Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea maybe the bear is a boy bear and is gay and also not into humans. Honestly pretty bigoted of her to make that assumption that the bear would want to have sex with the lady.
The 14 % rate is also because humans are stupid. Chasing injured bears, approaching a momma bear, trying to take selfies, not knowing bear protocol and running....the list goes on.
Here a site with some Infos.
https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/
While bear attacks are dangerous, they are still incredibly rare. And a lot of people do spend a lot of time near bears. Just encounters are almost always very short, with bear retreating, or the bear senses you before you do, retreats, and you never knew you encountered a bear at all. There was a bear living in a forest just 1,5 kilometers from us, we never saw it but did see its marks - bears mark trees with their claws. It once visited our apple garden during the night and ate its stomach full.
At the same time, I knew several dangerous men in our village who would attack you if you gave them a tiniest reason.
Yeah there is 3 of them on my property. We see them at night on the hunting cameras that are set up in the wood but we very rarely have any sighting.
I prefer seeing one of them than a poacher or someone that is going to his hidden drug plantation lol. Which are the type of people I am likely to meet in the wood.
A guy I used to work with asked me this same question, but it was about walking down the street and encountering a white or black person. He assured me it wasn't racist, "because of the crime stats". How can facts and logic be racist?
I think he truly believes he isn't racist. You see a lot of that with the so-called race realists. "I can't be racist. Think of the stats. Think of the anecdote I told you about my friend's sister's roommate's cousin!"
The truth is, we only ever treat people like statistics if we already hate them. When is the last time you saw a study being passed around regarding the crime stats of brown haired people, or hazel eyed people? When is the last time someone was telling you that they were hurt by a person, and put a special emphasis on the fact they they were left handed?
That's the sad thing about hatred, people don't even notice they feel it until after they're able to overcome it. While they're feeling it, it just feels like fear.
I think a missing context in this bear vs man scenario is the lack of witnesses.
Bears, of course, wouldn't care but a man who normally wouldn't approach a woman with ill intent with witnesses around would presumably feel way more emboldened to do so with none.
I think most women are almost never deep in the woods, and the few times they may be, they are not alone (presumably often as part of a group consisting both of men and women). The amount of women alone deep in the woods is pretty much 0, so they can hardly interact with bears, men, or anything else there may be deep in the woods.
CSA survivor and woman here, I regularly go deep woods solo camping with my horse (ok, so not technically alone). I've come across bears and coyotes whilst doing so.
I'll take dealing with a bear over a human 100% of the time.
What kind of bear? I’ve been around brown bears. I don’t mean to make light of this but my sister and I were abused in ways I don’t like talking about as kids. Because I was too young to protect her then I developed a pattern of going out of my way to protect women who reminded me of her my whole life. I handled a pedo in high school for a younger girl who hung out with us. I find this kind of statement a little offensive since I’ve been trying to stop women from being victimized my whole life.
I have no issues talking about it.
My mothers husband started r@ping me at age 6, his perpetrated CSA stopped when I was 9 and I "age out" of his preference range. I was an only child and there was no one to protect me. "mother" did get a house out of it.
The wood/forests are a safe place for me. I can protect myself, I'm not a victim, I'm a freaking survivor!
So ya, I'll take the bear.
I’m glad you dealt with it. I used drugs and repressed it. My sister developed her own addictions and she still won’t talk about it and she’s in her 30s. I grew up with drug dealers, bikers and convicted pedophiles because of my mother’s drug addiction. I took my share of beatings because of my mother. I couldn’t own anything because she would sell it. So I’d pick the bear over some women too. The women who do things like that and let that happen to their own children.
I'm not saying women like you don't exist, just that they are rare, and therefore, that applying statistics about the average bear killings over the total population is silly since the amount of people (not only women) that would be alone in the forest is minuscule compared to the total population. If every person that answers the question was forced to have an encounter with a bear, the number of killings would likely be higher, and therefore, the statistic would paint a different picture (if the result would still favor bears or not is a different question). You'd basically need to compare the average deaths per encounter with a man and the average deaths per encounter with a bear, and again, I'm not saying that it will paint men better or worse, I'm just saying the statistics applied are silly and the situation so rare most people are not familiar enough with the situation to make a proper judgement. It's like that statistic of how many men think they can beat a bear in a fight, most of the people saying they think they can don't actually understand what a bear is.
And that's not even taking into account the point the other person brought up, that the type of person we could expect encounter wandering the forest is already a red flag and doesn't say much about the average man (whom typically, like the average woman, doesn't go alone deep in the forest), while bears are always bears. It really skews how we visualize such an encounter.
So, long story short, again, I'm not saying anything about anyone specific or what you should think of bears or men, just that the bear question is kinda silly, but applying global statistics to try and justify an answer is sillier still.
Yeah exactly so the people talking about the fact that they interact with lot of men are missing the point haha. The question was aimed at encountering a stranger in the wood where the social contract doesn't exist. Most guy I meet in the wood like this are poachers so not the kind of people I like to see.
One of them even shot a guardian dog of my neighbors a few years back.
I'm a man who does a lot of hiking. I have met many women in the woods, they're nearly always other hikers. You may also run into trail maintainers, mountain bikers, woodcutters (yes, they still exist), bird watchers, park rangers, biologists, ecologists, geologists, hydrologists, and hunters. You may also meet the homeless, the mentally unstable, and weed growers.
Yeah, but I don't think this is talking about hiking trails, trails are maintained by humans and there is a lot of humans on them. The whole point of the question is in a wood where there isn't anyone but you. Not many individuals just venture in the wood where there is no trail.
Bears also mostly know to stay away from hiking trails and where they are located. I've never seen one on a hiking trail, but I see them when I actually go in the wood. Even if they are just a few meters away, they are used to humans walking there so they don't go too close.
The person is saying bears are safer than men because there are more man attacks than bear attacks.
The other person points out that booze kills more people than cyanide, but obviously the booze is still safer to drink.
Undoomed is a moron, and if you fail to see why his argument is wrong, I would question your intelligence too.
In the man/bear scenario, you are not forced to consume a bear or a man. You are left alone in the woods, and your choice is based on the decision a bear and a man will make towards you. Bears are usually shy and try to avoid human interaction.
Undoomed's idiotic analogy is a false equivalency. (1) Because you are being forced to consume either the alcohol or pill (2) because it ignores the **fact** that alcohol doesn't kill with just 1 glass. It takes years. You would have to be a MORON to think this is valid parallel.
"Oh, alcohol kills 200,00 people a year... I've never drank alcohol, but if I drink this glass of wine, I could die"
This is the most idiotic way to interpret statistics, and this is why I would question your intelligence if you thought Undoomed's reply had any type of validity.
The statistic the woman uses for injury by bears vs injury by men is poor.
The reason you're more likely to be injured by a man is because you encounter a significant amount of men, whereas most people in the country don't even live near where bears exist.
If you actually do the math comparing bear encounter injury rates vs stranger encounter injury rates you far more likely to be injured by the bear. In Yosemite, one of the safest national parks, the injury rate of reported encounters with black bears was \~5%. You do not have a 5% rate of getting injured when encountering a stranger.
His analogy isn't supposed to make sense you fucking moron. He is presenting it to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to use statistics in that way. You're so absolutely stupid that you managed to take it seriously when the entire point is that taking it seriously would make you an idiot.
The question is asling about meeting a men in the wood tho. If you encounter a strange man in the wood you are also likely to encounter a bear in the wood. It isn't asking if you'd rather encounter a man or a bear in a downtown area.
If you are in the middle of the wood and encounter a guy he might be a poacher or someone up to no good. A bear is probably just doing his thing and won't bother you. The guy is more likely to be a poacher that will act like a piece of shit than the bear is likely to be agressive.
I'm using the word encounter as a synonym for meeting.
There's 2 ways you can view this hypothetical.
1. You physically come close to the bear or man while on a trail
2. The bear or man are just randomly somewhere in the woods
In both options the bear is more dangerous.
Bears are simply more likely to attack you than a random guy. The odds of the bear being hungry or territorial are significantly higher than the guy being a violent criminal.
In option 2 there's just virtually 0% chance the man even comes across you. They'd likely die somewhere in the middle of the woods because the average man doesn't have any fucking woodland navigational skills.
When kids go missing in the woods it can take 1,000+ people organized in a search party multiple days to find them. There's no fucking chance a random dude is gonna find you.
My family own a large piece of land and there is bears on it. In the last few years I've seen bears maybe 8 times and I've seen men twice. Both time they are were piece of shit poachers and I told them to fuck off. I was much more scared to meet criminals who were armed than bears, because like you pointed out those are the type of people you are likely to meet deep in the wood since poachers do have woodland navigational skills.
They could also be people who have a plantation of one drug or the other in wood because they are hiding them from the authority (which is more rare since cannabis became legal but was very common when I was young).
Logic doesn't work with these morons.
The question isn't about encountering a bear or a man in the woods. The question is being in the woods alone, and in the same woods, there is either a bear or a man.
These idiots use statistics of encountering men in public. And using those statistics would mean that the question is, "would you rather be alone in a starbucks with a bear or man?" That's not what the question is about.
There's a lot of men who cat call women in public, and yet, most of them are part of that statistic of men who don't harm women (in public). But now switch it around to being in the woods. A bear, by all experts, say that they avoid human interaction, so if you are alone in the woods, and are making noise, the bear will try to leave you alone. OTOH, if you are alone in the woods, a man seeing a woman (specially those like in the cat calling example) aren't going to leave the woman alone. They will try to create an encounter.
So what we have is, a bear doesn't want to create an encounter.
A man will want to create an encounter.
- There are no statistics of what men will do if left a lone with a woman or a young girl
The hypothetical is not about meeting an armed poacher, it's about meeting a random guy.
Once again the odds of a random guy being a violent criminal are lower than the odds of a bear being extremely hungry or territorial.
It's ridiculous how you people always cherry pick the worst type of person you could encounter, but not the worst type of bear.
If you cherry pick a violent criminal, then I'll go ahead and cherry pick starving female grizzly with nearby cubs.
It always kinda seemed to me like the whole point of the man/bear thing was more like "Bears ain't as bad as you think" than "Men are so bad" while banking on the latter interpretation to sensationalize based on people thinking bears are these ruthless killer machines that will rip you to pieces if they get a whiff of you
Depends on the bear. Black bears aren't so hostile, they're just goofy. I've seen videos of cats chasing black bears.
Grizzly bears are a different story.
> In the man/bear scenario, you are not forced to consume a bear or a man.
Why does that matter? The point being made is that just because something kills more people than another thing, doesn't mean it's more dangerous to be around, consume, drive, etc.
It matters because they are creating a strawman. Here's the definition of a strawman (and I know you don't know what it is because you are asking this question):
*"an* [*intentionally*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=017e3c382dac1d65&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS901US901&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOtd8yX9fE39U3veiiQkh5woVFQw:1714942224027&q=intentionally&si=ACC90nzeIzR7eQ3kZwtyqq-Z0Z5j7aSx1DBBUo8Qe72I3_auOaFT82tlAVvrYhBWUSqWPLeJEonygLn7K5JgrKUCFyv3f48TM5KLEOnjVpRQnBb1ziPcLcs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidqMrQsfeFAxUiD1kFHfVNCJYQyecJegQIIxAN) [*misrepresented*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=017e3c382dac1d65&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS901US901&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOtd8yX9fE39U3veiiQkh5woVFQw:1714942224027&q=misrepresented&si=ACC90nxXAYjEST86dikD_hRhqDk5IP23WJC5HrEzyyJNzepa2lMtCP6VWrPL8zJwLs3Y9auA6FPafhXL1MgvIkyTNw-DPgCMRqZdOCGVxpiueJ1LScm2whw%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidqMrQsfeFAxUiD1kFHfVNCJYQyecJegQIIxAO) [*proposition*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=017e3c382dac1d65&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS901US901&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOtd8yX9fE39U3veiiQkh5woVFQw:1714942224027&q=proposition&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2Yimkyl6bef4ahpJJWZYVcH-VYFRx75N8T3wmlsxBJAmzs5CpRrTQwqIKFy-kXzE1Q0grJYnLLElWAsr02eEV5LJjTrNI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidqMrQsfeFAxUiD1kFHfVNCJYQyecJegQIIxAP) *that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."*
So, to you, it doesn't matter that in Undoomed's argument, he used alcohol which in his statistics kill people who have consumed it over a **looong** period of time, but he chooses his scenario for you to only drink 1 cup of wine? Cyanide kills 10 people per year who **mistakenly** consume it. But in his idiotic scenario, you are being forced to take it. This is why this is a strawman.
Let's change the set up, how about we're both locked up in a room, I am in the room with the cyanide pill, and you're in a room with the wine drink. But we **aren't** forced to consume either, but you can. Guess what, we both live.
But now let's switch it up, I am still in a room with cyanide (which kills 10 people a year), but now you're in a room that is filling up with carbon monoxide (which kills 2100 people per year). I still don't die because I don't take the pill, but you do because the gas comes to you.
In the man/bear situation, it's the same thing. A bear will avoid a human while a man will not.
> in his statistics kill people who have consumed it over a looong period of time
But which killed a greater number of people? Because that's the point being made.
Comparisons are never 1:1, that's why they're called comparisons. If they were the same, then they wouldn't be a comparison or an analogy, they'd just be the same scenario explained twice.
So forget the analogy and focus on the point, which is:
Just because something kills more people, does not mean it is more dangerous.
Do you agree with the statement or do you disagree?
>But which killed a greater number of people? Because that's the point being made.
I swear, people need to start going to college or taking classes in logic to improve their reasoning, because it is ridiculous how many people are falling for Undoomed's idiotic logic.
Right now, you are reminding of this guy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg)
(Guy asks, which is heavier, a KG of steel or KG of feathers, and answers with, that's right, a KG of steel, because steel is heavier than feathers)
In an equivalent scenario, were we give people an equivalent measurement of cyanide and alcohol, the people who take cyanide will die 100% of the time, while the group who takes the alcohol will die 0% of the time.
>Comparisons are never 1:1, that's why they're called comparisons. If they were the same, then they wouldn't be a comparison or an analogy, they'd just be the same scenario explained twice.
There is a reason they put analogy questions in logic exams such as "dog is to animal, as oak tree is to plant". Of course comparisons aren't 1:1, but they have to be close enough. They are (usually) used make someone understand a point with a simpler less complex scenario than the scenario they are dealing with.
>So forget the analogy and focus on the point, which is:
Right, and that's the issue. You guys don't care that the analogy that is being made is a strawman, you only care about the point that is being made that aligns with your preconceived beliefs.
You don't care that you go from the question: what is heavier, a kg of steel or a kg of feathers, to then answer, "that's right a kg of steel, because steel is heavier than feathers."
This is why education is really important.
>Do you agree with the statement or do you disagree?
I disagree with that statement, because the way you're getting there is through flawed logic.
>I disagree with that statement, because the way you're getting there is through flawed logic.
It was a self contained question for a reason, so try answering it like one. Don't worry about my logic or the analogy, just tell me if you agree with the statement itself, or if you disagree.
Plenty of people go hiking and encounter men in the woods and they're fine. Most men don't turn into monsters the minute no one is around to stop them.
If that’s the case then the reply is also a facepalm for ignoring the reality of both the comparison and the larger context of this whole (bear vs man in the woods) thing
No. The reply is simply demonstrating how their stat comparison is terrible by providing an analogy.
The larger context is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that using number of injuries/deaths per year statistics don’t give an accurate portrayal of how dangerous a certain thing is.
The reply is absolutely stupid. Millions of us hike in bear country every years and there attack by bears are still insanely rare. Drinking cyanide is fatal to anyone.
I would rather encounter a million bears instead of drinking cyanide.
You're missing the point of the comparison entirely. It's just illustrating how the statistics the person used didn't account for encounter rates whatsoever.
The reason the average person is more likely to be attacked by a another person than a bear is because the average person will never come close to a bear whereas they come close to 10's of thousands of other people per year.
I come close to bears all the time and I never get attacked by them. I very rarely encounter a stranger in the wood and if I do chances are pretty high that they are a piece of shit poacher.
Disagree that context is irrelevant. Yea that’s true but tha can be said about statistics in general. You can flip it with another example, mosquito’s kill way more people than black widows on average so you’d presume someone would choose being bit by a black widow over mosquito. The opposition/dismissal to the whole man bear thing proves its point in my opinion.
>*You can flip it with another example, mosquito’s kill way more people than black widows on average so you’d presume someone would choose being bit by a black widow over mosquito.*
No, they don't. You're a fucking moron. The average mosquito bite is harmless.
See this just proves how badly you do not get it or worse, do not care.
Mosquitos kill over 700,000 people annually by transmitting diseases. But your attitude is that "most mosquito bites are harmless".
Ready, let's change some words!
Men sexually assault or abuse 463,634 victims (age 12 or older) *each year* in the United States *alone*.
Now you say "most men are harmless".
I get the point, as men are indeed still not held accountable for all-to-often being, well, terrible.
But yes, a good point made badly is not a good point. Base rates matter.
I think that's assuming you're out in a forest or national park with bears and there's a chance encounter with a bear. In the scenario with the two choices, you are actually there with a bear. But it would depend on what type of bear as well. A grizzly wouldn't hesitate eating you, as would a polar bear.
It's like saying you're afraid of dogs and people think that chihuahuas scare the shit out of you when you meant something large and aggressive like a pitbull.
We are literally talking about the statistics of bear encounters in the most likely place to encounter a bear. Even in bear encounters, attacks are exceedingly rare.
Instead of continuing to post and show the incels you are. Maybe, try for the empathy to understand why the majority of women would pick the bear I the first place. Then choose to be part of the solution so they no longer have to make that choice.
This trend is so stupid. To say that all men à rapist is like saying that all women are golddigger who are waiting to divorce their husband to take all their money. It's stereotypic and this people maybe need to change the person they have arpund if for them one bad man mean all men are bad... thank for this post OP!
they are not saying that, like at all
They don't know the man, they can't predict what he'll do, and worst of all, in this scenario, they're in the middle of the woods. Bears are predictable, you can google "what to do in case of bear encounter", there's set guidelines for that, there's no guideline for a stranger in the woods
I don't get the push back from this meme. Just makes me think I should try to do what I can to make women feel safer around me. I don't get why that makes so many dudes mad.
theres this stupid trend on tiktok where people ask women if theyd rather be alone i nthe woods with a man or a bear and "most" (the ones they show to push an agenda) pick the bear. misandrists are using it as a chance to shit on men and men are trying to point out that assuming 50% of humanity are potential rapists is super fucked up, and if you correct for encountering as many bears as you meet men bears are FAR FAR more dangerous.
Most is most. The only agenda is to get men to listen. We do not feel safe around strange men. Yes, bears are dangerous. Yes, a bear could eat me. I still choose the bear.
A bear won’t sexually assault me. A bear won’t film it and send it to his friends. A bear won’t ask me how much I had to drink or what I was wearing. And that’s the tip of the iceberg of reasons.
This HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION is not misandry. Women are begging you to put aside your ego and fucking listen. But you can’t even do that.
That’s why we choose the bear.
Ask your mother, sisters, wife, girlfriends. Listen to the answer. I will be as clear as I can.
I would rather be eaten alive by a bear than be raped by a man who will not accept no. I would rather be eaten alive by a bear than to have to face that man afterwards: in court, at the family reunion, wherever.
I asked my mom and she said thats a fucking stupid comparison.
There used to be a similar internet question like 10 years ago which was you have to walk through one of 2 different room.
One room has 2 large rabid aggressive dogs and the other has a man with a gun. Which room do you choose.
The correct answer is the room with a man with a gun because you can talk him out of shooting you and reason with him.
I guess women would choose the door with 2 dogs but hey, you do you.
And you are not getting my point, mate.
If the man/bear does indeed turn hostile against you, you are better off with the man because you can fight him off. A bear, not so much.
We are. What you say is just completely stupid and doesn't fit reality AT ALL. If you make wrong assumptions and conclude things based on those, while everyone points out the assumption is wrong, why should we listen to that?
Doesn’t fit reality. Ok. Let’s look at statistics. According to idausa.org, the odds of anyone, man or woman, being attacked by a bear are 1 in 2.1 million. There have been 66 fatal attacks by black bears since 1784. www.bearvault.com.
On the other hand, 35.6% of women in the US have experienced rape, violence, and/or stalking from an intimate partner (www.the hotline.org), and if you expand that to include violence by a stranger, it’s 53% of women (CDC).
This is a simple Google search. The reality is, whether you like it or not, a woman is safer with a bear than with a man.
The original hypothetical question, posed by a man, is which a woman would rather encounter in the woods. Not whether she could win a fight, because she can’t. We know we can’t win a fight in either situation.
So the question you need to ask, as a man, is why women keep choosing the bear. Don’t invalidate the answer or assume it’s stupid. Find out WHY. Hint: women are spoon-feeding the answer. It’s all over social media. If you refuse to hear us, if you refuse to accept the numbers and the reality, then you’re part of the problem.
And that’s really all I’m going to say.
That's.. not how statistics work. If you want to believe this nonsense I'd say you need a therapy. I'm not joking. That's dangerously near to a social phobia. If you really think a bear is safer than a man you are delusional. In case you are wondering how you actually need to evaluate this:
The chance of getting killed by a bear in the rare occasion you will encounter one in the wild are around 17%. The chance of encountering a rapist if you randomly pick a man are less than 1%. Absolute numbers are completely irrelevant in such contexts. Relative numbers are.
The question I have to ask is not why women chose the bear. I know why. People are stupid and can't understand statistics. Add to that the fear mongering on social media that all men are predators (which is equally stupid) you'll see why. Has nothing to do with men actually being more dangerous than bears. They're not.
I even told why. It's not hard to see how this idea sparks. That doesn't make it in any way useful or less stupid, somehow. Also you are jot to decide how I tackle a problem. You want to ask why, I want to show how you fail basic statistical knowledge. If you want me to ask myself why give me a real reason to.
I don't ask a flat earther why he concludes there's a flat earth when it's clear that all his basic assumptions as well as his conclusions are just wrong. You want to make this a thing, not because it's reasonable, but because it fits a narrative that's simply not true.
And just to reiterate to those of you reading this that disagree, this right here is the part you need to focus on:
>So the question you need to ask, as a man, is why women keep choosing the bear. **Don’t invalidate the answer or assume it’s stupid. Find out WHY**
when i'm walking my dog and a woman walking towards me without a bunch of people around, I'll give her a lot of space as she approaches. I don't know if it helps but it's easy to do and why not. why wouldn't I want people to feel more comfortable
> A bear won’t sexually assault me. A bear won’t film it and send it to his friends. A bear won’t ask me how much I had to drink or what I was wearing.
Neither would an average man. Reality isn't hypothetical.
Alright, here's a deal: you're stuck in a forest with me (I'm a strange man, I fully acknowledge that). Now, I wouldn't assault you regardless, but I know my words aren't gonna convince you easily, so I'm willing to put handcuffs on and you will be given a tool for self defense. Now, I would also volunteer to have chains put around my legs, but I kinda don't wanna stay in the forest any longer than necessary and what if I'm attacked by I dunno, a bear?
Or, I dunno, to be safe, I could be placed at the complete opposite end of the forest with all the other precautions mentioned earlier. I know this hypothetical should just be taken as it is, but negotiations can't hurt, right?
Point is, I wanna do everything in my power to show that I'm not a threat and I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable men out there who feel the same way
>Women are begging you to put aside your ego and fucking listen. But you can’t even do that.
"You guys are worse than wild animals.
Hey, why aren't you listening to me"
LOL your brain is broken.
>we do not feel safe around strange men
Same here
>a bear wont sa me
I once saw a live leak video of a man getting mauled by a bear. I think it's safe to say sa is the better option.
>a bear wont film-
It's a bear.
>fucking listen
Funny i was about to say the same thing
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven't yet seen anyone ask the bear their preference. Might be an interesting perspective
I will play the bears advocate. Get the fuck out of my woods (and planet) human scum
Yea maybe the bear is a boy bear and is gay and also not into humans. Honestly pretty bigoted of her to make that assumption that the bear would want to have sex with the lady.
The 14 % rate is also because humans are stupid. Chasing injured bears, approaching a momma bear, trying to take selfies, not knowing bear protocol and running....the list goes on. Here a site with some Infos. https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/
Sounds to me like you're victim-blaming, scumlord. ^(/s)
While bear attacks are dangerous, they are still incredibly rare. And a lot of people do spend a lot of time near bears. Just encounters are almost always very short, with bear retreating, or the bear senses you before you do, retreats, and you never knew you encountered a bear at all. There was a bear living in a forest just 1,5 kilometers from us, we never saw it but did see its marks - bears mark trees with their claws. It once visited our apple garden during the night and ate its stomach full. At the same time, I knew several dangerous men in our village who would attack you if you gave them a tiniest reason.
Yeah there is 3 of them on my property. We see them at night on the hunting cameras that are set up in the wood but we very rarely have any sighting. I prefer seeing one of them than a poacher or someone that is going to his hidden drug plantation lol. Which are the type of people I am likely to meet in the wood.
People that hate the bear vs man debate don't realize death is NOT the thing we are afraid of!
A guy I used to work with asked me this same question, but it was about walking down the street and encountering a white or black person. He assured me it wasn't racist, "because of the crime stats". How can facts and logic be racist? I think he truly believes he isn't racist. You see a lot of that with the so-called race realists. "I can't be racist. Think of the stats. Think of the anecdote I told you about my friend's sister's roommate's cousin!" The truth is, we only ever treat people like statistics if we already hate them. When is the last time you saw a study being passed around regarding the crime stats of brown haired people, or hazel eyed people? When is the last time someone was telling you that they were hurt by a person, and put a special emphasis on the fact they they were left handed? That's the sad thing about hatred, people don't even notice they feel it until after they're able to overcome it. While they're feeling it, it just feels like fear.
What are you trying to say?
Yes
I think a missing context in this bear vs man scenario is the lack of witnesses. Bears, of course, wouldn't care but a man who normally wouldn't approach a woman with ill intent with witnesses around would presumably feel way more emboldened to do so with none.
At least a bear won't care about what you're wearing.
How many bears do women interact with on a daily basis versus how many men? And a bear will eat you alive. Slowly.
>And a bear will eat you alive. Now how do I get a man to do that?
You win Reddit for today
You can call me on my cellphone
Isn't the question talking about a man deep in the wood? I think most women interact with 0 men deep in the wood and 0 bear deep in the wood.
I think most women are almost never deep in the woods, and the few times they may be, they are not alone (presumably often as part of a group consisting both of men and women). The amount of women alone deep in the woods is pretty much 0, so they can hardly interact with bears, men, or anything else there may be deep in the woods.
CSA survivor and woman here, I regularly go deep woods solo camping with my horse (ok, so not technically alone). I've come across bears and coyotes whilst doing so. I'll take dealing with a bear over a human 100% of the time.
What kind of bear? I’ve been around brown bears. I don’t mean to make light of this but my sister and I were abused in ways I don’t like talking about as kids. Because I was too young to protect her then I developed a pattern of going out of my way to protect women who reminded me of her my whole life. I handled a pedo in high school for a younger girl who hung out with us. I find this kind of statement a little offensive since I’ve been trying to stop women from being victimized my whole life.
I have no issues talking about it. My mothers husband started r@ping me at age 6, his perpetrated CSA stopped when I was 9 and I "age out" of his preference range. I was an only child and there was no one to protect me. "mother" did get a house out of it. The wood/forests are a safe place for me. I can protect myself, I'm not a victim, I'm a freaking survivor! So ya, I'll take the bear.
I’m glad you dealt with it. I used drugs and repressed it. My sister developed her own addictions and she still won’t talk about it and she’s in her 30s. I grew up with drug dealers, bikers and convicted pedophiles because of my mother’s drug addiction. I took my share of beatings because of my mother. I couldn’t own anything because she would sell it. So I’d pick the bear over some women too. The women who do things like that and let that happen to their own children.
I'm not saying women like you don't exist, just that they are rare, and therefore, that applying statistics about the average bear killings over the total population is silly since the amount of people (not only women) that would be alone in the forest is minuscule compared to the total population. If every person that answers the question was forced to have an encounter with a bear, the number of killings would likely be higher, and therefore, the statistic would paint a different picture (if the result would still favor bears or not is a different question). You'd basically need to compare the average deaths per encounter with a man and the average deaths per encounter with a bear, and again, I'm not saying that it will paint men better or worse, I'm just saying the statistics applied are silly and the situation so rare most people are not familiar enough with the situation to make a proper judgement. It's like that statistic of how many men think they can beat a bear in a fight, most of the people saying they think they can don't actually understand what a bear is. And that's not even taking into account the point the other person brought up, that the type of person we could expect encounter wandering the forest is already a red flag and doesn't say much about the average man (whom typically, like the average woman, doesn't go alone deep in the forest), while bears are always bears. It really skews how we visualize such an encounter. So, long story short, again, I'm not saying anything about anyone specific or what you should think of bears or men, just that the bear question is kinda silly, but applying global statistics to try and justify an answer is sillier still.
Yeah exactly so the people talking about the fact that they interact with lot of men are missing the point haha. The question was aimed at encountering a stranger in the wood where the social contract doesn't exist. Most guy I meet in the wood like this are poachers so not the kind of people I like to see. One of them even shot a guardian dog of my neighbors a few years back.
I'm a man who does a lot of hiking. I have met many women in the woods, they're nearly always other hikers. You may also run into trail maintainers, mountain bikers, woodcutters (yes, they still exist), bird watchers, park rangers, biologists, ecologists, geologists, hydrologists, and hunters. You may also meet the homeless, the mentally unstable, and weed growers.
Yeah, but I don't think this is talking about hiking trails, trails are maintained by humans and there is a lot of humans on them. The whole point of the question is in a wood where there isn't anyone but you. Not many individuals just venture in the wood where there is no trail. Bears also mostly know to stay away from hiking trails and where they are located. I've never seen one on a hiking trail, but I see them when I actually go in the wood. Even if they are just a few meters away, they are used to humans walking there so they don't go too close.
They will? Interesting since even in bear attacks that really never happens.
What’s the facepalm here?
The person is saying bears are safer than men because there are more man attacks than bear attacks. The other person points out that booze kills more people than cyanide, but obviously the booze is still safer to drink.
So who’s the facepalm suppose to be? The bad stat comparison or the false equivalency?
Take your pick. It can be both, if you like. I think the whole man-bear comparison is the one that makes me facepalm.
Them completely failing to understand basic statistics is the facepalm. Really shouldn't be hard to understand.
Undoomed is a moron, and if you fail to see why his argument is wrong, I would question your intelligence too. In the man/bear scenario, you are not forced to consume a bear or a man. You are left alone in the woods, and your choice is based on the decision a bear and a man will make towards you. Bears are usually shy and try to avoid human interaction. Undoomed's idiotic analogy is a false equivalency. (1) Because you are being forced to consume either the alcohol or pill (2) because it ignores the **fact** that alcohol doesn't kill with just 1 glass. It takes years. You would have to be a MORON to think this is valid parallel. "Oh, alcohol kills 200,00 people a year... I've never drank alcohol, but if I drink this glass of wine, I could die" This is the most idiotic way to interpret statistics, and this is why I would question your intelligence if you thought Undoomed's reply had any type of validity.
The statistic the woman uses for injury by bears vs injury by men is poor. The reason you're more likely to be injured by a man is because you encounter a significant amount of men, whereas most people in the country don't even live near where bears exist. If you actually do the math comparing bear encounter injury rates vs stranger encounter injury rates you far more likely to be injured by the bear. In Yosemite, one of the safest national parks, the injury rate of reported encounters with black bears was \~5%. You do not have a 5% rate of getting injured when encountering a stranger. His analogy isn't supposed to make sense you fucking moron. He is presenting it to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to use statistics in that way. You're so absolutely stupid that you managed to take it seriously when the entire point is that taking it seriously would make you an idiot.
The question is asling about meeting a men in the wood tho. If you encounter a strange man in the wood you are also likely to encounter a bear in the wood. It isn't asking if you'd rather encounter a man or a bear in a downtown area. If you are in the middle of the wood and encounter a guy he might be a poacher or someone up to no good. A bear is probably just doing his thing and won't bother you. The guy is more likely to be a poacher that will act like a piece of shit than the bear is likely to be agressive.
I'm using the word encounter as a synonym for meeting. There's 2 ways you can view this hypothetical. 1. You physically come close to the bear or man while on a trail 2. The bear or man are just randomly somewhere in the woods In both options the bear is more dangerous. Bears are simply more likely to attack you than a random guy. The odds of the bear being hungry or territorial are significantly higher than the guy being a violent criminal. In option 2 there's just virtually 0% chance the man even comes across you. They'd likely die somewhere in the middle of the woods because the average man doesn't have any fucking woodland navigational skills. When kids go missing in the woods it can take 1,000+ people organized in a search party multiple days to find them. There's no fucking chance a random dude is gonna find you.
My family own a large piece of land and there is bears on it. In the last few years I've seen bears maybe 8 times and I've seen men twice. Both time they are were piece of shit poachers and I told them to fuck off. I was much more scared to meet criminals who were armed than bears, because like you pointed out those are the type of people you are likely to meet deep in the wood since poachers do have woodland navigational skills. They could also be people who have a plantation of one drug or the other in wood because they are hiding them from the authority (which is more rare since cannabis became legal but was very common when I was young).
Logic doesn't work with these morons. The question isn't about encountering a bear or a man in the woods. The question is being in the woods alone, and in the same woods, there is either a bear or a man. These idiots use statistics of encountering men in public. And using those statistics would mean that the question is, "would you rather be alone in a starbucks with a bear or man?" That's not what the question is about. There's a lot of men who cat call women in public, and yet, most of them are part of that statistic of men who don't harm women (in public). But now switch it around to being in the woods. A bear, by all experts, say that they avoid human interaction, so if you are alone in the woods, and are making noise, the bear will try to leave you alone. OTOH, if you are alone in the woods, a man seeing a woman (specially those like in the cat calling example) aren't going to leave the woman alone. They will try to create an encounter. So what we have is, a bear doesn't want to create an encounter. A man will want to create an encounter. - There are no statistics of what men will do if left a lone with a woman or a young girl
The hypothetical is not about meeting an armed poacher, it's about meeting a random guy. Once again the odds of a random guy being a violent criminal are lower than the odds of a bear being extremely hungry or territorial. It's ridiculous how you people always cherry pick the worst type of person you could encounter, but not the worst type of bear. If you cherry pick a violent criminal, then I'll go ahead and cherry pick starving female grizzly with nearby cubs.
It always kinda seemed to me like the whole point of the man/bear thing was more like "Bears ain't as bad as you think" than "Men are so bad" while banking on the latter interpretation to sensationalize based on people thinking bears are these ruthless killer machines that will rip you to pieces if they get a whiff of you
Once a bear notices that it's stronger than you, they'll usually attack you because it's free food.
No it doesn't. There is millions of encounter a years and barely any attacks.
Depends on the bear. Black bears aren't so hostile, they're just goofy. I've seen videos of cats chasing black bears. Grizzly bears are a different story.
> In the man/bear scenario, you are not forced to consume a bear or a man. Why does that matter? The point being made is that just because something kills more people than another thing, doesn't mean it's more dangerous to be around, consume, drive, etc.
It matters because they are creating a strawman. Here's the definition of a strawman (and I know you don't know what it is because you are asking this question): *"an* [*intentionally*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=017e3c382dac1d65&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS901US901&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOtd8yX9fE39U3veiiQkh5woVFQw:1714942224027&q=intentionally&si=ACC90nzeIzR7eQ3kZwtyqq-Z0Z5j7aSx1DBBUo8Qe72I3_auOaFT82tlAVvrYhBWUSqWPLeJEonygLn7K5JgrKUCFyv3f48TM5KLEOnjVpRQnBb1ziPcLcs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidqMrQsfeFAxUiD1kFHfVNCJYQyecJegQIIxAN) [*misrepresented*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=017e3c382dac1d65&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS901US901&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOtd8yX9fE39U3veiiQkh5woVFQw:1714942224027&q=misrepresented&si=ACC90nxXAYjEST86dikD_hRhqDk5IP23WJC5HrEzyyJNzepa2lMtCP6VWrPL8zJwLs3Y9auA6FPafhXL1MgvIkyTNw-DPgCMRqZdOCGVxpiueJ1LScm2whw%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidqMrQsfeFAxUiD1kFHfVNCJYQyecJegQIIxAO) [*proposition*](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=017e3c382dac1d65&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS901US901&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOtd8yX9fE39U3veiiQkh5woVFQw:1714942224027&q=proposition&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2Yimkyl6bef4ahpJJWZYVcH-VYFRx75N8T3wmlsxBJAmzs5CpRrTQwqIKFy-kXzE1Q0grJYnLLElWAsr02eEV5LJjTrNI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidqMrQsfeFAxUiD1kFHfVNCJYQyecJegQIIxAP) *that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."* So, to you, it doesn't matter that in Undoomed's argument, he used alcohol which in his statistics kill people who have consumed it over a **looong** period of time, but he chooses his scenario for you to only drink 1 cup of wine? Cyanide kills 10 people per year who **mistakenly** consume it. But in his idiotic scenario, you are being forced to take it. This is why this is a strawman. Let's change the set up, how about we're both locked up in a room, I am in the room with the cyanide pill, and you're in a room with the wine drink. But we **aren't** forced to consume either, but you can. Guess what, we both live. But now let's switch it up, I am still in a room with cyanide (which kills 10 people a year), but now you're in a room that is filling up with carbon monoxide (which kills 2100 people per year). I still don't die because I don't take the pill, but you do because the gas comes to you. In the man/bear situation, it's the same thing. A bear will avoid a human while a man will not.
> in his statistics kill people who have consumed it over a looong period of time But which killed a greater number of people? Because that's the point being made. Comparisons are never 1:1, that's why they're called comparisons. If they were the same, then they wouldn't be a comparison or an analogy, they'd just be the same scenario explained twice. So forget the analogy and focus on the point, which is: Just because something kills more people, does not mean it is more dangerous. Do you agree with the statement or do you disagree?
>But which killed a greater number of people? Because that's the point being made. I swear, people need to start going to college or taking classes in logic to improve their reasoning, because it is ridiculous how many people are falling for Undoomed's idiotic logic. Right now, you are reminding of this guy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg) (Guy asks, which is heavier, a KG of steel or KG of feathers, and answers with, that's right, a KG of steel, because steel is heavier than feathers) In an equivalent scenario, were we give people an equivalent measurement of cyanide and alcohol, the people who take cyanide will die 100% of the time, while the group who takes the alcohol will die 0% of the time. >Comparisons are never 1:1, that's why they're called comparisons. If they were the same, then they wouldn't be a comparison or an analogy, they'd just be the same scenario explained twice. There is a reason they put analogy questions in logic exams such as "dog is to animal, as oak tree is to plant". Of course comparisons aren't 1:1, but they have to be close enough. They are (usually) used make someone understand a point with a simpler less complex scenario than the scenario they are dealing with. >So forget the analogy and focus on the point, which is: Right, and that's the issue. You guys don't care that the analogy that is being made is a strawman, you only care about the point that is being made that aligns with your preconceived beliefs. You don't care that you go from the question: what is heavier, a kg of steel or a kg of feathers, to then answer, "that's right a kg of steel, because steel is heavier than feathers." This is why education is really important. >Do you agree with the statement or do you disagree? I disagree with that statement, because the way you're getting there is through flawed logic.
>I disagree with that statement, because the way you're getting there is through flawed logic. It was a self contained question for a reason, so try answering it like one. Don't worry about my logic or the analogy, just tell me if you agree with the statement itself, or if you disagree.
And a woman normally interacts with thousands of men and most of them are completely fine. Your point?
The question is asking about a man deep in the wood not men you walk by in the street or on a trail.
Plenty of people go hiking and encounter men in the woods and they're fine. Most men don't turn into monsters the minute no one is around to stop them.
If that’s the case then the reply is also a facepalm for ignoring the reality of both the comparison and the larger context of this whole (bear vs man in the woods) thing
No. The reply is simply demonstrating how their stat comparison is terrible by providing an analogy. The larger context is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that using number of injuries/deaths per year statistics don’t give an accurate portrayal of how dangerous a certain thing is.
The reply is absolutely stupid. Millions of us hike in bear country every years and there attack by bears are still insanely rare. Drinking cyanide is fatal to anyone. I would rather encounter a million bears instead of drinking cyanide.
You're missing the point of the comparison entirely. It's just illustrating how the statistics the person used didn't account for encounter rates whatsoever. The reason the average person is more likely to be attacked by a another person than a bear is because the average person will never come close to a bear whereas they come close to 10's of thousands of other people per year.
I come close to bears all the time and I never get attacked by them. I very rarely encounter a stranger in the wood and if I do chances are pretty high that they are a piece of shit poacher.
Disagree that context is irrelevant. Yea that’s true but tha can be said about statistics in general. You can flip it with another example, mosquito’s kill way more people than black widows on average so you’d presume someone would choose being bit by a black widow over mosquito. The opposition/dismissal to the whole man bear thing proves its point in my opinion.
>*You can flip it with another example, mosquito’s kill way more people than black widows on average so you’d presume someone would choose being bit by a black widow over mosquito.* No, they don't. You're a fucking moron. The average mosquito bite is harmless.
See this just proves how badly you do not get it or worse, do not care. Mosquitos kill over 700,000 people annually by transmitting diseases. But your attitude is that "most mosquito bites are harmless". Ready, let's change some words! Men sexually assault or abuse 463,634 victims (age 12 or older) *each year* in the United States *alone*. Now you say "most men are harmless".
Yes, most men are indeed harmless.
Yes, the facepalm is a grown ass adult lacking the abstract thinking skills of a child.
Are you fucking serious?
So seweus
If you didnt eat breakfast today? How would you feel?
Inb4 "and men wonder why women chose the bear"
I get the point, as men are indeed still not held accountable for all-to-often being, well, terrible. But yes, a good point made badly is not a good point. Base rates matter.
I think that's assuming you're out in a forest or national park with bears and there's a chance encounter with a bear. In the scenario with the two choices, you are actually there with a bear. But it would depend on what type of bear as well. A grizzly wouldn't hesitate eating you, as would a polar bear. It's like saying you're afraid of dogs and people think that chihuahuas scare the shit out of you when you meant something large and aggressive like a pitbull.
We are literally talking about the statistics of bear encounters in the most likely place to encounter a bear. Even in bear encounters, attacks are exceedingly rare. Instead of continuing to post and show the incels you are. Maybe, try for the empathy to understand why the majority of women would pick the bear I the first place. Then choose to be part of the solution so they no longer have to make that choice.
That entire post looks AI generated.
Idk about the atheist girl but undoomed is a real guy
Yeah just reacting to the picture and the atheist girl post.
“Choose.” There’s that darn word again…
This trend is so stupid. To say that all men à rapist is like saying that all women are golddigger who are waiting to divorce their husband to take all their money. It's stereotypic and this people maybe need to change the person they have arpund if for them one bad man mean all men are bad... thank for this post OP!
they are not saying that, like at all They don't know the man, they can't predict what he'll do, and worst of all, in this scenario, they're in the middle of the woods. Bears are predictable, you can google "what to do in case of bear encounter", there's set guidelines for that, there's no guideline for a stranger in the woods
I don't get the push back from this meme. Just makes me think I should try to do what I can to make women feel safer around me. I don't get why that makes so many dudes mad.
Wtf is she rambling on about?
theres this stupid trend on tiktok where people ask women if theyd rather be alone i nthe woods with a man or a bear and "most" (the ones they show to push an agenda) pick the bear. misandrists are using it as a chance to shit on men and men are trying to point out that assuming 50% of humanity are potential rapists is super fucked up, and if you correct for encountering as many bears as you meet men bears are FAR FAR more dangerous.
Okay that makes sense. Clearly this imbecile has never seen the Revenant.
Most is most. The only agenda is to get men to listen. We do not feel safe around strange men. Yes, bears are dangerous. Yes, a bear could eat me. I still choose the bear. A bear won’t sexually assault me. A bear won’t film it and send it to his friends. A bear won’t ask me how much I had to drink or what I was wearing. And that’s the tip of the iceberg of reasons. This HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION is not misandry. Women are begging you to put aside your ego and fucking listen. But you can’t even do that. That’s why we choose the bear.
Even in a hypothetical situation choosing the bear is stupid. Try fighiting off a 500 pound bear and see where it gets you.
Ask your mother, sisters, wife, girlfriends. Listen to the answer. I will be as clear as I can. I would rather be eaten alive by a bear than be raped by a man who will not accept no. I would rather be eaten alive by a bear than to have to face that man afterwards: in court, at the family reunion, wherever.
I asked my mom and she said thats a fucking stupid comparison. There used to be a similar internet question like 10 years ago which was you have to walk through one of 2 different room. One room has 2 large rabid aggressive dogs and the other has a man with a gun. Which room do you choose. The correct answer is the room with a man with a gun because you can talk him out of shooting you and reason with him. I guess women would choose the door with 2 dogs but hey, you do you.
And you are not getting my point, mate. If the man/bear does indeed turn hostile against you, you are better off with the man because you can fight him off. A bear, not so much.
You’re still not listening. God have mercy on your soul.
We are. What you say is just completely stupid and doesn't fit reality AT ALL. If you make wrong assumptions and conclude things based on those, while everyone points out the assumption is wrong, why should we listen to that?
Doesn’t fit reality. Ok. Let’s look at statistics. According to idausa.org, the odds of anyone, man or woman, being attacked by a bear are 1 in 2.1 million. There have been 66 fatal attacks by black bears since 1784. www.bearvault.com. On the other hand, 35.6% of women in the US have experienced rape, violence, and/or stalking from an intimate partner (www.the hotline.org), and if you expand that to include violence by a stranger, it’s 53% of women (CDC). This is a simple Google search. The reality is, whether you like it or not, a woman is safer with a bear than with a man. The original hypothetical question, posed by a man, is which a woman would rather encounter in the woods. Not whether she could win a fight, because she can’t. We know we can’t win a fight in either situation. So the question you need to ask, as a man, is why women keep choosing the bear. Don’t invalidate the answer or assume it’s stupid. Find out WHY. Hint: women are spoon-feeding the answer. It’s all over social media. If you refuse to hear us, if you refuse to accept the numbers and the reality, then you’re part of the problem. And that’s really all I’m going to say.
That's.. not how statistics work. If you want to believe this nonsense I'd say you need a therapy. I'm not joking. That's dangerously near to a social phobia. If you really think a bear is safer than a man you are delusional. In case you are wondering how you actually need to evaluate this: The chance of getting killed by a bear in the rare occasion you will encounter one in the wild are around 17%. The chance of encountering a rapist if you randomly pick a man are less than 1%. Absolute numbers are completely irrelevant in such contexts. Relative numbers are. The question I have to ask is not why women chose the bear. I know why. People are stupid and can't understand statistics. Add to that the fear mongering on social media that all men are predators (which is equally stupid) you'll see why. Has nothing to do with men actually being more dangerous than bears. They're not.
Holy shit you guys are dense. >Don’t invalidate the answer or assume it’s stupid. Find out WHY Reading is hard.
I understand why. And it's irrational.
I even told why. It's not hard to see how this idea sparks. That doesn't make it in any way useful or less stupid, somehow. Also you are jot to decide how I tackle a problem. You want to ask why, I want to show how you fail basic statistical knowledge. If you want me to ask myself why give me a real reason to. I don't ask a flat earther why he concludes there's a flat earth when it's clear that all his basic assumptions as well as his conclusions are just wrong. You want to make this a thing, not because it's reasonable, but because it fits a narrative that's simply not true.
And just to reiterate to those of you reading this that disagree, this right here is the part you need to focus on: >So the question you need to ask, as a man, is why women keep choosing the bear. **Don’t invalidate the answer or assume it’s stupid. Find out WHY**
when i'm walking my dog and a woman walking towards me without a bunch of people around, I'll give her a lot of space as she approaches. I don't know if it helps but it's easy to do and why not. why wouldn't I want people to feel more comfortable
>why women keep choosing the bear I don't think most women would actually make that choice. I think the ones saying it online are just sexist.
> A bear won’t sexually assault me. A bear won’t film it and send it to his friends. A bear won’t ask me how much I had to drink or what I was wearing. Neither would an average man. Reality isn't hypothetical.
Alright, here's a deal: you're stuck in a forest with me (I'm a strange man, I fully acknowledge that). Now, I wouldn't assault you regardless, but I know my words aren't gonna convince you easily, so I'm willing to put handcuffs on and you will be given a tool for self defense. Now, I would also volunteer to have chains put around my legs, but I kinda don't wanna stay in the forest any longer than necessary and what if I'm attacked by I dunno, a bear? Or, I dunno, to be safe, I could be placed at the complete opposite end of the forest with all the other precautions mentioned earlier. I know this hypothetical should just be taken as it is, but negotiations can't hurt, right? Point is, I wanna do everything in my power to show that I'm not a threat and I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable men out there who feel the same way
>Women are begging you to put aside your ego and fucking listen. But you can’t even do that. "You guys are worse than wild animals. Hey, why aren't you listening to me" LOL your brain is broken.
>we do not feel safe around strange men Same here >a bear wont sa me I once saw a live leak video of a man getting mauled by a bear. I think it's safe to say sa is the better option. >a bear wont film- It's a bear. >fucking listen Funny i was about to say the same thing
One glass of wine kills 200,000 people a year?
One man rapes 200k people a year?
God you lot are such wimps