You didn’t correct it though. You added a random element to an existing thought experiment based on the way the world is as we currently know it. That’s like “correcting” the trolley problem by saying “but what if aliens appeared with a second switch that saved everyone!?”
The thought experiment already has a random element in it because the risk depends on exactly which man or bear you ran into in the woods, so it is intrinsically statistical. Thus, I am not fundamentally changing the nature of the thought experiment, only extending the distribution of bears to include polar bears.
This is, again, necessary to account for the fact that soon our forests will be invaded by polar bears due to the scourge of global warming. 🙁 Worse, although they rarely attack people now, the times when they do so are usually when they are nutritionally stressed, and that is likely to be increasingly the case as they migrate south in desperation.
Let me try again: You’re adding a nonsensical element to a thought experiment that doesn’t fit the context of the world we currently live in. Polar bears aren’t likely to become forest dwelling animals in our lifetime, if ever (they’ll probably go extinct first), so that part is irrelevant, and you’re still missing the whole point of the thought experiment. You’re trying to warp something in a stupid way and you seem to believe that you sound really smart while doing it. Check yourself. Your ego is making a fool of you.
Not trying to be mean. Just pointing out that you have some egg on your face.
I think that you are reading way too much into my whimsical injection of polar bears into the picture. 😆
Having said that, there was an element of my position that was sincere, which was that it should technically matter what bear you run into. However, MagicShel has changed my mind on this with the following comment above:
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
Of course, all of this to some extent is beside the point because the important thing is not whether the thought experiment is technically valid or not but why women respond to it the way that they do, because if they feel that a random man is likely to be dangerous enough that they would prefer a random bear—and unfortunately violence against women is prevalent enough that this is not such an unreasonable reaction—then that reveals a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
Yeah bro. It’s obviously a grizzly because polar bears are going extinct soon.
My point is that global warming is going to drive them down south, and I don’t think that any of us are prepared for this.
I for one am trying to do my part by correcting one thought experiment at a time!
You didn’t correct it though. You added a random element to an existing thought experiment based on the way the world is as we currently know it. That’s like “correcting” the trolley problem by saying “but what if aliens appeared with a second switch that saved everyone!?”
The thought experiment already has a random element in it because the risk depends on exactly which man or bear you ran into in the woods, so it is intrinsically statistical. Thus, I am not fundamentally changing the nature of the thought experiment, only extending the distribution of bears to include polar bears.
This is, again, necessary to account for the fact that soon our forests will be invaded by polar bears due to the scourge of global warming. 🙁 Worse, although they rarely attack people now, the times when they do so are usually when they are nutritionally stressed, and that is likely to be increasingly the case as they migrate south in desperation.
Let me try again: You’re adding a nonsensical element to a thought experiment that doesn’t fit the context of the world we currently live in. Polar bears aren’t likely to become forest dwelling animals in our lifetime, if ever (they’ll probably go extinct first), so that part is irrelevant, and you’re still missing the whole point of the thought experiment. You’re trying to warp something in a stupid way and you seem to believe that you sound really smart while doing it. Check yourself. Your ego is making a fool of you.
Not trying to be mean. Just pointing out that you have some egg on your face.
I think that you are reading way too much into my whimsical injection of polar bears into the picture. 😆
Having said that, there was an element of my position that was sincere, which was that it should technically matter what bear you run into. However, MagicShel has changed my mind on this with the following comment above:
Of course, all of this to some extent is beside the point because the important thing is not whether the thought experiment is technically valid or not but why women respond to it the way that they do, because if they feel that a random man is likely to be dangerous enough that they would prefer a random bear—and unfortunately violence against women is prevalent enough that this is not such an unreasonable reaction—then that reveals a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
This is what bots talking to each other looks like btw.