|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
Taking even money on when this thread takes the turn into gun control madness entirely. As sad as it is, about the PUAhate/forever alone discussion is one that I think should be had. Vice magazine had some interesting quotes that I think are quite excellent.
Quoting from Rodger's own video to start:
";...Girls gave their affection, and sex, and love, to othermen. But never to me. I'm 22 years old, and I'm still a virgin.'
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
Another one of their contributors wrote:
"The Elliott Rodgers massacre is an act of terrorism aimed at punish women for controlling their own sexual lives. Guns beside the point..."
Hyperbolic? Yes, but there is a good point to be taken that ties into mental health and the ability to dissociate of oneself from one's abilities to be successful in certain social/sexual spheres.
Regardless it is a sad event, it seems like Elliott left a lot of materials behind that might give more insight into his thought process than a lot of people who have committed similar crimes. I hope there is something to be made out of that.
|
another good point that highlights that is when he wrote
...a pretty girl to be my girlfriend... That was what I wanted in life. Every single hate-fueled ideal, world-view, and philosophy I created in the past was a result of not being able to do that.
|
On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime.
I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter.
|
The attempt to improve his prospects by adopting a Gatsby syndrome was part of the story, but the main reason that he could not become a better pick-up artist was because his pride prevented him from imitating the brutish sort of masculinity which he had learned to despise from an early age. He wanted what other men had, without wanting to become what they were.
|
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+
|
On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter.
You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes.
|
On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes.
That's just blatantly false. First of all if I wanted to commit a crime right now I would have no fucking idea how to get a gun, period. There's just no easy way to get one here. Secondly all countries all over the planet have crazy young adults, why is it only in the US that these events occur with such frequency? If it's not the amount of weapons what is the difference?
|
Northern Ireland27333 Posts
God the gun control debate.
I prefer people not to have guns, personally. That aside it's down to your own opinion and intuition, there are countries that function well with guns, others that do without.
It's ridiculous, we're not talking about thought experimental utopia, but actual societies with data to look at. 'X can't work because of Y' when there are multitudes of examples of the inverse being true.
|
On May 28 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes. That's just blatantly false. First off all if I wanted to commit a crime right now I would have no fucking idea how to get a gun, period. There's just no easy way to get one here. Secondly all countries all over the planet have crazy young adults, why is it only in the US that these events occur with such frequency? If it's not the amount of weapons what is the difference?
That's only because you don't want to commit a crime and are arguing hyperbole. If you wanted to commit a crime you would go to any shady part of town and ask around and eventually find someone who would sell you a gun. Being in America you still have to get a background check and go through a waiting period before getting a gun, getting one illegally is still faster. Also it appears that only half of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who could even legally own a gun, and that didn't mention anything about how many of those actually used legally obtained and registered guns or not. It seems about a quarter of the mass shootings happen strictly in (as in only in) gun free zones, where it is illegal to carry a gun anyway.
|
On May 28 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote:On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes. That's just blatantly false. First off all if I wanted to commit a crime right now I would have no fucking idea how to get a gun, period. There's just no easy way to get one here. Secondly all countries all over the planet have crazy young adults, why is it only in the US that these events occur with such frequency? If it's not the amount of weapons what is the difference? That's only because you don't want to commit a crime and are arguing hyperbole. If you wanted to commit a crime you would go to any shady part of town and ask around and eventually find someone who would sell you a gun. Being in America you still have to get a background check and go through a waiting period before getting a gun, getting one illegally is still faster. Also it appears that only half of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who could even legally own a gun, and that didn't mention anything about how many of those actually used legally obtained and registered guns or not. It seems about a quarter of the mass shootings happen strictly in (as in only in) gun free zones, where it is illegal to carry a gun anyway.
Well firstly most towns here don't have shady parts with people selling guns, no hyperbole. The US is different in that regard. And it's not only about who is legally entitled to own a gun, it's about gun culture.The overwhelming majority here does not know how to use a gun, let alone has ever used one. That's also certainly different in the US. The threshold in the US is way lower than everywhere else to get/use guns.
Also as you ignored the second part of my post. If it's not the guns, what is the difference that makes these things happen more often in the US?
|
On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes.
This is just bad argument. The law has a deterrent function. Of course it can't completely eradicate things, so a law against murder can't make murder non-existent. But apply your mind, and think of the deterrent effect of a law against murder - without such a law, people would just have no legal prohibitions about murdering people. So should we just do away with anti-murder laws? Since murderers will be murderers anyway?
The idea that if someone wants to commit a crime, they will get a gun is just convenient sleight of hand that misses the point.
|
On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female?
So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy.
It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people.
And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong.
I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense.
So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it.
|
On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it.
His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated.
|
On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated.
It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men.
In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period.
|
On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period.
i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement.
|
On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement.
Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with a woman and women in general.
|
I think the causes of his feelings are well understood on their most basic levels. What you call it is fighting over symbols, when we should spend more time trying to understand what is being signified.
The most lamentable habits of public theatre occur when people think that the question is answered when you are able to slap a label on it.
|
On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general.
I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this.
|
On May 28 2014 00:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On May 28 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote:On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote: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 really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes. That's just blatantly false. First off all if I wanted to commit a crime right now I would have no fucking idea how to get a gun, period. There's just no easy way to get one here. Secondly all countries all over the planet have crazy young adults, why is it only in the US that these events occur with such frequency? If it's not the amount of weapons what is the difference? That's only because you don't want to commit a crime and are arguing hyperbole. If you wanted to commit a crime you would go to any shady part of town and ask around and eventually find someone who would sell you a gun. Being in America you still have to get a background check and go through a waiting period before getting a gun, getting one illegally is still faster. Also it appears that only half of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who could even legally own a gun, and that didn't mention anything about how many of those actually used legally obtained and registered guns or not. It seems about a quarter of the mass shootings happen strictly in (as in only in) gun free zones, where it is illegal to carry a gun anyway. Well firstly most towns here don't have shady parts with people selling guns, no hyperbole. The US is different in that regard. And it's not only about who is legally entitled to own a gun, it's about gun culture.The overwhelming majority here does not know how to use a gun, let alone has ever used one. That's also certainly different in the US. The threshold in the US is way lower than everywhere else to get/use guns. Also as you ignored the second part of my post. If it's not the guns, what is the difference that makes these things happen more often in the US?
US simply has more people. So statistically, we're going to have more psychos.
Add in the fact that we have basically no mental healthcare, and you end up with way more mass killings than most other places.
Guns have nothing to do with it. Timothy McVeigh killed 82 with some fertilizer.
|
On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this.
If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions.
Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
