• pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Are you saying that theres >42% chance a bear will be on your side in the wilderness then?

    That makes no sense. By all arguments taking “a man” is prolly the far better choice anyways, people are just stupid.

    There’s a 100% chance that “the bear” is a fucking bear

    Theres at least a decent chance “a random man” is an asset to survival and your odds of success go up instead of down…

    There’s no scenario where choosing “the bear” improves your odds of success >_>;

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Unless the bear is starving, rabid or you are between it and its cubs, there is a 99% chance that the bear will just leave you alone, and probably run away.

      I’m guessing that’s not as high a percentage when it comes to men considering statistics involving rape and murder.

      So yeah, I’d say that there are a lot of scenarios where choosing the bear improves your odds of success.

      It’s like people think there are hundreds of thousands of bear maulings ever year or something…

    • MBM@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You’re changing the hypothetical into something it’s not. “Odds of success” are a weird thing to think about when it’s just a walk in the woods.