So they are a bigot basically.

There are dangerous people out there but try to remember that most people are just like yourself. I remember having to walk home several miles at an inhuman hour after work do to transportation challenges and for the most parts the streets were empty but there were some folks out and I remember feeling paranoid at the sort of people who are out at 3AM.

Then I realized how ridiculous my thoughts were I was out here after all so why was I judging them. They were most likely coming home from work or going to work, or out for some cool air or any number of things. They were people not caricatures. Objectively the level of danger was actually no much different than driving in busy traffic and probably less than the folks commuting by bike given how people drive.

I’m not engaging further with what I think is a bad analogy.

I guess all these “not me though” or “but a bear will kill you” types don’t get that they are outing themselves as being of questionable trustworthiness.

Maybe outing themselves as pedants who don’t like shitty analogies. How do you get from disagreeing with labeling all men predators to … must be a predator. That just seems like you glued two concepts together and expected it to make a coherent thought. If A in some universe and B in some universe then if A thus B.

I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it

I’m not a predator. I’m bothered by it

They might not be sexual predators

So because I disagree I might be a rapist. Super real there.

but I have no doubt they would gladly vote away women’s rights because its their party or its the christian way or some other shit like that.

I’m an Atheist who votes Democrat and supports women’s rights

Truly innocent men would just leave women scared of them alone

This is a discussion forum. The poster started a thread to discuss the topic. I’m discussing the topic. Nobody is attacking anyone with their words.

There is no reason to convince them

This is a many to many discussion forum people aren’t just engaging with the poster they are engaging with other readers interested in the same topic. Notice how our discussion is a sub-thread to each other and merely about the topic broached by the original poster.

doing so only makes them more afraid.

You are infantalizing the poster by imagining that she creates a topic but is rendered afraid by the mere fact that some people don’t agree with her. I don’t think that is even slightly reasonable.

This post could be a subject of an entire paper on how to write dishonestly and for emotional impact instead of honest argument. Please stop doing this.

The poster brought up the man vs bear debate it was the entire topic of discussion. This is the last sentence in my post.

It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.

Please explain how I told them they deserve it. Use small words.

Of course I’m not. I just think the analogy is just incredibly overstated. Bears are in fact all fairly dangerous. Most men just aren’t

It is legal ethical moral and reasonable to call the cops because it is the only practical way to make people stop breaking the law. If the cops don’t want to be prosecuted or hated they can stop overreacting and hurting people. If the people want to avoid the risk of excess harm they can stop committing crimes or vote for politicians who hold cops accountable. None of this is my problem.

Regarding Man v Bear I think the topic is rather silly. Most bears aren’t looking to have a meet and greet if you do come across a bear one of three things are true. It’s here to eat you, it didn’t leave because its a she-bear and it has cubs its protecting, or you just startled it. If any of the above is true you are at best in serious danger. If it is actually trying to prey upon you then you are probably fucked. Whereas 100% of the bears you surprise in the woods are extremely dangerous 99.99% of people you meet man or woman are just people like yourself not looking for trouble.

It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.

When someone commits crimes it is legal, ethical, moral, and reasonable that you call the cops on them. It’s also reasonable to expect that the cops arrest them not summarily execute them. You can’t make the people responsible for the cops behavior.

Manufacturing prop money for movie purposes isn’t illegal. Passing it as legal tender IS. Note that passing and creating are 2 separate crimes. Notably even though he is giving it away he has specifically stated that the aim of this scheme is for it to be used for commerce by unwitting victims.

On most phones the end result will look fairly poor AND it will be a pain in the ass.

The way out of the riddle is that there never was a ship of Theseus to begin with or a you those are just referents like pointers used to refer to an evolving system with a known state at a known starting point and probabilistic predictions of a future state based on known factors.

Price controls can cause all capital to exit the market. If the state picks up the tab and sets an unreasonably low rate the state may eventually go bankrupt and crease to be able to borrow

How do you plan to arrange that insurance payout. You sure can’t on the open market. Why should uncle sam buy them for more than they are in fact worth when the majority of them were built poorly situated. The flood plain didn’t materialize thereafter it just got more problematic.

Do you just not know how this works? The authorities will be doing evictions and yes they will take everything. There is literally a company trying to essentially sell a town right now.

All the poor fuckers who don’t have a house aren’t going to have the government find them one and hand them to it. Replacing 5% of the single family homes would cost about 2T given that houses aren’t worth the same, the unit replacement cost on rich kids houses is going to 2-3x the cost of an average house AND the fancy real estate’s propensity to be situated near water in what will be future flood plains the majority of that money will go to those who already have the most advantages.

Conversely if those people aren’t absolute morons those properties are absolutely saleable at this point irrespective of it being expensive to purchase insurance. If your property is bound for the bottom in 20 years sell it now while people aren’t too cognizant of this issue before your fortunes go down with the ship.

Herrera shopped around for a new plan, but he struggled to find a policy. Louisiana Citizens, the insurer of last resort for property owners in the state, was out of the question. It would have cost more than $7,000 annually. Herrera eventually found a policy with a small company in the state that charged him $4,930 annually — a 208% increase from what he paid in 2022.

There were at least 2 options $5000–$7000. Sell to someone at a discount with the understanding that buyer is willing and able to bear at least $5000 in annual insurance costs. Do this before its actually uninsurable.

Insurance is a slush fund which earns interest in between taking in premiums and paying out claims. If you mandate that they lose money the whole game pretty obviously collapses and the losses are unlimited.

Start an insurance company.

I cannot think of something I want nationalized less than home insurance. Climate change means that some areas are actually much riskier than they were before and the truth is some portion of households are going to become uninsurable and others are going to become expensive. Option 1: The expense of insurance and risk can be priced into the property at time of sale to a buyer willing to bear the cost. Option 2: If we are going to give free money to these people when their house is destroyed with government subsidized insurance to cover disasters it should be on condition of condemning uninsurable properties not rebuilding them multiple times.

If the price is inflated someone ought to start an insurance company to cover those folks for less and arbitage themselves into vast riches for all these underserved folks. More likely the prices reflect reality and they should pay them.