Paul the sparky wrote:

Surely you've done a risk assessment in your line of work?

Yes, in my particular role I’m trained in a couple of specific risk assessment tools (SA07 and RM2K) as well as risk management / risk practice. It’s why I can state with absolute confidence that perceived risk and objective dangerousness are not the same thing. Actual risk and dangerousness aren’t even the same thing.

You are still approaching this question as though the context is one of two nerds arguing about Batman versus Superman, or whether a Great White Shark would score higher than a Tyrannosaurus rex in the Top Trumps deck of carnivores. To repeat: the question was not ‘which one would win in a fight?’ or ‘which is more dangerous?’ The question wasn’t even ‘which would you rather be attacked by’? The question was ‘which would you rather encounter alone in the woods’ and that frames the whole thing differently. This is not pedantry or splitting hairs, they are each different questions, with different contexts.

DrewMerson wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

Surely you've done a risk assessment in your line of work?

Yes, in my particular role I’m trained in a couple of specific risk assessment tools (SA07 and RM2K) as well as risk management / risk practice. It’s why I can state with absolute confidence that perceived risk and objective dangerousness are not the same thing. Actual risk and dangerousness aren’t even the same thing.

You are still approaching this question as though the context is one of two nerds arguing about Batman versus Superman, or whether a Great White Shark would score higher than a Tyrannosaurus rex in the Top Trumps deck of carnivores. To repeat: the question was not ‘which one would win in a fight?’ or ‘which is more dangerous?’ The question wasn’t even ‘which would you rather be attacked by’? The question was ‘which would you rather encounter alone in the woods’ and that frames the whole thing differently. This is not pedantry or splitting hairs, they are each different questions, with different contexts.

I didn't say they were the same thing. Snidey strawman tactics on show there Andy. I said they were both part of the the same thing, which is factors which contribute to the decision making process.

How is it framed differently? Women are still basing their decisions on this information surely? Or at least they should be, otherwise it's just disingenuous hating on men, isn't it? Why shouldn't this information be pertinent to the question? Why isn't it about the bear at all?

You can drop the "who would win in a fight" shit too. I've not even once come anywhere near discussing that. Feels like you're just chucking it in to undermine my points. Very slinky, very sly

Yeah but happy bears just eat berries and shit and don't care about much else other than other bears.

Sorry, late to the thread and haven't seen the source that inspired this reasonable discussion.

But what if it's a nice bear?

If the question was 'would you rather be killed by a bear or raped by a man?', would women who chose the former be vilified for man hating?

I went to bed with two bears from the day I was born. Didn't leave them until I was in my teens. Pretty sure they didn't maul me.

Fuck the plane, it'll just smash you into a mountain. Bastard thing.

I’m not trying to be slinky or sly, Paul, I’m just trying to point out the difference between objective dangerousness and perceived risk, highlight that the way the question is framed means that the context is the latter, and provide examples of questions which would be concerned with the former, to demonstrate the difference. But, going back to Tin’s post, he makes the point very concisely. If that post didn’t get through, mine certainly won’t.

DrewMerson wrote:

I’m not trying to be slinky or sly, Paul, I’m just trying to point out the difference between objective dangerousness and perceived risk, highlight that the way the question is framed means that the context is the latter, and provide examples of questions which would be concerned with the former, to demonstrate the difference. But, going back to Tin’s post, he makes the point very concisely. If that post didn’t get through, mine certainly won’t.

Must just be in your nature then. Because responding to stuff I didn't say is arguing in bad faith and I think you're clever enough to understand that, so it's not a mistake.

The crux of Tin's post is making the bear irrelevant to the question. When makes you wonder why the fuck it's there in the first place. And like I said in the Tate post, if you do a bit of swapping around it becomes misogynistic bullshit extremely quickly, especially if you're asked to ignore the comparison and only concentrate on the negatives about the women. For this reason I don't rate Tin's points at all

Paul the sparky wrote:

DrewMerson wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

The way this thread is going, if men were to say I don't want a woman because some of them can't even park a car in a parking space, you'd have their back?

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you get to accuse me of straw-manning or bad-faith posting when you’re writing nonsense like this.

It's not nonsense. It's looking at it from the other perspective. This bear question and Tate's bullshit are two sides of the same coin. Curate a question with the intention to shite on the opposite sex

They're really, really not. Tate is perpetuating toxic masculinity with the intention to radicalise young, impressionable young men by making them feel that women are to blame for whatever perceived woes they have. He's feeding into the intel movement and the lack of role models amongst certain young men. 

The bear question - which most of us agree is heavy-handed and not particularly useful - has the intention of opening up the debate over how lots of women perceive lots of men. 

Intention and context are very different.

Yeah this notion of flip the genders / would you be comfy with a female pilot = the same is wild nonsense that just shows the point has been spectacularly missed. At this point I don't think it's going to land either. The point, not the plane.

Mention the bear and you're cast as "nerds arguing about Batman versus Superman, or whether a Great White Shark would score higher than a Tyrannosaurus rex in the Top Trumps deck of carnivores".

Now that's wild

Paul the sparky wrote:

The crux of Tin's post is making the bear irrelevant to the question.

We didn’t really need further evidence that you are completely missing the point, but thanks. You seem to be completely missing the point of mine, too, so there really is no point.

You’re still missing the point that perceived risk and objective danger are not the same thing.