• I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    “as a rule, men are subhuman scum more dangerous to me than wild carnivorous animals”

    Lol. No one said that. But the fact that you hear that when women say they feel threatened is very telling of who you are as a person. I hope your wife finds freedom eventually.

      • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well, judging by your levelheadedness here, she obviously has nothing to worry about. /s

          • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

            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.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          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

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.