Comment on The men vs. bear saga reaches the inevitable conclusion
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 2 weeks agoWell, if we’re going to be pedantic, then this is not a valid comparison to make because it ignores the number of total encounters with bears and men, and the time spent with each.
LesserAbe@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If we want to get really pedantic we have to look at stats specifically for cases where a woman was in the woods, with no other entity besides a man or a bear. With it conveniently being impossible to compile that information, I’d bet the ratio of assaults per encounter would be higher with the men than the bears.
Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Absolutely depends on proximity, and probably how close we are to (bear) mating season. And type of bear, for that matter. If we’re including all men with no restrictions, it’s only fair to include all bears too, right?
LesserAbe@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Lol, did anyone say we were limiting to a certain type of bear? Is there some specific species you think will really turn the tide statistically?
Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Polar bears will in fact just kill you and eat you. Grizzlies, very likely to be territorial. Black bears are the most “cowardly”, but all three will fuck you up to protect their young, hence why the season matters.
I haven’t exactly done the math on relative bear populations to tell you if your odds are better with a random bear or a random man, but it doesn’t matter, you wouldn’t consider any of my statements valid even if I wrote a whole ass thesis.