You're viewing a single thread.
This is terrible logic to go by.
If you generalise half the population and insult them then of course people are going to be mad at you.
This is like some boomer saying "All feminists are easily offended lesbians that just like to shout out people"
Then smugly being like "haha you proved my point" when a femininst rightly takes issue with that statement.
Also bears can't type, which introduces a massive bias during data collection.
Nonsense.
Well they did say "smarter than the average". Technically true, but must have meant something like... ten standard deviations from the mean.
Are you sure? How many bear caves have you been in? They might all have fiber at this point.
I thought we were all dogs using the internet while out humans are at work.
Yall are dogs to right?
reminds me of this somethingawful ancient meme:
This is also an indicator of the world’s best insult as per the comic Basic Instructions:
“I find you argumentative and easily offended.”
Basically no one is allowed to respond to it.
"Noted."
"I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you get the therapy you need some day"
“How you find me has nothing to do with the conservation. Anyway, conditioner is better.”
Can't a simple answer be: "You're wrong" ?
This is like some boomer saying "All feminists are easily offended lesbians that just like to shout out people"
Then smugly being like "haha you proved my point" when a femininst rightly takes issue with that statement.
Worse than that even, as feminists are less than half the population and an ideology you choose to belong to, rather than a demographic you are born into.
If you generalise half the population and insult them then of course people are going to be mad at you.
As a random man I don't feel insulted by this at all. I would also rather be in the woods with a random bear than a random man. The bear is more predictable in preferring to have nothing to do with me.
I would also rather be in the woods with a random bear than a random man.
Theres literally no way you genuinely believe this right?
I literally expanded on my reasons in the other reply.
There are literally a bunch of posts from other people explaining their reasons for preferring random bear as well.
The fact that a random man can be told multiple times "I don't know you well enough to be comfortable with this," with explanations, and they will still respond with "there's no way you actually mean the words you are saying" is a big contributing factor.
What do you think will happen if you tell the bear you arnt comfortable with being attacked
It's very possible to communicate to a bear that you aren't threatening them and that you aren't prey or worth attacking. I recommend looking up "what to do if you encounter a bear in the woods."
It seems to be very difficult to communicate to you that I would be uncomfortable encountering you alone in the woods.
So yes, the bear is probably a better listener.
Cool. But I really think your reasons are complete bullshit.
Like take your last paragraph, you actually think that because some men don't listen to reasonable arguments you would rather be with a violent and wild animal that is physically incapable of listening to reason?
Seriously you're either actually insane or you're just bullshiting to try and prove a point that you've already committed to without actually thinking it through.
you would rather be with a violent and wild animal that is physically incapable of listening to reason?
No, that's why I'd rather be with the bear.
You seem to be really angry about some rando's opinion on a hypothetical situation. That's not normal.
Bears generally aren't violent unless you threaten them. People survive seeing bears in the woods all the time, and once they are out of that situation they generally don't have to worry that the bear is stalking them.
I'm not angry, I'm incredulous that you either think I'm dumb or you're completely braindead. There's a difference.
People survive seeing bears in the woods *all the time
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people survive seeing men more often than they survive seeing a bear.
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people survive seeing men more often than they survive seeing a bear.
And we're moving the goalposts. Note how the article, and my post, specified in the woods and you have changed the situation to include: In public. Places with good lighting. Lots of people around. Easy access to law enforcement. People you personally know (and therefore not random).
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people get attacked by men more often than they get attacked by bears.
I didn't change the situation? You're literally just making shit up now.
Where did I say in public?where did I say around people you know? Nowhere. because you know your argument is stupid but you don't have the balls to just admit you're wrong so instead you literally have to accuse me of making shit you randomly made up just so you have something you can actually argue back against.
Please for the love of God, do us all a favour and go back to reddit, you'll be in better company there.
Please for the love of God, do us all a favour and go back to reddit, you'll be in better company there.
Says the guy who just typed a series of Ad Hominem attacks instead of an argument because you know you disagree with me but can't present a reasonable reason why.
All of your needless insults do not convince me that I'm better off encountering you in the woods than a bear. If you have no interest in what I have to say you can simply not reply. You can even block me if I offended you so much.
Crying "ad hominin" only works if you're making an actual argument.
If you're literally just saying random bullshit that no one, not even yourself, thinks is true, then when you're called out on that literally just completely making up an argument for me that I never actually said, so you can have something to argue against.
THEN when youre called out on that part, you completely ignore it and just cry about how im not engaging your horseshit how you want me to.
And no, im not going to block you just yet. Because I'm interested to see if you actually have enough of a spine to acknowledge you're just lying and making up random shit or if you're going to try pulling off some more insane mental gymnastics to try and trick yourself into thinking you're not a loser.
i think i would probably be more concerned if i were alone in the woods with a woman honestly, like what the fuck did i do to be put in that situation? Why am i here at all? Is this an act of god?
Being alone in the woods in it of itself would be fucking weird, but a lot less fucking weird that being alone with someone else for some reason.
You're walking through the woods and at the end of a clearing you see: either a man, or a bear staring right at you.
Which one makes you more uncomfortable?If I slowly leave the area I'm fairly confident the bear will leave me alone and not follow. I'm spending the rest of my time in the woods wondering if that man is following me.
i would certainly be more perplexed by a human just existing out there, a bear being out there would definitely make a lot of sense, i suppose it matters if either one of them has spotted me.
If neither spots me it doesn't matter. If one spots me, who's to fucking say what happens. Could be your local mountain man out there just vibin on his own time, could be your local serial killer up to some shit, who knows!
i would certainly be more perplexed by a human just existing out there
In this scenario you are also "just existing out there."
Could be your local mountain man out there just vibin on his own time, could be your local serial killer up to some shit, who knows!
And that is the entire point. The article didn't say "any man" it said "a random man". Could go either way, who knows? With the bear it's far more certain it just wants to leave you alone.
In this scenario you are also “just existing out there.”
i mean yeah, but if i was just existing out there alone that would be fucking weird. But only just fucking weird. If i was out there but WITH someone else, i would be REALLY fucking confused.
And that is the entire point. The article didn’t say “any man” it said “a random man”. Could go either way, who knows? With the bear it’s far more certain it just wants to leave you alone.
obviously. I wonder what the statistics would be though. Since it's a "random" person, i wonder how likely you would actually be to get a shitty person. Bear stats are even harder though. So it's not even like you could compare it.
people often sight that 1 in 3 woman experience sexual assault (i think that's the correct phrasing) but that's a basic collective stat. And given the fact that it's just a random man. I would have to assume the chances of getting someone who isn't going to fuck your shit up is pretty good. I'd be surprised if it was less than 50% frankly. Now when it comes to bears, there are a few bears, but assuming black bears, grizzly bears, and brown bears, black bears are pretty chill from what i've heard. Grizzly bears tend to be problematic. Brown bears are generally docile, but can be temperamental apparently. So for statistical simplicity we'll just say you've got a 25% chance of getting cocaine bear'd because likewise, the bear doesn't know why it's there. I would feel like if you were to select a man at random from society, you've probably got equal to marginally better chances. I mean you'd have to get a pretty fucked up individual to just throw them in there and the first thing they decide to do is commit rape, or worse.
And presumably there aren't any established rules for how you got there, i like to think of it as if you were just teleported there, and i suppose that's unrealistic, but the alternative is walking into the forest with a fucking bear lmao. Or just being in a forest while a bear is also in the forest, and at that point, i don't think it would make a difference anymore. Given that you're likely to be too far away from each other to be an immediate danger. So i'm presuming we're just dropped within visual/hearing distance of each other.
but naturally, that's not the point of this thought experiment. The whole point is to make a point, because it's actually a bit of societal quip more than anything. But i like thinking about this shit like a thought experiment because i prefer to not think about being murdered generally.
Also here's a fucking nitpick if i've ever had one "any" is literally a synonym to "random" Any is quite literally describing "any one of these things that you could possibly select will do the job" and random is quite literally" pick one of them, at random, in a mathematical sense" So from the point of the argument, they mean the same thing.
I havent read the article, but from the heading and the teaser of it it seems to be a personal opinion piece of what she would prefer and asking other women about it.
Where exactly does she actively insult all men?
Where exactly does she actively insult all men?
The part about saying she would prefer being alone in the woods with an animal that would maul and eat her alive than being with [insert trait you were born with].
If you don't think it's insulting, switch out the word "men" with gay/jew/trans or any other group of people and ask if those people would feel insulted.
It's a statement that very likely would be removed by moderators and gotten you banned on certain instances on Lemmy if you did. I honestly don't believe you're asking that question in good faith.
I can't say that I blame her and I'm a guy. Besides, you know she's just being over the top to make a point. Take five seconds, look at what she's really saying and stop looking for reasons to be angry at her.
I was merely replying to the other person who seemed to be arguing in bad faith.
I don't really have much interest the online gender debate. From the few tidbits I've seen, it's not a healthy debate and it doesn't align with anything I've seen in real life in Norway.
You yourself have completely ignored the argument you're responding to in order to chastise about arguing with a bad take.
It's looping upon itself and it all starts with one bad take. Maybe you can accept bad faith arguments are bad and move on?
"I don't feel comfortable being alone at night in the ghetto" = reasonable statement
"I don't feel comfortable around black people" = being over the top to make a point.
It's not okay and she should be shunned for saying such things.
"I don't feel comfortable being alone in the woods with a stranger" = reasonable statement
"I don't feel comfortable around men in public" = not what was said.
Boo fucking hoo.
It sure is hard being a man, amirite? /s
It's too big of a group to generalise. Your seemingly utter lack of understanding will only help drive the wedge between the genders even further.
It's genuinely sad to see how annoyed and bitter some of my older male relatives have become due to people like you acting as if only 1 gender matter. Back in the days they would have called themselves feminists, but now their perception is that that group hates them instead.
Okay, let's reframe this to be about a different specific group.
Let's say this woman wrote this exact same opinion piece, but instead of it being about men in general, it was about black men specifically.
And she is just saying that she would rather take her chances with a wild animal than be alone with a black man. Is that perfectly okay and not insulting/demanding to black men in your eyes?
But, I mean, are you acquainted with said bear?
Are you on terms with each other's intentions?
'Cause if you're in the woods with a stranger, there is a 50 percent chance you're going to have a bad time. Human or bear.
Stupid city folk. Comparing a BEAR with a honeybear...
A bear predictably would rather have nothing to do with me. If I treat a random bear with respect it will be more likely to treat me with respect than a random man.
I dk, did it have any cocaine or do I have food on me?
Though that would also apply to a human.
See, the difference is that the OP didn't use the word "all" anywhere. If you're not one of the untrustworthy men, then it isn't about you.
Would you accept this logic about any other group like that?
if someone said "Black people are thieves" then when you called them out they said "I didnt say ALL black people are thieves. If you're one of the good ones, then its not about you." would you just accept that as a perfectly reasonable statement or would you still call them racist?
Having something stolen from you most likely isn't going to leave you scarred for life. And men are not, and have never been, an oppressed group. People who say "black people are thieves" say that because they are racist and want to veil their bigotry. Women who say "I'm scared of men" say that because they most likely have had negative experiences with them and understand that they are physically weaker than them.
Having something stolen from you most likely isn't going to leave you scarred for life.
Okay change it to mugged or beaten then? You know the point I'm making and purposely focusing on minor details instead of that actual point doesn't make your case any stronger.
and have never been, an oppressed group
I'm not claiming they are. If you're going to argue with me, then please argue against what I'm actually saying, nit whatever strawman you need to construct.
Women who say "I'm scared of men" say that because they most likely have had negative experiences with them and understand that they are physically weaker than them.
Imma trust you're an intelligent person and let you work out what's wrong with this one yourself.
If someone has been frequently harassed and endangered only by black people, I'm not going to tell them they can't be cautious of black people.
Bruh
so you believe racism is/can be justified?
No. But I'm also not going to undermine other people's lived experience like that.