On May 27 2014 15:46 GozoShioda wrote: I'm actually more ashamed that this type of event triggers a 20+ page discussion about PUA and other things that pretty much are making me confirm that the majority of gamers are betas who are so pre-occupied with what women think about them and how they view them. Why are you guys even so adamant about discussing how to get women. Stop putting them on a pedestal.
While it is easier to talk about the tragic end result, each relating discussion correlate to how he came to be. Gun, videogames, hate for PUA, lack of affection from women, etc.. There are many what ifs scenarios that may have prevented this. What if he didn't have a gun? What if he didn't escape real life socializing and played World of Warcraft all day? What if he was actually good at PUA? What if a girl returned his affection? What if his parents didn't divorce when he was so little? Maybe one, a combination of others, or none at all would had change the outcome.
I think this guy might have been abused as a kid, even though he didn't mention it or perhaps didn't remember it (blocked it from his memory perhaps), because this freeze reaction, his so called first traumatic event at summer camp where the girl bumps him and curses at him. That kind of reaction is really only called out when people dissociate, and they generally learn this from early on when they are badly abused or molested.
A more healthy response is fight or flight, but we also have a couple others one of which is freeze or feign when we perceive there is no hope or are trying to hide.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Did you check Mexico? One of the strictest countries on gun laws?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Strict firearm regulation equals low homicide rate. The opposite is not quite true: The US have world wide the highest number of guns but have relatively modest homicide rates.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Strict firearm regulation equals low homicide rate. The opposite is not quite true: The US have world wide the highest number of guns but have relatively modest homicide rates.
Correlation does not need to equal 1 in order for it to be a significant contributing factor. The rule of law is probably an important factor for homicide rates, which is why Mexico and the US score higher and lower respectively than what you would expect based only on number of firearms.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
edit: and by lol I meant to say that this guy should have been forced on meds or locked up a couple years ago. Fun read though :D
He was on meds and he still beat the system. I don't find your lol comment funny because it's people like you that created him in the first place.
Have you ever met a psychopath ? Someone who went certifiably insane ? Someone who gradually slipped into madness while everyone around him tried anything and everything to help him, eventually locking all the doors at night because he might just turn up and do god knows what ? Yeah, I didn't think so. You might wanna have some semblance of experience with psychopathy before you accuse anything of causing it buddy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:46 GozoShioda wrote: I'm actually more ashamed that this type of event triggers a 20+ page discussion about PUA and other things that pretty much are making me confirm that the majority of gamers are betas who are so pre-occupied with what women think about them and how they view them. Why are you guys even so adamant about discussing how to get women. Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Hi, this isn't a topic about how we can get more women in our lives. The dating thread is that way. You're projecting pretty hard here.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes?
People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter.
I just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
Ofc you have to question yourself but at the very end, you will still be doing what ever Dendi is doing. That is emulation.
Emulation is not improvement, flat out, that is a fact.
If I do what he does I'm not a better player.
If I see what he does and question why I can come to an answer. Now I've gained a piece of knowledge. Now I'm a better player for having that knowledge. That knowledge might lead to me questioning something else and gaining another piece of knowledge.
That is self improvement. Emulating is not self improvement.
Even though I disagree with Xiphos purely on the grounds that I see self-improvement only ever discussed in terms of "getting oneself to be more attractive to women" and not in terms of morality ("this guy is doing more good/less harm than that other guy and that's why he's a better person, not because he gets more women"), I honestly don't see how your own definition of self-improvement is in any way meaningful?
And I think the reason I disagree with both of you is because you are both discussing self-improvement under the wrong assumptions. It shouldn't be about improving your own status in society, self-improvement should only have the end-goal of you becoming a more moral and better person.
Self-improvement to me has exclusively to do with morality and the morality of actions and absolutely nothing to do with social status or how much sex you can get, but sadly it's almost always discussed in that way.
I read the manifesto last night. Does anyone else see the parallel, if not outright equivalence between Eliott Rodger, and Mary Shelley's brilliant creation, Frankenstein's Monster?
"You are in the wrong," replied the fiend; "and instead of threatening, I am content to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? You, my creator, would tear me to pieces and triumph; remember that, and tell me why I should pity man more than he pities me? You would not call it murder if you could precipitate me into one of those ice-rifts and destroy my frame, the work of your own hands. Shall I respect man when he condemns me? Let him live with me in the interchange of kindness, and instead of injury I would bestow every benefit upon him with tears of gratitude at his acceptance. But that cannot be; the human senses are insurmountable barriers to our union. Yet mine shall not be the submission of abject slavery. I will revenge my injuries; if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear
He was not insane, nor do the self-serving harrangues of gun control and feminist activists address the fundamental poison which destroyed this young man's life.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i1AxPrS.jpg)
