604
manbearpig (quokk.au)
submitted 9 months ago by [M] to c/peoplemastodon@quokk.au
358 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The irony of saying it's bad to compare mosquitos to men based on number of each and interactions, while comparing men to bears.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    No its just bad for you to do it, since mosquitoes are even safer to be around than bears and thus the comparison does not at all aid your argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Quite the opposite, the murder rate would be higher if there were 110,000,000,000,000 men and even higher still if it were bears, it has perfectly helped my point significantly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    ... what.

    edit: no I've been trying to figure out what that has to do with this conversation and I'm still lost. Where did you get 110 trillion men from? What does that have to do with anything? Why are we multiplying bears?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    Low incidence rate and low population of bears.

    Higher incidence rate and higher population of men.

    Highest incidence rate and highest population of mosquitoes.

    You illustrated that as the number of them goes up so does the number of casualties, so in order to fairly compare men and bears or men and mosquitoes you need to include that incidence per populations and/or per interactions in your comparison.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent