It doesn’t say fist fight it says fight. An mg42 some ammo a and a bit of distance are going to win against almost any animal hence the whole multiple extinction events directly caused by predation by humanity.
Gotta play the grey. I could beat them in a fight by hiring a mercenary or team of mercenaries.
I’m still unarmed, I could even be involved in the fight and still not be armed and win the fight.
Similarly the definition of unarmed varies wildly by culture and language so first let’s define unarmed and then we can decide how and where to play the language of the question.
Yeah that doesn’t say I can’t hire someone who is not does it say I can’t get 30000 unarmed dudes to help. It’s vague so why not play the game I’m fairly sure that’s likely why the answers look so weird.
They lost the emu war was lost because of incompetence. They had a machine gun they didn’t know how to use which jammed and they couldnt figure out how to clear it and then they just gave up until the next incompetent attempt.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t say fist fight it says fight. An mg42 some ammo a and a bit of distance are going to win against almost any animal hence the whole multiple extinction events directly caused by predation by humanity.
It’s right there on the top of the graph.
It would be difficult to fight anything without arms. I guess you could just do roundhouse kicks but arms would be much more useful.
Thats why the brits have an advantage, all that.soccer helps their kick attacks.
Americans obviously overrate themselves by what ever percent they think they can beat an elephant, bear, or gorrila.
Correct, my whole point is it’s vague enough to take advantage of so it’s not actually indicative of much aside from malicious compliance.
I feel like unarmed is not vague enough to allow for machine guns lol
“if you were unarmed”
I’m unarmed, the fellas i hire may not be but that isn’t the question.
You were super fun on the playground I’m sure
This isn’t the playground, I’m not sure your point. Ask an inane questions I’m going to give you absurdist but logical answers.
That said, I haven’t met a single person who has said that who doesn’t themselves seem insufferable.
Gotta play the grey. I could beat them in a fight by hiring a mercenary or team of mercenaries.
I’m still unarmed, I could even be involved in the fight and still not be armed and win the fight.
Similarly the definition of unarmed varies wildly by culture and language so first let’s define unarmed and then we can decide how and where to play the language of the question.
This is how you get kicked out of a game of DnD
Wouldn’t be the first time no, lawyering language is generally not a popular thing to do.
You aren’t lawyering anything, you’re just refusing to take a very simple question at face value
That’s literally lawyering, theres a reason the supreme court determines if something is too vague.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1207&context=faculty_scholarship
Unarmed fight.
Yeah that doesn’t say I can’t hire someone who is not does it say I can’t get 30000 unarmed dudes to help. It’s vague so why not play the game I’m fairly sure that’s likely why the answers look so weird.
Emus would like a word with you.
They lost the emu war was lost because of incompetence. They had a machine gun they didn’t know how to use which jammed and they couldnt figure out how to clear it and then they just gave up until the next incompetent attempt.