this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
596 points (99.8% liked)
People Mastodon
212 readers
374 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
I can't tell if you're thoroughly disingenuous or you actually can't tell what this discussion is about. Involvement with the bear or avoidance of the bear were explicitly declared non-optional.
You are missing the point of the original experiment, and continue to misdirect the discussion into your predeterminted views.
So again, fuck you for that.
The only thing that matters is that "some MEN ARE A DANGER TO WOMEN".
Disregarding that you only support the attackers. Simple as.
You've actually perfectly encapsulated my point that your personal bias has caused a random and illogical dismissal of the potential harm a bear can cause. It's like bears don't exist at all in your mind, the options are men or not men to you.
Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY cares about bears. Everyone knows they can and will kill you.
But that's the upside: an understood and agreed danger.
Men can and will kill men and women, in great numbers every year. And people choose to ignore that.
Like, I don't know, derailing conversations to talk about bears.
This conversation was always about bears, go start a new thread.
Nobody has claimed that bears aren't dangerous.
The fact is: despite the fact that everyone knows bears are dangerous, many women when asked say they would rather encounter a bear than a man. That isn't saying they don't think bears are dengerous, it speaks volumes about their regular encounters with men.
Saying "um acksully bears are very dangerous" is ignoring the point to have an argument that no one is actually arguing against.
Honestly confused, do you mean in your initial comment you were asserting that the choices were either "interact with man" or "interact with bear"? Because if so that was never the premise of the initial question, and nobody else here appears to be discussing it like it was.
The bear and man options are presented as equivalent, so you're either interacting with either or simply on the same mountain as either, you can't just pick and choose for each instance or the question needs to be reformatted.
... The initial question doesn't frame it like that, yes; however I don't see anyone here implying it does, so I'm unclear on how it's at all relevant. The initial question is "would you rather be in the woods alone with a bear or with a man you didn't know" - being alone in the woods with a bear is an extremely common thing (I was alone in the woods with countless bears not moments ago when I stepped outside), and the risks carried by either option are the entire point of the question.
"the initial question doesn't frame it like that"
*proceeds to frame it as equivalent and still defend the bear option
What the... No, your objection was "picking and choos[ing]" (ex:) if you were just in the woods with a bear vs. had to interact with a man
I said yes, that's not the initial question, and presented that simply being alone in the woods with a bear is an extremely common occurence, a reference to the "170 million black bears of prigozhin" comment from earlier.
Now you're mad I'm presenting those two options as always having been treated as their equivalent forms, and yet still maintaining my earlier position after explaining the details of the question. But... why would my answer have changed? My position or the premise it was based on never changed. I never misunderstood anything about the question. You were the one that interpreted the discussion incorrectly.