Comparisons: Pirates vs. Ninjas

Comparison debates are made every day. Socialism vs. Capitalism. Christianity vs. Islam. Ford vs. Chevy. But there is one issue that outstrips them all, and that is what we will examine today.

Pirates vs. Ninjas

Swashbuckling buccaneers, or black clad warriors? To start with you may want to examine this excellent source, which compares the two in a very unbiased manner.

The rules:

1. We aren't debating which you'd rather be, or who is cooler. We are comparing sheer awesome deadliness. We will try to replicate the conditions that such an epic showdown would occur.
2. As in the source above, ninjas get no extra-dimensional magic tricks.
3. Also as in above, pirates aren't crazy supernatural and/or undead pirates. The term "pirate" in this debate is nearly always meant to refer to European/Caribbean pirates, a la Blackbeard. That is what we will be using here.

Item #1: Terrain

With any conflict, terrain is important. It goes without saying that pirates have a significant advantage when at sea thanks to their profession. Ninjas, on the other hand, would have the advantage on land for the same reason. The slideshow points out that water covers 3/4 of the earth's surface, giving the pirate a sheer surface area advantage. However, 99.99% of humanity (everyone except sailors and pirates) live almost exclusively on the land. Even pirates frequent coastal towns to rape/pillage/gather supplies/get drunk. For this reason any conflict would most likely happen there, giving the ninja the upper hand.

Item #2: Armament

The pirate had a wide array of weapons at his disposal. From militaryhistory.com:

• While the pirate had access to muskets and crossbows, they "prized the pistol above all other weapons." This was a short range weapon that could fire one large ball, or several small ones like a shotgun. It was single shot, so many pirates (for example, Blackbeard) carried multiple pistols. Their range was "an effective range of only 3 or 4 yards". Because deck boarding was a crowded melee, accuracy was not a concern.
• "The most popular pirate sword was the cutlass, a crude, heavy, single-edged sword that was typically about two feet long. Although somewhat clumsy, this sword was easily wielded during a crowded battle, and relatively cheap." Here we can see they go for quantity, rather than quality. Once again, designed to be used in a crowded melee brawl.
• The pirate ship was a weapon as well. Unfortunately for the buccaneer, since this fight is occurring in a port town, the cannons aren't of any use.

The Ninja, too, had an assortment of tools. His gear goes beyond simple combat implements. Source: The Ninjutsu Society

• "Ninja Tou: This was a sword with a plain square tsuba (guard). Like all the weapons of the ninja, this had more uses than simply attacking the enemy." The scabbard was longer than necessary for the weapon, allowing it to conceal powders, poisons, documents, shurikens, etc. It could also be used as a step to get to hard to reach places. They were not as high quality as the samurai katana, and so the ninjas practiced using their entire body momentum to generate killing force with their slightly curved blade. It deserves to be pointed out that the katana is widely regarded as one of the finest blades ever crafted, so even a lesser blade crafted by legendary Japanese smiths would be formidable.
• A plethora of other melee weapons are commonly used by ninjas, depending on the situation. These can include:

1. Bo staff, known for it's defensive capabilities (A ninja armed with a bo could keep as many as 5 men armed with swords at bay)
2. Kusarigama (or sickle with weighted chain) that could be used for climbing or slashing in combat
3. Jutte, which could be used to capture an evaded blade
4. Yari or Naginta (long spear and halberd like spear respectively).
5. Shuko/Ashiko, claws worn on the hands and feet that could be used to aid in climbing. They were also raking weapons and could even be used to capture swords.
6. Kusarifundo (chain-weight) was a short chain with weights attached to each end.. It was swung to achieve great momentum and then aimed to strike with the very end of the weight for maximum impact.
7. Shurikens, which can refer to any thrown weapon. They range from disks with 3-8 blades to sliver-like lengths of metal that were used like throwing knives, poisoned or not. Ninjas typically carried 9 shurikens, as the number 9 was believed to be lucky.
8. Miscellaneous other tools, including: Sight obscuring powder, caltrops (barbed metals that were scattered on the ground to discourage pursuit), bows with poisoned arrows, and others.

Item #3: Training & tactics

Pirates came from every walk of life. They depended on their abilities as seamen to sail, and lifetimes of practice would make them very competent sailors. In battle, however, it was somewhat different. Formal training was unlikely, but practice and experience were not. (Source) The usual prey of a pirate ship would be a lightly armed merchant vessel. If ever approached by a foe that appeared to be close in strength or weaponry they would run rather than fight. They would rely first on intimidation to have the crew surrender, so that the booty could be taken with no fight. Should this prove unsuccessful, brute force and superior numbers were typically used. They were renowned for taking no prisoners in this situation, likely to prevent fights in the future.

Ninjas, on the other hand, were typically either born into the ninja clan or were joined to it shortly after birth. The child would grow living, drinking, and breathing ninjutsu. Much like the Spartans before them, every facet of life was focused on training for the young assassins. The very nature of the ninja makes their histories difficult to discern. What is clear, though, is that the ninja's life was Ninjutsu. The ninja prefers to fight from the shadows, striking and then vanishing, rather than engaging the enemy forthright.

Item #4: Numbers

In the most likely, coastal town, scenario the pirates would be on shore leave. Drinking, carousing, raping, pillaging, etc. It is doubtful the entire crew would be massed at one place, but it is equally unlikely that any pirate would be alone. As a pirate sloop could carry around 75 people, we will say that twenty pirates, or a little more than a quarter of the crew, are travelling together. We will also give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are fully armed and equipped, and that it is a dry night (so their gunpowder will work.)

The ninja clans were entire collections of families and could consist of fifteen or more fully mastered ninjas, as well as numerous trainees of varying levels of skill. It is unlikely that the clan would send every ninja they had, even for a battle of this magnitude. Keeping with the same ratio, we will say the ninjas send about a quarter of their elite, or four master ninjas.

The conclusion

Finally, we arrive at the battle itself. Who will win?

Twenty pirates

Four ninjas.

I'm going to spoil the ending for you: The ninjas win. Here's why:

• The pirates don't know they're coming. Why? Because they are ninjas, stealth is what they do.
• Being in an ambush position, the ninjas will be able to set up at range with bows or shurikens. Traps and other devices could also be laid in the kill zone. In the opening volley of projectiles the ninjas can be expected to kill at least one person each (with poison and whatnot), not to mention various eye irritants and other chemical weapons they could employ.
• At this point, 20% of the pirates are dead or dying, and the rest are having a bad day. The ninjas could either employ more shurikens (they have 9, remember), or close to hand-to-hand.
• The pirates have their firearms. They are well suited to a confused melee, where there are enemies everywhere and accuracy is not an issue. In this case, however, numbers count against you as you are just as likely to hit a friend as a smaller, more agile foe.
• The pirates weapons are crude, their training minimal, and so the ninja will undoubtedly outdo them in hand to hand. Again, well suited for attacking a lightly armed merchant vessel. Not so much against heavily armed and expertly trained avatars of death.
• Morale will quickly become a factor. Having been ambushed, attacked with chemical weapons, and having experienced shocking up front casualties (For comparison, there was an 11% casualty rate on D-day), and with no treasure and/or rum likely to be gained by staying around, it is unlikely that the buccaneers would stand and fight. The ninjas on the other hand are devoted to their clan to the point of suicidal death and/or disfigurement.

Estimated casualties at end of battle: Pirates - 10+, ninjas - 0-1. Pirates flee the field.

Showdown: Cake vs. Pie

For centuries, mankind has been plagued with questions. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything? (That one is 42, obviously). Today we will take one of these ultimate questions and settle it, once and for all.

Cake vs. Pie

Let's start with definitions.

Pie:

From Webster's:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 14th century
1: a meat dish baked with biscuit or pastry crust — compare potpie
2: a dessert consisting of a filling (as of fruit or custard) in a pastry shell or topped with pastry or both

Cake:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse kaka; akin to Old High German kuocho cake
Date: 13th century
1 a: a breadlike food made from a dough or batter that is usually fried or baked in small flat shapes and is often unleavened b: a sweet baked food made from a dough or thick batter usually containing flour and sugar and often shortening, eggs, and a raising agent (as baking powder) c: a flattened usually round mass of food that is baked or fried
2 a: a block of compacted or congealed matter b: a hard or brittle layer or deposit

Versus

The largest difference between these two dishes is versatility. A cake, being tied down by its batter, is limited in possibilities. You can only fry and mix eggs and flour so many ways before you start repeating yourself. A cake is a cake, no matter how you slice it.

The pie, on the other hand, is nearly limitless. Starting on the outside, the crust can have many variations: Simple dough, gingerbread, oreo, graham, chocolate...The list goes on and on. The filling itself is even more varied. You want fruit? Try apples, cherries, or blackberries. In the mood for something more light? Meringues of every size and description. Cheese? Perhaps you should sample the cheesecake (which is clearly a pie, despite the name). Pies aren't even limited to deserts. Meat pies and pot pies bring it to the dinner table. It could even be argued that pizza is a form of pie.

Since every person has different tastes it is important to be able to appeal to the masses. Here, pie clearly wins hands down. [EDIT: It also deserves to be noted that the cake depends on a parasite, namely the icing, for it's appeal and flavor. Pies, on the other hand, rely on no one for their tasty goodness.]

Socially, cake does have one advantage. They have managed to corner the market on birthdays. After all, no one wants a birthday pie. That's great for the one day. The other 364 days of the year, you've got pies. In comedy, cream pies have been used for decades in routines throughout the world. And let's face it: When your dessert shares its name with "a block of compacted or congealed matter", it's hard to rally behind it. Bird's of a feather flock together, after all. Congealed matter anyone?

Politically, cakes have been used by dictators to suppress their people for centuries. Simply recall the popular phrase "let them eat cake", which (while its origins are murky) is a symbol of aristocracy. On the other hand, let's have another quote: As American as Apple _______. Fill in the blank, my friend.

In conclusion:

• Pie's are far more versatile
• Cakes only dominate for one day, or roughly .27% of the year
• Pies are popular for 99.73% of the year
• Pies are funny
• Cake=congealed matter & aristocracy
• Pies=Freedom and America.

Handy Haversack o' News (now with ninjas!)

Alright, so there aren't actually any ninjas. But there is news.

• Michael Moore (is it just me, or does he look like an extra from "Dawn of the Dead"?) has this to say about the new Government Motors: "I'm pretty excited to own a car company!" The reasons are clear and compelling. With the government at the wheel, we can ignore all those silly market forces and get to what's really important: Building green vehicles nobody wants. Finally!
• Confirmed: Media biased towards the left. Here's a nifty video that shows economic coverage of a recovering economy in 2003, vs. the tanking economy of 2009. Bonus points if you can figure out which one gets more negativity!
• Paranoid, or just safety minded? Bullet proof backpacks and toddler bio-hazard suits, these things are perfect for Father's day, provided your father is a right-wing extremist like me. Seriously though, who wouldn't want a flame thrower on their truck? No one I know.
• Retired state dept. employee arrested for spying. American Thinker has a very in depth, step by step article you can read here. Basically, the fella and his wifey are head over heels in love with Cuba and the socialist regime there, so they are recruited to spy for the island nation. I wonder...is hanging still allowed for treason?

Hah! Bet you didn't see that coming! That's the thing about ninjas, and why they are WAY more awesome than pirates.

Mediocre Experiment: Nazis, Cameras, and organs!

Normally I would've posted my legislation on the issues facing the Magic O, but due to a slight miscalculation the website processed my decisions almost immediately. You'll have to trust that I chose accurately. Here's the Reader's Digest version:

Issue #1: Nazi sympathizers propose rally
A) Ban due to hate speech
B) Allow, regardless of content.

I chose A.

Issue #2: Install cameras in public places to reduce crime.
A) Do not allow, invasion of privacy.
B) In public, people can see you! No privacy in public, install cameras.
C) Cameras clearly invade privacy, so let's have our citizens barcoded into a national database!

I chose C. The government can manage your needs that much easier, and crime will stop in it's tracks!

Issue #3: Compulsory organ donation
A) Enforce, the dead don't need organs.
B) My organs, my choice.

I chose A. Lower health care costs for everybody!

So, here's our weekly standings.

The Commonwealth of The Magic O
“YES WE CAN!”

Category: Democratic Socialists
Civil Rights:Some
Economy:Fragile
Political Freedoms:Some

The Commonwealth of The Magic O is a small, safe nation, notable for its burgeoning quacking tree frog population. Its compassionate population of 26 million are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

The government -- a sprawling, bureaucracy-choked, socially-minded morass -- juggles the competing demands of Religion & Spirituality, Healthcare, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 44%, but much higher for the wealthy. A small private sector is led by the Soda Sales industry, followed by Basket Weaving and Door-to-door Insurance Sales.

The quacking tree frog is a protected species, it is illegal to make racist remarks in public, citizens are barcoded to keep track of their movements, and organ donation is compulsory. Crime is totally unknown. The Magic O's national animal is the quacking tree frog, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the dolla bill.

The Magic O is ranked 1897th in the region and 35,991st in the world for Largest Gambling Industries.

Dr. Tiller, abortion doctor, slain

On May 31st Dr. Tiller was shot on the foyer of his church. He was 67 and was most well known for his controversial abortion practices.

Normally when I write up my opinion on a story, for myself and Fluffy the monkey, there's some kind of grey area. It takes a little bit of thought and time along with a healthy dose of sarcasm. Here goes my analysis: Shooting an abortion doctor in the face is murder, and ought to be punished as such.

Well, that didn't take long.

Now I have a dilemma. You probably stumbled in here on your way to something more entertaining, and that one sentence of in depth analysis won't keep you here long. So, I've attached below my complete position on abortion itself. It was written as a letter to an inquisitive co-worker. Enjoy:

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps.

Jordan"

GM is too big to fail. Newsflash: Failed anyway.

Remember all the shouts we heard way back when, how the US Auto makers were too big to fail? "They can't go bankrupt!" they screamed. "We must give them money to save jobs!" they pleaded. All would be well if Uncle Sam (a.k.a. You and me) just gave them a little bit of cash to see them through. Well, I for one am sure glad we listened. Boy, it would've been terrible if they had gone bankrupt and restructered into a leaner GM! I can admit when I was wrong, and here goes: You were right, Big Government. You were right, Super-CEO Obama. GM cannot be allowed to go bankrupt.

Whew. This just in: Government pushes GM into bankrupcy.

Wait, what?

General Government Motors will now have owners in the following percentages:

1. US Government: 60%
2. UAW (United Auto-Workers Union): 17.5%
3. Canadian Government: 12%
4. Bondholders: 10%

Ouch. Kinda sucks to be a private investor, huh? That's right, GM will now be 10% owned by private enterprise. Now that's just plain good old fashioned fascism socialism Capitalism!

HotAir did a good analysis of how much private investors were getting shafted. Read it here. In short: US government gets ownership for $834 million per percent of ownership. UAW: $629 million per percent of ownership. Private investors: $2.7 billion (with a B) per percent of ownership.

Ouch.