What do you think of this short video about the man vs bear discourse?

[Anonymous]

[wiltingrosepetal]

When I was first asked this question about who I'd rather get stuck in the woods with, I answered "a man! Finding another person walking around lost? Sounds like a great way to meet a friend! We can trade maps!"

Because when I picture a man, I picture my father, my friends, or the stranger who after learning I was an L-plater, applauded my reverse parking from a distance.

When this woman pictures a man, she pictures her scumbag father, her friends who were only around to ask her out, or the stranger who harassed her while she was drunk.

It is depressing to see how many women HATE men, hate them with a burning passion. They'll ignore the statistics and ignore the logic, because in their minds, men are just ticking time-bombs ready to assault women at any time. What I think, is that that video represents everything wrong with this moronic gender war. Can't we just share a map and hang out?

[gorydetails]

Well said.

[Asker]

Do you really think a woman who has had so many negative experiences with men should not be wary of a strange man at all, and that if they are wary that means they hate all men with a burning passion? That doesn't sound like you're trying to end the gender war, it sounds like you're taking sides.

[KrakenAttackin]

Asker... maybe you have colossally shit taste in men? Ever think of that?

What makes you think you are any better at choosing a bear? Grizzle grizzle.

[Asker]

@KrakenAttackin i was talking about the hypothetical woman she was talking about, not myself. I have encountered a bear isolated alone in the woods before, and a man, on different occasions. I'll let you guess which one screamed and ran away when it saw me and which one followed me for half a mile until I pretended to get cell reception and make a phone call. I don't hold this against all men, I hold statistics as a reason to be more wary of a strange man than the average bear in the woods.

[gorydetails]

You don't hold statistics, you hold emotions.

[Asker]

@gorydetails look up the statistics. You're right, I don't hold them. They're just there for everyone to see.

[KrakenAttackin]

Asker... how many men do you see, walk past, otherwise observe daily? How many bears do you see, walk past, or observe daily?

Delulu is not the solulu.

[Asker]

@KrakenAttackin how many men do you encounter alone isolated in the woods? That's what this question is about.

[KrakenAttackin]

Asker... do you think men are wandering the woods, hunting women who are alone?

[Asker]

@KrakenAttackin no. Do you think bears are?

[wiltingrosepetal]

So you genuinely believe if you were to encounter a man in the woods, his first instinct would be to hurt you? And not just hurt but sexually assault you? I hate to break it to you but men aren't that intensely touch-starved

[Asker]

Of course not, where did you get that impression? Men don't even operate primarily on instinct, because unlike bearts, they aren't animals. Even if a man's first instinct was something so horrible, he could just not do that, as any decent human being would. ALL men are capable of being good people.

[wiltingrosepetal]

And yet you don't believe a man would be a good person in this situation?

[Asker]

I believe a bear is more predictable and less of a risk than a man. Bears DO operate based on instinct, and there is no instinct in a bear to attack me as long as I don't antagonize it. Most men would not pose any threat to me in the woods alone, but no bear would pose a threat to me if I pay attention and use caution, and those few men who would pose a threat look exactly like all the good men. I'd rather not risk it, even though it's a low risk, it's still a higher risk than the bear.

[PeachyPie93]

Too boring to be funny and too crap of a subject to care about the video.

[JCIrons]

It's a cute sketch, but I don't hold to bigotry of any kind. That includes feminist bigotry against men, which is exactly the same as bigotry against women, black people, gay and lesbian people, transgender people, people from other countries, and so forth. It's all the same. The same kind of generalizations, exaggerations, and myths used to justify feminist bigotry are exactly the same kinds used to justify other forms of bigotry. I want nothing to do with any of it.

[Asker]

That's fair, and I agree. This is a comedy sketch though, only about specific viewpoints. The characters aren't meant to represent all women, or all men, or all bears. It's just making fun of an exaggerated discourse of the men who make fun of the women who choose bear. There's lots of women who choose men, and lots of men who don't make fun of women for their choices. The sketch is just not about those people.

[KrakenAttackin]

Let these women have Bears. I'm sure a Bear will come and fix their car, house, build the world's infrastructure, protect their country and community, generate electricity, run the logistics of food and goods transportation, and otherwise keep the world working.

Enjoy ya bears ladies, drizzle drizzle.

[Asker]

You know this question is about personal safety in a vulnerable situation with strangers, right? It's not about relationships. I would love to live in a place where women are in charge of things like infrastructure and logistics and all that, and do the heavy lifting, because then men like you wouldn't be able to use that as an excuse to belittle us and say we should be grateful to be in the presence of men and if a man is ever dangerous wr should just rely on other men to protect us because we're so helpless without you. Honestly fuck off. I bet a bear could have a more reasonable discussion than you are right now.

[KrakenAttackin]

Asker... your world where women run infrastructure is a world that lives in straw hits and cooks over cow dung.

[Asker]

Lol. No it's not.

[OlderAndWiser]

I don't watch videos on this site and I think the man/bear debate is beyond stupid.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, this whole man vs bear thing has gotten so ridiculous. All these women saying they would prefer the bear are lying to themselves.

[Asker]

This is a comedy sketch, it's supposed to be ridiculous. How are women choosing bear lying to themselves though?

[Opinion Owner]

Understood but the man v bear thing has been all over the internet. They are lying to themselves because the odds of being harmed or killed by a bear are much higher than by an average guy. It's easy to say you prefer the bear in a hypothetical discussion, but if a woman encounters a bear in real life she would likely soil her undies.

[Asker]

The odds actually aren't "much higher." Have you seen the odds? I hope you're just mistakenly assuming and not intentionally lying to me about it and hoping I didn't look them up on my own... Also just because a bear is scary and stronger doesn't mean it's more dangerous, statistically.

[Opinion Owner]

Please share those statistics about outcomes for women encountering a bear in the woods versus encountering a man. Go on, I'll wait...

[Asker]

"The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while men ages 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear. Most attacks by black bears are defensive reactions to a person who is too close, which is an easy situation to avoid."
www.google.com/.../%23:~:text%3DThe%2520750%252C000%2520black%2520bears%2520of,an%2520easy%2520situation%2520to%2520avoid.&ved=2ahUKEwic5_WV9JSGAxXlHkQIHVMzBMIQFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1ghwoU-coJJW04bz2jQW6f
(Those are the more aggressive bears that you can't play dead with, you have to run or fight back, just for the record).

[Asker]

Hope I didn't make you wait too long!

[Opinion Owner]

I can see you're a little naive about statistics. Allow me to explain some simple facts.

Men may be 167 times more likely to kill someone, but they are also 1,477,321 times more likely to encounter another human. Okay, not a real statistic, but you get the point. Men encounter countless people every day, whereas most bears literally never encounter a human up close during their entire lifetime. So saying men are 167 time more likely to kill someone is a worthless statistic. Worse than worthless, in fact, because it's intentionally misleading.

The reality is that a woman who encounters the average bear up close in the woods is far, far, far more likely to be mauled or killed by the bear than if she encountered the average man up close in the woods.

Please stop the gender baiting. It's childish and harmful. What we need right now is the opposite. Stop being part of the problem and grow the fuck up.

[Asker]

Sorry, I provided a statistic you specifically asked for, and your response is a made up statistic and saying "you encounter more men than bears so it cancels it out"? Apparently you are the one who's naive about statistics. Men in that range are over a hundred times more likely than bears to kill you, not all as a group, but on average. That means that yes, the average man is more likely to kill me than the average bear. The stats don't go down because I interact with men more. If anything they would go up. "I've encountered hundreds of men already, and none of them have killed me. Why wouldn't the one alone in the woods be the one to finally do it?" But no, that's not how statistics work either. Bears are just so extremely unlikely to kill me that even though men are over a hundred times more likely to, neither a man or a bear is likely to kill me.

I'm not gender baiting. That's statistics. Men are dangerous. It doesn't mean they should be hated or anything, but men who can't even admit that maybe, possibly, women who are wary of them actually have a good reason to be cautious and it has nothing to do with them as an individual but just with men in general—especially in certain societies how certain people can do horrible things and barely get punished or even shamed for it. Those kind of men are the ones trying to make it a gender war instead of trying to fix the actual problems that make some women so scared of men in the first place. It like expecting closing a door to keep the house warm when there are no walls. The door being open is not the problem, they're just not willing to build any walls together. It's easier to say every single issue is a gender war though then you can just blame women again and not change anything.

[Opinion Owner]

I didn't read all that, but I did read far enough to confirm you are dumb as a rock and have no clue about statistics. But even young children can understand simple concepts, so let me put it to you in terms a 5 year old could grasp. I'll use a couple of examples to try to get this through your skull.

Example 1: If person A drives 10,000 miles in a year and person B drives 10 miles, which person is more likely to get in a car crash? The obvious answer is person A.

Example 2: If a woman went on 100 different hikes and encountered a different man and a different bear on each hike, would she be more likely to be harmed or killed by one of the men or one of the bears? The obvious answer, assuming you have an IQ over 50 and a shred of honesty, is a bear.

Does that help, or are you still struggling with this simple concept?

And no, the statistic you provided was not what I asked for. If you had a clue about statistics, you would have known that.

[Asker]

Okay so you actually don't know how statistics, averages, or odds work. Okay... I guess just don't pick up gambling, for the sake of your financial security. Lol...

[Opinion Owner]

Seriously? Wow, even with those grade school level examples you still don't grasp this simple concept? Yikes, girl! You literally ARE dumb as a rock.

Unlike you, I actually do understand stats quite well. I'll have my MBA next fall, and I've aced all my statistics classes. I scored higher than anyone else in the last stats class. This is literally the most basic statistical concept, and you don't get it. How pathetic that at age 25 - 29 you can't grasp what most children can. SMH

[Asker]

Whatever you say, kid.

[gorydetails]

It’s retarded. Just like every woman who picks ‘bear’.

[Asker]

It is a comedy sketch, it's meant to be a funny exaggeration to make a point, not an exact representation of every case or veiwpoint of the subject.

[gorydetails]

Every woman who picks bear is an idiot. So yes, that represents every viewpoint where bear is chosen.

[Asker]

Why are they idiots?

[gorydetails]

Because you are an idiot if you think a bear is less dangerous than a person.

[Asker]

A bear is less likely to attack you for no reason.

[gorydetails]

How many men do you encounter on a daily basis?

[Asker]

How many men do you encounter alone isolated in the woods? Don't change the subject.

[gorydetails]

Ok, fine. You encounter 100 men and 100 bears in the woods. which group is likely to attack you?

[Asker]

For no reason? The men. Bears don't attack you for no reason.

[Asker]

Before you get angry, I agree most men also don't attack you for no reason. But a few do. So I can't rule out the possibility totally.

[gorydetails]

You don't know anything about bears, apparently. What this whole nonsense shows is that women love to play victim and run their lives on emotion, rather than facts.

Oh, and that since you'd choose bear you really are showing your preference for what people would call "alpha" personalities.

[Asker]

You don't know anything about bears, apparently. Have you ever encountered one in the wild? If "alpha" means they leave you alone then yes, I definitely prefer alpha strangers in the woods.

[gorydetails]

lmao. Would a man kill and eat your offspring?

[Asker]

I certainly hope not, but I don't have any "offspring" with me in the woods anyways or I wouldn't be "alone." I think you're getting off topic again...

[gorydetails]

Lol, no. The topic is you thing bears are Winnie the Pooh without the shirt.

[Asker]

Winnie the pooh would not leave you alone if you encountered him, he'd say hello and probably get involved or get you involved with whatever he's doing. He's also not a stranger. He doesn't fit either category. You're definitely off topic.

[gorydetails]

And you’re definitely an idiot.

[Asker]

I said a bear is less likely than a man to attack you for no reason. Statistics show it, and I've encountered both personally. You've just been saying questions and phrases that have the same words but aren't actually related to the topic. I don't think that makes me an idiot.

[gorydetails]

Statistics absolutely don’t show it.

[Asker]

You lying doesn't change the facts. Look it up if you don't belive me.

[gorydetails]

You have no facts.

[Asker]

You're the one who hasn't looked it up.

[gorydetails]

Yeah, because I know you are full of shit.

[Asker]

But what if I'm not? It takes all of 10 seconds to look it up. Go on and you'll see I'm right.

[gorydetails]

Ok, type the name of the study here. Should be easy for you since you know the statistics.

[Asker]

You want me to tell you a study that says men are more likely to attack people than bears are? I can type a name to one here for you, absolutely, so you don't even have to waste those 10 seconds. If I do, just promise you will actually read it, and that if it does support what I said you will either change your mind and believe women are not retarded for choosing bear, or you will provide a counter-study that supports what you have said?

[gorydetails]

Yes, I’m waiting.

[Asker]

"HOW DANGEROUS ARE BLACK BEARS?"
By Lynn Rogers, PhD

[gorydetails]

That doesn’t prove that men are more dangerous than bears. It explains how one species of bear behaves.

You tried.

[Asker]

There are no studies on ALL bears compared to ALL men. Neither of us have those stats. This shows that black bears (one of the more aggressive bear species) is extremely less likely to attack people than young adult men (one of the more aggressive ages of men). Also those are literally the only bears that live in my state. So for me, this is the only bear that applies. Why are these statistics not a good reason for me to choose a bear over a man in the woods alone?

[gorydetails]

But you just said there was. you’ve claimed time and time again that men are more dangerous than bears. You’ve been saying it the whole time.

I’ll try to explain why your opinion is stupid…. but you’ll check out as soon as logic starts.

How many men do you encounter in a week? That includes men you pass by on the road or in the street/hallway/store, etc?

[Asker]

I never said there were stats on every single bear species. I've given you an example of an aggressive bear species that is statistically way less likely to attack you than a man is. That's a good reason for me to choose a bear over a man alone in the woods. Do you have any stats that say ANY large demographic of men is less likely to attack you than a bear is? If so, I will have to reconsider my position, as I will have good reason to believe both the man and the bear are equally likely to attack me for no reason.

[Asker]

I promise if you tell me a study that says bears are more likely to attack you for no reason than a man is (it doesn't have to be "all bears" it could be any species), then I will take that as a logical reason to change my opinion.

[gorydetails]

Answer my question,…it’s an easy one. How many men do you pass by on a weekly basis.

[Asker]

Probably less than 167. I think you're overlooking the entire scenario here: alone in the woods. You know people and animals behave very differently in busy public areas than in isolated locations, right? It feels like you're intentionally being obtuse. So now that I've answered your question go ahead and answer mine. It's also an easy one if the stats really agree with you. I only need 1 study to change my mind.

[gorydetails]

How many times in that week are you attacked by these men?

[Asker]

I've only been alone in a forest for 1 week, so I'll assume you're talking about that one and not an average week, like this past week. Fortunately zero, or I probably wouldn't be here talking to you. Now that's 2 questions of yours I've answered. Can you answer the 1 I asked you now? To provide a counter-study?

[gorydetails]

So you think encountering 167 bears would also result in zero attacks?

[Asker]

Oh, that week I only encountered 3 men, and 2 of them were couples (with a woman partner). I only encountered 1 man alone that week, and I know for a fact I would not have been attacked by encountering 1 bear that week either.

But back to your strange ignoring the entire structure of the question: yes, I believe even if I encountered 167 bears they would not attack me. Why would they? I know how to act around bears, and I know how bears act around people. As the article i provided that you clearly didn't read explains, bear attacks are easy to avoid.

[gorydetails]

So basically you isolate yourself from people and have developed an illogical paranoia based on extensive social media use.

[Asker]

No lol. Di you read anything? That week I was alone in the woods. That's the only week I've been alone in the woods. Most weeks I pass around 167 men. That week I only passed 3. Now can you finally provide a study of your own to even attempt to counter the one I provided?

[gorydetails]

There will never be a study, because as I'm trying to get across to you, that you seem completely incapable of understanding - if you encountered the average number of bears equal to the number of men you encounter vs the number of each that would attack you the bears would win by a landslide.

Just like you're more likely to be killed by a mosquito borne illness than you are being hit by a meteor.

Again, you don't understand statistics and risk, you only understand tiktok and instagram.

[Asker]

There will never be a study like the one I already told you? Obviously that's a lie. There just won't be any studies that support what you believe. There is already one that shows bears are less likely to attack you. Just because it isn't a world-wide all-encompassing breakdown (which would be like 100 pages long and take decades), you totally dismiss it, even though it's clearly an example of a source that gives me good reason to believe bears are less likely to attack me than men. The only "source" you have for your beliefs is that bears are bigger and scarier looking and more physically dangerous than men. That doesn't mean they're more likely to attack you for no reason. But you refuse to even try to understand—you clearly didn't even read the article I told you.

[Asker]

How many bears have you encountered that weren't in a zoo? Hmm?

[gorydetails]

Jesus Christ you link never showed bears as a whole aren't dangerous. It was an article stating that black bears aren't consider dangerous.

Again, if you met as many bears as you do men, you'd be more likely to be attacked by a bear than a man. Period. This isn't a debate. And this is why you dopes who think otherwise are idiots.

[Asker]

Black bears ARE dangerous. Again proving you didn't read it. They're just less likely to attack you. Smh
Again. Provide a link that says bears are more likely to attack you than men. Not all bears, any 1 species of bears—just like mine. Go on. Do it. Find one. You can't because they don't exist and you don't have any reliable source for why you believe bears are more likely to attack you.

How many bears have you encountered not in the zoo? Have you even encountered 1? Ever? You certainly speak as if you have evidence to support your beliefs, so since you clearly don't have any second-hand evidence you must have some first-hand experience to support your beliefs, hmm?

[gorydetails]

Less likely to attack you than what?

[Asker]

Than men. Obviously.

[gorydetails]

lol, you fucking idiot. They were right to not give women the right to vote. We need to repeal the 19th amendment.

[Asker]

So you don't have any sources to support your beliefs, and you don't have any experience to support them either. While I have both. And yet I'm the idiot? Lol okay coward

[gorydetails]

no you don't. There's not a single word in your article that says men are more dangerous than black bears.

I'd tell you to make me a sandwich but you're so dumb you'd fuck that up too.

[Asker]

"men ages 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear."
Again proving you didn't read it.

[gorydetails]

yeah because it's a stupid study. It's not factoring in the difference in interactions. It's as stupid as saying cops kill more black people than white people.

[Asker]

Okay, then let's ignore that study and since you still cannot provide your own, let's ignore all studies. Let's only focus on first-hand experience. How many bears have you encountered outside the zoo?

[gorydetails]

I tried that with you already. You say you encounter 167 men a week. so 8700 men. Your profile says you're 25-29. Average age would be 27. So that 234,000 men you've encountered in your life. How many have attacked you?

[Asker]

3. And you know how many of the bears I've encountered have attacked me? 0. You can say if I encounter thousands more bears then more of them than 3 will attack me, but that's literally just your own assumption. It's not based on ANY facts. Based on the actual facts of my real life, men are more likely to attack me than bears are.

[Asker]

How about your life? How many bears have you been attacked by, and how many men?

[gorydetails]

When you encounter 234,000 bears and count how many attack you, then you can make a fair assessment over which is more dangerous. Although you won’t likely make it past one bear attacking you.

[Asker]

"Most attacks by black bears are defensive reactions to a person who is too close, which is an easy situation to avoid. Injuries from these defensive reactions are usually minor." You must REALLY hate reading, huh?

Anyways that's not how it works. 3 out of 234,000 is 0.001% likely to attack. 0 out of 2 is 0.000% likely to attack. Based on all actual evidence I have, men are more likely to attack me. What about you? Have you been attacked by a bear? Have you even encountered one in the wild? If so, then your real life experience would have a much different percentage conclusion than mine.

[Asker]

I'm not the one being unreasonable here. I'm not the one claiming my opinion is fact with zero evidence to back it up.

[gorydetails]

I gave you the evidence.

[Asker]

No you literally didn't. You believing something isn't evidence, no matter how much you insist that your belief is fact. I'm not saying you can't believe something wrong, but it sure would be nice if you had ANY evidence for it since you've been attacking my belief and calling me stupid for it, even though my belief is based on multiple forms of evidence which I've provided for you as well.

[gorydetails]

I literally did. It's called math.

[Asker]

Math by itself can't prove whether bears or men are more likely to attack. You need multiple data groups to pull from. And that's called—holy fucking shit—a study! Which you dont have. And when we did that mini-study with the data from my life, do you remember what the math said? Men are still more likely to attack than bears are. By 0.001%. You ding dong. You have no evidence not even math supports your beliefs.

[gorydetails]

Yes, I can. I showed you exactly the odds of you getting attacked by over 300,000 men. And can guarantee that encountering 300,000 bears would lead to your death.

[Asker]

Yeah the odds of the men is 0.001%. And the odds of the bear are 0.00%. Based on the actual data we have (mine, because you didn't provide any), bears would not ever attack me even if I encountered a billion of them. I know that's not a reliable conclusion because my data samples for bears is very small, but you literally have provided NO data samples that you can use to mathematically "guarantee" ANYTHING about bears. You literally are just saying that encountering 300,000 bears will lead to my death. Based on nothing—no study, no experience, and no math. You are just saying it. That would be a very stupid reason for me to believe it.

[gorydetails]

absolutely not 0%

Ok, let me make this really simple for you since you struggle with statistical concepts.

Who is more likely to be bit by a shark?
a) A woman who lives in Idaho who has never even seen the ocean
b) A woman who lives in Florida and is in the ocean 200 days out of the year

[Asker]

No, let me make this real simple since you struggle with statistical concepts: you can't just make up a statistic out of nothing. You need a sample group. How do you think you can "guarantee" a bear would attack me if I encountered 300,00 bears? What math did you do, based on what sample, to reach that conclusion?

[gorydetails]

Because your own stats show that the odds of getting attacked by a bear you encounter are greater than.0003%

So, now do you have an answer to my super simple question? Who is more likely to get attacked by a shark?

[Asker]

How? What math are you doing on being attacked by 0 out of 2 bears that gets you to >0.0003% (or what I assume you meant, 0.003%)?

[gorydetails]

When you equal the # of bears to the number of men you encounter. 1 out of 300,000 will attack you.

[Asker]

What math did you do to get that conclusion?

[gorydetails]

I explained it to you. Bear attacks happen, correct?

[Asker]

Oh, are we not talking about personal experience anymore? Thats too bad I thought that's where you did the math. If we're talking about in general then you'll need to cite your sources, like I did. I'll wait...

[gorydetails]

You posted your article that claims that black bears do attack people. So greater than 0%.

So who is more likely to get bit by a shark? Are you afraid to answer?

[Asker]

The article that says bears are very less likely to attack you than a man is, based on how many bears per-enfounter attack, vs how many men per-enfounter attack? That article? You can't pick some data samples and just ignore the ones you don't like. That's willful ignorance.

I know how this is gonna go. I'll say "of course the person who is around sharks more is more likely to be attacked by a shark" and you'll say "aha! That means sharks are more likely to attack you per-enfounter than men are, because being more likely to attack when you have the opportunity to attack means that they will attack X number of times I made up in my head, and men attack less amount of times than that because I said so! You stupid person!" And honestly I'm not in the mood to relive the exact same "argument" you already tried to make with bears...

[gorydetails]

you almost got it in the first paragraph. I’m proud of you.

And no, that’s not where I’m going in the 2nd paragraph. Because I’m comparing likelihood of a shark bite, not comparing sharks to people.

We’ll try again to get you to understand….. It’s the number of encounters that’s important.

[Asker]

You've never once been able to answer any one of my questions. You've not been able to provide any shred of evidence against my beliefs. And I have continuously provided you evidence both academic and personal to support my beliefs. And yes still you close your eyes and stick your nose up, declaring you know best and I'm I'm idiot, because you are so good at maintaining your ignorance in the face of facts. You need help understanding that your feelings do not get to decide what the facts are.

[gorydetails]

I have. And no you haven't. I'm not the one who "feels" men are more dangerous than bears, lol.

[Asker]

Where? Copy/paste it from your previous replies, the evidence you gave. I explicitly asked for it many times and you have never given any. The only thing you even claimed to have was "math" but even that, when I asked you to show me how you used math to get to the conclusion you got, you refused to show your work. So do it now. Show me your evidence.

[gorydetails]

I explained it to you simply. The odds of a bear attacking you are greater than 0. You claimed to be in contact with approximately 300k men in your lifetime and claim to have been attacked 3 times. Coming into contact with 300k bears in your lifetime would have guaranteed you would have been attacked at least once. With the odds you wouldn't get a chance to be attacked twice.

[Asker]

"The odds of a bear attacking you are greater than 0. " —source?
"Coming into contact with 300k bears in your lifetime would have guaranteed you would have been attacked at least once." —source?
"With the odds you wouldn't get a chance to be attacked twice." —source?

You saying something doesn't make it true. That's what you don't understand.

[gorydetails]

Does your own source discuss bear attacks from black bears? Yes or no?

[Asker]

You tell me your sources. I think that's only fair.

[gorydetails]

Your article is my source.

[Asker]

Okay, then just say that. And what information are you taking from the article that says bears are significantly less likely to kill you than men?

[gorydetails]

You are exhausting with your ignorance. What is the likelihood of being attacked by a bear?

[Asker]

Cite your sources. You still haven't. Stop asking me for everything—I already backed up my beliefs with evidence. It's your turn. You use a source that says men are more likely to kill you than bears? Fine. What peice of imformation are you getting from that source that supports your beliefs?

[gorydetails]

The % chance a bear will attack.

[Asker]

Okay, and what percent does it say?

[gorydetails]

You claimed it was 0%

[Asker]

Again: what percent does YOUR SOURCE say?

[gorydetails]

I used YOUR Source.

[Asker]

No. Just because I used it doesn't mean I own it—it's open for anyone to cite. If you want to use it to get a percentage for how likely a bear is to attack a person then YOU do that. Go ahead—and take your time, I know you have trouble reading. Don't rush through and just cite the first percent you see or you'll have to go back and look all over again to make sure it's the right percent that you're actually looking for.

[gorydetails]

Right. So as I said the % is greater than 0. So encountering 300,000 bears guarantees you will be attacked at least once.

[Asker]

HOW MUCH greater than zero? Because it has to be above a certain threshold to get the conclusion that 1/300,000 bears will attack you. Even then though, it wouldn't be a "guarantee" for the same reason it's not a guarantee that if you flip a coin 300,000 times you will get exactly half heads and half tails. It's statistics. It's never a guarantee unless it's 0% or 100%.

[gorydetails]

I already did the math for you. It is statistics. And if you make the encounters equal. You’re more likely to be attacked by a bear. It’s really simple. I hate you’re having such a hard time with math.

[Asker]

If you already did the math then it should be easy to give me a straight answer: what is the % chance that a bear will attack you?

[gorydetails]

It’s greater than zero. And in the course of 300,000 lifetime encounters you would be attacked by a bear.