You're viewing a single thread.
The "man or bear in the woods" question is obvious ragebait. Thinking people don't entertain hyperbolic hypotheticals that are proposed to sow divisive rhetoric.
The gender war is a psy-op proxy for the class war.
::: To be clear, I'm a proponent of market-socialism economically who wants a functional federal republic like we're supposed to have on paper. I am not a "tankie", nor do I want anything to do with them.
When I say "class war", I say we fight it with the ballot, and a gun if it gets ugly to the point of no recourse (that is still far away, thankfully).
I mean, what the fuck are people gonna do against Predator drones with Hellfires? Be vaporized as cannon fodder? We'd be gullible rubes for the whims of the "enlightened LeAdErS of the People's Revolution", that's what. :::
Pretty much.
In hiking groups, certain people bring it up, and it's the kind of people you expect.
The rest of us just go hiking
There's also a TON left unsaid in it. Is the man armed? are you armed? Is it a hiking path? Is it the middle of the forest? Are you camping or just walking? what kinda bear? is the bear just walking or is it attacking?
You're overthinking it; those questions are totally irrelevant to the point. Though, to be fair, the question doesn't exactly specify this at face value.
It's really just a thought experiment: would you rather take your chances, alone, with a random bear/man in the woods? You don't get a weapon. You dont get to choose which man or which bear, or what they do. It's a gamble.