• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

Just for laughs...

4de8697ba3fd233ef02952d0cc4c7283.jpg
 
Scalenex said:
I have never been in a serious relationship. But I think if she is refusing to name a restaurant, and then complaining about the outcome he chooses is a recurring a problem, there is one solution.

Rephrase the question.

"I'm going to Such and Such restaurant. Would you like to join me?" As opposed "Which restaurant would you like to go to?"

Some people on the internet have claimed this works. In any event I am used to going to restaurants by myself. As I am almost never bored.

Because this is how my hypothetical relationship would work.

9stq68.jpg
Click to expand...
I've seen this proposed (in a meme :p):
Him: I've got a place picked out for us to eat.
Her: Where are we going?
Him: Guess.
Her: *makes a guess*
Him: That's right, good guess. (proceed to go there)


Luckily I've never had to employ any fancy tactics. My wife is extremely easy going, and is happy to go eat just about anywhere. In truth, I'm far more picky than she is.
 
Killer Angel said:
my money go on the gorilla anyway :p
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the psychology factor. If people have the option to flee, then many will when the Silverback absolutely stomps the first few guys to enter the fray. If the men have no choice and no escape, and we consider them to be essentially immune to psychology / unbreakable, then I think they have a fair chance.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
I think it depends on the psychology factor. If people have the option to flee, then many will when the Silverback absolutely stomps the first few guys to enter the fray. If the men have no choice and no escape, and we consider them to be essentially immune to psychology / unbreakable, then I think they have a fair chance.
Click to expand...


Many factors are to be considered... what i believe to be a decisive point is that we're talking about average men. Many of them will simply be not qualified for such a fight, plus there will be a lack of coordination (the key point to victory, which would be factored if you pick a group of people that know their role in hunting, as rural villagers) and some of them will panick regardless the presence or not of an escape route.


Plus...
100-men-vs-1-gorilla-9-20250430.jpg
 
Killer Angel said:
Many factors are to be considered... what i believe to be a decisive point is that we're talking about average men. Many of them will simply be not qualified for such a fight, plus there will be a lack of coordination (the key point to victory, which would be factored if you pick a group of people that know their role in hunting, as rural villagers) and some of them will panick regardless the presence or not of an escape route.


Plus...
100-men-vs-1-gorilla-9-20250430.jpg
Click to expand...

Our ancestors had slings and spears at least.
 
Killer Angel said:
and some of them will panick regardless the presence or not of an escape route.
Click to expand...
I believe this was the original tweet (or perhaps the tweet that made it go viral):
scientist-settles-100-men-v-1-gorilla-debate1.jpg


The key bit is the "everybody just gotta be dedicated to the shit". That to me implies that the focus is on whether or not it is physically possible, ignoring the psychological aspect of it. The premise is that the 100 men are fully committed to the battle. Imagine a scenario where their families lives are on the line or something like that.

Yes, in a realistic scenario it is very likely that some people would run away. Also, who the heck wants to be the first one to engage the gorilla? These are all fair arguments in a real life scenario, however they are at odds with the original premise of the tweet. That said, if psychology is to be factored in, that could very well work against the gorilla. If the 100 guys gather together as one giant group and make themselves look big, it is highly unlikely that the gorilla would dare to engage them in a fight, and instead run away. I've seen videos of house cats scaring away fully grown black bears, despite having no chance to win a physical engagement against it.


Killer Angel said:
Plus...
100-men-vs-1-gorilla-9-20250430.jpg
Click to expand...

Trying to win via bare-fisted striking is a pretty poor strategy in my opinion. The skeletal and muscular structure of the gorilla is simply too robust. To win, the men have to rush the gorilla with as many of them as can fit into the fray. Use their combined superior mass and bring it to the ground. Attack weak points, such as the eyes, nostrils, throat and groin. It just takes two successful eye gouges to effectively win the fight (sure some people will lose hands/arms to the gorilla's savage 1,300psi bite force, but you've literally got 100 guys, so casualties can be sustained). Once you've got the gorilla to the ground, just keep stomping it. It may even be possible to apply a rear-naked choke to finish it off, as everyone grabs onto and holds the gorilla in place. Also, stamina must be factored in. Gorilla's are not known for exceptional endurance.

While a silverback gorilla is far superior to a single human, I think people are sleeping on the numerical advantage. Nature is littered with examples of large groups of much smaller animals taking down much bigger foes. Have you ever seen a swarm of army ants take down huge scorpions and tarantulas through sheer weight in numbers?


Scalenex said:
Our ancestors had slings and spears at least.
Click to expand...
The momnent weapons of any kind are introduced, the advantage sways heavily in favor of the humans. Even 20 average guys with some good pointy sticks (i.e. rudimentary spears) would likely triumph. Even the most primitive thing, like access to rocks, would provide a huge tactical and physical advantage for the men. We are simply far better equipped to leverage weapons in a fight.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
The premise is that the 100 men are fully committed to the battle. Imagine a scenario where their families lives are on the line or something like that.
Click to expand...

in this case, the gorilla is not chilling, but it's out to kill everyone

NIGHTBRINGER said:
Yes, in a realistic scenario it is very likely that some people would run away. Also, who the heck wants to be the first one to engage the gorilla? These are all fair arguments in a real life scenario, however they are at odds with the original premise of the tweet. That said, if psychology is to be factored in, that could very well work against the gorilla. If the 100 guys gather together as one giant group and make themselves look big, it is highly unlikely that the gorilla would dare to engage them in a fight, and instead run away.
Click to expand...

the most probable "realistic" scenario is the gorilla chilling out, and the men grouping in a corner, leaving the beast alone.
It's a draw!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top