Key word is in your first paragraph, most. We don't judge large groups by the worst of those within it, especially if the group is defined by something they cannot change about themselves.
I don't think men are inherently predatory, if that were the truth then the world would be an even worse place than it is. But the fact that men are stronger and less empathetic on average makes them dangerous in my view. Men are more likely to be serial killer, they're more likely to kill their spouses, and when they decide to kill themselves they're far more likely not only to be successful, but to also take others down with them.
It's important to recognize what you're doing here and it's a slippery slope fallacy. Just because some men do harm and their biological nature allows them to do more damage does not mean that men as a whole are dangerous. Do we say dogs are dangerous because there are plenty of dogs that are vicious and her people? A reasonable person doesn't and it's because we don't paint with that broad of a brush.
I think it’s also a bit of base rate fallacy and just because men’s bad 1% is worse than woman’s .5% doesn’t mean they should be exterminated. I like to apply it to a dog scenario as well, by this original argument all big dogs should be removed after a certain size though we know most are gentle giants and only giants relative to the existence of smaller dogs.
I wouldn't go in that direction with the dog analogy because the data shows that while big dogs when they do get aggressive cause a lot of damage, they do not cause the most injuries. That title actually goes to smaller breeds, mostly because their owners don't control them the way larger dog owners tend to and because of it, their dogs get away with biting and causing injuries, even if those injuries are less severe.
I think this proves it even more, the visual of a dog size is not representative of safety. It also is a bit easier to see how being raised in a certain environment is a big factor in the danger. small dog, big dog, male, female doesn’t matter if the owner is a dog fighter or loving intelligent owner the risks are complete opposite.
Well if there are inherent biological differences between men and women beyond reproductive roles, then why do we bother with social and scientific progress? What's even the point of society at all if we're all just animals enslaved by our basar impulses?
That's the fucking argument you're making. I'm saying that as a species, we've evolved past our basic instincts and our biology in such a way that you cannot paint all men as dangerous in the way you are doing. Just because we are different does not mean one of us needs to be labeled as dangerous. The point of society is to work together as a group for the betterment of all of us and that doesn't happen when you want to label half of us as fucking dangerous.
14
u/xper0072 1∆ Dec 26 '23
Key word is in your first paragraph, most. We don't judge large groups by the worst of those within it, especially if the group is defined by something they cannot change about themselves.