Originally posted by quanchi112
A bee stinger couldmake a human being howl out in pain,but if the person isnt allergic it doesnt do jack to it.
Being allergic to bees does not make their sting anymore painful. The person will have subsequent complications, but the pain of the initial sting is no different.
Originally posted by SasaraixxHow did you miss the point entirely?
Being allergic to bees does not make their sting anymore painful. The person will have subsequent complications, but the pain of the initial sting is no different.
Originally posted by TheBadguyYou sir are correct
Thats not what he was saying
Originally posted by The Great GalenOther way around,sport.
Again, team 1 dominates team 2.
Originally posted by quanchi112
How did you miss the point entirely?
Because your example was flawed and did not convey what you hoped it would. I assume you were trying to make the point that even if you are significantly weaker than your opponent, but have access to their weakness, you can still cause them great pain. Your example was not illustrative of this concept at all.
Try again sport 😉
Originally posted by Sasaraixx
Because your example was flawed and did not convey what you hoped it would. I assume you were trying to make the point that even if you are significantly weaker than your opponent, but have access to their weakness, you can still cause them great pain. Your example was not illustrative of this concept at all.Try again sport 😉
I thought it did... 😮
Originally posted by snyper1982
If the example portrays the point, and everyone understands, then I fail to see how it is a poor example...
It's a poor example because it's not accurate. Being allergic to bees in no way makes their sting more painful. The whole point was that even the most minuscule of beings can cause pain if they exploit the larger opponents weakness. That is not the same thing as being allergic to bees.