Tap for context
Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
Some woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
If you believe you’re less likely to be in danger with a bear than a man, you’re just sexist.
That begs quite a few questions.
Which would be?
It’s nonsense. Out of 100 bear encounters about 1 turns violent. Now, how many men does the average women come in contact to daily and how many of them turn violent? I’m pretty sure the numbers are much, much lower than that for a bear encounter.
My Wife walked passed approximately 1’000 just today. No one even talked to her in a weird way. This whole argument is just fear mongering with sociallly acceptable sexism. This doesn’t solve any problems.
Also, statistically, strangers are the last people tk worry about. The overwhelming majority of abuse victims know their abuser or are even related. You should be more afraid to see uncle Frank and aunt Jenny in the woods than any random man.
This is a gish gallop so I’m just going to highlight that the scenario in question is alone in the woods, not walking past men on a busy street.
Please consider that you might be getting defensive, and will misinterpret both the initial premise and any explanations as a result.
Not at all. You said being alone in a forest with a man is more dangerous than a bear, and I said that’s statistically nonsense.
Just because I wrote more than 2 sentences, doesn’t make that a gish gallop.
There are 2 premises:
I showed my numbers for that 1 argument and that’s it. I’m happy to be proven wrong, if you have anything more than “it just is”.
I’m not defensive I find this comparison to be simply ridiculous.
The only person you’re fooling is yourself
I still don’t see what you’re getting at, neither do I see any gish gallops here.
1 is the claim, the other an example on the same subject.