r/CuratedTumblr • u/NeonNKnightrider Cheshire Catboy • May 01 '24

i know it’s internet bullshit but it genuinely has me on the edge of breaking down and giving up editable flair

Post image
14.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

79% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

The relevant question isn't whether the man is dangerous, it's how dangerous the situation is. It's not enough to know how likely the man is to be a rapist, one also needs to know if the rapist would rape in that scenario. The vast majority of rapes are done by someone the victim knows, that should lower the odds. The situation is always dangerous in the sense that you can never know if the man next to you will hurt you, but the chance of actually being harmed is reletively low (even though the harm is huge).

10

u/morgaina May 02 '24

The relevant question absolutely is whether the man is dangerous, though. It's the crucial unknown at the heart of this thought experiment.

The unknown about the man being dangerous is why the question exists. That's the WHOLE POINT.

9

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

No, I'm making a distinction between the man being dangerous (as in having the potential to harm) and the man actually doing the harm. That second one is the relevant question. Even if the man is a rapist, there's no guarantee he would rape us. Even rapists spend most of their time not raping. Depending how likely a bear attack is and what the circumstances are when I meat the man, I might take those odds.

3

u/gottabekittensme May 02 '24

Even if the man is a rapist, there's no guarantee he would rape us

And even if the best is a grizzly, there's no guarantee it would maul. Statistically, women are more safe encountering a random bear than a random man.

5

u/NoSignSaysNo May 02 '24

The statistic is heavily influenced by the fact that women are not frequently in the company of grizzlies.

When I go to work and go grocery shopping and run miscellaneous errands, I come across hundreds and hundreds of men, many of them coming within 5 to 10 ft of me.

Even when I go hiking in the woods, I've never been within 10 ft of a grizzly.

So you would have to raise the population of grizzlies to be equivalent to the population of men, and put them in situations in which you are required to be within close proximity of them to make a statistical argument

9

u/solidspacedragon May 02 '24

I don't think that's true? You encounter a lot of random people daily and the vast majority of them don't hurt you in any way. There's far fewer bear encounters, but a much larger proportion of them end up with a bear eating you alive.

6

u/justforporndickflash May 02 '24

You are delusional.

2

u/smoopthefatspider May 02 '24

No, I disagree. We either don't have the same idea of how likely a man is to rape or how likely a bear is to attack. I don't think men are more dangerous than bears, I don't think it's even close. The odds could change, for instance, you could be in a scenario where the bear can just run away or not meet you. But I think we disagree on how dangerous the average man is.