• NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    29 days ago

    Yet men killing a shit ton more women than that per year isn’t a good enough reason to warrant caution? Statistically the bear is still safer.

    Edit: You also don’t have to falsely inflate the population of men to create a hyperbolic fantasy situation to justify choosing the bear.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      29 days ago

      Explain how the bear is statistically safer; you would need to factor in not just total incidences, but total interactions, otherwise it’s a sharpshooter fallacy.

      The average woman likely has tens of thousands of hours with strange men and no incident, and it would be extremely surprising that the bear stats would be better than that.

      I wouldn’t be surprised that even if you only selected men convicted of violence on women, the bears would still be statistically more dangerous (or it would at least be a somewhat close comparison).

      This is getting into the weeds a bit though and not really in the spirit of the original question.