Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 11:27 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Now that I understand what you mean, I've considered other possibilities. You still haven't given a possible explanation as to why men are far more likely to get struck by lightning.

PhilX

Because in the US they're five times more likely to be out and about in their recreational pursuits? As I'm pretty sure the stat doesn't mean that if you put a man and a women together in a lightning storm a man is more likely to be hit by lightning than a women but if he is then in this situation I'd look to height as being an answer but if they lay-down - which is the recommended course of action if caught in a lightning storm - I'd make the oddds even.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Except that a man isn't 4 to 5 times higher than a woman, just a few inches so I reject this explanation.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 12:48 am It was suggested from the internet that recreation is the answer and it was further suggested here that golf and fishing would lead to that situation. However an activity such as shopping would be far more common than fishing and golf combined. …

Maybe something in men attracts lightning (but what?)

This is the type of question that should be posted on Quora for a discussion. I'm letting it go as I don't think it can be answered here so I won't follow it any further here. …

PhilX

BTW Arising, besides height, you overlooked weight, but that doesn't explain either.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:45 amAre you mental!?

PhilX wrote:Wouldn't metal bleachers attract lightning and fricasee the women and children too?

Noax wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 2:40 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:45 amAre you mental!?

You're just now picking up on that? He didn't notice the sarcasm here for instance:

PhilX wrote:Wouldn't metal bleachers attract lightning and fricasee the women and children too?

Fishing and repair of power lines are two activities often done in poor weather, and both make for extreme unprotected lightning targets, and both are probably more than 80% performed by males. This is a wild guess on my part. The stat says 'struck' and not necessarily killed. I would think that the power line guys would wear protection of a sort given the danger. Golf is bad as well, and lots of injuries/fatalities from sheltering under a lone tree, almost the worst place to hide.

I was caught in a flash storm while in a metal canoe, and we had to choose between death by lightning or hypothermia. We chose the former, but at least had the sense to hug the shore of the wide river all the way.
My nearest strike (not the canoe day) was about 9 meters away. More loud than anything else. Didn't feel that one, but I felt another one.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 1:51 pm Men are five times more likely to be struck by lightning than women (I believe this stat pertains to the US).

Why?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 1:51 pm Men are five times more likely to be struck by lightning than women (I believe this stat pertains to the US).

Why?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 1:51 pm Men are five times more likely to be struck by lightning than women (I believe this stat pertains to the US).

Why?

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 1:45 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 12:48 am It was suggested from the internet that recreation is the answer and it was further suggested here that golf and fishing would lead to that situation. However an activity such as shopping would be far more common than fishing and golf combined. …

Are you mental!? There are buildings when you are shopping which in a thunderstorm area will most likely have lightning rods attached, plus the women apparently have more sense than the men in the US and would be inside of them.

Maybe something in men attracts lightning (but what?)

Given this discussion in the US it appears to be a lack of male brain-power.

This is the type of question that should be posted on Quora for a discussion. I'm letting it go as I don't think it can be answered here so I won't follow it any further here. …

Any Quora you post this on will be having a right laugh but maybe not on a US one given the evidence so far.

PhilX

BTW Arising, besides height, you overlooked weight, but that doesn't explain either.

There's nothing to explain!! You already had the explanation when you goggled it but for some inane reason you've not understood it.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 1:10 pm Here's a good question for you all. It's been advised not to stand under a tree during a thunderstorm so how far should you be from a tree? Because if you're standing far enough, wouldn't that make you a new target of lightning?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 3:32 pm

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 2:58 pm Perhaps because men are taller...?

The internet says it's because men are recreational, but I don't buy that explanation. At a game, you may have men on the field, but you have their wives and girlfriends in the stands e.g. out in the open.

Again I ask why?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Arising posted this ad hom: …

You don't know what you're talking about. I was shopping by a mall when a thunderstorm struck (I stayed inside). The storm struck a McDonalds across the street, which was near taller office buildings, setting it on fire. Those lightning rods did McDonalds a world of good, didn't they Arising? …

Oh, and those women allegedly having more sense than the men shows how desperate you are in trying to win an argument and how prejudiced you are towards men as you can't find a study to support your pathetic argument. …

You lost this argument Arising.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 1:10 pm Here's a good question for you all. It's been advised not to stand under a tree during a thunderstorm so how far should you be from a tree? Because if you're standing far enough, wouldn't that make you a new target of lightning?

PhilX