Just stick these people in a forest with a actual bear, christ I've never actually seen a bear in real life but I know going up against one would be suicidal.
Alaskan here, can confirm. Polar bears are evil. They prefer the taste of human flesh over all other food and they have a penchant for hunting children.
I used to be an "extinction is evil" type, but as I grow older I increasingly believe that the power to wipe out an entire species is humanity's greatest strength.
The issue is largely that we're very bad at choosing which species to eradicate.
The other problem is we don't usually full know what some species are doing for their environment, and are incapable of compensating for it fully. The Four Pests Campaign is a famous example of it. As is a lot of areas in America now being forced to re-introduce wolves into the wild to balance things.
The important part about strength is knowing when to exercise it and to what extent. Mindlessly killing everything weaker than us doesn't demonstrate anything the same way punching a child doesn't prove you are a powerlifter.
Black bears will EAT you if you pretend to be dead. You're better off fighting one off as your only slim chance of survival. Polar bears are outright evil, seen enough people defend them and say they're so lovely and poor polar bears etc. You've not seen them hunt.
Hey, when you live in a shithole that's cold all year round, that hardly has any vegetation for you to supplement your diet with, and where nearly everything you're supposed to prey on can easily outrun, outswim, and outfight you, you'd be pretty unreasonable too! Especially when you come across one of those walking cans of spam like those weak-ass hairless apes with their puny strength and pathetic run speed.
I know going up against one [bear] would be suicidal.
So would going up against a man, though, if you're a woman. And a man might be more determined, and less likely to be scared off. I don't think that's the argument though. The average man is less likely to attack than the average bear. It doesn't really matter which one is more dangerous in a fight, or what they'll do to you if you win, the man has a near zero chance of attacking you.
Even if men were more dangerous than bears (and they absolutely can be, thanks to technology), running into a man is still safer than running into a bear, because the man will probably just nod and say "howdy."
I find this whole thing extremely confusing and dangerous. I really can't believe how fast this idea caught fire, where's Smokey, 'only you can prevent forest fires of nonsense thought!'
Its like how they wont blame rapefugees for gang raping them.. they hide it or if its found out, still direct blame and vitrol towards white peepo lol.
Some insane mofos out there. Amazed we made it as a civilization. But.. i guess civilizations had strict codes and ettiquete. unlike now.
what do you mean by citizen? because, throughout 99% of history women have not been citizens in the strict sense: cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot take out a loan. it was this way for very good reasons, and if you know women you know why.
It's convoluted attention whoring. Women crave male attention even if it's negative. She isn't thinking men are mocking her retarded hypothetical, she's thinking "men are trying to make me chose them over a bear, I'm so valuable"
Rage drives engagement. Couple that with an upvote system and it becomes a game. This is all just entertainment rather than an actual discourse. The very medium itself drives this and most people are too dumb to realize or just don't care because they're too busy enjoying themselves. They don't stop to think about what it is they're consuming or what that lead to. Propaganda works through repetition. Keep repeating the doom and gloom message and people eventually latch onto the notion that everything has gone wrong and that there isn't hope, so they become defeated without even setting foot on the battlefield. This is what his posts accomplish and it's why I say he's a bad actor. I no longer care whether he's willfully malicious or not, the result is the same and it works against our interests.
Unlike a lion, who is at least rather polite about it, bears will eat you alive because they think the noise you make is funny. So no, it actually rather amuses me to imagine these people screaming helplessly while being devoured guts first.
Ever see that Grizzly Man documentary? There's an audio of the Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend getting eaten alive but it's never been released to the public (someone made a fake, and it sounds disturbing enough). Timothy's mother was allowed to keep the recording but she's never listened to it. The documentary's director Werner Herzog was allowed to listen to it, and he immediately tells the mother, "You must never listen to this."
As humans we have conquered much of the world, to the point almost nobody has to worry about being harmed by an apex predator animal. And this safety has led to ignorance and arrogance - a lot of people think they could take on a bear or tiger in a fight. And every so often, this carelessness and stupidity slips out and some fool gets torn apart.
One of the most forgotten facts of nature is that most animals don't care if you are dead, only that you cease to be a threat or can escape.
So if it has you ripped open or down a leg or whatever, it doesn't care much about how much pain and suffering you are in. It'll just start eating or playing with you until you bleed out on your own.
You can find all sorts of videos of lions or monkeys eating things chunk by chunk that are still trying to get away despite being half gone. Not a single fuck given about the immense suffering being caused because their brain can't even process that higher order thought. That's a human trait.
IIRC, aren't they one of the few animals that usually prefers fully dead prey and goes for the windpipe? Mostly on account of their prey being stuff that can do real damage with one lucky kick.
Possibly, I was basing the examples on videos I've actually seen. One of which was a lion just pulling and ripping chunks off some antelope who kept trying to get up and run despite his entire back half being skinned raw.
That could just be an exception to the norm for them specifically, but it was a random example I had in my head.
The most simple and common scenario, the man is completely the correct choice, and these women are retarded. That's a given.
But for the sake of autistic argument, it is a very much more context-dependent question than it first seems, with a lot of inbuilt assumptions.
Are you on a hiking trail, where people are expected? Again, seems the most likely. Are you trespassing on someone else's land? Are you in an area where drug labs/farms might be set up? Are you in black bear country, or grizzly? Are there cubs nearby?
If it's just your average man versus your average bear, which I think is a fair assumption, the man is the correct choice, every time. But, again, just for the sake of argument, there are scenarios where I'd be totally correct to pick the bear. I'd rather run into a black bear than a pot farming gang member illegal.
But I'm giving this way more thought than these feminists did.
Oh, I'm not giving them credit. I'm not trying to outline their thought process, just my own, because I found the whole "bearpill" debate hilarious, so ended up thinking it over.
The one and only good point I've seen re: men being more dangerous is that lots of serial killers prowl hiking trails since it's infinitely easier to murder a random woman and get away with it out in the wild than to do the same in populated areas.
And I only heard that point from one woman I already know in a private conversation.
But otherwise, yes, the vast majority of the discourse is just grown women acting like teenage girls who are trying to piss off their dads.
There aren't lots of serial killers period. It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, and I think statistically most of them are in cities anyway. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but chances are, even if it's really remote, if you run into a dude on a hiking trail, he's not a serial killer.
A fair number of people go missing in forests without a trace, there might be serial killers who are unaccounted for.
But I agree, they're still far more rare than just regular dudes who go hiking, and women listen to too many truecrime podcasts. In any event no one, especially women, should go hiking alone anyways, you're more likely to die by simply being unprepared than by a serial killer or even a wild animal.
This whole discourse has revealed more than anything just how shockingly ignorant so many sheltered urbanites are of nature. Which, my own devils advocacy aside, I'm sure makes up the vast majority of people who go missing in forests, because they made the mistake of not respecting nature, getting lost, and dying of starvation, dehydration, disease, and/or hypothermia.
A fair number of people go missing in forests without a trace...
Largely national forests, as I recall. Hardly your average hike, but I take your point.
...women listen to too many truecrime podcasts.
It's not the true crime podcasts. They find the serial killers hot. It's the feminism, where they convince themselves all men are disgusting, evil, oppressive, and responsible for all their own failures in life. No one, literally no one, hates men because "serial killers."
In any event no one, especially women, should go hiking alone anyways, you're more likely to die by simply being unprepared than by a serial killer or even a wild animal.
Men can go hiking alone within reason. Even women can go hiking alone in many areas, but your point's a good one. Caution is key, regardless of sex. There are plenty of trails neither men nor women should venture out on without a companion. There are plenty of ways to get completely fucked up on your own.
This whole discourse has revealed more than anything just how shockingly ignorant so many sheltered urbanites are of nature.
I don't think nature is the point, but yes, agreed. Feminists are retarded. I'm glad they continue to prove it centuries later.
...devils advocacy aside, I'm sure makes up the vast majority of people who go missing in forests...made the mistake of not respecting nature, getting lost, and dying of starvation, dehydration, disease, and/or hypothermia.
Lost is the big one, all the others lead from that. You're not going to go out in the forest and starve...you're going to go out and get lost and then starve.
Personally, I suspect it's a combination of lost and injured...which leads to the same problem; not being able to get back to where you want to go. Unprepared people do stupid shit and can't get back to where they they need to be.
Yeah, there sure are a lot of serial killers on hiking trails and in the countryside...in Hollywood movies. Yeah, they've been drilling it into people's heads for almost a century that all rural people are mentally unstable inbred hicks who will kill anyone for looking at them funny, and you need to stay the hell out of them and remain deep in the metropolis, where it's safe. When the truth is the vast majority of criminals and murderers that are hostile to outsiders tend to live in the urban sprawls.
The only reason they are saying this is because they think it upsets you. They think the guys right now laughing at them are coping and seething.
None of them actually believe this and they know it. Its literally just the same SCUM manifesto type edgy posting that women love to do because they think it makes their daddy mad.
Which just further demonstrates how pathetic they all are.
It doesn't piss me off at all. It just removes any trace of remorse I may have had for not stopping to help a woman when she has a flat tire, or for not doing anything when they are assaulted or robbed by feral niggers. If you aren't my mother, my sister, or my girlfriend, your problems are not my problem. You want the bear, so deal with the bear.
So she's sexist and racist. She says all men, so she mens all men of color, all sexualities and formerly female. She has chosen to meet a bear because she is racist.
Just post a picture of Steve Urkel and say she doesn't want to be near this man.
Who cares. Women are stupid and say stupid things. "Ooh, it would be alone in a forest with a bear than a man" is just their sad version of an edge lord shit post. That an army of them keep reposting it like a bunch of seals barking on command is just for the proof of their stupidity.
This little fad test thing really does highlight something important. Women hate the average man. This is why dating is so fucked up because most men are average and most women hate average men so most women hate most men. If the question was rephrased as alone in the woods with a bear or Christian Grey, the women would pick Christian Grey. Most women only like the top 10% of men, even if the women themselves are only average women. Dating cannot work when this is the truth.
Just stick these people in a forest with a actual bear, christ I've never actually seen a bear in real life but I know going up against one would be suicidal.
Depends on the bear. In Canada we have a saying: If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lie down. If it's white, say goodnight.
Alaskan here, can confirm. Polar bears are evil. They prefer the taste of human flesh over all other food and they have a penchant for hunting children.
They also don't necessarily kill their prey first and then eat it. They will just start eating, and not really care how long it takes you to die.
Yeah I pointed that out in my other comment. They will eat you alive.
they start from your ass and work their way up while you scream
In a sane world, all polar bears would be removed. Humans are weak.
I used to be an "extinction is evil" type, but as I grow older I increasingly believe that the power to wipe out an entire species is humanity's greatest strength.
The issue is largely that we're very bad at choosing which species to eradicate.
The other problem is we don't usually full know what some species are doing for their environment, and are incapable of compensating for it fully. The Four Pests Campaign is a famous example of it. As is a lot of areas in America now being forced to re-introduce wolves into the wild to balance things.
The important part about strength is knowing when to exercise it and to what extent. Mindlessly killing everything weaker than us doesn't demonstrate anything the same way punching a child doesn't prove you are a powerlifter.
Ecosystems adjust. Such is life
Ecosystems adjust, but seeing as how we're dependent on ecosystems, we might not be able to keep up.
Yeah, but sometimes that “adjustment” is that 30 million people die of famine.
We have global trade, for better or worse. That’s highly improbable.
A handful of rednecks will hunt seals to replace polar bears. I assure you of that.
If that happened today: 1). Trade would make up for the wheat loss. 2.) a new method would be created to control locusts.
I just remember it as the opposite of people.
White bear = unreasonably violent
Brown bear = might be violent, might be safe
Black bear = if you aren't intruding, you're safe
Black and White bear = retarded
This killed me.
Black bears will EAT you if you pretend to be dead. You're better off fighting one off as your only slim chance of survival. Polar bears are outright evil, seen enough people defend them and say they're so lovely and poor polar bears etc. You've not seen them hunt.
Black bears are skittish as hell. Loud noises is usually enough to run them off. The only time you will have to fight is if there are cubs nearby.
Hey now - Cubs fans aren't that violent. I thought it was the Phillies fans you had to worry about...
Hey, when you live in a shithole that's cold all year round, that hardly has any vegetation for you to supplement your diet with, and where nearly everything you're supposed to prey on can easily outrun, outswim, and outfight you, you'd be pretty unreasonable too! Especially when you come across one of those walking cans of spam like those weak-ass hairless apes with their puny strength and pathetic run speed.
So would going up against a man, though, if you're a woman. And a man might be more determined, and less likely to be scared off. I don't think that's the argument though. The average man is less likely to attack than the average bear. It doesn't really matter which one is more dangerous in a fight, or what they'll do to you if you win, the man has a near zero chance of attacking you.
Even if men were more dangerous than bears (and they absolutely can be, thanks to technology), running into a man is still safer than running into a bear, because the man will probably just nod and say "howdy."
I find this whole thing extremely confusing and dangerous. I really can't believe how fast this idea caught fire, where's Smokey, 'only you can prevent forest fires of nonsense thought!'
Between the bearpill and ACAB these comfortable urbanites have zero self-preservation instinct.
Its like how they wont blame rapefugees for gang raping them.. they hide it or if its found out, still direct blame and vitrol towards white peepo lol.
Some insane mofos out there. Amazed we made it as a civilization. But.. i guess civilizations had strict codes and ettiquete. unlike now.
what do you mean by citizen? because, throughout 99% of history women have not been citizens in the strict sense: cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot take out a loan. it was this way for very good reasons, and if you know women you know why.
Breaking: Sluts choosing bestiality to own the incels think they have a moral highground!
These people are in one of two categories:
Neither is worth your time.
It's convoluted attention whoring. Women crave male attention even if it's negative. She isn't thinking men are mocking her retarded hypothetical, she's thinking "men are trying to make me chose them over a bear, I'm so valuable"
Please let this be the DoomerPill post to end all DoomerPill posts.
I'm so tired of his demoralization efforts and the fact that people refuse to recognize them as such. I'm convinced that he is a bad actor.
You got downvoted for this. Some people really are addicted to low quality rage bait or just want this place forum slid.
Rage drives engagement. Couple that with an upvote system and it becomes a game. This is all just entertainment rather than an actual discourse. The very medium itself drives this and most people are too dumb to realize or just don't care because they're too busy enjoying themselves. They don't stop to think about what it is they're consuming or what that lead to. Propaganda works through repetition. Keep repeating the doom and gloom message and people eventually latch onto the notion that everything has gone wrong and that there isn't hope, so they become defeated without even setting foot on the battlefield. This is what his posts accomplish and it's why I say he's a bad actor. I no longer care whether he's willfully malicious or not, the result is the same and it works against our interests.
lol
https://scored.co/c/feminism/p/17t1fWQwIW/the-same-kia2-users-that-were-ma/c
I see he's still terminally insane.
Unlike a lion, who is at least rather polite about it, bears will eat you alive because they think the noise you make is funny. So no, it actually rather amuses me to imagine these people screaming helplessly while being devoured guts first.
Ever see that Grizzly Man documentary? There's an audio of the Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend getting eaten alive but it's never been released to the public (someone made a fake, and it sounds disturbing enough). Timothy's mother was allowed to keep the recording but she's never listened to it. The documentary's director Werner Herzog was allowed to listen to it, and he immediately tells the mother, "You must never listen to this."
As humans we have conquered much of the world, to the point almost nobody has to worry about being harmed by an apex predator animal. And this safety has led to ignorance and arrogance - a lot of people think they could take on a bear or tiger in a fight. And every so often, this carelessness and stupidity slips out and some fool gets torn apart.
The Twitter bear discourse is so stupid.
One of the most forgotten facts of nature is that most animals don't care if you are dead, only that you cease to be a threat or can escape.
So if it has you ripped open or down a leg or whatever, it doesn't care much about how much pain and suffering you are in. It'll just start eating or playing with you until you bleed out on your own.
You can find all sorts of videos of lions or monkeys eating things chunk by chunk that are still trying to get away despite being half gone. Not a single fuck given about the immense suffering being caused because their brain can't even process that higher order thought. That's a human trait.
IIRC, aren't they one of the few animals that usually prefers fully dead prey and goes for the windpipe? Mostly on account of their prey being stuff that can do real damage with one lucky kick.
Possibly, I was basing the examples on videos I've actually seen. One of which was a lion just pulling and ripping chunks off some antelope who kept trying to get up and run despite his entire back half being skinned raw.
That could just be an exception to the norm for them specifically, but it was a random example I had in my head.
The most simple and common scenario, the man is completely the correct choice, and these women are retarded. That's a given.
But for the sake of autistic argument, it is a very much more context-dependent question than it first seems, with a lot of inbuilt assumptions.
Are you on a hiking trail, where people are expected? Again, seems the most likely. Are you trespassing on someone else's land? Are you in an area where drug labs/farms might be set up? Are you in black bear country, or grizzly? Are there cubs nearby?
If it's just your average man versus your average bear, which I think is a fair assumption, the man is the correct choice, every time. But, again, just for the sake of argument, there are scenarios where I'd be totally correct to pick the bear. I'd rather run into a black bear than a pot farming gang member illegal.
But I'm giving this way more thought than these feminists did.
Oh, I'm not giving them credit. I'm not trying to outline their thought process, just my own, because I found the whole "bearpill" debate hilarious, so ended up thinking it over.
The one and only good point I've seen re: men being more dangerous is that lots of serial killers prowl hiking trails since it's infinitely easier to murder a random woman and get away with it out in the wild than to do the same in populated areas.
And I only heard that point from one woman I already know in a private conversation.
But otherwise, yes, the vast majority of the discourse is just grown women acting like teenage girls who are trying to piss off their dads.
There aren't lots of serial killers period. It's a tiny, tiny percentage of the population, and I think statistically most of them are in cities anyway. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but chances are, even if it's really remote, if you run into a dude on a hiking trail, he's not a serial killer.
A fair number of people go missing in forests without a trace, there might be serial killers who are unaccounted for.
But I agree, they're still far more rare than just regular dudes who go hiking, and women listen to too many truecrime podcasts. In any event no one, especially women, should go hiking alone anyways, you're more likely to die by simply being unprepared than by a serial killer or even a wild animal.
This whole discourse has revealed more than anything just how shockingly ignorant so many sheltered urbanites are of nature. Which, my own devils advocacy aside, I'm sure makes up the vast majority of people who go missing in forests, because they made the mistake of not respecting nature, getting lost, and dying of starvation, dehydration, disease, and/or hypothermia.
Largely national forests, as I recall. Hardly your average hike, but I take your point.
It's not the true crime podcasts. They find the serial killers hot. It's the feminism, where they convince themselves all men are disgusting, evil, oppressive, and responsible for all their own failures in life. No one, literally no one, hates men because "serial killers."
Men can go hiking alone within reason. Even women can go hiking alone in many areas, but your point's a good one. Caution is key, regardless of sex. There are plenty of trails neither men nor women should venture out on without a companion. There are plenty of ways to get completely fucked up on your own.
I don't think nature is the point, but yes, agreed. Feminists are retarded. I'm glad they continue to prove it centuries later.
Lost is the big one, all the others lead from that. You're not going to go out in the forest and starve...you're going to go out and get lost and then starve.
Personally, I suspect it's a combination of lost and injured...which leads to the same problem; not being able to get back to where you want to go. Unprepared people do stupid shit and can't get back to where they they need to be.
Yeah, there sure are a lot of serial killers on hiking trails and in the countryside...in Hollywood movies. Yeah, they've been drilling it into people's heads for almost a century that all rural people are mentally unstable inbred hicks who will kill anyone for looking at them funny, and you need to stay the hell out of them and remain deep in the metropolis, where it's safe. When the truth is the vast majority of criminals and murderers that are hostile to outsiders tend to live in the urban sprawls.
Also true. Though country people should really play up the stereotype of the deranged hillbilly to keep the pozz away.
And they will be SHOCKED when young men rise up as one and undo 50 years of feminist mental abuse in a paroxysm of justified violence.
If you want to piss these women off, the question we should be asking men is "would you rather fall in love with a woman, or a car?"
and the answer is "the car, obviously."
The only reason they are saying this is because they think it upsets you. They think the guys right now laughing at them are coping and seething.
None of them actually believe this and they know it. Its literally just the same SCUM manifesto type edgy posting that women love to do because they think it makes their daddy mad.
Which just further demonstrates how pathetic they all are.
She chooses the bear.
She kicks the bear cub in a fit of attention-demanding.
Mama bear shows up.
Pillar Man theme ensues.
Jewish moment. Real women do not have this much hate on thier hearts for men
i'll enjoy watching you get mauled.
This retard would get mauled and blame men for not saving her.
Feminists be like ''at least the bear would have the decency to not make me needlessly suffer''.
Here's what you asked for
It doesn't piss me off at all. It just removes any trace of remorse I may have had for not stopping to help a woman when she has a flat tire, or for not doing anything when they are assaulted or robbed by feral niggers. If you aren't my mother, my sister, or my girlfriend, your problems are not my problem. You want the bear, so deal with the bear.
That's not a woman, that's a jew. They can't help but to worship Slaanesh.
So she's sexist and racist. She says all men, so she mens all men of color, all sexualities and formerly female. She has chosen to meet a bear because she is racist.
Just post a picture of Steve Urkel and say she doesn't want to be near this man.
knock yourself out
You don't actually choose the bear.
The forest is the bear's home.
You're willingly putting yourself there to show us how much you hate men.
Please test your theory whenever you want.
She may get eaten but she won't get raped.
As the bear's teeth sink into her genitals, ripping them apart halfway into the meal, still alive : ''at least it's not a hypothetical penis''.
Same logic : "Who would you rather have costudy of your baby ; your ex wife/girlfriend, or a bear?"
"The bear a 100%. Women kill alot more babies than bears."
Forget dogs, these cluster b art hos wanna get freaky with bears, don't they.
Who cares. Women are stupid and say stupid things. "Ooh, it would be alone in a forest with a bear than a man" is just their sad version of an edge lord shit post. That an army of them keep reposting it like a bunch of seals barking on command is just for the proof of their stupidity.
🥱
These people play too much BG3
They choose shit. All just empty words.
This little fad test thing really does highlight something important. Women hate the average man. This is why dating is so fucked up because most men are average and most women hate average men so most women hate most men. If the question was rephrased as alone in the woods with a bear or Christian Grey, the women would pick Christian Grey. Most women only like the top 10% of men, even if the women themselves are only average women. Dating cannot work when this is the truth.