berkeleyblue

I still don’t see what you’re getting at, neither do I see any gish gallops here.

1 is the claim, the other an example on the same subject.

I’m happy to listen to their experience. I’m not happy to listen to useless generalizations that do not get us anywhere.

It’s a ridiculous statement to say all men are dangerous and just wait to abuse someone. If you can’t see that right now, I’m sorry.

Has nothing to do with BLM or CRT. I’m not American, no one here really cares about “race” whatever that even means in humans. People are people and should be treated as such.

Generalization do not help anyone moving forward. It gets you dismissed and ignored, which certainly doesn’t help you create the platform women need on some issues.

And to your stats: Please read the whole text. Not 1 in 5 women get assaulted by men a YEAR, 1 in 5 women have that happening to them within their lifetimes. That’s still masively to high, but it’s not what you seem to make it out to be here.

I, unlike you, would be happy to talk about this. Maybe I’d learn something. But you seem far more interested in repeating talking points and be condescending to me.

Unfortunate. But thank you for your time anyway.

Bear: Couldn’t tell you what he’s up to even if it wanted to

Men: Can actually listen and talk their intentions.

Why is a man less predictable in this case? You all just claim things without the slightest bit of argument behind it… so please tell my why that would be the case.

Thanks.

Not at all. You said being alone in a forest with a man is more dangerous than a bear, and I said that’s statistically nonsense.

Just because I wrote more than 2 sentences, doesn’t make that a gish gallop.

There are 2 premises:

1. Bears are dangerous (I agree)
2. A random man in a forest is more dangerous to a woman than that bear (I strongly disagree)

I showed my numbers for that 1 argument and that’s it. I’m happy to be proven wrong, if you have anything more than “it just is”.

I’m not defensive I find this comparison to be simply ridiculous.

For AirTags, those notifications should only start if:

• The AirTag has not been with his owner for more than 4 hours
• The AirTag is moving
• The AirTag persistently stays close to another device that isn’t associated with the AirTag owners Apple ID

For Teachers this shouldn’t be an issue unless their students have tecb challenged parent. AirTags arent meant for tracking kids. If it’s their AirTag, they are with them and the alarm won’t trigger. If they have a shared AirTag (possible since iOS 17) they are with theyr own AirTag and the alarm won’t trigger. If they got one that is ONLY registered to their parents, then it will trigger the Anti Stalking feature and those parents should be educated on their problematic use of an AirTag.

Those kids should have an Apple Watch, all the tracking options for parents, none of the hassle of stalking alerts. Or they now just use a shared AirTag which they would then also need to have an Apple ID enabled device with them. So the watch is usually the more afordable and versatile option.

Which would be?

It’s nonsense. Out of 100 bear encounters about 1 turns violent. Now, how many men does the average women come in contact to daily and how many of them turn violent? I’m pretty sure the numbers are much, much lower than that for a bear encounter.

My Wife walked passed approximately 1’000 just today. No one even talked to her in a weird way. This whole argument is just fear mongering with sociallly acceptable sexism. This doesn’t solve any problems.

Also, statistically, strangers are the last people tk worry about. The overwhelming majority of abuse victims know their abuser or are even related. You should be more afraid to see uncle Frank and aunt Jenny in the woods than any random man.

No it’s ridiculous. The chance that a random bear out of the bear population attacks you, is infinitely more likely than a random man out of the male population does the same.

The vast majority of people are decent human beings. While it is statistically supported that men are more likely to be perpetrators of violence against women than vice versa, saying that men are inherently dangerous oversimplifies and generalizes a complex issue. It is important to recognize that most men are not violent; the majority of interactions, even in isolated settings, do not lead to violence. The portrayal of men as inherently dangerous can contribute to fear and stigma that doesn't necessarily align with the everyday experiences of many people.

Tl;dr Please stop this sexist nonsense. If I would walk around and say women shouldn’t be allowed near the elderly or children because they are statistically more likely to commit child neglect and abuse, both against elderly people and kids, I’d rightfully be called a sexist. Statistically that is just as true as the statement that men are more often the perpetrators in violence against intimate partners (allthough men do get abused as well, about 1 in 10 compared to 1 in 4 for women).

He should have let an AI proofread this…

Also the country that still predominantly runs on coal for its power grid… one would think they have bigger fish to fry. EVs are a net positive after about 40’000km compared to ICE Cars. (Even faster depending on the source of charging)

This.

Yeah male virginity. Male is an adjective in this case.

Male or especially Female as a noun, has a very weird ring to it. Sounds kinda disrespectful, as said above, like your talk about cattle…

It's interesting, but that stat doesn't really tell us everything. It only looks at guys who haven’t been with any women since they turned eighteen. A lot has changed since 2008, especially with more same-sex couples being open and accepted. That detail alone could throw off those numbers. Plus, with all the tech and social changes, who's to say people's sex lives haven't shifted in other ways too?