT GRAPPLING ! A python is like a big hand wrapping around your throat with the sole intent of BLOCKING air flow aka choking aka constricting! Grappling is the act of PURPOSEFULLY trying to gain a physical advantage over your opponent. Snakes do NOT grapple. Snakes CONSTRICT. You CANNOT kill an animal SOLELY from grappling. You CAN however do it by constriction. Do you now understand the difference? And for the record, I'm on a mobile in which constricting is embedded yet grappling isn't. too bad im also on a mobile and its very embedded. According the very same source that you used to define constriction, a close quarters fight or struggle is the act of grappling, this very thing occurs when a snake constricts its prey thus making them in reference to snake constriction effectively the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 2, 2013 5:39:55 GMT 5
CONSTRICTING IS NOT GRAPPLING ! A python is like a big hand wrapping around your throat with the sole intent of BLOCKING air flow aka choking aka constricting! Grappling is the act of PURPOSEFULLY trying to gain a physical advantage over your opponent. Snakes do NOT grapple. Snakes CONSTRICT. You CANNOT kill an animal SOLELY from grappling. You CAN however do it by constriction. Do you now understand the difference? And for the record, I'm on a mobile in which constricting is embedded yet grappling isn't. too bad im also on a mobile and its very embedded. According the very same source that you used to define constriction, a close quarters fight or struggle is the act of grappling, this very thing occurs when a snake constricts its prey thus making them in reference to snake constriction effectively the same thing. Snakes do not attack with the intent of gaining a physical advantage like say a tiger grappling a gaur. The constrictors sole intent is to squeeze the air out of their preys body and prevent breathing. Me putting my hands around your throat to choke you is not the same as me wrestling you with the intent of gaining a physical advantage no matter how "superfically similar" they look to the naked eye. There's a reason why the definition of both constricting and grappling are don't imply anything regarding eachother. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Nov 2, 2013 5:43:35 GMT 5
I have now gotten bored and thus no longer get amusement from this "sprint" ordeal. :Ring any bells VD: Lol pfft for a guy who has a wolf profile pic you never seem in it for the long haul. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 2, 2013 5:45:27 GMT 5
I have now gotten bored and thus no longer get amusement from this "sprint" ordeal. :Ring any bells VD: Lol pfft for a guy who has a wolf profile pic you never seem in it for the long haul. Yes I get bored quickly lol I am an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Nov 2, 2013 5:53:07 GMT 5
too bad im also on a mobile and its very embedded. According the very same source that you used to define constriction, a close quarters fight or struggle is the act of grappling, this very thing occurs when a snake constricts its prey thus making them in reference to snake constriction effectively the same thing. Snakes do not attack with the intent of gaining a physical advantage like say a tiger grappling a gaur. The constrictors sole intent is to squeeze the air out of their preys body and prevent breathing. Me putting my hands around your throat to choke you is not the same as me wrestling you with the intent of gaining a physical advantage no matter how "superfically similar" they look to the naked eye. There's a reason why the definition of both constricting and grappling are don't imply anything regarding eachother. "snakes dont attack with the intent of gaining a physical advantage" You really just said that? Yep im done here. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 2, 2013 5:57:00 GMT 5
Snakes do not attack with the intent of gaining a physical advantage like say a tiger grappling a gaur. The constrictors sole intent is to squeeze the air out of their preys body and prevent breathing. Me putting my hands around your throat to choke you is not the same as me wrestling you with the intent of gaining a physical advantage no matter how "superfically similar" they look to the naked eye. There's a reason why the definition of both constricting and grappling are don't imply anything regarding eachother. "snakes dont attack with the intent of gaining a physical advantage" You really just said that? Yep im done here. You don't seem to understand since snakes lack limbs they can only choke with their bodies. They don't have a choice. They don't intend to actually gain an advantage physically. They just wanna choke you. Was that REALLY so hard for you to understand? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 2, 2013 15:28:33 GMT 5
Runic: How quickly you can move your body is a part of agility. Accelleration is necessary for every change in a bodie's direction of movement, the more quickly you can do this, the quicker you can change your position or turn while running, the more agile you are. The quicker you accellerate, the faster you will reach a given speed (which doesn't have to and probably won't be your top speed). By the definition of agility you posted earlier, top speed actually is a factor too, but in reality its not an important part of the "agility" you are referring to all the time. Decelleration has nothing to do with this, all moving objects on earth will at a given time do it due to gravity and air friction. Your post doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 2, 2013 16:17:55 GMT 5
According to the definition on wikipedia, speed is a component of agility, so acceleration would be a component too (in an indirect way): So that proves my point. Acceleration is not a part of agility. In physics you cannot jump across terms like this otherwise the whole assumption will be incorrect. I did not jump across terms. I haven't said speed=acceleration, I said acceleration is a component of speed which is a component of agility, so acceleration is a component of agility in an indirect way. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 2, 2013 20:58:29 GMT 5
It should be noted I'm no longer interested in this. This discussion has gone far too long for my liking.
@creature
Just a side note btw you infact just showed me you don't understand why I was debating with Theropod. He was skipping terms which is why I called his whole assumption false. I really don't understand the point of you quoting me like I didn't already explain why I was debating with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 2, 2013 21:44:08 GMT 5
"skipping terms"?
I was stating the ability to accellerate is relevant to agility, that's a fact! Without it, animals couldn't move at all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 1:11:56 GMT 5
Normally I vote cats over canines, but here it is different. I think Epicyon would win this most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Nov 6, 2013 5:05:29 GMT 5
"skipping terms"? I was stating the ability to accellerate is relevant to agility, that's a fact! Without it, animals couldn't move at all! Acceleration is relevant to SPEED! SPEED is a COMPONENT to AGILITY! Now had you said SPEED was relevant to AGILITY you would have been right. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 6, 2013 17:12:44 GMT 5
No, you still don't get it. It doesn't matter how many terms you put between them, if A is part of B which is part of C, A is also part of the C thing.
The ability to accellerate quickly is much more relevant here than top speed is, so no matter what definitions you juggle, it remains that way.
|
|
