At this point, you’re just trying to ridicule me over my choice of words and not actually trying to interpret them in the context that you yourself set:
they have a sack of muscles somewhere inside their body
Why mention “inside their body” if you didn’t mean “deep” inside? All organs are “inside” the body. Therefore, I interpreted your words meaning truly “internal” organs, that that don’t manifest themselves on visual inspection, like heart or bladder. Lungs, while technically inside, are peripheral and visibly expand - a critical distinction in this context.
So you specify “inside” and then mock my adherence to that framing, instead of addressing the core biomechanical issues being discussed.
“Lungs aren’t really inside” is not an argument that I thought I’d be confronted with.
If you find that your lungs are not inside your body then I urge you to seek immediate medical attention.
At this point, you’re just trying to ridicule me over my choice of words and not actually trying to interpret them in the context that you yourself set:
Why mention “inside their body” if you didn’t mean “deep” inside? All organs are “inside” the body. Therefore, I interpreted your words meaning truly “internal” organs, that that don’t manifest themselves on visual inspection, like heart or bladder. Lungs, while technically inside, are peripheral and visibly expand - a critical distinction in this context.
So you specify “inside” and then mock my adherence to that framing, instead of addressing the core biomechanical issues being discussed.