It’s clear you are choosing not to understand the difference between what you said and what the question said. I can’t save you from your willful ignorance.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
Even if 99% of men were not abusers, the 1% that are also tend to hide their malice and pretend to be decent until alone and the woman is vulnerable. So as women interact with hundreds or thousands of men over their lifetimes they will come across these abusers or know someone who was abused and that the system blames victims and the fear is not just about percentage chance of a horrible outcome, but that society continues the abuse.
A bear is a known factor, dangerous but never in a deceptive way and society doesn’t tend to blame victims of animal attacks.
Also the percentage of abusers is way higher than 1%. Everyone knows multiple rape and abuse victims, but few people know someone who was mauled by a bear. That is the context for this question.
That’s just a numbers game, we also have way more interactions with bears, you would have to do a whole breakdown of time/incidents for bears and humans both
Removed by mod
It’s clear you are choosing not to understand the difference between what you said and what the question said. I can’t save you from your willful ignorance.
Removed by mod
Well, judging by your levelheadedness here, she obviously has nothing to worry about. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Even if 99% of men were not abusers, the 1% that are also tend to hide their malice and pretend to be decent until alone and the woman is vulnerable. So as women interact with hundreds or thousands of men over their lifetimes they will come across these abusers or know someone who was abused and that the system blames victims and the fear is not just about percentage chance of a horrible outcome, but that society continues the abuse.
A bear is a known factor, dangerous but never in a deceptive way and society doesn’t tend to blame victims of animal attacks.
Also the percentage of abusers is way higher than 1%. Everyone knows multiple rape and abuse victims, but few people know someone who was mauled by a bear. That is the context for this question.
That’s just a numbers game, we also have way more interactions with bears, you would have to do a whole breakdown of time/incidents for bears and humans both
The point is not the literal number of incidents or ratio, because personal experience impacts that for most people.
Someone who has been in a plane crash don’t care how infrequent they are, the personal experience influences how they estimate the risks.
Oh, you meant personal experience.
Yeah, 100%
I completely misread you somehow.