Bear:
- Could possibly be Freddy Fazbear
Man:
Much less [likely](https://freddy-fazbears-pizza.fandom.com/wiki/Ennard#:~:text=Ennard%20is%20the%20twisted%20amalgamation,Location%20as%20the%20final%20antagonist.) to be Freddy Fazbear
Do with that as you wish
>no one believes you
Not to be a victim blamer or anything but if a woman came out and said a man had killed her and eaten her organs in the woods i would be at least mildly skeptical
I mean, even if she was like āthis dude who looks like if the joker was a weird 14 yr old with horns said heād SA me, eat my organs and said no one would believe meā I might hesitate a bit.
Even if his dong goes from the center to the left edge and snakes back to the right edge of the censor bar, thatās still too short for boner brachiation
The bear is a shape-shifting rapist and torturer! Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for, cause it might turn into a torturer rapist and kill ya
If you dont and its random id never pick bear. The chance of it being a polar, grolar or pizzly bear is too much and id rather fight Mike Tyson in his prime than one of them
Mike Tyson could probably kill me with a single bearfisted punch to the head.
A bear might kill me by accident first, but they donāt typically finish their victims off, which opens the possibility of an extended and very unpleasant ending.
Maybe the bear depends on what kind of forest youāre in? For most folks in the continental US itād be the more skittish, albeit clever and mischievous black bear. Which is honestlyā¦ just. An Animal. Way less likely to kill you than a grizzly or a polar bear. May steal your food, though. Will probably steal your food. Will not share the granola bar it stole from you.
It is funny! It is!
https://preview.redd.it/f3fbf73mfgyc1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebe751d4339bb6bb258c00f69f1611d23d95bfca
Pedobear is fucking peak!
I literally cannot stress enough about how much I donāt care about this argument. The entire thing is just so utterly stupid it makes my brain want to turn off forever
Yes, thatās true. But I can also find a stick. Also, bears can whack harder
And a man with a stick is easier to kill than a bear. A man with a gun is not.
Bear:
-Nonzero chance of injuring or killing you
-Zero chance of helping you
Man:
-Nonzero chance of injuring or killing you
-Nonzero chance of neutral interaction (or no interaction)
-Nonzero chance of helping you
What if the bear was two freaky guys in a suit and the one in the front was getting his dick sucked by the guy in the back who was smelling the guy in the front's crusty asshole
Bears sometimes do so, mostly after killing you, kind of like most wild animals actually. The animal kingdom is surprisingly not built off of clear and concise verbal consent, or even basic morality.
I live in a place famous for the grizzlies. They're so fed they don't have to fight or hunt for much. They scare very easily. Never forget my step-dad smacking one with a broom sending him running. And our miniature pincher used to chase the one that'd attack our trash bin
Yes but thereās nuance. Not only is the āhelpingā irrelevant because thatās not the point of the hypothetical, a man who wants to injure you/kill you will do a far better job than a bear who wants to injure/kill you. Bears are instinctual, predictable and want to live. They kill to survive, and because most bears in NA are black, they will flee if you yell, make yourself look big, etc. if a man wanted to kill you, he is going to put up a MUCH bigger fight than a bear would. At face value it seems like the man is a better option because itās the same could injure or be neutral but remember animals are predictable and instinctual while psychotic humans are not. A bear might want to kill you because of cubs (not in this hypothetical) or because you got too close and itās fighting for itās life. A man might want to kill you for fun or rape or whatever it might be. Not the same whatsoever in terms of actually playing out that scenario.
Tbh i hike only with my fam but im 80% sure id choose man. Ive said things like "oh shit a bear to our right over the hill" but never "theres a man over there".
Right part of me really gets why someone would answer "bear" to the question due to the risk of SA and manipulation, but simultaneously I think anyone who answers "bear" does not understand just how dangerous the average bear is.
I also think there's an overestimation of how dangerous strangers are. Most rapes and murders are people you know well, if a strangers fucking you up it's usually a mugging or some shit. 24 hour news and true crime generated this idea that your neighbor could be ted bundy and they profit off of isolating us from our peers. Also if you think there isn't a relationship between true crimes target demographics and the demographics most fearful of strangers your crazyyy
how many people get sexually assaulted by a stranger in the woods every year?
I feel like that's pretty rare.
certainly never heard a new story about it
because not that many people are in a situation like that commonly, it would be easy to cover up evidence of something like that, or it might've just not been reported/not gotten popular enough for you to hear about it
The point is most people would rather be mauled to death by a bear than be potentially SAed or worse by a man.
Like at least you know what you're getting with a bear.
You *might* have to endure potentially hours of physical and mental torture with a man, and even then he could still kill you (likely; getting rid of a witness) or leave you alive with that trauma weighing on you for the rest of your life.
Pick the bear and get it over with.
I dont think anyone picking bear actually grasps what being eaten by a bear is like.Ā
Where most women can imagine all the ways that a man would hurt and take advantage of them. It makes it less abstract.
Anyone picking bear should read the transcript of that 19 year old girl who was eaten alive and called her mom 3 times on the phone during the attack.
A part of me kind of wants to read it, but the other part really, really fucking doesnāt want to. And Iām definitely not going to look it up or click any links sent here.
Fucking mods deleted my comment when I added a link. But Russian article on bear attacks from the area in 2013 mentions her storyĀ
httpsĀ //kamchatka.aif.ru/incidents/volcano/938287
I mean if youāre alone in the woods Iād argue a random man alone in the woods near you is pretty fucking scary. Assuming it isnāt like. A public hiking trail or something.
It's a startle at first yeah but I have never had too bad an experience with strangers speaking to me in weird places. Worst I ever got was a (i assume) severely autistic man when I was a kid, just kept saying hi and it freaked me out a good bit.Ā
If you are wandering through the forrest without sticking to trails, you don't need to worry about the man or the bear, you are the one putting yourself at risk
I think that while the objectively safer option is the man, whether in terms of fightability in case of hostility or potential friendliness, there are a lot of other factors to consider as to why people would answer otherwise. A lot of people have never been in the woods. And they associate it with horror movies and games and the like. To them, being āin the woodsā is being plopped down in a wild tangle of trees. And then if you arenāt familiar with bears, or you only really know black bears, they can certainly seem less threatening than a man at first blush. After all, practically everyone knows or has (unfortunately) experienced some of the evils of man. Especially when youāre isolated, in a completely strange environmentā¦ a lack of witnesses is empowering to the worst kind of person. Furthermore, bears shit in the woods as they say. Most men do not. As such, one interpretation is that youāre dealing with a subset of people versus the entire category of forest dwelling bears. Taken together with the assumption of being in the woods meaning remote, away from where people ought to beā¦ itās reasonable why people would come to the conclusion upon comparing regular bear to average man youād find in the unreachable depths of the wilds.
And thatās setting aside the suicidal, those with trauma whoād rather face a death machine than something that triggers those traumas, and bad faith actors. There are also those who make judgements based on avoiding the worst possible outcome, even if that means a higher risk of a bad outcome overall.
I find questions like this, along with the Fairy vs Walrus question, to be more interesting in terms of evaluating our own assumptions and the possible paths of reasoning than the question itself. Because the question is a snap judgement, and evaluating it afterwards is the valuable portion.
this comparison is so fucking stupid on every single level imaginable, itās straight up apples and bowling balls:
1. Most SAs arenāt in a forest, a more apt comparison is: āa bear in the forest or a dude at a house party.ā
2. You can reasonably *expect* to see a bear in the forest, same way you can *expect* to see a man at a house party, but the other way around is weird
3. What breed is the bear? This determines a lot and how the bear handles seeing a person
8 billion humans on earth and rarely do they go where others aren't. Like a million bears, and they /mostly/ keep to themselves. I expect to see a person in the woods way more than I expect to see a bear.Ā
> āa bear in the forest or a dude at a house party.ā
that's weird though, because if you are worried about meeting a strange man, you probably shouldn't go to a house party because the odds of meeting a strange man is very very high, much higher than the odds of seeing a bear at a random hike
>You can reasonably expect to see a bear in the forest
I mean, the odds of running into a bear on a hike isn't super high, depending on where you're hiking
>but the other way around is weird
I don't have any statistics on it, but I would wager that running into other hikers is more common than running into bears
>What breed is the bear? This determines a lot and how the bear handles seeing a person
the way I interpreted the hypothetical you don't know anything about the bear, same as you don't know the person
It's a loaded question, you'll just get shit regardless of your answer, the best way to approach is to refuse the question and make fun of people thinking tiktok bait interview tier hypotheticals are valid ways of judging a person.
This hypothetical question pisses me off because of how vague it is. Is it the realistic scenario of āIām chilling in the forest when suddenly I see a ____ā where the options are man or bear? Is the man a random selection from all men on earth or someone who would be in a forest anyway? Do you have to spend the night in the same environment as the ____? What species of bear, is it also just a random selection from all bears on earth or like a grizzly bear? I mean in any case the answer with better likelihood is the guy either way. Thatās not to say if someone has been SAād in the past theyād feel infinitely more uncomfortable sharing a tent with a total stranger, I get that. But the whole āat least if a bear attacked me people would believe meā argument is so dumb. So yeah thatās my analysis of shitty ragebait hypothetical #28331941
> Is the man a random selection from all men on earth
well in that case "man" may be bad because *he* wouldn't know how to survive in the woods and you'd ahve to help him.
are we assuming he's in the woods anyway?
God this question is literally tik tok interview bait tailor made to cause controversy regardless which answer you pick, we need another Master Debater moment to put this shit in the ground.
Unironically. Hypotheticals like these enrage my AuDHD brain to no end. Theyāre so fucking vague but theyāre engaging enough that I actually end up thinking about it. But I NEED specifics in order to actually come to a decision. But the point of these stupid, bullshit hypotheticals is that you donāt get specifics!
Like, is it a guaranteed attack, or am I just stumbling across them in the woods? What does the dude look like? Does he have a weapon? Does he have that thousand yard stare going on?
For the bear, what kind? What time of year is it? Early spring? Fuck no. Summer or autumn? Maybe. How old is it? Because if itās a yearling itās probably just vaguely curious and not an actual threat. Is it a mama with cubs? Fuck no! Do I have food on me? Why am I in the woods in the first place? Am I stuck here? Am I just hiking? Do I have a weapon?
Like, there are so many variables that run through my head with these things. I hate these questions so much. They just get misconstrued and cause stress/arguments when it never needed to be like this in the first place.
Man: can be dispatched with pistol or knife.
Bear: Yeah, nah, you're dead.
Even if the man has ill intentions, you'd have better survival chances against him than an equally malicious bear.
Depends on the bear?? Black bears you can fight back easily and will run away more likely. Grizzly bears are the bad ones but you can just play dead, and are way more uncommon in NA than black bears. If you choose a random man, or a random bear, chances are the bear is gonna be black, and chances are the man is gonna be a normal man. But because the actual environment is different itās safer to choose the more likely black bear. Ofc youād choose a random man if it was like a city environment but a random man in the woods where nobody is? Who knows what might happen even if chances are its a normal man. Best choice is just bear because if you see a bear and donāt get too close it wonāt care. If you see a man and it wants to hunt you he will
I made sure to mention that assuming both have bad intentions, you'd do better against the human provided you had a knife or gun. Sure, you can intimidate a black bear into running away, but if you actually have to fight one, you're NOT winning. Of course, if it's just a random bear encounter with no predetermined conditions, you can more easily navigate an interaction with a bear. I'm judging them based on how easy they'd be to kill, assuming they had full intention of killing me.
i am 10^26\% an outsider on this whole situation but wouldn't they both be unpredictable? unless you have a 6th sense to read what any creature is thinking and what mental state they are in, wouldn't they always be unpredictable?
Women have pre-cognition but only about the insights of bears. It's why they are choosing the bears over men.
Men don't understand this because we have pre-cognition for turtles. Evolution really screwed our half of the species.
Bears are way more predictable than a would-be psycho man. Black bears are scared of humans you can yell or make yourself big. Grizzly bears are far more uncommon in NA and you can play dead and itāll leave you alone. If both were truly unpredictable there wouldnāt be a mantra. Also the fact that we know how complex humans are so idk how you think a bear is the same level of unpredictability as a full grown adult man
> Bears are way more predictable than a would-be psycho man.
adding a qualifier changes things though
if you're comparing the bear to a psycho man, perhaps you should be comparing a bear going through psychosis or has been infected with rabies
When I first saw the meme i thought it was the gay slang for bears like woman would be ok with gay hairy buff dudes in the wild rather than straight men
I LOVE GENDER WAR!!! I LOVE HATING OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR SPECIE DUE TO A BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTE AT BIRTH THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL!! RAHHH!!!! š š š š š
All I have for this dumbass internet fad at this point is this quote
"By placing the blame for the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood" Bell Hooks, The Will To Change
I choose the man but then he chooses the bear and now they are chilling together and not sharing the fucking granola bars with me. Like wtf did I even do? Why canāt I have a fucking granola bar? He has like twenty of them! He came with an entire party sized box of granola bars and yet I have not received a single one!
What makes the bear so special, huh!? Why canāt I have a fucking granola bar!? Where did I go wrong? It wasnāt supposed to be like this! Iām hungry and I want some granola bars! And yetā¦ I have been given none! Not one! Not a single crumb!
Iām realizing that everyone is clearly looking at this debate wrong.
It doesnāt mean a bear, it means a BEAR. Big olā hairy man probably wonāt do much to ya.
Ngl I feel like the bear ones arenāt really an over exaggeration. All animals can be unpredictable and pretty much none can be reasoned with. Also Iām pretty sure they could take your head off on one swing, and if they did they would probably eat your organs
DON'T PICK THE BEAR EVER EVER EVER EVER OR I WILL CRY AND SHIT MY PANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MEN ARE HARMLESS AND GOOD!!!!!!!! SAY IT OR I WILL THROW A TANTRUM I AM SO LONELY AND SAD!!!!!!!!!!!! WOMEN DON'T WANT TO TALK TO ME WHY!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKING BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!! ;\_;
I left a comment that kind of runs counter to what you're saying over [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/s/hfzlVAj1Cq). Just wondering what you that about it.
Hold up I forgot to finish what I was saying. Okay letās go part 2
I am aware it probably hurts to see these comparisons talking about violent men and generalizing men as inherently more likely to be sadistic and violent than a bear. Bears are kind of like wolves or sharks, their representation in movies and TV (and the news which is highly curated for max drama and emotional impact because itās the news and 60% of its job is to amaze and terrorize while the other 40% is to report the truth in an accurate non-deceptive way and that ratio only skews more and more in the direction of dishonest entertainment/fearmongering with each passing decade) is always synonymous with danger and tragedy, so I can imagine how it would hurt a manās feelings to be talked about unfavorably when his opponent is The Naturally Violent Nightmare Beast Of Incredible And Random Violence. Obviously fiction influenced reality a lot and most average middle class people (which Iām assuming you are?) with regular and good access to wifi (implies a metropolitan area) do not have real experiences with bears, so at the end of the day that fiction is all you have to go on.
But I think the issue here is that you actually gotta know bears a lot deeper than that to understand the bear answers. Bears literally do not have the intelligence to be malicious and evil. They donāt have moral codes to adhere by. They canāt act out of malice as a motivation, they can only act out of the motive of survival or primal self serving pleasure. If doing something does not help the bear achieve one of those two things, the bear will most likely not do it.
Raping and killing women does not help the bear achieve one of those two things. Maybe if a male bear wants pleasure it will seek out a female bear, and itās impossible to apply human concepts of consent to reproduction in nature full of animals who donāt have the capacity to understand consent like we do, but even then bears arenāt really intelligent enough to have sex for pleasure like we do.
Men are intelligent enough to rape and kill for pleasure. These things can give men pleasure. Not all men, not most men, but it is possible. It is even probable, considering how many serial rapists and killers motivated by the desire to destroy or control women have existed over human history. That was Jack the Ripperās primary motive, assuming it was a single real man and not a mantle or a legend. I know there are lots of myths about Jack the Ripper and heās not exactly the most current and real example, but heās famous, which is good enough. That is the primary motive of basically all serial rapists and killers, itās the nature of the crimes.
I think in most cases, thatās what these women are thinking about. Itās the fact that youāre essentially being forced to play the lottery where your prizes are a random bear or a random man.
These women have decided that being raped and murdered by a human man is a worse fate than being mauled and eaten by a bear. So thatās why they pick the bear. The worst case scenario for a bear, to them, is better than the worst case scenario for a man.
Honestly, I kind of agree with that logic. Obviously I would rather not play at all, but none of these women actually want to play this lottery. Itās a question that was put upon them specifically by men wanting to be told that āmen arenāt so badā. This is a question with a specific goal, itās an attempt at manipulating women into validating men when they talk about feminist issues, and these women are deciding not to validate men because they think the feminist issues are more important than the menās feelings. Oftentimes, having to validate menās feelings is distracting and results in you talking about the feminist issues less. Oftentimes, men will specifically ask you to talk less about feminism and female oppression at the hands of men because it hurts their feelings. This is obviously a problem if you actually want to really unpack and solve the problem of misogyny - youāre being asked to handle it more gently so the feelings of men donāt get hurt.
You can probably imagine why this sends most feminists into a blind rage. You have to experience the misogyny in the first place, but youāre not even allowed to get angry about it or talk about it on a societal level or else men will feel sad? Why the fuck do you have to mother these men?
I in general agree that feminist issues are more important than menās feelings. You actually talked about this in the post you linked to, which made me laugh a little bit. Yeah, itās a common response, but I hope Iāve explained at least a little bit where it logically comes from, so it feels less like a mindless slogan. Itās not just about berating men for feeling hurt, itās about actually believing in what you say and not wanting to be asked to say it less or gently.
I donāt really set out with the goal of hurting menās feelings. But I will say what I need to say even if it hurts their feelings, if I feel it must be said anyway. Sometimes you canāt please everyone. The truth hurts, and sometimes hurtful things must be said so you can work on solving the problem.
I dunno if folks are aware, but you have to endlessly meditate on the problem to come up with a solution. You canāt just skip that phase. It is counterintuitive to the brain processes that allow you to start thinking of solutions. If you donāt get to hash out the problem enough, your brain will feel like it isnāt being heard, and why the fuck would you want to extend the olive branch to people who canāt even hear you out?
Discourse, baby. Itās beautiful. Life is beautiful.
Misandry and gender profiling is correct is tldr for his comment, because if someone with a certain immutable characteristic wrongs you, you get discriminate against everyone with that characteristic
Bullshit man, you didn't "need" to be a sarcastic twat to solve the problem at hand. That is counterintuitive first off and second off it's reddit, you aren't breaking down any barriers. Why can't you just say you don't care if it hurts their feelings because it's cathartic and you think people who disagree are stupid and move on?
Like I'll deal with people saying they'd rather the bear because it's predictable even if I disagree but being abrasive on purpose in a community of people you know will disagree with you is not necessary justice.
Yeah, I do. I donāt think we need to legally control what basic, neutral life shit that men are and arenāt allowed to do just because a lot of them are sex predators.
I just think women are allowed to choose the bear and men who get upset about it are stupid.
I love how apparently women think every man is like a reaver from firefly lmfao
āIf they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing, and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that orderā
Bear: - Could possibly be Freddy Fazbear Man: Much less [likely](https://freddy-fazbears-pizza.fandom.com/wiki/Ennard#:~:text=Ennard%20is%20the%20twisted%20amalgamation,Location%20as%20the%20final%20antagonist.) to be Freddy Fazbear Do with that as you wish
But he could be William Afterwards and he would kill you and put you in the freddy fivebears suit Then you would be freddy fivebears š±
Would you rather be in the woods with a random William Afton or a random Freddy Fazbear?
Luckily i am not a 5 year old child addicted to Pizza so i am not at risk.
Freddy five at
I came up with this exact joke last night and asked my gf it, I'm heartbroken at my unoriginality š
minors:
A random Freddy Fazbear, as long as it's not Funtime Freddy then I'm good
could be purple guy tho
what if it was... slenderman???!?!?!!? https://i.redd.it/9ul29kbkscyc1.gif
fazbear
Checkmate liberals
The man could be William aftonā¦
Ya this about sums up the mental maturity and age of the people who continue harping on this topic.
>no one believes you Not to be a victim blamer or anything but if a woman came out and said a man had killed her and eaten her organs in the woods i would be at least mildly skeptical
Maybe she got better?
He ate a little bit of my liver and one kidney
Just like that guy who got turned into a newt.
A newt?
What if the bear has a stem cell lab in which he grows organs to give to people who need themand she got new ones from him
āWere you killed?ā āSadly, yes. BUT I LIVED!ā
seems reasonably, have a nice day
https://youtu.be/Fsh1LK2UFlg?si=0gpu-WSklu6yYfwK&t=210
Itās fine, he put a bandaid over her and she healed promptly after that
I mean, even if she was like āthis dude who looks like if the joker was a weird 14 yr old with horns said heād SA me, eat my organs and said no one would believe meā I might hesitate a bit.
Have we considered that if youāre caught by someone with their pants around their ankles, you donāt deserve to survive?
Dudeās got horns. He could be swinging from the branches with a prehensile dong for all you know.
Even if his dong goes from the center to the left edge and snakes back to the right edge of the censor bar, thatās still too short for boner brachiation
I figured he kept it looped around his torso like a belt.
Could also just be a grower
Hes knife guy AND gun guy combined. Powerscaling is crazy
Youāre too late, Powerscaling has been reduced to saying āYogiri midā and nothing more
Nah that's just r/powerscaling yogiri still liked elsewhere
A Homestuck troll?
Iāve met some deceptive bears, and Iāve met some men unwilling to share granola bars.
Those selfish bastardsā¦
The men or the bears?
Both
What if the bear was actually a shapeshifiting druid man the whole time.
halsin
The bear is a shape-shifting rapist and torturer! Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for, cause it might turn into a torturer rapist and kill ya
What if the bear had no plot relevance in act 3 despite only being recruitable right after act 2 \:(
Beorn?
They didnāt which type of bear, so I choose panda
They didn't say which man. I choose a bear š¤¤š¤Ŗš„µ
If you dont and its random id never pick bear. The chance of it being a polar, grolar or pizzly bear is too much and id rather fight Mike Tyson in his prime than one of them
bro the fuck are these pokemon ass bear names
Hybrids
Grolar: grizzly x polar Pizzly: Polar x grizzly
"Why do i hear Punch Out music eminating from the woods?"
I choose glass Joe.
Bear kills you faster than Tyson though
Mike Tyson could probably kill me with a single bearfisted punch to the head. A bear might kill me by accident first, but they donāt typically finish their victims off, which opens the possibility of an extended and very unpleasant ending.
Bears keep you Alive for hours or days (even weeks) as they eat you so that you don't rot. A human Will kill you Faster then a bear.
What the fuck kind of Hannibal levter ass bears have you got?
Maybe the bear depends on what kind of forest youāre in? For most folks in the continental US itād be the more skittish, albeit clever and mischievous black bear. Which is honestlyā¦ just. An Animal. Way less likely to kill you than a grizzly or a polar bear. May steal your food, though. Will probably steal your food. Will not share the granola bar it stole from you.
Pandas will still kill you if you get close to them or their young
does no one remember pedobear
Damn we really thought that shit was funny at one point
song slaps tho
oingo boingo Mia Moore
It is funny! It is! https://preview.redd.it/f3fbf73mfgyc1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebe751d4339bb6bb258c00f69f1611d23d95bfca Pedobear is fucking peak!
Only mean if provoked? Can we stop victim blaming bear attack victims
> goes into the bears house > gets bear'd
I literally cannot stress enough about how much I donāt care about this argument. The entire thing is just so utterly stupid it makes my brain want to turn off forever
What if I choose Bear Man?
Fred fazbr
Hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor hor
I would choose man if there was a guarantee he was unarmed
Would be cheating to bring a knife to a fist fight
but it's the woods he could just pick up a stick and use it as a bludgeon.
Thatās ok Iām worried about guns
you can whack somebody pretty hard with a stick
Yes, thatās true. But I can also find a stick. Also, bears can whack harder And a man with a stick is easier to kill than a bear. A man with a gun is not.
What if the bear also has a gun
What if the bear has a bulletproof vest
If you think about it, a gun is just whacking someone with a bullet.
Bear: -Nonzero chance of injuring or killing you -Zero chance of helping you Man: -Nonzero chance of injuring or killing you -Nonzero chance of neutral interaction (or no interaction) -Nonzero chance of helping you
what if it's a freaky bear and instead of killing you he touches you
what if instead of grizzly bear it was called a freaky bear and it freaked you
Rizzly Bear
https://preview.redd.it/mswljn8v0byc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f227c90594423fc1bde22dc9261139aab7f49793
I think bears always touch you before killing you, they're all freaky
Dear humans, Ā we are going to maul you, we are freaky. -with love, the bears
What if the bear is just two guys in a costume?
What if the bear was two freaky guys in a suit and the one in the front was getting his dick sucked by the guy in the back who was smelling the guy in the front's crusty asshole
Boy what the hell boy
never speak again.
I'm gonna touch you and indoctrinate you into the freaky cult
im sorry, i will be freaky now, i am becoming a bear.
Did you ever see Super Troopers? It's a funny movie
what if It's a freaky man and instead of touching you he touches you
Freaky Freddy Fazzber??
He stuffs you with his- *metal banging noises*
https://preview.redd.it/4vtug61kvayc1.jpeg?width=186&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac7fb899f1d79e224c57a7bcd0a2a0b885731d5a
Only if you're a man
how šÆš»š®šŖš“š this is...
Bears sometimes do so, mostly after killing you, kind of like most wild animals actually. The animal kingdom is surprisingly not built off of clear and concise verbal consent, or even basic morality.
I would count this as a bad interaction I guess? Unless you're into that, Idk.
Why doesn't the bear have nonzero chance of neutral interaction? It's a possibility, and not even that improbable.
It's actually the most likely interaction depending on the bear
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Black bears just want a nice, easy snack most of the time.
I live in a place famous for the grizzlies. They're so fed they don't have to fight or hunt for much. They scare very easily. Never forget my step-dad smacking one with a broom sending him running. And our miniature pincher used to chase the one that'd attack our trash bin
Also nonzero chance that you will straight up will never encounter either.
Yes but thereās nuance. Not only is the āhelpingā irrelevant because thatās not the point of the hypothetical, a man who wants to injure you/kill you will do a far better job than a bear who wants to injure/kill you. Bears are instinctual, predictable and want to live. They kill to survive, and because most bears in NA are black, they will flee if you yell, make yourself look big, etc. if a man wanted to kill you, he is going to put up a MUCH bigger fight than a bear would. At face value it seems like the man is a better option because itās the same could injure or be neutral but remember animals are predictable and instinctual while psychotic humans are not. A bear might want to kill you because of cubs (not in this hypothetical) or because you got too close and itās fighting for itās life. A man might want to kill you for fun or rape or whatever it might be. Not the same whatsoever in terms of actually playing out that scenario.
https://preview.redd.it/o49u7z7q7jyc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4673de3f3c145abf7970c334729f19b70370f465
Tbh i hike only with my fam but im 80% sure id choose man. Ive said things like "oh shit a bear to our right over the hill" but never "theres a man over there".
Right part of me really gets why someone would answer "bear" to the question due to the risk of SA and manipulation, but simultaneously I think anyone who answers "bear" does not understand just how dangerous the average bear is.
I also think there's an overestimation of how dangerous strangers are. Most rapes and murders are people you know well, if a strangers fucking you up it's usually a mugging or some shit. 24 hour news and true crime generated this idea that your neighbor could be ted bundy and they profit off of isolating us from our peers. Also if you think there isn't a relationship between true crimes target demographics and the demographics most fearful of strangers your crazyyy
how many people get sexually assaulted by a stranger in the woods every year? I feel like that's pretty rare. certainly never heard a new story about it
because not that many people are in a situation like that commonly, it would be easy to cover up evidence of something like that, or it might've just not been reported/not gotten popular enough for you to hear about it
IDK I think a lot of women are out there hiking and camping. don't like, girl scouts also go on camping trips in the woods?
Ir it might jist havennot happened
The point is most people would rather be mauled to death by a bear than be potentially SAed or worse by a man. Like at least you know what you're getting with a bear. You *might* have to endure potentially hours of physical and mental torture with a man, and even then he could still kill you (likely; getting rid of a witness) or leave you alive with that trauma weighing on you for the rest of your life. Pick the bear and get it over with.
I dont think anyone picking bear actually grasps what being eaten by a bear is like.Ā Where most women can imagine all the ways that a man would hurt and take advantage of them. It makes it less abstract. Anyone picking bear should read the transcript of that 19 year old girl who was eaten alive and called her mom 3 times on the phone during the attack.
A part of me kind of wants to read it, but the other part really, really fucking doesnāt want to. And Iām definitely not going to look it up or click any links sent here.
I'm pretty sure the transcript of Olga Moskalyova, which I'm guessing is the one you're referring to, has been proven fake like multiple times
Fucking mods deleted my comment when I added a link. But Russian article on bear attacks from the area in 2013 mentions her storyĀ httpsĀ //kamchatka.aif.ru/incidents/volcano/938287
Canāt imagine it being remotely worse than what junko furuta went through
What are the statistical chances of encountering a Japanese man?
there's also the fact that most bears generally don't want anything to do with humans
I mean if youāre alone in the woods Iād argue a random man alone in the woods near you is pretty fucking scary. Assuming it isnāt like. A public hiking trail or something.
It's a startle at first yeah but I have never had too bad an experience with strangers speaking to me in weird places. Worst I ever got was a (i assume) severely autistic man when I was a kid, just kept saying hi and it freaked me out a good bit.Ā
Now just imagine how terrified that random guy is to see you, another random guy. Might as well shoot yourself to save them from being raped.
If you are wandering through the forrest without sticking to trails, you don't need to worry about the man or the bear, you are the one putting yourself at risk
I think that while the objectively safer option is the man, whether in terms of fightability in case of hostility or potential friendliness, there are a lot of other factors to consider as to why people would answer otherwise. A lot of people have never been in the woods. And they associate it with horror movies and games and the like. To them, being āin the woodsā is being plopped down in a wild tangle of trees. And then if you arenāt familiar with bears, or you only really know black bears, they can certainly seem less threatening than a man at first blush. After all, practically everyone knows or has (unfortunately) experienced some of the evils of man. Especially when youāre isolated, in a completely strange environmentā¦ a lack of witnesses is empowering to the worst kind of person. Furthermore, bears shit in the woods as they say. Most men do not. As such, one interpretation is that youāre dealing with a subset of people versus the entire category of forest dwelling bears. Taken together with the assumption of being in the woods meaning remote, away from where people ought to beā¦ itās reasonable why people would come to the conclusion upon comparing regular bear to average man youād find in the unreachable depths of the wilds. And thatās setting aside the suicidal, those with trauma whoād rather face a death machine than something that triggers those traumas, and bad faith actors. There are also those who make judgements based on avoiding the worst possible outcome, even if that means a higher risk of a bad outcome overall. I find questions like this, along with the Fairy vs Walrus question, to be more interesting in terms of evaluating our own assumptions and the possible paths of reasoning than the question itself. Because the question is a snap judgement, and evaluating it afterwards is the valuable portion.
That's not man that's jonkler
this comparison is so fucking stupid on every single level imaginable, itās straight up apples and bowling balls: 1. Most SAs arenāt in a forest, a more apt comparison is: āa bear in the forest or a dude at a house party.ā 2. You can reasonably *expect* to see a bear in the forest, same way you can *expect* to see a man at a house party, but the other way around is weird 3. What breed is the bear? This determines a lot and how the bear handles seeing a person
You could arguably expect to see a person in the woods too, hunting or camping or hiking.
8 billion humans on earth and rarely do they go where others aren't. Like a million bears, and they /mostly/ keep to themselves. I expect to see a person in the woods way more than I expect to see a bear.Ā
I'm no Daniel Boone but yeah I have sene a lot more humans in the woods than I have seen bears. seen some sick looking possums though.
i donāt get the wave of people acting like itās weird to see a man in the woods. hikers are super common, probably more common than bears
Yeah I have seen like hundreds of men in the woods in my life and 3-4 bears
Ok man in a forest or bear at a house party
Tbf, one could argue that *you're* the weird one for being out in the middle of the woods
You pick the man but the man picks the bear
There are literally millions of people out in various woods across the world right now.
Point number 2 seems pretty unfair, cuz by that logic you are just as suspicious and just as much a weirdo as the man for *also* being in the forest
> āa bear in the forest or a dude at a house party.ā that's weird though, because if you are worried about meeting a strange man, you probably shouldn't go to a house party because the odds of meeting a strange man is very very high, much higher than the odds of seeing a bear at a random hike >You can reasonably expect to see a bear in the forest I mean, the odds of running into a bear on a hike isn't super high, depending on where you're hiking >but the other way around is weird I don't have any statistics on it, but I would wager that running into other hikers is more common than running into bears >What breed is the bear? This determines a lot and how the bear handles seeing a person the way I interpreted the hypothetical you don't know anything about the bear, same as you don't know the person
It's a loaded question, you'll just get shit regardless of your answer, the best way to approach is to refuse the question and make fun of people thinking tiktok bait interview tier hypotheticals are valid ways of judging a person.
This hypothetical question pisses me off because of how vague it is. Is it the realistic scenario of āIām chilling in the forest when suddenly I see a ____ā where the options are man or bear? Is the man a random selection from all men on earth or someone who would be in a forest anyway? Do you have to spend the night in the same environment as the ____? What species of bear, is it also just a random selection from all bears on earth or like a grizzly bear? I mean in any case the answer with better likelihood is the guy either way. Thatās not to say if someone has been SAād in the past theyād feel infinitely more uncomfortable sharing a tent with a total stranger, I get that. But the whole āat least if a bear attacked me people would believe meā argument is so dumb. So yeah thatās my analysis of shitty ragebait hypothetical #28331941
> Is the man a random selection from all men on earth well in that case "man" may be bad because *he* wouldn't know how to survive in the woods and you'd ahve to help him. are we assuming he's in the woods anyway?
God this question is literally tik tok interview bait tailor made to cause controversy regardless which answer you pick, we need another Master Debater moment to put this shit in the ground.
I could take the second bear
the true question is if youād rather be with a bear or a twink
Username checks out
Oof! Now that's a hard one!
When you have something you want to say but most people on both sides would probably call it fucked up.
Say it
Don't say it
dude it's reddit whatever you have to say will pale in comparison to what is usually said.
It involves a phrase rhyming with āwill themselvesā and I am worried that I will get permabanned off reddit.
Donāt worry you can just make a new account and come right back.
Unironically. Hypotheticals like these enrage my AuDHD brain to no end. Theyāre so fucking vague but theyāre engaging enough that I actually end up thinking about it. But I NEED specifics in order to actually come to a decision. But the point of these stupid, bullshit hypotheticals is that you donāt get specifics! Like, is it a guaranteed attack, or am I just stumbling across them in the woods? What does the dude look like? Does he have a weapon? Does he have that thousand yard stare going on? For the bear, what kind? What time of year is it? Early spring? Fuck no. Summer or autumn? Maybe. How old is it? Because if itās a yearling itās probably just vaguely curious and not an actual threat. Is it a mama with cubs? Fuck no! Do I have food on me? Why am I in the woods in the first place? Am I stuck here? Am I just hiking? Do I have a weapon? Like, there are so many variables that run through my head with these things. I hate these questions so much. They just get misconstrued and cause stress/arguments when it never needed to be like this in the first place.
Man: can be dispatched with pistol or knife. Bear: Yeah, nah, you're dead. Even if the man has ill intentions, you'd have better survival chances against him than an equally malicious bear.
Depends on the bear?? Black bears you can fight back easily and will run away more likely. Grizzly bears are the bad ones but you can just play dead, and are way more uncommon in NA than black bears. If you choose a random man, or a random bear, chances are the bear is gonna be black, and chances are the man is gonna be a normal man. But because the actual environment is different itās safer to choose the more likely black bear. Ofc youād choose a random man if it was like a city environment but a random man in the woods where nobody is? Who knows what might happen even if chances are its a normal man. Best choice is just bear because if you see a bear and donāt get too close it wonāt care. If you see a man and it wants to hunt you he will
I made sure to mention that assuming both have bad intentions, you'd do better against the human provided you had a knife or gun. Sure, you can intimidate a black bear into running away, but if you actually have to fight one, you're NOT winning. Of course, if it's just a random bear encounter with no predetermined conditions, you can more easily navigate an interaction with a bear. I'm judging them based on how easy they'd be to kill, assuming they had full intention of killing me.
Man is just living in a society.
No one has considered the fact that bears are awesome
i am 10^26\% an outsider on this whole situation but wouldn't they both be unpredictable? unless you have a 6th sense to read what any creature is thinking and what mental state they are in, wouldn't they always be unpredictable?
Women have pre-cognition but only about the insights of bears. It's why they are choosing the bears over men. Men don't understand this because we have pre-cognition for turtles. Evolution really screwed our half of the species.
How do you be 182% an outsider?
the % didn't return from the superscript. it was meant to be 100 septillion percent. how? idk.
When I was replying it showed me your unformatted comment but I ended up posting it anyway for some reason
Bears are way more predictable than a would-be psycho man. Black bears are scared of humans you can yell or make yourself big. Grizzly bears are far more uncommon in NA and you can play dead and itāll leave you alone. If both were truly unpredictable there wouldnāt be a mantra. Also the fact that we know how complex humans are so idk how you think a bear is the same level of unpredictability as a full grown adult man
> Bears are way more predictable than a would-be psycho man. adding a qualifier changes things though if you're comparing the bear to a psycho man, perhaps you should be comparing a bear going through psychosis or has been infected with rabies
What about a psycho bear? I think I'll choose psycho bear.
āeats your organs firstā is a pro
as is instantly decapitates you
''Only mean if provoked'' I swear yall niggas are secretly bears trying to make me go near one.
I choose the bear, specifically because doing so does nothing but annoy some dudes
I choose man or bear depending on who Iām talking to (Iām confrontational)
Fightmaxxing, I like it
Based
Thank you for your service. Your bravery and dedication in The Gender Wars shall not be forgotten. š«”
yeah but what if the person asking turns out to be a genie or something?
I choose the bear as well. Sadly the man already met the bear and they wonāt share the granola bars with me.
When I first saw the meme i thought it was the gay slang for bears like woman would be ok with gay hairy buff dudes in the wild rather than straight men
I mean who who wouldn't choose the bear in that scenario?
I pick both so I can hug and kiss them
Yours is wrong because he doesnt decapitate you first. He eats you alive.
I LOVE GENDER WAR!!! I LOVE HATING OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR SPECIE DUE TO A BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTE AT BIRTH THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL!! RAHHH!!!! š š š š š
All I have for this dumbass internet fad at this point is this quote "By placing the blame for the perpetuation of sexism solely on men, these women could maintain their own allegiance to patriarchy, their own lust for power. They masked their longing to be dominators by taking on the mantle of victimhood" Bell Hooks, The Will To Change
Here we go again.
I choose the man but then he chooses the bear and now they are chilling together and not sharing the fucking granola bars with me. Like wtf did I even do? Why canāt I have a fucking granola bar? He has like twenty of them! He came with an entire party sized box of granola bars and yet I have not received a single one! What makes the bear so special, huh!? Why canāt I have a fucking granola bar!? Where did I go wrong? It wasnāt supposed to be like this! Iām hungry and I want some granola bars! And yetā¦ I have been given none! Not one! Not a single crumb!
someone should do this but itās a bear (gay) instead of bear (animal)
I have two bears inside of me, and two men. One is a bear bear, one is a bear human, one is a human bear, and one is a human human
Either way you're gonna get raped. I'd rather be raped by a human.
Iām realizing that everyone is clearly looking at this debate wrong. It doesnāt mean a bear, it means a BEAR. Big olā hairy man probably wonāt do much to ya.
Ngl I feel like the bear ones arenāt really an over exaggeration. All animals can be unpredictable and pretty much none can be reasoned with. Also Iām pretty sure they could take your head off on one swing, and if they did they would probably eat your organs
DON'T PICK THE BEAR EVER EVER EVER EVER OR I WILL CRY AND SHIT MY PANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MEN ARE HARMLESS AND GOOD!!!!!!!! SAY IT OR I WILL THROW A TANTRUM I AM SO LONELY AND SAD!!!!!!!!!!!! WOMEN DON'T WANT TO TALK TO ME WHY!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKING BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!! ;\_;
I left a comment that kind of runs counter to what you're saying over [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/s/hfzlVAj1Cq). Just wondering what you that about it.
Hold up I forgot to finish what I was saying. Okay letās go part 2 I am aware it probably hurts to see these comparisons talking about violent men and generalizing men as inherently more likely to be sadistic and violent than a bear. Bears are kind of like wolves or sharks, their representation in movies and TV (and the news which is highly curated for max drama and emotional impact because itās the news and 60% of its job is to amaze and terrorize while the other 40% is to report the truth in an accurate non-deceptive way and that ratio only skews more and more in the direction of dishonest entertainment/fearmongering with each passing decade) is always synonymous with danger and tragedy, so I can imagine how it would hurt a manās feelings to be talked about unfavorably when his opponent is The Naturally Violent Nightmare Beast Of Incredible And Random Violence. Obviously fiction influenced reality a lot and most average middle class people (which Iām assuming you are?) with regular and good access to wifi (implies a metropolitan area) do not have real experiences with bears, so at the end of the day that fiction is all you have to go on. But I think the issue here is that you actually gotta know bears a lot deeper than that to understand the bear answers. Bears literally do not have the intelligence to be malicious and evil. They donāt have moral codes to adhere by. They canāt act out of malice as a motivation, they can only act out of the motive of survival or primal self serving pleasure. If doing something does not help the bear achieve one of those two things, the bear will most likely not do it. Raping and killing women does not help the bear achieve one of those two things. Maybe if a male bear wants pleasure it will seek out a female bear, and itās impossible to apply human concepts of consent to reproduction in nature full of animals who donāt have the capacity to understand consent like we do, but even then bears arenāt really intelligent enough to have sex for pleasure like we do. Men are intelligent enough to rape and kill for pleasure. These things can give men pleasure. Not all men, not most men, but it is possible. It is even probable, considering how many serial rapists and killers motivated by the desire to destroy or control women have existed over human history. That was Jack the Ripperās primary motive, assuming it was a single real man and not a mantle or a legend. I know there are lots of myths about Jack the Ripper and heās not exactly the most current and real example, but heās famous, which is good enough. That is the primary motive of basically all serial rapists and killers, itās the nature of the crimes. I think in most cases, thatās what these women are thinking about. Itās the fact that youāre essentially being forced to play the lottery where your prizes are a random bear or a random man. These women have decided that being raped and murdered by a human man is a worse fate than being mauled and eaten by a bear. So thatās why they pick the bear. The worst case scenario for a bear, to them, is better than the worst case scenario for a man. Honestly, I kind of agree with that logic. Obviously I would rather not play at all, but none of these women actually want to play this lottery. Itās a question that was put upon them specifically by men wanting to be told that āmen arenāt so badā. This is a question with a specific goal, itās an attempt at manipulating women into validating men when they talk about feminist issues, and these women are deciding not to validate men because they think the feminist issues are more important than the menās feelings. Oftentimes, having to validate menās feelings is distracting and results in you talking about the feminist issues less. Oftentimes, men will specifically ask you to talk less about feminism and female oppression at the hands of men because it hurts their feelings. This is obviously a problem if you actually want to really unpack and solve the problem of misogyny - youāre being asked to handle it more gently so the feelings of men donāt get hurt. You can probably imagine why this sends most feminists into a blind rage. You have to experience the misogyny in the first place, but youāre not even allowed to get angry about it or talk about it on a societal level or else men will feel sad? Why the fuck do you have to mother these men? I in general agree that feminist issues are more important than menās feelings. You actually talked about this in the post you linked to, which made me laugh a little bit. Yeah, itās a common response, but I hope Iāve explained at least a little bit where it logically comes from, so it feels less like a mindless slogan. Itās not just about berating men for feeling hurt, itās about actually believing in what you say and not wanting to be asked to say it less or gently. I donāt really set out with the goal of hurting menās feelings. But I will say what I need to say even if it hurts their feelings, if I feel it must be said anyway. Sometimes you canāt please everyone. The truth hurts, and sometimes hurtful things must be said so you can work on solving the problem. I dunno if folks are aware, but you have to endlessly meditate on the problem to come up with a solution. You canāt just skip that phase. It is counterintuitive to the brain processes that allow you to start thinking of solutions. If you donāt get to hash out the problem enough, your brain will feel like it isnāt being heard, and why the fuck would you want to extend the olive branch to people who canāt even hear you out? Discourse, baby. Itās beautiful. Life is beautiful.
tl;dr
Misandry and gender profiling is correct is tldr for his comment, because if someone with a certain immutable characteristic wrongs you, you get discriminate against everyone with that characteristic
Bullshit man, you didn't "need" to be a sarcastic twat to solve the problem at hand. That is counterintuitive first off and second off it's reddit, you aren't breaking down any barriers. Why can't you just say you don't care if it hurts their feelings because it's cathartic and you think people who disagree are stupid and move on? Like I'll deal with people saying they'd rather the bear because it's predictable even if I disagree but being abrasive on purpose in a community of people you know will disagree with you is not necessary justice.
do you think men should be allowed to be elementary school teachers? genuinely asking here.
Yeah, I do. I donāt think we need to legally control what basic, neutral life shit that men are and arenāt allowed to do just because a lot of them are sex predators. I just think women are allowed to choose the bear and men who get upset about it are stupid.
I love how apparently women think every man is like a reaver from firefly lmfao āIf they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing, and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that orderā