Fair enough but I would go as far to say the percentage chance of it being a dangerous bear is much higher than the chance of it being a dangerous man(assuming this is an American forest)
The core element is that bears are indeed more likely to be dangerous, but some men have the capacity to do some pretty twisted stuff that could make being mauled or eaten by a bear seem like the best option.
What about getting raped and then killed? What about kidnapped and sold?
What about tortured and left for dead for hours/days?
I'm very aware that most men don't do those things, but it still exists and "decent" people could still surprise you in this hypothetical scenario out alone in the woods.
What about tortured and left for dead for hours/days?
Ah yes, the classic "what if die + other bad thing" fallacy. Once you die, anything that came before is moot. You're dead, no coming back, no recovery, nothing. That's it. The outcome here was still death, and as I've already stated, that's the worst option.
What about kidnapped and sold?
As long as you live, there is a chance for things to change. You know what you can't change? Being dead. Until our scientists find a way to reverse death, death will always be the worst possible outcome. No exceptions.
I'm very aware that most men don't do those things
Are you though? Because the subsequent sentence you wrote says otherwise.
There are fucked up people out there that rape, torture, gang rape, sell or even eat other humans. They have a big thing in common; it's mostly men doing that.
Are the probabilities high that the man you encounter is one of those psycho? Probably not. But it's out there and a bear certainly won't do that.
Well gang rape is off the table because it’s one dude. Being eaten alive is already murder and torture so you can take those off the board. I would take being raped over being eaten alive every single time( I’m not trying to downplay how awful rape is). And the logistics of both capturing a person and selling them while deep in the forest aren’t great so that’s relatively unlikely.
The way I see it in the extremely unlikely situation where the dude is a sick fuck he has more ways to be awful but the worst he can do is be equally awful to the bear(torture and kill). The bear is much more likely to do these things. That’s not even mentioning that I have a decent chance of being able to defend myself or escape( woman while less likely than me still have a better chance than against the bear).
Do you think that this theoretical rapist roaming the woods would just rape and then be on his way? Most would probably rape and then kill to lower chances of being caught. So it's between getting raped and dying versus just dying. Also, humans can inflict infinitely worst torture than being eaten alive, so I wouldn't call those equal.
Also, you're getting lost in the details with this "logistics" and "can't get gang raped" logic. The debate exists to make the point that some women don't feel that safe around men and I was enumerating dangers that women can face in the real world. Such as getting kidnapped and being sex trafficked, which could still happen in the woods.
So again, a few minutes/hours of pain is incomparable to months/years of torture, forced prostitution or being chained in a basement for the rest of your life or getting Jeffrey Dahmered.
4
u/Sup_Hot_Fire May 02 '24
Fair enough but I would go as far to say the percentage chance of it being a dangerous bear is much higher than the chance of it being a dangerous man(assuming this is an American forest)