this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
595 points (99.8% liked)
People Mastodon
212 readers
442 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your mind is going to be blown when you find out about the number of man attacks this year.
Better yet, what about Mosquitos?
Probably a bad example for your case of being an obtuse asshole almost every time any subject comes up (we recognize our own.)
Mosquitos are incredibly deadly to humans but they're also like hundreds of trillions of them at any given time, so an average mosquito is still significantly less dangerous to a woman than an average man.
so... yeah just a smidge unbalanced.
The irony of saying it's bad to compare mosquitos to men based on number of each and interactions, while comparing men to bears.
No its just bad for you to do it, since mosquitoes are even safer to be around than bears and thus the comparison does not at all aid your argument.
Quite the opposite, the murder rate would be higher if there were 110,000,000,000,000 men and even higher still if it were bears, it has perfectly helped my point significantly.
... what.
edit: no I've been trying to figure out what that has to do with this conversation and I'm still lost. Where did you get 110 trillion men from? What does that have to do with anything? Why are we multiplying bears?
Low incidence rate and low population of bears.
Higher incidence rate and higher population of men.
Highest incidence rate and highest population of mosquitoes.
You illustrated that as the number of them goes up so does the number of casualties, so in order to fairly compare men and bears or men and mosquitoes you need to include that incidence per populations and/or per interactions in your comparison.