No there's not. That's absurd. First off, youre not making a side by side comparison.

Its a hypothetical about trust and perceived intent to harm.

It's like asking as a hypothetical, would you rather be involved in a wreck as a passenger in a car or a boat?

The car. Obviously.

You could die in either one. But in the boat, the death could be drowning, which is perceptively worse. A lot of people have a fear of drowning, whether or not theyve ever come close to actually drowning. Why? Because that fear is instilled in us when we are very young and not great at swimming. We all know of babies or toddlers who drowned.

Also, if you die in a boat crash, there's a chance your body won't be recovered or will not be recovered easily or intact, which adds to the trauma and grief your family endures over your death. That's not nothing.

Nobody is saying the boat is evil and the car is good. It's not even about inherent safety of one over the other. It's not about experience vs lack of experience with esch. The statistics over the likelihood of car crashes vs boat crashes don't matter.

It was never a logical argument. It was a rational one based on perception when things go wrong, not IF they do. That means you have to look at everything perceptive around the decision.

That's why the bear is ALWAYS the most rational choice. The man may be the logical one, arguably.