site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2934 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 15, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Two people are being forced to fight each other to the death. They are both equally inexperienced and of the same height and build. They are fighting in a flat open area.

One has a 6 inch hunting knife. The other has a 34 inch wooden baseball bat.

Who is likely to win?

There was a Twitter poll a few years ago here, but you should post your answer before you look.

I personally thought the answer was pretty blindingly obvious and this question wouldn't even be interesting since everyone would agree, but I've been taken aback at how I'm actually in the minority opinion.

Edit: You bat people are insane. They're both inexperienced fighters so the bat hits are going to be pretty bad and the knife hits are going to be pretty bad. But a bad knife hit still means someone is getting stabbed, which is way, way worse than a bad bat hit. The only way the bat user wins the fight is if they get lucky and get a very good hit in (like bashing the person full-force on the head). They only get maybe one chance, then the knife user can just close the distance by lunging.

Damn Firefox ate my reply...

So, by "inexperienced" I assume the knife guy has used the knife to camp with and the bat guy has used the bat to play baseball with, but neither has ever been in a fight. I would expect the bat guy to start out in a batting stance and the knife guy to try and slice his opponent.

If both are equally stupid, the bat guy is more likely to win: the knife guy will try to slice at the bat guy and will eat a solid whack from the bat.

If both are equally smart, my bet is on the knife guy: he realizes that he has to close the distance and stab the bat guy in the gut once and then just tire him out. The bat guy understands that a two-handed swing can miss and if the knife guy feints an attack, he won't be able to recover from a swing quickly enough. If the bat guy switches to a one-handed stance, the bat is not a sword or a spear, the knife guy can eat a glancing blow from a bat and close the distance, can tire the bat guy out by retreating (since the arena is not enclosed) and actually grab the bat when the swings slow down, etc.

Now, an experienced knife fighter vs an experienced quarterstaff fighter in an open arena is a much more different matchup. A quarterstaff is longer than a bat, much more balanced and surprisingly nimble, the knife guy is likely to be stopped by a quick thrust every time to tries to close the distance, and if he doesn't he's going to eat these thrusts anyway. Like properly executed jabs in boxing, they always connect.

a two-handed swing can miss

A man-sized target?

A man-sized target that doesn't want to be hit.

That's meant to be inexperienced in fighting.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats