I'm not engaging further with what I think is a bad analogy.

I guess all these “not me though” or “but a bear will kill you” types don’t get that they are outing themselves as being of questionable trustworthiness.

Maybe outing themselves as pedants who don't like shitty analogies. How do you get from disagreeing with labeling all men predators to ... must be a predator. That just seems like you glued two concepts together and expected it to make a coherent thought. If A in some universe and B in some universe then if A thus B.

I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it

I'm not a predator. I'm bothered by it

They might not be sexual predators

So because I disagree I might be a rapist. Super real there.

but I have no doubt they would gladly vote away women's rights because its their party or its the christian way or some other shit like that.

I'm an Atheist who votes Democrat and supports women's rights

Truly innocent men would just leave women scared of them alone

This is a discussion forum. The poster started a thread to discuss the topic. I'm discussing the topic. Nobody is attacking anyone with their words.

There is no reason to convince them

This is a many to many discussion forum people aren't just engaging with the poster they are engaging with other readers interested in the same topic. Notice how our discussion is a sub-thread to each other and merely about the topic broached by the original poster.

doing so only makes them more afraid.

You are infantalizing the poster by imagining that she creates a topic but is rendered afraid by the mere fact that some people don't agree with her. I don't think that is even slightly reasonable.

This post could be a subject of an entire paper on how to write dishonestly and for emotional impact instead of honest argument. Please stop doing this.