Very few people someone gets near enough to be grabbed by want to rape them. Nearly every bear someone gets near enough to be grabbed by wants to kill them. A large number of women feel it is better to be killed by a bear than live with their irrational fear that every man they get near shall rape them. The fear not being rational is irrelevant as the fear is based upon a more than likely chance, approx. 25% is reported, that at some point the fear was justified and not irrational. However those numbers are screwy as folks that get raped are more likely to get raped again.
I’d give percentage chances of each occurring, (the National Park Service estimates the odds of being attacked by a bear are about one in 2.1 million.), but the media seems to only report percentage of gender raped not chance of rape.
Please show where I stated anything of the desires of the bear. I’m hinging nothing on proximity. You are simply assuming things I did not state. I covered that it wasn’t a risk assessment. Only thing bogged down is so bogged with your assumptions.
No, you did not. You wrote in response to what you pretended I posted. You again are only bogged by your choice to pretend I posted something very different than I posted.
What percentage of women do you suppose have had a man threaten to rape or kill them? Get violently angry at them? Sexually assault them or a friend? I reckon it’s near 100%.
The fear isn’t that all men will assault them, it’s that any man might. It’s not irrational, it’s based on experience. There are men in this thread arguing that women should be arming themselves to stay safe, right alongside men arguing that fear is irrational.
Fuck the men with hurt feelings. Your fellow men have proved themselves dangerous, time and again. Women will treat you like dangerous predators until men as a group start policing their own and building a world where women don’t have reason to fear.
I’d happily discussed what I posted. I have no interest in discussing your imaginary post which you chose to address rather than my post. I also have no interest in discussing anything with someone that wishes to pretend I posted anything other than I did.
What aspect of your post are you interested in discussing? I found your assertion that the fear was irrational interesting, but if that’s off-limits we can talk about some other part…
The post was in response to someone asking, “Do you have those stats?”
My post referenced probability multiple times.
That is the last of the clues I’m going to give. Perhaps try reading it again and looking up the words you are unsure of. Then instead of attempting to derail by arguing your imaginary discussion, consider that what was posted is exactly what was meant, no more, no less. You’ll eventually figure it out.
Nothing is off limits. I simply refuse to play your game of pretending I said something you wish to be angry about.
Your condescending tone and weird insistence that we only talk about very specific topics in very specific ways makes me think you’re not interested in a good faith discussion at all.
You seem upset, so I won’t push any more. Hope you feel better soon!
Bruh, it’s not even about rape. A dude negatively impacting a woman’s physical or emotional well being compromises their safety.
The odds you mentioned of bear attacks seem a lot lower than the odds of a woman having to deal with shit from men. I say this as a man who worked in the boreal for 10 years and with a pile of construction folks (men and women).
You’re asking for statistics in bad faith of the argument. Seems like you’re the one slap-fighting here - if you wanted to actually engage in logical discourse, you’d have presented statistics yourself, which you have not.
There’s obviously no statistics on the rate of how many bear-human and male-female interactions happen. One rarely happens, the other happens billions of times per day. We can prove that bears are more aggressive and dangerous than humans though.
In one black bear study 88% of fatal attacks were a result of the bear being the aggressor. Note that black bears are known to be timid of humans, and notoriously not aggressive.
So, statistically even the more timid bear species are wildly more aggressive to humans than humans to bears. Unless you have data that proves that men are more aggressive to women than bears are to humans, this is the closest we get to proving men are statistically safer than bears.
I would love to know how you went from percentages, which you quoted and I replied to, to overall numbers. You realize that’s not what you were talking about, right?
I’d specify further - a solo man/bear interaction with a woman in a remote location
I don’t want cubs or captivity involved, and no bystanders. It might be more fair to make it strangers only too… That data is going to be a lot harder to quantify through
So what people are meaning to say is women’s feelings are more important than men’s? I think the statistics should matter xD. But I don’t think bears attack people as often as people are trying to make out.
Do you have those stats? I would love to actually see a comparison, instead of a slap-fight
Very few people someone gets near enough to be grabbed by want to rape them. Nearly every bear someone gets near enough to be grabbed by wants to kill them. A large number of women feel it is better to be killed by a bear than live with their irrational fear that every man they get near shall rape them. The fear not being rational is irrelevant as the fear is based upon a more than likely chance, approx. 25% is reported, that at some point the fear was justified and not irrational. However those numbers are screwy as folks that get raped are more likely to get raped again.
I’d give percentage chances of each occurring, (the National Park Service estimates the odds of being attacked by a bear are about one in 2.1 million.), but the media seems to only report percentage of gender raped not chance of rape.
dsfgasfsaf
I’m not a bear, but same.
Please show where I stated anything of the desires of the bear. I’m hinging nothing on proximity. You are simply assuming things I did not state. I covered that it wasn’t a risk assessment. Only thing bogged down is so bogged with your assumptions.
I responded to what you wrote. Yes there was some inference based on your words. I’m not getting bogged down in prescriptive nonsense.
No, you did not. You wrote in response to what you pretended I posted. You again are only bogged by your choice to pretend I posted something very different than I posted.
deleted by creator
spoiler
,
What percentage of women do you suppose have had a man threaten to rape or kill them? Get violently angry at them? Sexually assault them or a friend? I reckon it’s near 100%.
The fear isn’t that all men will assault them, it’s that any man might. It’s not irrational, it’s based on experience. There are men in this thread arguing that women should be arming themselves to stay safe, right alongside men arguing that fear is irrational.
Fuck the men with hurt feelings. Your fellow men have proved themselves dangerous, time and again. Women will treat you like dangerous predators until men as a group start policing their own and building a world where women don’t have reason to fear.
Not relevant to my statement.
Ok. If you don’t want to discuss why post?
I’d happily discussed what I posted. I have no interest in discussing your imaginary post which you chose to address rather than my post. I also have no interest in discussing anything with someone that wishes to pretend I posted anything other than I did.
What aspect of your post are you interested in discussing? I found your assertion that the fear was irrational interesting, but if that’s off-limits we can talk about some other part…
The post was in response to someone asking, “Do you have those stats?”
My post referenced probability multiple times.
That is the last of the clues I’m going to give. Perhaps try reading it again and looking up the words you are unsure of. Then instead of attempting to derail by arguing your imaginary discussion, consider that what was posted is exactly what was meant, no more, no less. You’ll eventually figure it out.
Nothing is off limits. I simply refuse to play your game of pretending I said something you wish to be angry about.
Your condescending tone and weird insistence that we only talk about very specific topics in very specific ways makes me think you’re not interested in a good faith discussion at all.
You seem upset, so I won’t push any more. Hope you feel better soon!
Bruh, it’s not even about rape. A dude negatively impacting a woman’s physical or emotional well being compromises their safety.
The odds you mentioned of bear attacks seem a lot lower than the odds of a woman having to deal with shit from men. I say this as a man who worked in the boreal for 10 years and with a pile of construction folks (men and women).
None of which is relevant to my statement.
You’re asking for statistics in bad faith of the argument. Seems like you’re the one slap-fighting here - if you wanted to actually engage in logical discourse, you’d have presented statistics yourself, which you have not.
There’s obviously no statistics on the rate of how many bear-human and male-female interactions happen. One rarely happens, the other happens billions of times per day. We can prove that bears are more aggressive and dangerous than humans though.
In one black bear study 88% of fatal attacks were a result of the bear being the aggressor. Note that black bears are known to be timid of humans, and notoriously not aggressive.
So, statistically even the more timid bear species are wildly more aggressive to humans than humans to bears. Unless you have data that proves that men are more aggressive to women than bears are to humans, this is the closest we get to proving men are statistically safer than bears.
Lmfao what a useless fact.
How many rapes or instances of physical assault on a woman were a result of the man being the aggressor?
It’s almost like there’s more men than bears.
I would love to know how you went from percentages, which you quoted and I replied to, to overall numbers. You realize that’s not what you were talking about, right?
Forgot to include this in my post
,
deleted by creator
I’d specify further - a solo man/bear interaction with a woman in a remote location
I don’t want cubs or captivity involved, and no bystanders. It might be more fair to make it strangers only too… That data is going to be a lot harder to quantify through
dsfgasfsaf
So what people are meaning to say is women’s feelings are more important than men’s? I think the statistics should matter xD. But I don’t think bears attack people as often as people are trying to make out.
dsfgasfsaf
Wait, you’re saying the meme, instead of saying “women’s safety”, could say “women’s feelings” and still be accurate? That’s quite the take…
dsfgasfsaf
Do you think is the nature of males or is this learned behavior?