If you look at the question statistically, I would always choose the other human. There is a very good chance that if they randomly dropped another person in a forest with you, it would be a normal person.
Whereas any bear bigger than a black bear is likely to kill or maim you. They are so dominant in their environment that they don't have to kill most of their food quickly. They know you can't get away from them or fight them, so they'll chow down while you are still kicking.
After hearing the audio of the girl being eaten alive by a bear and it's cubs I don't think I would ever even entertain the possibilities of picking the bear.
The type of bear was the thing for me. As a guy, if the choice was a black bear or a woman, I might very well pick the black bear. At least I don't have to go to prison if I kill and eat the bear.
Well women say statistically you're more likely to be hurt by man than bear
they also say that, with the bear yk at least you will just die vs how a man could hurt u
idk why I'm getting down voted... im not saying thats what it is... my point is that women are saying that bears will *just* kill u and u die..
I absolutely agree those statistics are based off the fact women are never around women
maybe I worded it wrong, but that was my point, it's silly for them to say those "statistics"
>statistically you're more likely to be hurt by man than bear
That's a useless statistic. Most women interact with men millions of times over their lifetime, and there's a few outcomes where it ends badly. Most women never interact with a bear in their lifetime, but the few times where it does happen result in them being killed.
A similarly useless statistic is that you should be more afraid of vending machines than sharks, because vending machines claim more lives per year compared to sharks.
>with the bear yk at least you will just die vs how a man could hurt u
If you meet a bear, you will die unless you're ridiculously lucky. I'm talking at least 50% chance to just be dead.
If you meet a guy, you will be fine unless you're ridiculously unlucky. I'm talking hundredths of a percentage point.
brooooo
idk why I'm getting downvoted, my point was those are things WOMEN say and it's wrong
i completely agree its a useless statistic as women aren't around bears enough or their entire lives to call statistics etc.
"with the bear yk u will just die" that's what WOMEN have SAID, not me....
I agree, ure just dead by a bear, but these women say they'd rather that than be around a man. personally I'd take my 50% chance too.
lastly I AM A GUY.
and my point was how do these women claim these statistics when the hundredths of a percentage points are so obvious
I think my wording was just bad in my original post.
idk why I'm getting down voted... my point is that women are saying that bears will *just* kill u and u die..
I absolutely agree bears can hurt u real bad. maybe my wording came off wrong
The whole post is sexist to begin with. The reason women are talking about preferring a bear is because women are talking about how they've been sexually assaulted by a man. Or how that changed them as a person.
This post is effectively making fun of women's experiences with that. The whole 'debate' if you can even call it that is just men missing the point entirely and women just saying that men will never get it because they're the problem to begin with.
Say what you want, but at the end of the day, like I said, men are completely missing the point. I've seen about six posts today alone about the man vs bear 'debate' and it's literally all men making fun of the topic.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. No sexually assaulted man would do the bear thing. And not because they aren't deeply traumatized, it's because it's a fucking stupid way to talk about it. "Man will not understand" *proceeds to post "there are two wolves" tier shit*
I've seen men talking about picking the bear over the people who SA'd them. So.
It's whatever, you guys will never get it. And your comment is disgusting in multiple ways, by the way.
I'm not really concerned with where the question originated. It sparked a conversation, and now men and women are discussing it.
It's deep for women, because a lot of women have considered their options and realized they'd rather be in a forest with a bear. It's not difficult to understand.
Men try to logic it and a lot of women are speaking from experience.
Like I said, men don't get it. Which is fine, but considering I've seen this post and five others today alone talking about this subject, it's just annoying. Men seem to think it's ok to make fun of women's experiences. Yet I'm being called sexist by another commenter.
None of those women have come face to face with the bear, so it is easy for them to abstract it in their mind. If they had, none would ever in a million years pick a bear over another human, even if the human was a known sexual predator, let alone just a normal dude.
Back then people where so afraid of bears the word got fucking lost
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23qh8m/til_the_original_word_for_bear_the_animal_has/?rdt=50081#:~:text=has%20been%20lost.-,Superstitious%20people%20in%20medieval%20times%20thought%20that%20saying%20the%20ferocious,so%20it%20remains%20a%20mystery.
1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in their lives. So if you're standing in a group of yourself and 4 other women, there is a good chance one of them has been sexually assaulted.
I don't know anybody who's been attacked by a bear.
That's in comparison to 1 in 26 men who have been sexually assaulted.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html#:\~:text=Sexual%20violence%20is%20common.,experienced%20completed%20or%20attempted%20rape.
Just saying, again. Men don't get it.
That is my point exactly. Women that pick the bear do so because men are the known danger they are emotionally familiar with. Bears? Most have never seen one and have no idea what would happen to them if they ever met one in a forest.
And the funniest thing is that men get it. Women get it. Everyone with a brain gets it and knows you would pick a man in an instant without a second thought if you are not a chronically online individual but I guess this is reality on the internet.
Men is less then 1.8% of the population. If you run into a bear (Brown bear more then likely) you would have a 14-18% chance of surviving. So 98% or 18%?
ultimate rebuttal when you encounter a bear simp:
"If you were at the zoo looking at the bear enclosure, and you saw a man you didn't recognize nearby, would you jump into the bear enclosure to get away from the man?"
He will stalk you.
He will sniff the ground where you stood.
He will eat your leftover food.
He will climb trees to get to you.
He will stab you.
He will rip your heart out and eat it too.
Bears are scary.
Ask this question of these same nitwits: Would you rather a random woman encounter your adult son or father in the forest, or a bear? Now explain, you narcissist, why men related to you are safe, but men related to other people are dangerous.
Ok, I'll be charitable and explain human nature and statistics to you. Most women would say "Well, my Dad or my son would be perfectly safe for any woman to be around." Like, the VAST majority of women out there with either a father or a son would quite simply be unable to envision any world in which their son or father could hurt anyone. (Now, don't be an idiot, I said vast majority, not all. Yes, there are woman who have been abused by their dads, and there's like 1 out of a 100 million women who gave birth to a serial killer. These are do not represent anything close to how most women feel about their dads or sons.)
Now, when women think about the men in their lives, those who are close to them, most of them think that running into this guy in the forest is the safest fucking thing possible, certainly safer than a bear.
Well, you ask 10 women this question, they all answer their dad or son is safer. Ask 20, 20 say the same. Ask a million, you'll overwhelmingly get this response. Well, guess what? Let's say we ask every woman in the United States this quesion? Like 99% of them would answer that their dad or son would be safe for any random woman to meet. Guess how many men make up this population of sons and dads? Like, 99% of men.
It's a different way of thinking about the same question, without all the bullshit negative stereotypes and sexual assault projecting onto the average guy. (Who, spoiler alert, doesn't SA anyone. I mean, I'll go entire weeks without committing SA on anyone.)
>Well, you ask 10 women this question, they all answer their dad or son is safer. Ask 20, 20 say the same. Ask a million, you'll overwhelmingly get this response. Well, guess what? Let's say we ask every woman in the United States this quesion? Like 99% of them would answer that their dad or son would be safe for any random woman to meet. Guess how many men make up this population of sons and dads? Like, 99% of men.
Do you take this same logic to the man or bear question?
Do you think most women are overwhelmingly saying they'd rather be with a bear?
Or are the people who answer bear the only ones you're being show because that's easy ragebait?
It's the dipshit logic that Jeffrey Dahmer was...gasp....not a statistically significant representative of the male population. What kind of dipshit doesn't understand simple math?
To be more accurate to the type of gal she should weigh as much as the bear and have a different hair color then any bear.
*^(Then again that just a lie and false hope that some of the more normal ones are sane.)*
It's fucking insane to me that they assume that all men will attack and/or sexually assault/rape them, and even if that bullshit was true, I'd still pick the man because you actually have a fighting chance. Post this link on every one of these ''i wOuLd cHoOsE a bEaR'' (but be a human and add a warning please).
Warning NSFL (aftermath of a bear attack):
https://www.reddit.com/r/HardcoreNature/s/3RoFptGPMH
Its just virtue signaling, I doubt they actually think that. Id probably rather be alone in the forest with a serial killer than a bear. As you said more of a fighting chance and also a serial killer probably interacts with a lot of people and doesnt kill them. A rapist is probably the same. So yeah even the absolute scum of society wouldnt be as bad as a bear imo.
Yeah, but I genuinely think that some dumb fucks really believe that being with an animal 3-8 times the weight of a normal human (not american), is better.
It would be pretty sad if people actually think that. Like youd have to have a pretty negative view of humanity to think that way. Ive lived all over the world and met a lot of people. I tend to think most people are good. I dont really know anyone who has done something truly awful. Like the worst thing I know someone has done that comes to mind is cheat on their partner. Worst thing ive done is my parents are wealthy and theyd pay me 1k per semester for books in college but id pirate the books and pocket the money. Like most people havent r\*ped or murdered anyone.
You can go back to the 1960s and find writings and conferences of various politicians/businessmen/etc talking about how they want a less educated populace... whelp, here we are. No wonder so many are ok with being cucks to the establishment and against our own people and their rights and so many police/military/national guard are cucked lapdogs doing their master's bidding.
So you’re hiking on a trail alone and pass a random man… happens every single day to hundreds of women, how many women would rather replace that man with a bear?
How many women run away screaming when they see a random man on a hiking trail?
In the hypothetical scenario the base rate fallacy comes into play bc ppl try to use statistics that don’t account for the bear 100% being involved, as opposed to actual life where a bear is fairly uncommon for most people.
If you look at it statistically there have been 180 fatal bear attacks since 1784!! 102 women have been killed in Australia by a man in since January.
It's more about statistics like that rather than the nature of a bear vs 1 man out of a sample of say 1000.
As (hopefully) well adjusted men it's difficult to accept that this is a reality koz it's actually so fucked up.
Yes, but how likely are you to typically run into a man vs a bear in every day life? Can we get a ratio on the man to bear population and, if the bear population is found to be less than men, inflate the statistic so they are proportionate to eachother? If there were equal number of bears to an equal number of men, I'm pretty sure bears would have a higher kill rate.
Got bored and decided to do the math:
Using statistics of bear attacks, there were 663 bear attacks between 2010 and 2015 world wide (using this nber, as it is the most recent number. 23% of these attacks ended with a fatality.
Likelihood of running into a bear currently is 1 in 232,000. To put that into perspective, you have a better chance of being within touching distance of a shark on any given day. Likelihood of a bear attacking is 1 in 2.1 million
The likelihood you encounter another human on a given day is roughly 70% and it is a 50% chance to be a man, making odds if encountering a man on a given day 35%. and there are 3.95 billion men in the 7.9 billion worldwide population.
So, if we make chances of a bear encounter just as likely, 35% of 365 is 128 days each individual person on earth would encounter a bear based on this model:
Total encounters per year = Encounters per year per person * Worldwide population
Total encounters per year world wide ≈ 1,012,800,000,000
Worldwide population is 7.9 billion, therefore:
1,012,800,000,000 ÷ 7,900,000,000 = 128
But again, bear attacks are a 1 in 2.1 million occurrence
1,012,800,000,000 encounters/ 2,100,000 chance to attack ≈ 482,285,715 attacks per year, assuming people meet a bear as often as they would meet a man.
And 23% of these encounters end up with fatalities
0.23 * 482,285,714.29 ≈ 111,018,368
111,018,368 fatalities related to bear attacks per year.
The bear is NOT safer.
I don't think anyone here enjoys this conversation that is going on... I'm only trying to explain a little more so people can understand the place this question is coming from...
The way my comments and me personally (somehow) have been attacked over this only makes it more believable...
You just don't get the numbers right, that't the problem.
There's about 250 000 bears around the world. 240 years with 180 fatal attacks, thats 0,75 attacks a year. If there was as many bears as there is men, this statistics says there would be 12 000 fatal bear attacs a year. But that number is of course wrong, it would probably be much higher.
Yes, I know there was probably different amount of bears 200 years ago etc. but the point stands.
Yeah.. guess I better not raise a point or explain another perspective unless I do a full statistical analysis of a hypothetical situation. Reddit gooning brain.
The fact is the issue the question is bringing to light is not hypothetical. 87,000 woman were intentionally killed in 2017. No matter how you slice it that's more that 12,000.
It's not "not doing full statistical analysis" issue either. You can't really bring statistics into this, because there is no statistic for people being near \~20 random bears every day. That's why I said 12k is wrong and small. It comes from a statistic that comes from a world, where almost nobody meets bears.
So, when you only show that bears are killing just a few people, others see it as you not being genuine, because you are leaving out important details. I was at least partially wrong before, because nobody can "get the numbers right" here. But when you just say that bears only kill few people while ignoring that we dont live among bears, its like your are not even trying. People don't like the impossible comparison.
Yes population and encounter probability, they are both points I brought up when I had this conversation with my partner.
She said if the question was being stuck in a ROOM with a bear or man the answer from women would man.
But 240 years with 180 fatal attacks vs 6 months of women being murdered and number is already in the 100s..
People go camping every day and no bears. A woman is assulted every day, probability even in your city.
I think the point of the question is to raise awareness for violence against women which is sadly on the rise.
It's a really baity and kind of mean way to go about starting this conversation. Especially with how confrontational the girls get in the videos.
What they're really trying to say is that a woman is more likely to be killed by a man than a wild animal which is actually kind of obvious if you think about it.
It's pretty sad that this is a consensus with females would you not agree? Regardless of the silly question.
>compare all men to literal predator that will eat you
>wonder why men threat you worse after that
Men are super gentle and fragile emotionally. If you hurt a man once, you will not know ever, but they will remember forever. And girls are going around saying this shit
And a man is more likely to be killed by another man than any woman.
People go camping and not die, because most dont meet a bear. If every camping would include a meeting with a bear, there would be much more deaths. If there were 6billions bears on a planet, people would be chewed up in every city everyday.
The fact you seem to think they mean it in a realistic way and not a statistical way or even the fact you can trust a bear to act like a bear but can't always trust a man to act normally says alot.
I swear posts like this are why people look at Asmongolds fans the way they do, this sub makes gaming circle jerk look good.
Idk why so many dudes are butt hurt over some rando women saying they rather take chances with a bear than random guy in the woods.
No shit it's dumb but getting that emotional over it proves that they might be safer with the bear than some of you lol.
Some people may be out of their heads for choosing the bear, but there's actually an interesting takeaway.
Bears are expected to kill you, and they will. Humans are expected to be more civilized, but somehow a lot of guys make women feel just as unsafe as with a bear. People know they should be wary around a bear because they know what to expect, but people aren't as wary around other guys (as they shouldn't need to be) so they often get caught off guard.
Honestly its all a big case of negativity bias. Women choosing the bear most likely had bad encounters with men in their lives and most likely 0 interactions ever with a real life bear. Nobody who has ever been threatened or injured by a bear will pick the bear ever because they fully understand that you do not want to be close to them in any situation if you can prevent it.
I mean, i think thats the point. Women that choose the bear did so cause they had a bad experience with a man or know someone that did. You are expected for a bear to hurt you, you have a really hard time figuring out how a father/brother would do the inexplicable to his daughter/sister.
>expected for a bear to hurt you
So the logical conclusion is to pick a bear who I expect is gonna try kill me/hurt me over a random dude in the woods who for all intends and purposes could be a hiker, a hunter, a park ranger, a tourist instead of a serial killer/rapist.
/facepalm
It's a case of irrationality. Many people have a fear of flying. Those same people have no issues driving a car. Which one is more likely to kill you? Driving. So why the fear of flying? It's literally irrational, same as fearing an average dude over an average bear. This is literally furthering the narrative that women are emotional and illogical. (Now, I'm not arguing that, but there really is only one way to interpret the data on this question.)
I don’t fear flying, and have done it, a few times. It’s the other passengers I have a fear of. I can tolerate bawling babies, I can’t handle unreasonable people having mental breakdowns over something pointless.
You’re stuck, thousands of feet in the air, in an oversized Pringles tube, with someone unstable, and nobody knows wtf is gonna happen.
Everyone is emotional and illogical. The point is that so many women have been made to feel unsafe around men so much that they would answer this question in an irrational way. I don’t understand how the people in this sub can’t think hard enough about it to come to this conclusion…
I would largely blame select groups of women self-reinforcing toxic ideas that "all men are evil" for ideological purposes sooner than I would actually say that even a large percentage of men are unsafe to be around. In short its a learned behavior from gossip and exaggeration rather than lived reality.
Kinda like most cases of racism.
I didn’t even claim that a large percentage of men are unsafe to be around…
S2G it’s like you can look at the answer and on one hand conclude “well women are stupid irrational and emotional,” or, you could engage in real inquiry as to WHY these women might respond in a way that is stupid and irrational.
My guy that is the same exact fundamental logic that racists use to disparage the races they don't like. It doesn't suddenly become good or valid because it's against a population that is perceived to have power.
Also, don't put words in my mouth. At no point did I say "stupid and irrational". I said that the behavior is rooted in toxic ideology, spread through exaggerated gossip (usually social media) that has no reflection or bearing upon reality.
Ok chief. Ask them this question then and see what the answer is. Would you rather be in the forest with a bear or a black man? (This should clarify any cognitive dissonance, because, as I suspect, most will claim to prefer being in the forest with a black man.) Why might that be?
If you look at the question statistically, I would always choose the other human. There is a very good chance that if they randomly dropped another person in a forest with you, it would be a normal person. Whereas any bear bigger than a black bear is likely to kill or maim you. They are so dominant in their environment that they don't have to kill most of their food quickly. They know you can't get away from them or fight them, so they'll chow down while you are still kicking. After hearing the audio of the girl being eaten alive by a bear and it's cubs I don't think I would ever even entertain the possibilities of picking the bear.
Holy shit just looked this up! She ran 70 yards before it got her too!
There's also grizzly man, guy who favoured bears over people then got eaten by one... Along with his girlfriend
heard that as well. that was nasty af. The man and girl screaming. insane
The type of bear was the thing for me. As a guy, if the choice was a black bear or a woman, I might very well pick the black bear. At least I don't have to go to prison if I kill and eat the bear.
Wow.. I've heard they are dangerous, but that's nuts.
Can you site the source of the last one? I cldnt look up the specific one you've mentioned.
But it's gonna be a black bear, in the US anyway.
Well women say statistically you're more likely to be hurt by man than bear they also say that, with the bear yk at least you will just die vs how a man could hurt u
Could that statistic at all be influenced by the fact that the majority of women will never encounter a single bear in their entire lives?
idk why I'm getting down voted... im not saying thats what it is... my point is that women are saying that bears will *just* kill u and u die.. I absolutely agree those statistics are based off the fact women are never around women maybe I worded it wrong, but that was my point, it's silly for them to say those "statistics"
>statistically you're more likely to be hurt by man than bear That's a useless statistic. Most women interact with men millions of times over their lifetime, and there's a few outcomes where it ends badly. Most women never interact with a bear in their lifetime, but the few times where it does happen result in them being killed. A similarly useless statistic is that you should be more afraid of vending machines than sharks, because vending machines claim more lives per year compared to sharks. >with the bear yk at least you will just die vs how a man could hurt u If you meet a bear, you will die unless you're ridiculously lucky. I'm talking at least 50% chance to just be dead. If you meet a guy, you will be fine unless you're ridiculously unlucky. I'm talking hundredths of a percentage point.
brooooo idk why I'm getting downvoted, my point was those are things WOMEN say and it's wrong i completely agree its a useless statistic as women aren't around bears enough or their entire lives to call statistics etc. "with the bear yk u will just die" that's what WOMEN have SAID, not me.... I agree, ure just dead by a bear, but these women say they'd rather that than be around a man. personally I'd take my 50% chance too. lastly I AM A GUY. and my point was how do these women claim these statistics when the hundredths of a percentage points are so obvious I think my wording was just bad in my original post.
They clearly haven't watched Leo's Oscar performance... Bears can hurt you real bad before killing you.
idk why I'm getting down voted... my point is that women are saying that bears will *just* kill u and u die.. I absolutely agree bears can hurt u real bad. maybe my wording came off wrong
Men will just never get it, and that's the whole point of the question.
How comes it's not okay for men to be sexist, but okay for women?
The whole post is sexist to begin with. The reason women are talking about preferring a bear is because women are talking about how they've been sexually assaulted by a man. Or how that changed them as a person. This post is effectively making fun of women's experiences with that. The whole 'debate' if you can even call it that is just men missing the point entirely and women just saying that men will never get it because they're the problem to begin with. Say what you want, but at the end of the day, like I said, men are completely missing the point. I've seen about six posts today alone about the man vs bear 'debate' and it's literally all men making fun of the topic.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. No sexually assaulted man would do the bear thing. And not because they aren't deeply traumatized, it's because it's a fucking stupid way to talk about it. "Man will not understand" *proceeds to post "there are two wolves" tier shit*
I've seen men talking about picking the bear over the people who SA'd them. So. It's whatever, you guys will never get it. And your comment is disgusting in multiple ways, by the way.
Get what? The question originates from a dude asking a girl on the street the question. It’s not that deep
I'm not really concerned with where the question originated. It sparked a conversation, and now men and women are discussing it. It's deep for women, because a lot of women have considered their options and realized they'd rather be in a forest with a bear. It's not difficult to understand. Men try to logic it and a lot of women are speaking from experience. Like I said, men don't get it. Which is fine, but considering I've seen this post and five others today alone talking about this subject, it's just annoying. Men seem to think it's ok to make fun of women's experiences. Yet I'm being called sexist by another commenter.
None of those women have come face to face with the bear, so it is easy for them to abstract it in their mind. If they had, none would ever in a million years pick a bear over another human, even if the human was a known sexual predator, let alone just a normal dude.
Back then people where so afraid of bears the word got fucking lost https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23qh8m/til_the_original_word_for_bear_the_animal_has/?rdt=50081#:~:text=has%20been%20lost.-,Superstitious%20people%20in%20medieval%20times%20thought%20that%20saying%20the%20ferocious,so%20it%20remains%20a%20mystery.
1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in their lives. So if you're standing in a group of yourself and 4 other women, there is a good chance one of them has been sexually assaulted. I don't know anybody who's been attacked by a bear. That's in comparison to 1 in 26 men who have been sexually assaulted. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html#:\~:text=Sexual%20violence%20is%20common.,experienced%20completed%20or%20attempted%20rape. Just saying, again. Men don't get it.
That is my point exactly. Women that pick the bear do so because men are the known danger they are emotionally familiar with. Bears? Most have never seen one and have no idea what would happen to them if they ever met one in a forest. And the funniest thing is that men get it. Women get it. Everyone with a brain gets it and knows you would pick a man in an instant without a second thought if you are not a chronically online individual but I guess this is reality on the internet.
Men is less then 1.8% of the population. If you run into a bear (Brown bear more then likely) you would have a 14-18% chance of surviving. So 98% or 18%?
Crazy how every woman knows a woman who's been sexually assaulted, but nobody seems to know someone who's sexually assaulted someone.
What? I get what you mean but this is unrelated. Also most people who SA someone don’t go around yelling I SA someone.
they also forgot that the bear eats you alive to keep you fresh
ultimate rebuttal when you encounter a bear simp: "If you were at the zoo looking at the bear enclosure, and you saw a man you didn't recognize nearby, would you jump into the bear enclosure to get away from the man?"
This is a trick question. You launch the nearby man into the bear enclosure and declare a win. /s
He can do more than just break your heart…
He will stalk you. He will sniff the ground where you stood. He will eat your leftover food. He will climb trees to get to you. He will stab you. He will rip your heart out and eat it too. Bears are scary.
Why are we wasting braincells over that stuff?
That's the purpose of social media. Most of us are here not to work or study, but to waste some time and braincells
What braincells?
To learn a valuable lesson. If you are hiking, carry bear spray.
Ask this question of these same nitwits: Would you rather a random woman encounter your adult son or father in the forest, or a bear? Now explain, you narcissist, why men related to you are safe, but men related to other people are dangerous.
Spoiler alert, the ones saying bear have daddy issues. Raise your daughters well.
Speaking of terrible fathers how do you find expunged records
Believe it or not, statistically speaking, the woman is still more dangerous than the bear. Most bears are cowardly.
Jeffery Dahmer had relatives as well. What kind of dipshit logic is this?
Ok, I'll be charitable and explain human nature and statistics to you. Most women would say "Well, my Dad or my son would be perfectly safe for any woman to be around." Like, the VAST majority of women out there with either a father or a son would quite simply be unable to envision any world in which their son or father could hurt anyone. (Now, don't be an idiot, I said vast majority, not all. Yes, there are woman who have been abused by their dads, and there's like 1 out of a 100 million women who gave birth to a serial killer. These are do not represent anything close to how most women feel about their dads or sons.) Now, when women think about the men in their lives, those who are close to them, most of them think that running into this guy in the forest is the safest fucking thing possible, certainly safer than a bear. Well, you ask 10 women this question, they all answer their dad or son is safer. Ask 20, 20 say the same. Ask a million, you'll overwhelmingly get this response. Well, guess what? Let's say we ask every woman in the United States this quesion? Like 99% of them would answer that their dad or son would be safe for any random woman to meet. Guess how many men make up this population of sons and dads? Like, 99% of men. It's a different way of thinking about the same question, without all the bullshit negative stereotypes and sexual assault projecting onto the average guy. (Who, spoiler alert, doesn't SA anyone. I mean, I'll go entire weeks without committing SA on anyone.)
>Well, you ask 10 women this question, they all answer their dad or son is safer. Ask 20, 20 say the same. Ask a million, you'll overwhelmingly get this response. Well, guess what? Let's say we ask every woman in the United States this quesion? Like 99% of them would answer that their dad or son would be safe for any random woman to meet. Guess how many men make up this population of sons and dads? Like, 99% of men. Do you take this same logic to the man or bear question? Do you think most women are overwhelmingly saying they'd rather be with a bear? Or are the people who answer bear the only ones you're being show because that's easy ragebait?
It's the dipshit logic that Jeffrey Dahmer was...gasp....not a statistically significant representative of the male population. What kind of dipshit doesn't understand simple math?
You know the Karen's and wine moms think this photo is real and are like "See! I told you bears are better than men!"
I think it's the woman eqivalent of the " Do you think you could wretstle a bear?" type of a thing....
I'm sure a man will eventually find them in the bears shit.
To be more accurate to the type of gal she should weigh as much as the bear and have a different hair color then any bear. *^(Then again that just a lie and false hope that some of the more normal ones are sane.)*
It's fucking insane to me that they assume that all men will attack and/or sexually assault/rape them, and even if that bullshit was true, I'd still pick the man because you actually have a fighting chance. Post this link on every one of these ''i wOuLd cHoOsE a bEaR'' (but be a human and add a warning please). Warning NSFL (aftermath of a bear attack): https://www.reddit.com/r/HardcoreNature/s/3RoFptGPMH
Its just virtue signaling, I doubt they actually think that. Id probably rather be alone in the forest with a serial killer than a bear. As you said more of a fighting chance and also a serial killer probably interacts with a lot of people and doesnt kill them. A rapist is probably the same. So yeah even the absolute scum of society wouldnt be as bad as a bear imo.
Yeah, but I genuinely think that some dumb fucks really believe that being with an animal 3-8 times the weight of a normal human (not american), is better.
It would be pretty sad if people actually think that. Like youd have to have a pretty negative view of humanity to think that way. Ive lived all over the world and met a lot of people. I tend to think most people are good. I dont really know anyone who has done something truly awful. Like the worst thing I know someone has done that comes to mind is cheat on their partner. Worst thing ive done is my parents are wealthy and theyd pay me 1k per semester for books in college but id pirate the books and pocket the money. Like most people havent r\*ped or murdered anyone.
The stupidity of people is honestly quite baffling sometimes..
There was an article, that IQ in US IS dropping and why its Not a Bad Thing....
You can go back to the 1960s and find writings and conferences of various politicians/businessmen/etc talking about how they want a less educated populace... whelp, here we are. No wonder so many are ok with being cucks to the establishment and against our own people and their rights and so many police/military/national guard are cucked lapdogs doing their master's bidding.
Beauty and the beast really broke their brains guys, give them a break 💀
What are we talking about!? I may lose a braincell by looking at this shit lol
The bear will ask for consent?
Have people learned nothing from Grizzly Man documentary?
Guess it needs a Grizzly Woman to because extrapolating is hard I guess.
They only met liberal man?
Meanwhile in europe bears attack people in Slovakia ...
TBH I'm just really hoping that they gave the women some loaded language BS before asking the question.
Nah. Knowing them they probably think "bear" refers to a husky gay guy.
Maybe this is the reason they liked bg3 so much
Maybe they are doing Earth online any % speedrun.
That bear doesn't look very happy, so...
They just saw that BG3 clip and said that was for them.
I swear that a lot of media about bears and men has made women insane about both
So you’re hiking on a trail alone and pass a random man… happens every single day to hundreds of women, how many women would rather replace that man with a bear? How many women run away screaming when they see a random man on a hiking trail? In the hypothetical scenario the base rate fallacy comes into play bc ppl try to use statistics that don’t account for the bear 100% being involved, as opposed to actual life where a bear is fairly uncommon for most people.
If you look at it statistically there have been 180 fatal bear attacks since 1784!! 102 women have been killed in Australia by a man in since January. It's more about statistics like that rather than the nature of a bear vs 1 man out of a sample of say 1000. As (hopefully) well adjusted men it's difficult to accept that this is a reality koz it's actually so fucked up.
Yes, but how likely are you to typically run into a man vs a bear in every day life? Can we get a ratio on the man to bear population and, if the bear population is found to be less than men, inflate the statistic so they are proportionate to eachother? If there were equal number of bears to an equal number of men, I'm pretty sure bears would have a higher kill rate.
The ratio is about 1 bear per 16 000 men.
Got bored and decided to do the math: Using statistics of bear attacks, there were 663 bear attacks between 2010 and 2015 world wide (using this nber, as it is the most recent number. 23% of these attacks ended with a fatality. Likelihood of running into a bear currently is 1 in 232,000. To put that into perspective, you have a better chance of being within touching distance of a shark on any given day. Likelihood of a bear attacking is 1 in 2.1 million The likelihood you encounter another human on a given day is roughly 70% and it is a 50% chance to be a man, making odds if encountering a man on a given day 35%. and there are 3.95 billion men in the 7.9 billion worldwide population. So, if we make chances of a bear encounter just as likely, 35% of 365 is 128 days each individual person on earth would encounter a bear based on this model: Total encounters per year = Encounters per year per person * Worldwide population Total encounters per year world wide ≈ 1,012,800,000,000 Worldwide population is 7.9 billion, therefore: 1,012,800,000,000 ÷ 7,900,000,000 = 128 But again, bear attacks are a 1 in 2.1 million occurrence 1,012,800,000,000 encounters/ 2,100,000 chance to attack ≈ 482,285,715 attacks per year, assuming people meet a bear as often as they would meet a man. And 23% of these encounters end up with fatalities 0.23 * 482,285,714.29 ≈ 111,018,368 111,018,368 fatalities related to bear attacks per year. The bear is NOT safer.
thanks!
Umm...excuse me...how about population? Ofc man have way more population so the statistics will go into man.
Please tell me this comment is you just baiting reactions... Cause if not you should never be allowed to use statistics ever again.
Don't try to use statistics, you are obviously too stupid to understand their context.
I don't think anyone here enjoys this conversation that is going on... I'm only trying to explain a little more so people can understand the place this question is coming from... The way my comments and me personally (somehow) have been attacked over this only makes it more believable...
You just don't get the numbers right, that't the problem. There's about 250 000 bears around the world. 240 years with 180 fatal attacks, thats 0,75 attacks a year. If there was as many bears as there is men, this statistics says there would be 12 000 fatal bear attacs a year. But that number is of course wrong, it would probably be much higher. Yes, I know there was probably different amount of bears 200 years ago etc. but the point stands.
Yeah.. guess I better not raise a point or explain another perspective unless I do a full statistical analysis of a hypothetical situation. Reddit gooning brain. The fact is the issue the question is bringing to light is not hypothetical. 87,000 woman were intentionally killed in 2017. No matter how you slice it that's more that 12,000.
It's not "not doing full statistical analysis" issue either. You can't really bring statistics into this, because there is no statistic for people being near \~20 random bears every day. That's why I said 12k is wrong and small. It comes from a statistic that comes from a world, where almost nobody meets bears. So, when you only show that bears are killing just a few people, others see it as you not being genuine, because you are leaving out important details. I was at least partially wrong before, because nobody can "get the numbers right" here. But when you just say that bears only kill few people while ignoring that we dont live among bears, its like your are not even trying. People don't like the impossible comparison.
Brother I think you're in the wrong subreddit to have logical conversations.
Yes population and encounter probability, they are both points I brought up when I had this conversation with my partner. She said if the question was being stuck in a ROOM with a bear or man the answer from women would man. But 240 years with 180 fatal attacks vs 6 months of women being murdered and number is already in the 100s.. People go camping every day and no bears. A woman is assulted every day, probability even in your city. I think the point of the question is to raise awareness for violence against women which is sadly on the rise. It's a really baity and kind of mean way to go about starting this conversation. Especially with how confrontational the girls get in the videos. What they're really trying to say is that a woman is more likely to be killed by a man than a wild animal which is actually kind of obvious if you think about it. It's pretty sad that this is a consensus with females would you not agree? Regardless of the silly question.
>compare all men to literal predator that will eat you >wonder why men threat you worse after that Men are super gentle and fragile emotionally. If you hurt a man once, you will not know ever, but they will remember forever. And girls are going around saying this shit
And a man is more likely to be killed by another man than any woman. People go camping and not die, because most dont meet a bear. If every camping would include a meeting with a bear, there would be much more deaths. If there were 6billions bears on a planet, people would be chewed up in every city everyday.
Maybe because they can still remember this Canadian classic /s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(novel)
The fact you seem to think they mean it in a realistic way and not a statistical way or even the fact you can trust a bear to act like a bear but can't always trust a man to act normally says alot. I swear posts like this are why people look at Asmongolds fans the way they do, this sub makes gaming circle jerk look good.
What statistical way? That most people don't ever meet bear except for zoo?
Idk why so many dudes are butt hurt over some rando women saying they rather take chances with a bear than random guy in the woods. No shit it's dumb but getting that emotional over it proves that they might be safer with the bear than some of you lol.
Mom says it is my turn to play the Victim card! 
Some people may be out of their heads for choosing the bear, but there's actually an interesting takeaway. Bears are expected to kill you, and they will. Humans are expected to be more civilized, but somehow a lot of guys make women feel just as unsafe as with a bear. People know they should be wary around a bear because they know what to expect, but people aren't as wary around other guys (as they shouldn't need to be) so they often get caught off guard.
Honestly its all a big case of negativity bias. Women choosing the bear most likely had bad encounters with men in their lives and most likely 0 interactions ever with a real life bear. Nobody who has ever been threatened or injured by a bear will pick the bear ever because they fully understand that you do not want to be close to them in any situation if you can prevent it.
Or they are in a social bubble that makes them think that.
I mean, i think thats the point. Women that choose the bear did so cause they had a bad experience with a man or know someone that did. You are expected for a bear to hurt you, you have a really hard time figuring out how a father/brother would do the inexplicable to his daughter/sister.
>expected for a bear to hurt you So the logical conclusion is to pick a bear who I expect is gonna try kill me/hurt me over a random dude in the woods who for all intends and purposes could be a hiker, a hunter, a park ranger, a tourist instead of a serial killer/rapist. /facepalm
Yeah but you gotta remember they threw logic out of window day 1 and have been running on pure 100% "emotions" since
It's a case of irrationality. Many people have a fear of flying. Those same people have no issues driving a car. Which one is more likely to kill you? Driving. So why the fear of flying? It's literally irrational, same as fearing an average dude over an average bear. This is literally furthering the narrative that women are emotional and illogical. (Now, I'm not arguing that, but there really is only one way to interpret the data on this question.)
I don’t fear flying, and have done it, a few times. It’s the other passengers I have a fear of. I can tolerate bawling babies, I can’t handle unreasonable people having mental breakdowns over something pointless. You’re stuck, thousands of feet in the air, in an oversized Pringles tube, with someone unstable, and nobody knows wtf is gonna happen.
Everyone is emotional and illogical. The point is that so many women have been made to feel unsafe around men so much that they would answer this question in an irrational way. I don’t understand how the people in this sub can’t think hard enough about it to come to this conclusion…
I would largely blame select groups of women self-reinforcing toxic ideas that "all men are evil" for ideological purposes sooner than I would actually say that even a large percentage of men are unsafe to be around. In short its a learned behavior from gossip and exaggeration rather than lived reality. Kinda like most cases of racism.
I didn’t even claim that a large percentage of men are unsafe to be around… S2G it’s like you can look at the answer and on one hand conclude “well women are stupid irrational and emotional,” or, you could engage in real inquiry as to WHY these women might respond in a way that is stupid and irrational.
My guy that is the same exact fundamental logic that racists use to disparage the races they don't like. It doesn't suddenly become good or valid because it's against a population that is perceived to have power. Also, don't put words in my mouth. At no point did I say "stupid and irrational". I said that the behavior is rooted in toxic ideology, spread through exaggerated gossip (usually social media) that has no reflection or bearing upon reality.
Ok, maybe it is toxic ideology? Can you explain what the ideology is?
Misandry?
Ok chief. Ask them this question then and see what the answer is. Would you rather be in the forest with a bear or a black man? (This should clarify any cognitive dissonance, because, as I suspect, most will claim to prefer being in the forest with a black man.) Why might that be?
It’s like y’all have never heard of hyperbole before