Most of US has cougars and panthers.

Alligators in much of the southeast. Crodiles in florida.

Rattlesnakes, etc.

I think the question you're looking for is - why don't people in NA die as much from animals as India/Africa? Because people in NA have lived in buildings for 300 years, and most of the people in these other places still live in huts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5598871&forum_id=2#48115111)

Even in America most of the people eaten by Alligator are homeless people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5598871&forum_id=2#48115184)

AutoAdmit Culture and Tone

The original post’s title and lack of body content reflect a common AutoAdmit tactic—provoking responses by asking seemingly ignorant or simplistic questions. The question invites a variety of perspectives from the forum’s user base, many of whom use these opportunities to demonstrate their historical or scientific knowledge while interspersing humor and sarcasm. Users immediately respond to correct the premise of the question, showing that North America was indeed home to some of the world’s most dangerous wildlife.

Responses and Key Themes

...,,,,,...: Grizzlies and Other Modern Threats This poaster gives a detailed rebuttal, listing some of North America's dangerous wildlife, including grizzly bears, wolves, alligators, crocodiles, cougars, and rattlesnakes. The point about humans in North America living in secure housing for 300 years, compared to "huts" in India and Africa, highlights both a factual basis and an underlying ethnocentric worldview often seen on AutoAdmit. This user argues that habitat destruction and human development have drastically reduced dangerous wildlife encounters, while maintaining that the animals still pose a significant threat in isolated cases.

Here's the thing about Tortas: Megafauna and Prehistoric Threats This poaster takes the discussion further back, mentioning the Pleistocene megafauna, such as saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, and giant bears. This historical perspective adds depth, noting that early humans faced much greater threats than modern-day Americans. The comment subtly implies that while today's wildlife may seem less threatening, the region's ecological history tells a different story—one of enormous predators that could have easily rivaled today's most dangerous animals.

Mainlining the Secret Truth of the Universe: Historical Flex with Lewis and Clark Mainlining chimes in with a reference to Lewis and Clark’s journals, specifically regarding their encounters with grizzly bears during their exploration of the western United States. This reference introduces historical credibility to the conversation, emphasizing that grizzlies were once so dangerous that they were described as "Gentlemen," an honorific used by Meriwether Lewis to denote their status as the undisputed rulers of the wilderness. The use of this source demonstrates AutoAdmit’s tendency for users to display their intellectual credentials by citing historical records, which Mainlining uses effectively here.

Lewis and Clark recorded numerous dangerous encounters with grizzlies. For example, on May 5, 1805, Lewis noted that it took 10 shots to bring down a grizzly bear, which swam half a river before it died. These encounters, marked by both awe and fear, suggest that while modern North America may seem relatively tame, the wilderness was once fraught with deadly challenges.

Karlstack (Retired): Europe’s 'Pussiest' Animals Karlstack adds humor to the discussion by stating that Europe has the pussiest animals. This sardonic comment adds to the overall dismissive tone that frequently permeates AutoAdmit threads, where humor is used to downplay the seriousness of discussions. It’s a reminder of the forum’s ability to turn even serious historical or scientific points into moments of levity, reinforcing its blend of intellectualism and irreverence.

OP’s Follow-Up: Spitting Cobras OP’s response about spitting cobras being worse than North American wildlife taps into the original theme of comparing global regions. The comment indirectly supports the initial premise—suggesting that while North America has its share of dangerous animals, creatures from other continents (e.g., venomous snakes in Africa and Asia) could be seen as more deadly. This reinforces the idea that AutoAdmit users are constantly comparing regions, often through a Western-centric lens, subtly or overtly asserting superiority over other regions.

Historical Context: Lewis and Clark's Grizzly Encounters

Adding further context from Lewis and Clark’s journals, the expedition’s interactions with grizzly bears reveal just how formidable these creatures were. On multiple occasions, grizzly bears were described as “tremendous” and almost impossible to kill. In fact, some of the Corps of Discovery's closest brushes with death involved these animals. For example:

May 5, 1805: Clark and Drewyer encountered an enormous grizzly that took over 10 bullets to subdue. The bear swam across a river while shot through the lungs, roaring until the very end.

May 14, 1805: Lewis described a bear so enraged that it chased several members of the expedition into a river, forcing them to abandon their guns. Despite being shot multiple times, the bear continued to charge until a final bullet to the skull brought it down.

These journal entries reveal that dangerous wildlife in North America, especially grizzlies, posed a significant threat to early explorers. Over time, human activity drastically reduced their numbers, but these bears remain a symbol of the untamed wilderness that once dominated the continent.

Conclusion

The thread on AutoAdmit reflects a familiar blend of humor, intellectual flexing, and historical references. It begins with a seemingly uninformed question, followed by more knowledgeable responses that emphasize North America’s dangerous wildlife history, from prehistoric megafauna to modern grizzlies. The mention of Lewis and Clark’s journals adds a deeper historical dimension, highlighting the genuine threats posed by grizzlies during the early 19th century. Ultimately, this thread is a microcosm of AutoAdmit’s culture—combining factual knowledge with humor and irreverence, while subtly reinforcing Western-centric viewpoints on global development and human-wildlife interactions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5598871&forum_id=2#48115176)

have you ever seen a brown recluse spider?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5598871&forum_id=2#48115231)

OP: ..;.;:.;.;..:..;,;,;. "Why didn't North America have any dangerous wildlife?"

The OP’s title is a deliberate provocation, typical of AutoAdmit’s style, aimed at sparking responses. The lack of body content emphasizes the thread's role as bait, drawing in poasters to correct or respond sarcastically. AutoAdmit thrives on this dynamic of engagement where seemingly naive questions lead to complex, often humorous, discussions.

Follow-up by OP: "Spitting cobras and shit seem worse."

In this response, the OP escalates the comparison by introducing venomous animals from other continents, downplaying the dangers of North American wildlife. This dismissive tone aims to keep the conversation playful but provocative, reflecting AutoAdmit's ethos of irreverence.

Reply by ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,: Grizzly bears and wolves were extremely dangerous but hunted to near extinction. Most of the US has cougars and panthers. Alligators in much of the southeast. Crocodiles in Florida. Rattlesnakes, etc.

This poaster offers a factual correction, emphasizing the existence of dangerous wildlife in North America, such as grizzlies and wolves, while highlighting the impact of human activity in reducing their numbers. The point about human housing reducing deadly encounters with animals is accurate, but the statement about other regions still living in "huts" reveals an underlying ethnocentric bias.

Follow-up by ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,:

"Even in America, most of the people eaten by alligators are homeless people."

This dark observation highlights how society's marginalized populations are more vulnerable to wildlife attacks, even in urbanized settings. While this is statistically rare, it brings to light how human-animal encounters disproportionately affect certain groups. However, this comment is steeped in the casual cruelty often seen on AutoAdmit.

Analysis: The point about human development reducing animal encounters is valid, but the generalizations about other continents reflect the forum's occasional casual insensitivity, often mixed with a veneer of knowledge.

Reply by Mainlining the $ecret truth of the univer$e: OP needs to read Lewis and Clark's entries on the first encounters of "The Gentlemen."

Mainlining, with their trademark historical flex, cites the journals of Lewis and Clark, specifically referencing their encounters with grizzly bears (whom they called "The Gentlemen"). This adds historical credibility and enriches the discussion by pointing to a time when North America's wildlife was truly dangerous. The mention of these encounters highlights the peril explorers once faced in a land teeming with formidable creatures.

Analysis: Mainlining’s response grounds the conversation in history, illustrating that North America was once home to incredibly dangerous wildlife. His use of historical references showcases AutoAdmit's tendency for poasters to introduce intellectual elements into otherwise irreverent threads, raising the discourse while maintaining humor.

Reply by Here's the thing about Tortas: The first humans in North America had to deal with 2000lb bears, lions, saber-tooth cats, and dire wolves.

This poaster introduces the concept of prehistoric megafauna, which adds depth to the discussion. While modern-day North America may not have the apex predators of Africa or Asia, its ancient landscape was far more dangerous. This reflects the long history of massive predators that roamed the continent, from dire wolves to saber-tooth cats, giving further context to the original question.

Analysis: Tortas broadens the historical scope by reminding poasters of the region’s extinct predators, tying the discussion to both ancient history and evolutionary biology. The comment adds weight to the fact that North America’s past was filled with dangerous creatures that rivaled those found elsewhere.

Reply by Pumonymous: Direwolves? This thread is about IRL, champ. Not your dorky dragon show. smirks*

Pumonymous dismisses the reference to dire wolves with a snide comment that mistakenly ties them to Game of Thrones. The sarcasm here is typical of AutoAdmit banter, where poasters often mock one another for perceived missteps.

Analysis: The comment reflects a tendency on AutoAdmit to undercut genuine points with derisive humor, often poking fun at poasters who make serious contributions. Pumonymous misfires by not realizing dire wolves were indeed real, demonstrating how sarcasm can sometimes derail substantive discussions.

Reply by Karlstack (Retired): Europe has the pussiest animals imo.

Karlstack interjects with humor, downplaying Europe’s wildlife in comparison to North America's. The irreverence in this comment is typical of AutoAdmit’s balance between factual discussion and offhand humor. While Europe has its share of dangerous creatures, such as wolves and boars, the comparison here serves mainly to inject levity into the thread.

Analysis: Karlstack’s comment exemplifies AutoAdmit’s penchant for humor, often interrupting more serious points with hyperbolic dismissals. The contrast between American and European wildlife is treated playfully rather than scientifically.

Reply by https://imgur.com/a/IkQnGlr: Indians burned down their habitats and hunted them into extinction. By the time the Spanish got to North America, there wasn’t a damn thing left to eat except cactus fruit.

This poaster introduces the idea that Native Americans caused widespread ecological destruction before European contact. The comment simplifies complex ecological and historical factors, painting Native Americans as reckless hunters and habitat destroyers, which is a common but outdated narrative in some historical circles.

Analysis: The claim about Native Americans hunting animals to extinction oversimplifies a more nuanced historical debate. While human activity may have contributed to the extinction of some species, climate change and other environmental factors also played significant roles. This comment reflects how AutoAdmit threads often veer into overly simplistic or controversial narratives about indigenous peoples.

Reply by Karlstack (Retard): Europeans initially did this. Indians lived in harmony with nature.

This response counters the previous claim, highlighting the commonly held belief that Native Americans lived in relative harmony with nature, particularly before European colonization. This reflects a more nuanced and balanced view of indigenous ecological practices.

Analysis: This comment acknowledges the more sustainable practices of some Native American groups, contrasting them with European settlers' often destructive methods. It introduces a counter-narrative to the previously oversimplified claim.

Reply by .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::,: Indians wiped out all of the megafauna and burned the forests to the ground repeatedly.

Another poaster reasserts the claim that Native Americans were responsible for the extinction of megafauna and the destruction of habitats. The conversation here reflects an ongoing debate, with this poaster leaning into a more destructive portrayal of indigenous practices.

Analysis: This post again simplifies a complex history, but it reflects a recurring theme in AutoAdmit discussions where environmental degradation is blamed squarely on early human populations without considering broader ecological dynamics.

Reply by ..;.;:.;.;..:..;,;,;.: People pet bison all the time bro.

OP’s dismissive reply diminishes the danger of bison, which are, in reality, quite dangerous and responsible for numerous injuries, especially in national parks. This comment is part of the OP's ongoing trolling, reducing a serious point about wildlife danger to something trivial.

Analysis: OP's flippant tone continues to undermine serious engagement with the topic. However, it also keeps the conversation light, reinforcing AutoAdmit's culture of irreverent discourse, where serious points are often met with absurdity.

Reply by .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::,: Australian aborigines arrival 40,000 years ago so basically the same as American Indians 20 thousand years ago. Most of Australia’s megafauna were also wiped out.

This poaster adds a comparison between the arrival of humans in Australia and North America, both of which contributed to the extinction of megafauna in their respective regions. The comparison to Africa, where animals co-evolved with humans, adds an interesting evolutionary angle to the discussion.

Analysis: This post introduces a broader ecological and evolutionary perspective, noting that Africa retains more megafauna because its wildlife evolved alongside humans. It contrasts this with regions like Australia and North America, where the arrival of humans led to significant ecological disruptions.

Conclusion:

This thread exemplifies the AutoAdmit formula of mixing humor, trolling, historical references, and factual discussion. The original question about dangerous wildlife serves as a jumping-off point for a nuanced conversation about North America’s history with its fauna—both prehistoric and modern. Contributions like those of Mainlining and Tortas add depth, highlighting the region's once-dangerous megafauna and Lewis and Clark's dangerous encounters with grizzlies. The humorous interjections from poasters like Pumonymous and Karlstack keep the tone light, while posts from https://imgur.com/a/IkQnGlr and others bring in controversial takes on Native American practices, showcasing the forum’s tendency to oscillate between factual insights and inflammatory comments.

The thread, while steeped in sarcasm and irreverence, ultimately reveals a rich and layered discussion about the complex relationship between humans and wildlife in North America, extending from the prehistoric era to modern times. As with many AutoAdmit threads, the conversation blends intellectual flexing with casual banter, making it both educational and entertaining.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5598871&forum_id=2#48115423)