>>2727386>Statistically your odds of being injured in a bear in an encounter is like 1 in 2 million, which is a lot less than your odds of being injured by a person, let alone specifically a man.Statistics don't apply to this hypothetical.
The hypothetical is set up like this:
Would you rather
>encounter a random bearOr
>encounter a random man In the woods.
The question isn't
>are you more likely to be harmed by a bear or a man while sitting in your apartment in an urban setting? If you encounter any given man on the trail there is a chance he may be malevolent and harm you.
If you encounter any given bear on the trail there is a 100% chance the bear will be a bear.
Whether the bear does harm you is contingent on a number of conditions.
If it's a sow with cubs. You're in for a bad time.
Is it August or September in a drought year? You'll get eaten.
Is it a well fed single black bear? You'll probably be fine. But it could have a mean streak.
Is it a sloth bear? You'll probably die or get horribly maimed. But sloth bears are from india. Which is the rape capital of the world. So that might be better than an Indian man on the trail. If you prefer death to rape.
Applying statistics to the question is a fools errand.
A snowboarder living in Colorado has no chance of being attacked by a shark.
A surfer in southern California has a significantly higher chance of being attacked by a shark.
Same thing with bees.
It only takes one bee to kill someone who is allergic to bees.
There are trillions of bees and tens of thousands of people allergic to them. And bees are everywhere.
Bears are in a limited number of areas and are few in number.
But in order to engage with the hypothetical properly, you have to imagine encountering any random man and any random bear.
Yes you could get a fat and happy male black bear. And you could get a serial killer for a man.
Or you could get the inverse.
