1730 replies to this topic

[Frizzle]

No, because its a fucking lion - it's just doing what it can.

lol wut?

[Sinwin]

IF this "God" will come to me and perform a miracle, then I will bow to him and say almighty God. Otherwise, I say forget it and don't bother me with the nonsense.

[generalgsus]

IF this "God" will come to me and perform a miracle, then I will bow to him and say almighty God. Otherwise, I say forget it and don't bother me with the nonsense.

However, those who believe in God will say that they need not see a miracle, they just need to believe. (I am not one of them, but just pointing out)

[kiddX]

lol wut?

I was trying to say that there's no such thing as wickedness. It's our nature. I was trying to compare that to calling a lion wicked for biting you. It's just doing regular lion stuff.

[artificial]

A lion preys on animals to survive. I'm sure most murderers don't eat their victims.

[Mr. Hobo]

Doesn't (don't?) a fair amount of cats kill for fun?

Wtf is the grammatically correct version of the above sentence

[jcrdude]

Doesn't (don't?) a fair amount of cats kill for fun?

Wtf is the grammatically correct version of the above sentence

Don't a fair amount of cats kill for fun?

Since the subject is plural (a fair amount of cats), the proper usage is don't.

Try rearranging it as a (perhaps incorrect) negative factual statement to see the best usage.

Correct:
A fair amount of cats don't kill for fun.

Incorrect:
A fair amount of cats doesn't kill for fun.

This also has to do with the pluralization of the subject of performing the action of the verb "to do"

Things do something
Thing does something

The negatives are
do not
does not

And the contractions would be
don't
doesn't

[Sinwin]

Don't a fair amount of cats kill for fun?

Since the subject is plural (a fair amount of cats), the proper usage is don't.

Try rearranging it as a (perhaps incorrect) negative factual statement to see the best usage.

Correct:
A fair amount of cats don't kill for fun.

Incorrect:
A fair amount of cats doesn't kill for fun.

This also has to do with the pluralization of the subject of performing the action of the verb "to do"

Things do something
Thing does something

The negatives are
do not
does not

And the contractions would be
don't
doesn't

This would be wrong because "cats" is the object of the prepositional phrase "of cats". Amount is the subject, so the incorrect and correct are flipped.

[jcrdude]

This would be wrong because "cats" is the object of the prepositional phrase "of cats". Amount is the subject, so the incorrect and correct are flipped.

Incorrect. The qualifier "A fair amount" indicates plurality.

[luvsmyncis]

This would be wrong because "cats" is the object of the prepositional phrase "of cats". Amount is the subject, so the incorrect and correct are flipped.

[Frizzle]

I was trying to say that there's no such thing as wickedness. It's our nature. I was trying to compare that to calling a lion wicked for biting you. It's just doing regular lion stuff.

dude if a lion bites me im gonna be pretty pissed off, or dead. either way.

[artificial]

dude if a lion bites me im gonna be pretty pissed off, or dead. either way.

What about a toothless lion? I think that would feel quite nice.

[stirlingL]

toothless lion? still dont think it would be nice haha

[Sweeney]

Even without teeth, 611 pounds of pressure is gonna hurt.

[artificial]

Even without teeth, 611 pounds of pressure is gonna hurt.

I love how you Google things before posting

[Sinwin]

Saliva doesnt help either.

[jcrdude]

Even without teeth, 611 pounds of pressure is gonna hurt.

Is that pounds of pressure total in the bite?

Or are we talking PSI?

If we're talking PSI, was it calculated with or without teeth?

[Sweeney]

Is that pounds of pressure total in the bite?

Or are we talking PSI?

If we're talking PSI, was it calculated with or without teeth?

PSI. With teeth.
Not that the toothiness of the measurement matters

[generalgsus]

PSI. With teeth.
Not that the toothiness of the measurement matters

Does so matter! I'd rather they bite it off immediately. I'm guessing if the lion were toothless and exerted 611 pounds of pressure on your arm your arm would snap immediately though either way? Or does their having teeth quicken the process?

[Sinwin]

Toothless I say you get crippled. With teeth, you die faster.

[jcrdude]

PSI. With teeth.
Not that the toothiness of the measurement matters

I think that toothiness would matter a great deal!

Using the PSI calculated from a limited number of sharp contact points, versus a pressure that is spread across an entire gum line would have very differing effects.

Assuming that the jaw has a set amount of force, we'll say x lbs. of pressure, if that strength were focused into the sharp contact points (aka teeth) then the pressure of each tooth could be assumed to be x/n (n being the number of teeth). The pressure would be focused and thus cause more damage. Of course if you spread that x lbs. of pressure across a single large contact point (the entire toothless gum line) the pressure would greatly diminish (compared to the single contact points) across the entire contact area.

[generalgsus]

I think that toothiness would matter a great deal!

Using the PSI calculated from a limited number of sharp contact points, versus a pressure that is spread across an entire gum line would have very differing effects.

Assuming that the jaw has a set amount of force, we'll say x lbs. of pressure, if that strength were focused into the sharp contact points (aka teeth) then the pressure of each tooth could be assumed to be x/n (n being the number of teeth). The pressure would be focused and thus cause more damage. Of course if you spread that x lbs. of pressure across a single large contact point (the entire toothless gum line) the pressure would greatly diminish (compared to the single contact points) across the entire contact area.

Makes sense, but still a "..." moment.

[Sweeney]

I think that toothiness would matter a great deal!

Using the PSI calculated from a limited number of sharp contact points, versus a pressure that is spread across an entire gum line would have very differing effects.

Assuming that the jaw has a set amount of force, we'll say x lbs. of pressure, if that strength were focused into the sharp contact points (aka teeth) then the pressure of each tooth could be assumed to be x/n (n being the number of teeth). The pressure would be focused and thus cause more damage. Of course if you spread that x lbs. of pressure across a single large contact point (the entire toothless gum line) the pressure would greatly diminish (compared to the single contact points) across the entire contact area.

This is true, I didn't think of it like that.
I suppose it depends on exactly how the measurement was taken.

However, let's be honest, it's not an important point anyway xD

[jcrdude]

This is true, I didn't think of it like that.
I suppose it depends on exactly how the measurement was taken.

However, let's be honest, it's not an important point anyway xD

Perhaps true, but it's fun to use math in everyday unimportant debates... kind of like this thread

[sexymama]

are you guys still talking about god? sorry im pretty late