2012 World's Hardest Creature Competition.......anyone up for it?

[MattBackHome]

The fundamental flaw in the badger boys' argument:

1) Badgers are hard, because they're little.
2) Mosquitoes are shit, because they're little.

Ergo, etc...

Mosquito's aren't shit. But they are accidental killers, not intentional havoc-wreakers like the HB.

 

[Simster]

A honey badger would DO a tiger anyway. It has no concept of fear.

Firstly, no it wouldn't. Secondly, for "concept of fear" read "intelligence".

 

[Badger]

TL can we employ some kind of independent adjudicator when it comes to doing the draws? I'd hate for the Honey Badger to be given an easy route into the final because a few brown envelopes have changed hands. Not that I think you'd accept bribes but you have to be seen to be fair.

 

[Mellotron]

Absolute gubbins. If my auntie had bollocks and all that.

Look, a tiger-sized mongoose would be a new animal, not a mongoose. Or are you just going to discount anything bigger than a honey badger because it would lose if it was pound for pound smaller? By your reckoning we should all be voting for the ant, as I reckon it would throw 15 of your honey badgers into a cliff face all at once, with consumate ease if it was supersized up to honey badger size, given that the ant is so incredibly strong for its bodyweight.

No, it doesn't work like that. Take each animal on its own merit.

Agreed. Take each animal on how HARD it is FOR IT'S SIZE. Therefore Honey Badger wins. Glad you're finally starting to get it.

 

[Mellotron]

To be fair, it kills millions every year.

Every year the honey kitten fanboys are out telling the rest of us why we're all wrong, and every time it goes out comfortably. No-one is scared by a cute little badger. Yes, it can get frightfully vicious if you annoy it. So can a goose. A tiger would f***ing ruin it so suck it up.

And what's hard about a Tiger beating up a Honey Badger? Exactly. Nothing at all.

"Goes out comfortably?" It's constantly got to the later stages, so again you're talking bollocks.

 

[Silent Bob]

It's more of a waddle really isn't it.

And cheat? How is being so small that you can be squashed by any mammal construed as "cheating"? Only HB fanboy could come up with that shit.

Well, an ant can lift a LEAF two hundred times it's weight or whatever.

So therefore an ant is pound for pound the hardest animal, an ant the size of a honey badger would be worse than a honey badger. Except it wouldn't because it couldn't possibly exist and if it did somehow it would just collapse and die. Whereas a honey badger the size of a honey badger does exist, and goes round bitchslapping lions and shit.

 

[Simster]

Agreed. Take each animal on how HARD it is FOR IT'S SIZE. Therefore Honey Badger wins. Glad you're finally starting to get it.

No. It is called "hardest animal" competition, not "hardest animal based on criteria that suits the honey badger" competition.

Otherwise I'd plump for a beetle or a fly wouldn't I - both much harder than the badger FOR IT'S SIZE.

 

[Mellotron]

A honey badger would DO a tiger anyway. It has no concept of fear.

It's SO FUCKMENTAL it would steam in there regardless of the fact it would probably lose. THAT IS HARD.

 

[Mellotron]

No. It is called "hardest animal" competition, not "hardest animal based on criteria that suits the honey badger" competition.

Otherwise I'd plump for a beetle or a fly wouldn't I - both much harder than the badger FOR IT'S SIZE.

No they're not?! When was the last time a beetle chased off a Honey Badger? A cat would sit on a beetle and kill it without thinking.

You still refuse to understand what the word HARD means. I genuinely don't get it.

 

[MattBackHome]

Of all the binfests from 2007 that we recycle on an annual basis - this is by far my favourite.

 

[zfleas]

Well, an ant can lift a LEAF two hundred times it's weight or whatever.

So therefore an ant is pound for pound the hardest animal, an ant the size of a honey badger would be worse than a honey badger. Except it wouldn't because it couldn't possibly exist and if it did somehow it would just collapse and die. Whereas a honey badger the size of a honey badger does exist, and goes round bitchslapping lions and shit.

You are right, the strong ant thing is simply wrong. The reason is related to the so-called Square-Cube Law. Basically, the amount of force a muscle can generate is proportional to the square of the size (the cross sectional area of the muscle) but the weight is proportional to the cube of the size (the volume). This means that every time you double the ant's size you would multiply its strength by 4 and its weight by 8. So it would get relatively weaker as it gets bigger.

That ant that lifts 5 times its body weight, if scaled up 350 times to be human sized, would not even be able to lift 2% of its weight, its own weight would suffocate it. That is largely the reason why even the largest insects are still rather small. On the other hand, the human that can lift about half of his body weight, when scaled down to the ant size, would be able to lift 175 times his own weight, not just 5 times.

So why don't we see mammals that are the size of ants? Wouldn't they have a competitive advantage being so much stronger. It turns out to be another square-cube law. The amount of heat generated by and the amount of water in an animal is proportional to the cube of the size of the animal while the rate of heat loss and water loss is proportional to the square of the size. So our ant-sized human would die of dehydration in about 12 min (instead of about 3 days) and would easily die of hypothermia.

Square-cube law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mellotron]

Well, an ant can lift a LEAF two hundred times it's weight or whatever.

So therefore an ant is pound for pound the hardest animal, an ant the size of a honey badger would be worse than a honey badger. Except it wouldn't because it couldn't possibly exist and if it did somehow it would just collapse and die. Whereas a honey badger the size of a honey badger does exist, and goes round bitchslapping lions and shit.

Spot on. The Honey Badger is the HARDEST creature in the world. Just accept it.

 

[Simster]

"Goes out comfortably?" It's constantly got to the later stages, so again you're talking bollocks.

It's our year! ACHTUNG Krauts! etc etc

 

[Mellotron]

It's our year! ACHTUNG Krauts! etc etc

View attachment 29399

If England constantly battered Brazil, Holland, Germany and Spain, you'd have a point.

Honest question: Why can't you suck it up and accept you didn't initially realise it was called the World's Hardest Creature competition? Would've saved you a lot of bother.

 

[Silent Bob]

You are right, the strong ant thing is simply wrong. The reason is related to the so-called Square-Cube Law. Basically, the amount of force a muscle can generate is proportional to the square of the size (the cross sectional area of the muscle) but the weight is proportional to the cube of the size (the volume). This means that every time you double the ant's size you would multiply its strength by 4 and its weight by 8. So it would get relatively weaker as it gets bigger.

That ant that lifts 5 times its body weight, if scaled up 350 times to be human sized, would not even be able to lift 2% of its weight, its own weight would suffocate it. That is largely the reason why even the largest insects are still rather small. On the other hand, the human that can lift about half of his body weight, when scaled down to the ant size, would be able to lift 175 times his own weight, not just 5 times.

So why don't we see mammals that are the size of ants? Wouldn't they have a competitive advantage being so much stronger. It turns out to be another square-cube law. The amount of heat generated by and the amount of water in an animal is proportional to the cube of the size of the animal while the rate of heat loss and water loss is proportional to the square of the size. So our ant-sized human would die of dehydration in about 12 min (instead of about 3 days) and would easily die of hypothermia.

Square-cube law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly.

Captain Science Says Vote Honey Badger

(or Wolverine)

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

To be fair, it kills millions every year.

No it doesn't, the virus it carries kills people and so if you want to go down that route, i nominate the Ebola virus.

 

[fork me]

OK, a bit outside the box this one, but I'm going for the tiny water bear, also known as a tardigrade, these things make cockroaches look f***ing fragile.

Most of the things said about cockroaches are myths, they would NOT survive the radiation of a nuclear bomb, however, water bears would. These things don't get much bigger than 1mm but just TRY and kill it. The Immortal Jellyfish might be called immortal, but these things virtually are.

They are the only known animal to survive at close to absolute zero temperature (-273C), they also survive quite happily in boiling water (they've survived a temperature of 151C), and can live for a decade (yes, 10 years) with no water at all. Not only that, they can survive radiation doses 1000x higher than any other animal. In 2007, they sent the buggers into space. They even survived that. Not only can they survive the zero pressure of space, they can survive in a pressure of 6000 atmospheres (which would crush the humble cockcroach instantly, that's 6 times the water pressure in the deepest ocean trench). They can also survive most poisons.

Unlike cockroaches they're also too small to stamp to death.

There isn't an animal in this list that could kill a tardigrade, nor one that could survive the conditions they can. They live all over the world, they've been found in hot springs, on top of Everest and in both the Antarctic and the Sahara.

Damn that's one hard little fella.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

OK, a bit outside the box this one, but I'm going for the tiny water bear, also known as a tardigrade, these things make cockroaches look f***ing fragile.

Most of the things said about cockroaches are myths, they would NOT survive the radiation of a nuclear bomb, however, water bears would. These things don't get much bigger than 1mm but just TRY and kill it. The Immortal Jellyfish might be called immortal, but these things virtually are.

They are the only known animal to survive at close to absolute zero temperature (-273C), they also survive quite happily in boiling water (they've survived a temperature of 151C), and can live for a decade (yes, 10 years) with no water at all. Not only that, they can survive radiation doses 1000x higher than any other animal. In 2007, they sent the buggers into space. They even survived that. Not only can they survive the zero pressure of space, they can survive in a pressure of 6000 atmospheres (which would crush the humble cockcroach instantly, that's 6 times the water pressure in the deepest ocean trench). They can also survive most poisons.

Unlike cockroaches they're also too small to stamp to death.

There isn't an animal in this list that could kill a tardigrade, nor one that could survive the conditions they can. They live all over the world, they've bben found in hot springs, on top of Everest and in both the Antarctic and the Sahara.

Damn that one hard little fella.

I like it, I'll second it.

 

[Aristotle]

OK, a bit outside the box this one, but I'm going for the tiny water bear, also known as a tardigrade, these things make cockroaches look f***ing fragile.

Most of the things said about cockroaches are myths, they would NOT survive the radiation of a nuclear bomb, however, water bears would. These things don't get much bigger than 1mm but just TRY and kill it. The Immortal Jellyfish might be called immortal, but these things virtually are.

They are the only known animal to survive at close to absolute zero temperature (-273C), they also survive quite happily in boiling water (they've survived a temperature of 151C), and can live for a decade (yes, 10 years) with no water at all. Not only that, they can survive radiation doses 1000x higher than any other animal. In 2007, they sent the buggers into space. They even survived that. Not only can they survive the zero pressure of space, they can survive in a pressure of 6000 atmospheres (which would crush the humble cockcroach instantly, that's 6 times the water pressure in the deepest ocean trench). They can also survive most poisons.

Unlike cockroaches they're also too small to stamp to death.

There isn't an animal in this list that could kill a tardigrade, nor one that could survive the conditions they can. They live all over the world, they've bben found in hot springs, on top of Everest and in both the Antarctic and the Sahara.

Damn that one hard little fella.

Didn't this chap make an appearance last year? I'll second him. Huge on defence, although falls down a bit in attack...

 

[Woodchip]

No it doesn't, the virus it carries kills people and so if you want to go down that route, i nominate the Ebola virus.

Surely pigeon would be a better shout. They carry loads of deadly viruses.

Sent by yolk folk