[dchftcs]

You need to develop some empathy and learn that false accusations can destroy lives and families. You have no right to force someone accept even a 1% chance that something like that happens, even if it's less prevalent than assaults.

[john_strinlai]

they didnt say false accusations dont happen, or that they arent harmful, or that anyone should be forced to do anything.

you read what you wanted to read, instead of what was actually written

[Dylan16807]

It looked to me like RajT88 was participating in a rebuttal of SoftTalker's comment. I don't think that interpretation is "reading what you wanted to read". The place you put a comment has implications for what you're arguing.

[RajT88]

The suggestion I was "forcing" someone to accept a risk is reading what they want to read into my comment. I cannot force anyone to do anything, I am mere lines of text on a screen.

Whether I was rebutting their comment depends on the subtext you think their comment had. There could very well be a subtext for such a well worn talking point.

[Dylan16807]

> The suggestion I was "forcing" someone to accept a risk is reading what they want to read into my comment. I cannot force anyone to do anything, I am mere lines of text on a screen.

That meaning of "forced" is very unreasonably literal. The meaning of "forced" here is that it's the only socially acceptable option, not that there's a gun pointed at them.

> Whether I was rebutting their comment depends on the subtext you think their comment had. There could very well be a subtext for such a well worn talking point.

They were saying it's reasonable to refuse the trip because of their false accusation worry. I don't know if I would even call it subtext, it seemed to be pretty upfront.

The subtext of your comment, if any, seemed to be that it's not reasonable to refuse for that reason.

I'm not 100% sure if that's what you meant, but whether it means that is entirely based on you. It's not based on their subtext. You should just tell us if that's what you meant.

Edit: In another comment you put> Nailed it. The amount of bandwidth men should dedicate to this is far lower than what women should be dedicating to it in terms of absolute risk.

I bet SoftTalker already does dedicate negligible bandwidth to that issue. A stranger coming up to you and asking for a ride is a very rare occurrence.

[RajT88]

You can refuse a stranger a ride if it feels off to you.

If you are telling a personal anecdote to threadjack a topic, there are several potential reasons why - if that is what you are trying to do. It is open to interpretation as to that poster's intent.

I have my own opinion having read dozens of discussions like this. YMMV.

[Dylan16807]

> If you are telling a personal anecdote to threadjack a topic, there are several potential reasons why - if that is what you are trying to do. It is open to interpretation as to that poster's intent.

So whether you were rebutting their comment is based on the reason they "threadjacked", and not the contents of their post? That means no rebuttal for what they explicitly said. And what they explicitly said was refusing a ride because of gender. Okay, that clarifies things. But it would make everyone's lives easier if you made your implications more direct from the start.

[mmooss]

So could a car accident, but you still drive. There are lots of risks in the world; they need to be assessed by their likelihood x damage.

[dchftcs]

It may be surprising to you, but I don't drive (I don't live in the US, but even when I did I didn't really have to), and there was a period of time I resorted to not even taking taxis because a crash in those times would have been much messier than just myself dying. But my own private life aside, driving, to many people, is a necessity, sometimes even for survival, while lending a hand to a stranger, however nobel that may be, is not.