• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • FiniteBanjo@feddit.onlineBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        … 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?

        • FiniteBanjo@feddit.onlineBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 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.