|
Post by mr potatohead on Nov 7, 2017 17:50:33 GMT
That is NOT the DEFINITION of "isometrics", the Oxford dictionary would disagree with you m8, but anyways insert any other reasonable definition in there it does not make any difference, for example:- No. The incomplete Oxford definition, "isometrics - A system of physical exercises in which muscles are caused to act against each other or against a fixed object." is NOT the definition of "Isometric" because it is incomplete, and, as I noted, applies to certain exercises that CAN be isometric, but those exercises, like SR, do NOT define isometrics. The Oxford definition as you have it quoted does not give the final qualifying info, "the joint angle and muscle length do not change during contraction", and that info defines isometric in the English language. You can't possibly as dense as you are acting, m8? I know you're an intelligent person, but I think silly arguments may be your way of entertaining yourself.
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 7, 2017 21:01:55 GMT
the Oxford dictionary would disagree with you m8, but anyways insert any other reasonable definition in there it does not make any difference, for example:- dynamic - A force that stimulates change or progress within a system or process. isometrics - A type of strength training in which the joint angle and muscle length do not change during contraction. still no contradiction, even using a different dictionary definition, therefore not an oxymoron, no matter how hard you try and make it so. With a real oxymoron there is no need to try so hard to justify it and even dispute actual dictionary definitions to try and make it so. With a real oxymoron there are no special conditions or qualifications needed either, it either is, or is not, an oxymoron. In this case, it is not. "change or progress within a system or process", does not mean the same as "moving", no reasonable person would suggest otherwise. I suppose if you were really desperate you could say "change" means moving from one state to another, so you can shoehorn the word "moving" in there even though it does not mean physically moving or anything like it. But in fact, the entire reason most people exercise is to stimulate change or progress. Like I mentioned before, Dynamic-Isometric is an oxymoron ic name to anyone who can understand English. Yes, people want to stimulate change and progress for strength/muscle growth, but your definition states "WITHIN" the context of doing the exercise (as it is used in the definition "dynamic - A force that stimulates change or progress within a system or process.") The "system" or "process" is the exercise being performed. now you are just being silly, it's not my definition and anyway "dynamic - A force that stimulates change or progress within a system or process.", the system is obviously the body, as that is where the change is being stimulated. This is obvious to everyone. It would be stupid to imagine it was anything else. The change people are exercising to achieve (strength/muscle growth) happens during rest, not "within the system or process" of performing the Yielding Isometric. yes everybody knows the changes happen during rest, but they are stimulated by exercise, as in "A force that stimulates change or progress within a system or process." So the force stimulates changes, that happen during rest, simple. So, even now that you have been shown it is not an oxymoron using actual multiple dictionary definitions, you still deny it and now are using special mikey interpretations of definitions and desperately trying to twist everything to make it fit, somehow, anyhow........................................ I think I'll just stick with the actual dictionary definitions m8, that's what they are there for, after all, to prevent everyone just making up their own personal interpretations of words, as that gets really silly, really quickly, as you are now so ably demonstrating.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Nov 7, 2017 22:13:10 GMT
Here. Ya want an oxymoron? Here's one: military intelligence
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Nov 7, 2017 22:26:41 GMT
Many phrases in everyday use are classic examples of oxymorons, it's really not a problem or a big deal. Oxymorons are not "bad" or "wrong" in any case, people use them all the time without difficulty for many other things.
For example:-
alone together bitter sweet civil war clearly misunderstood conspicuous absence cool passion crash landing cruel kindness deafening silence deceptively honest definite maybe dull roar even odds exact estimate lead balloon living sacrifices loosely sealed loud whisper loyal opposition minor miracle negative growth old news one-man band only choice openly deceptive open secret original copy paper tablecloth paper towel plastic glasses poor health pretty ugly random order recorded live same difference seriously funny silent scream small crowd soft rock steel wool student teacher terribly good and approximately a gazillion others........
but if you have to add in just special parts of cherry picked definitions, then modify them in your own words and then qualify it with special circumstances, just to try and make it an oxymoron, then its almost certainly not an oxymoron
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Nov 7, 2017 22:32:28 GMT
You've pondered oxymorons before, haven't you?
|
|
|
Post by BigBruvOfEnglandUK on Nov 8, 2017 9:54:07 GMT
|
|