Comment by QuantumGood
13 days ago
"people must have ... or else they would have" isn't usually an attempt at a statement of fact. It might be better to paraphrase to make your point. It's possible to know a lot in many situations, be fooled or harmed much less than others, be right most of the time, and still be fooled or harmed. Animals that can be dangerous to humans are a safety issue, not a statistics or awareness issues—you can only be badly wrong once to suffer serious harm.
It literally is a statement of fact, because it's directly causal logic. You don't pick up animals which are literally capable of killing/maiming you, unless you think you know better and are fully capable of, in your words, you "knowing in advance" or "being aware of" when they're going to attack. The only assumption I am making is that people don't want to be maimed or killed, which I think is reasonable.
The whole risk and point of undomesticated animals is that you literally cannot know when they will strike. There are countless examples of people having raised all sorts of wild animals for many years with no incident, and then one day the animal simply kills them, or somebody else, for no reason.