I don't TT, but I'd be interested in the monitor lizard given they are a common local sighting (one even managed to get into an interior room somehow. Up through the toilet? Gah)
I think the issue is that they're protected, not that they're bad eating (I've had gator, croc, snake, so it's probably similar) or they're automatically dangerous men. The lizards aren't really a threat to humans (mostly eat crabs and fish), so I don't know why it took 4 of them. I've often been within a foot of one.
The protection status is why there is a dedicated office here for animal removal, and they were at my house in minutes.
Anyway, back to manbearpig. Sorry for the detour
Ummm the killing wasn’t the most alarming thing about what these 4 men did. It was what happened before that.
When I first heard this, I pictured myself on a. Hiking trail in the woods, and when I’m there I regularly pass people - men and women - and generally feel fine. There aren’t bears around here so one would freak me out.
But then I saw it posed the way it probably plays out in plenty of the country where men regularly walk around with guns and hunt and all the rest and I quickly switched to bear.
Open carry states freak me out much more than bears.
This was probably already said, but just in case ...
The point is, you don't know if he's a good guy or not. So you're alone, you have to approach every interaction with a strange man as if he could be one of the bad ones.
I guess I’m wondering what people think of as strange for their definition. I live in a city and I encounter strange people multiple times a day. Most recently a very strange one I’ve never seen before was this man dressed up as the devil and saying he was the devil, but not like in a mean/I’m going to harm you way. He was very strange but I didn’t feel any harm.
I think there’s a big difference between strange and a creep that’s making unprovoked sexual advances. Anyway, that’s how I interpreted it and my natural instinct is I def would freak out internally if I was in the middle of the woods with a bear since it’s not something I encounter on a daily basis.
having lived in cities for much of my life, and spent time near psych facilities (on the streets near them, in the parking lots) I’ve encountered my share of people with truly unexpected behavior. They spook me much less than the calmest person carrying a gun or a man acting in a menacing way.
I guess I’m wondering what people think of as strange for their definition. I live in a city and I encounter strange people multiple times a day. Most recently a very strange one I’ve never seen before was this man dressed up as the devil and saying he was the devil, but not like in a mean/I’m going to harm you way. He was very strange but I didn’t feel any harm.
I think there’s a big difference between strange and a creep that’s making unprovoked sexual advances. Anyway, that’s how I interpreted it and my natural instinct is I def would freak out internally if I was in the middle of the woods with a bear since it’s not something I encounter on a daily basis.
having lived in cities for much of my life, and spent time near psych facilities (on the streets near them, in the parking lots) I’ve encountered my share of people with truly unexpected behavior. They spook me much less than the calmest person carrying a gun or a man acting in a menacing way.
Yes exactly. In the strange man scenario for purposes of this question I was not picturing someone with a gun or someone menacing, just someone strange. Strange does not equal gun for me or else I think the question would’ve asked specifically about a man with a gun vs bear.
I think the issue is that they're protected, not that they're bad eating (I've had gator, croc, snake, so it's probably similar) or they're automatically dangerous men. The lizards aren't really a threat to humans (mostly eat crabs and fish), so I don't know why it took 4 of them. I've often been within a foot of one.
The protection status is why there is a dedicated office here for animal removal, and they were at my house in minutes.
Anyway, back to manbearpig. Sorry for the detour
Ummm the killing wasn’t the most alarming thing about what these 4 men did. It was what happened before that.
I only got a few seconds clip that mentioned the killing then started over again. Maybe because I don't have an account?
I think the issue is that they're protected, not that they're bad eating (I've had gator, croc, snake, so it's probably similar) or they're automatically dangerous men. The lizards aren't really a threat to humans (mostly eat crabs and fish), so I don't know why it took 4 of them. I've often been within a foot of one.
The protection status is why there is a dedicated office here for animal removal, and they were at my house in minutes.
Anyway, back to manbearpig. Sorry for the detour
This is your response to that video? That it’s OK to monitor lizards and that the lizards aren’t that dangerous? Why are you so weird sometimes? Lol
Ummm the killing wasn’t the most alarming thing about what these 4 men did. It was what happened before that.
I only got a few seconds clip that mentioned the killing then started over again. Maybe because I don't have an account?
Yea I’m going to call bullshit on this.
I also don’t have an account and the video played in entirety for me (it’s not a long video). Also you would never know that it was 4 men (as you referenced earlier) without knowing the truly heinous part as that is information is given after the mention the number of people but before they mention the killing.
I only got a few seconds clip that mentioned the killing then started over again. Maybe because I don't have an account?
Yea I’m going to call bullshit on this.
I also don’t have an account and the video played in entirety for me (it’s not a long video). Also you would never know that it was 4 men (as you referenced earlier) without knowing the truly heinous part as that is information is given after the mention the number of people but before they mention the killing.
believe what you want. I saw where it showed the headline which mentioned the 4. I will try again when I get home. I have shit internet, use a VPN because of censorship, and I don't think I've ever given indication I support men being heinous. It really was a quick few seconds on loop. I don't doubt any of what you all are saying.
I guess I’m wondering what people think of as strange for their definition. I live in a city and I encounter strange people multiple times a day. Most recently a very strange one I’ve never seen before was this man dressed up as the devil and saying he was the devil, but not like in a mean/I’m going to harm you way. He was very strange but I didn’t feel any harm.
I think there’s a big difference between strange and a creep that’s making unprovoked sexual advances. Anyway, that’s how I interpreted it and my natural instinct is I def would freak out internally if I was in the middle of the woods with a bear since it’s not something I encounter on a daily basis.
having lived in cities for much of my life, and spent time near psych facilities (on the streets near them, in the parking lots) I’ve encountered my share of people with truly unexpected behavior. They spook me much less than the calmest person carrying a gun or a man acting in a menacing way.
I'd a million times rather encounter a man on the streets of Philadelphia than in the woods in the country.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
erbear I totally agree! I am not frightened of people in a setting like the city. At all. The scariest, make me sick in the pit of my stomach, God get me out of this encounter is the “lone wolf” man in an isolated setting.
having lived in cities for much of my life, and spent time near psych facilities (on the streets near them, in the parking lots) I’ve encountered my share of people with truly unexpected behavior. They spook me much less than the calmest person carrying a gun or a man acting in a menacing way.
I'd a million times rather encounter a man on the streets of Philadelphia than in the woods in the country.
Yup, I work in a (small) city when in the office. Way way different than coming across a guy solo in the woods.
I'd a million times rather encounter a man on the streets of Philadelphia than in the woods in the country.
Yes! 100%! I see many strange men and men behaving strangely in my day to day life but there are people around and resources in the city. What am I doing in the woods? Fighting him off with a pinecone?
100% agree that I feel way safer on city streets than the woods or even suburban streets where there's no one else around. It always baffles me when people talk about how "unsafe" cities are because I truly am way more on alert when walking alone on suburban streets.
I think the main point of this is that it's a discussion, and not a clear answer - not that there's a right or wrong answer in women picking man or bear. Like someone said, if you ask men if they'd rather encounter a woman or a bear, there's really no discussion to be had.
I get that there are far more attacks by men than bears, but there's also far more encounters between men and women than between bears and women. This situation assumes the encounter has already happened, so I'm not sure the overall statistics are terribly relevant. And I also think it matters that the vast majority of violence against women is perpetrated by people known to you, not a "strange" man (I interpreted "strange" as unknown to you, not specifically doing something strange, but I actually am not sure that matters much). So statistically, your male partner is much more of a risk to you than either the strange man or the bear. So I'd pick man, because I think the overall percentage of men unknown to me likely to harm me is lower than the percentage of bears likely to harm me. But I understand why others would pick bear.
Post by jillybean222 on Apr 30, 2024 9:25:32 GMT -5
I am taking my chances with the bear.
I spend a decent amount of time in the woods with my dog and I am never looking out for wildlife. I am always on the lookout for strange men. Once I smelled cigarette smoke but couldn't see a person but I knew someone was out there. I couldn't get out of the woods fast enough.
Post by CrazyLucky on Apr 30, 2024 13:41:38 GMT -5
So in my job, we have to try to quantify risk. It's consequence times likelihood. So for the bear, we could probably assume a consequence of 4, which is the highest, because there's a good chance it'll kill you. But it's likelihood is probably a 2, which is equivalent to once in 100 years. Bears don't really want to attack humans, they don't want to eat us, they just want us to leave them and their babies alone. So the risk score for a bear is 4*2=8.
For a man, we don't know the consequence. Maybe it's nothing, maybe he says something rude. Maybe he takes us to his house, tortures us and turns us into his skinsuit. But in these analyses, you're supposed to consider the worst possible outcome, which we should be able to agree is a 4. Then there's the likelihood that it's a bad man. Most men are good people, but I would still give them a 3, which means one bad man every ten years. So the risk score for a man in 4*3=12. Men are riskier.
I know I'm not the only nerd here, but this may be a little much anyway. LOL
Post by jeaniebueller on May 1, 2024 7:59:03 GMT -5
I have to wonder, I was thinking a lot about this poll last night--do most women realize that the vast majority of violence against women (i think its something like 75%) is committed by people that they already know? Stranger violence is very very rare. There is just something very 'off' to me about this entire discussion (not here per se but online and in general), like its missing the mark somehow and is sort of virtue signaling. I go on walks all the time and see men I don't know, I would shit my pants if I saw a bear though.
jeaniebueller, given the number of women who have been impacted by that exact type of violence - including women in this very conversation - yes, I think most women are taking that into account. If you've been hurt by a man in the past, the reaction for many is to be more wary of other men in the future.
I have to wonder, I was thinking a lot about this poll last night--do most women realize that the vast majority of violence against women (i think its something like 75%) is committed by people that they already know? Stranger violence is very very rare. There is just something very 'off' to me about this entire discussion (not here per se but online and in general), like its missing the mark somehow and is sort of virtue signaling. I go on walks all the time and see men I don't know, I would shit my pants if I saw a bear though.
while this is true, it's a thought experiment about gut reactions.
jeaniebueller , given the number of women who have been impacted by that exact type of violence - including women in this very conversation - yes, I think most women are taking that into account. If you've been hurt by a man in the past, the reaction for many is to be more wary of other men in the future.
I work with DV and SA survivors, so I think part of where I am coming from on this as well though. Its not the stranger in the woods who you need to be concerned about in the vast majority of cases, so this question is just a thought exercise.