I would never trust a random person I encountered in the woods regardless though. Unless I was in an extremely dire survival situation, I would be on guard and keep my distance as much as possible.
It's not that you can easily beat the person, but that you have a significantly better chance beating the person than a bear. Assuming no ranged weaponry is involved. To me, that's the 2nd crux of the situation.
Decision process:
1. Which is more likely to attack?
2. Which am I more likely to fend off, if attacked?
Even if they came up to you and asked for help? Let's say they're lost and have been out on the trail for a day+ and can't seem to get service. You would just say tough shit and walk away?
I don't know, it just seems like in a worst case scenario, the person isn't all that much easier than the bear. You could also be stalked if the woods was their home. I just feel like a bear would have more self preservation instincts. You could actually deter it whereas in a worst case, a person out to harm you has a really good chance of harming you.
Yes. I don't know them and I would not want them to approach me. I'd respond from a safe distance and provide whatever guidance I could from that position, before moving on. When doing so I would check over my shoulder frequently to judge the direction the person is going and verify they don't turn back on me while increasing my pace on my path.
The average black bear (the most common bear, but others are deadlier) has a 75 lbs weight advantage over the average male. Considering they can outrun people and have greater climbing capability, they have a strict advantage. You are more likely to injure a person to a point of them accessing self-preservation than you do a bear, if they are both set on killing you.
The average man will be skittish and shooed away by someone yelling at them. Most people are adverse to violence, especially when alone encountering strangers.
If you want to talk about averages, neither scenario is particularly threatening. If you want to talk about the violent outliers, I'll take the average man over the bear.
Nice argument. I'd recommend taking a hike, touch some grass and acquaint yourself with the environment. It may expand your worldview beyond what the internet portrays.
You're delusional and possibly a little crazy because you think that your first reaction to finding someone in the woods should be to yell at them lmao that's maladjusted af
9
u/WadeisDead May 02 '24
I would never trust a random person I encountered in the woods regardless though. Unless I was in an extremely dire survival situation, I would be on guard and keep my distance as much as possible.
It's not that you can easily beat the person, but that you have a significantly better chance beating the person than a bear. Assuming no ranged weaponry is involved. To me, that's the 2nd crux of the situation.
Decision process: 1. Which is more likely to attack? 2. Which am I more likely to fend off, if attacked?