608
manbearpig (quokk.au)
submitted 7 months ago by [M] to c/peoplemastodon@quokk.au
360 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Four is between two and five, though? Which is exactly what they said?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Are you telling me that's not enough death to warrant caution? Imagine if there were 170 Million Bears, maybe thats a better visual for you to compare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Are you really trying to present this argument as people saying you shouldn't be cautious around bears? Have you lived around bears? Yeah, be cautious around bears - but that caution takes the form of "make sure you don't surprise the bear". Bears don't want to be involved with you any more than you want to be involved with them. They will avoid you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I can't tell if you're thoroughly disingenuous or you actually can't tell what this discussion is about. Involvement with the bear or avoidance of the bear were explicitly declared non-optional.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You are missing the point of the original experiment, and continue to misdirect the discussion into your predeterminted views.

    So again, fuck you for that.

    The only thing that matters is that "some MEN ARE A DANGER TO WOMEN".

    Disregarding that you only support the attackers. Simple as.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You've actually perfectly encapsulated my point that your personal bias has caused a random and illogical dismissal of the potential harm a bear can cause. It's like bears don't exist at all in your mind, the options are men or not men to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY cares about bears. Everyone knows they can and will kill you.

    But that's the upside: an understood and agreed danger.

    Men can and will kill men and women, in great numbers every year. And people choose to ignore that.

    Like, I don't know, derailing conversations to talk about bears.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    This conversation was always about bears, go start a new thread.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Nobody has claimed that bears aren't dangerous.

    The fact is: despite the fact that everyone knows bears are dangerous, many women when asked say they would rather encounter a bear than a man. That isn't saying they don't think bears are dengerous, it speaks volumes about their regular encounters with men.

    Saying "um acksully bears are very dangerous" is ignoring the point to have an argument that no one is actually arguing against.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Honestly confused, do you mean in your initial comment you were asserting that the choices were either "interact with man" or "interact with bear"? Because if so that was never the premise of the initial question, and nobody else here appears to be discussing it like it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The bear and man options are presented as equivalent, so you're either interacting with either or simply on the same mountain as either, you can't just pick and choose for each instance or the question needs to be reformatted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    ... The initial question doesn't frame it like that, yes; however I don't see anyone here implying it does, so I'm unclear on how it's at all relevant. The initial question is "would you rather be in the woods alone with a bear or with a man you didn't know" - being alone in the woods with a bear is an extremely common thing (I was alone in the woods with countless bears not moments ago when I stepped outside), and the risks carried by either option are the entire point of the question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    "the initial question doesn't frame it like that"

    *proceeds to frame it as equivalent and still defend the bear option

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    What the... No, your objection was "picking and choos[ing]" (ex:) if you were just in the woods with a bear vs. had to interact with a man

    I said yes, that's not the initial question, and presented that simply being alone in the woods with a bear is an extremely common occurence, a reference to the "170 million black bears of prigozhin" comment from earlier.

    Now you're mad I'm presenting those two options as always having been treated as their equivalent forms, and yet still maintaining my earlier position after explaining the details of the question. But... why would my answer have changed? My position or the premise it was based on never changed. I never misunderstood anything about the question. You were the one that interpreted the discussion incorrectly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Yet men killing a shit ton more women than that per year isn’t a good enough reason to warrant caution? Statistically the bear is still safer.

    Edit: You also don’t have to falsely inflate the population of men to create a hyperbolic fantasy situation to justify choosing the bear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Explain how the bear is statistically safer; you would need to factor in not just total incidences, but total interactions, otherwise it's a sharpshooter fallacy.

    The average woman likely has tens of thousands of hours with strange men and no incident, and it would be extremely surprising that the bear stats would be better than that.

    I wouldn't be surprised that even if you only selected men convicted of violence on women, the bears would still be statistically more dangerous (or it would at least be a somewhat close comparison).

    This is getting into the weeds a bit though and not really in the spirit of the original question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Women existing in public: https://www.tiktok.com/@specere/video/7472932570162924831

    It doesn't matter if there is a bus full of men and only one is a creep. The woman isn't going to remember the 99 men who left her alone, she's going to remember the 1 that stared at her the whole time.

    If this was your experience every day it would not be surprising at all to not want to be around a random man.

    Not all men are creeps, but all women have been creeped on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent