shark vs. crocodile 2
Some of you may remember these two threads, in which, prompted by Cartoon Network's Adult Swim staff posing the question, we debated whether a flying crocodile or a flying shark would win in a fight. I consider them among among the greatest achievements of this blog (and blogging in general) to date. I won't bother to recount the decimation suffered by the pro-crocodile faction. Old wounds.
So with one eye toward the future, and another toward reclaiming former glory, let me confusedly present you with an article entitled "Lion Mutilates 42 Midgets in Cambodian Ring-Fight". As the page notes, it's fake -- the explanation of how it came about is here (EDIT: original explanation here).
Since it's a fake, the question remains: who would win in a fight, an African lion or 42 midgets? In fact, it was this debate that spurred the initial creation of the article. So, that one fabricated piece of evidence notwithstanding, I think I'm going to have to give this one to the midgets provided that they're sufficiently organized. But I will happily admit that it's not nearly as clear-cut as Shark v. Croc.
Comments
The Seinfeld guy would not be happy with your post: link
(tom edited this post to make the link shorter so as to avoid blowing out the borders of the comment window)
Yeah, I can't claim ignorance on this one, and so I'll give a more thoughtful response than you were probably looking for.
I know that "midget" is considered an offensive term by many little people, although I suspect this is an inevitable cycle for any stigmatized group -- "negro" and "retard" weren't always considered to have negative connotations, but as they were frequently used in a society that brought its own negative connotations to the table when discussing these groups, the words are now decidedly out of favor. In a few decades I'm sure "little people" will be considered offensive as well, and we'll move on to "micro americans" or something else. This is because many big people find little people comical, not because the words have some innately negative aspect.
Anyway, I didn't choose the terminology for this particular debate; if I had, I probably wouldn't have chosen "midget". If commenters would like, they're free to use the preferred "little people".
However, I hope that we can all agree that finding the brutal death-by-mauling of 28 human beings is far more offensive than any associated choice of words. I guess I'm just a terrible person.
So back to the topic at hand: I say the little people would win.
i also saw this discussion on a forum somewhere else on the internets: something like how many 12 year olds could you beat down before they took over? the person posing the question had a well thought out argument about why he could take, like, exactly seven before he lost out.
ah, here it is: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2005/4/8schweiger.html
i could probably only take a couple before fear won out.
From a related (and magnificent) thread:
How many 5 year-olds could you take on at once?
The specifics:
- You are in an enclosed area, roughly the size of a basketball court. There are no foreign objects.
- You are not allowed to touch a wall.
- When you are knocked unconscious, you lose. When they are all knocked unconscious, they lose. Once a kid is knocked unconscious, that kid is "out."
- I (or someone else intent on seeing to it you fail) get to choose the kids from a pool that is twice the size of your magic number. The pool will be 50/50 in terms of gender and will have no discernable abnormalities in terms of demographics, other than they are all healthy Americans.
- The kids receive one day of training from hand-to-hand combat experts who will train them specifically to team up to take down one adult. You will receive one hour of "counter-tactics" training.
- There is no protective padding for any combatant other than the standard-issue cup.
* The kids are motivated enough to not get scared, regardless of the bloodshed. Even the very last one will give it his/her best to take you down.
I set my magic number at 30, but upon reflection, I think I could take on a few more. How many could you take on?
twelve year olds? Hmm. I'm convinced by the article. Seven sounds about right.
As for the five year olds, I really can't say. It would depend entirely on how effective the training was. I could see it being anywhere from (number of 12 year olds vanquished)+([2,5]) to being bounded solely by fatigue.
I will say, though, that in either question when you get much above a dozen opponents, additional fighters wouldn't be able to get a hand on you simultaneously, rendering their presence irrelevant.
take it from me: five year-olds are VERY easy to punt.
Hey, 'member when I said this?
Flying Shark and Flying Crocodile aren't meeting you and Sue for brunch. This is a royal rumble, a battle-fest to the gory, inevitable death, and you must recognize that Tommy and I are both far more experienced in such.
That, frankly, was pretty sweet.
I could take down my five year old sister in about 2 seconds back when I was 11. Now? I think I could take down 40 easily, especially since 1) five year olds are lousy learners and 2) five year olds have no sense of organization.
who would win? An obesce 30 year old or a Anorexic 30 year old?
Nice blog
Nice blog WBR LeoP
Post A Comment