it is to gain strength.
and your response was a nonsequitor with respect to my statement. Also why is my spelling important? You know what I'm talking about, our goal here is discussion of my training theory that is the topic, so your introduction of spelling issues is also a nonsequitor.
and once again, considering you weigh as much as a dumbbell a lot of us use to bench, that means you probably don't have much to show for your "theory". how strong are you? how much strength has your idea added? can you even tell, given that you're using no weights and simply putting yourself in imbalanced positions?
secondly, i bring up your spelling not just to harp on your spelling, dingbat. i'm pointing out that you're pretending to be smarter than you are and using words you don't understand well enough to be using.
a non-sequitur isn't simply an unrelated statement unless you're speaking in the comedic sense. in the case of debate, a non-sequitur is a logical fallacy in which one draws a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. for example, your entire argument is a non-sequitur because you claim that the fact that it's hard to hold your position when squatting without letting your knees drift forward or your upper body to bend over means it's a good anaerobic exercise.
while it's true that's difficult, it's only difficult because of balance, not because of difficulty by way of resistance. it's also difficult to stand sideways with your foot and shoulder against a wall and lift your other leg out. but it isn't a good exercise because all you're doing is putting yourself in a position in which you can't possibly balance. it's not even a case of an uneven load that requires stabilizers, it's just an impossible position to maintain.
so your conclusion does not follow from your premise. thus, YOU are guilty of the non-sequitur, not me.
thanks for playing.
