|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 28 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:45 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 03:31 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 03:00 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this".. Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have Iuno, maybe if no one was racist Breivik wouldn't have been racist. Like you said its about the individuals; Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist. These were their self proclaimed primary motivations. And that's totally irrelevant. Because let's try and be a little realistic here for a second. We will never get rid of racism, sexism, etc.. entirely and even if we could I very much doubt that people wouldn't then just find other reasons to justify killing other people. As for your second statement, you demonstrate a weird understanding of causality. Yes Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist, but these things cannot be the ultimate causes of their actions, because people do not subscribe to ideologies in a vacuum, there are prior events, experiences, etc.. that inform that choice. Nobody is born as a racist or a sexist, there are events that can result in people becoming racist, sexist, nationalist, etc... and it's those events that are the actual causes of their actions, not them deciding to subscribe to a particular ideology at some point in their lives. And even that is assuming that they are rational enough to have their actions be consistent with their self-proclaimed ideology, which Elliot evidently was not. And of course all of this is ignoring the possibility that it we don't have a good enough understanding of biology and psychology to rule out the possibility that some people might just be genetically pre-disposed to be more aggressive, more envious, more hateful than others... we cannot systematically rule that out either. well i didn't ignore that possibility... or say anything about causation... so i'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm positive there were societal influences that shaped his ideology and made him feel entitled to women. (i still don't know where you're going with this arbitrary vacuum ideology thing)
You don't think asserting that "the reason/his motive why he did X is Y" is a causal statement?
And by the way, I told you repeatedly that I won't play this kind of ballgame where we kind of have to presuppose that we should even care what Elliot Rodgers' thoughts were, given the fact that he was evidently crazy.
My stance is very clear on this, he was simply crazy, there are millions if not billions of people living worse lives than him and they don't go around killing people, so this has everything to do with Elliot Rodgers as an individual and absolutely nothing with his ideology.
|
On May 27 2014 14:43 crc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 14:25 Esk23 wrote:On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote:I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUS has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution. Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far. Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns. And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
No, the killers from Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech were BOTH on psychiatric drugs.
http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41218/
http://articles.courant.com/2013-12-28/news/hc-lanza-sandy-hook-report1228-20131227_1_peter-lanza-adam-lanza-nancy-lanza
Read the link above about all the incidents where the perpetrators were on some form of psychiatric drugs.
Again, I'll post this link:
http://www.cchrint.org/2014/05/26/will-lawmakers-investigate-elliot-rodgers-psychiatric-drug-use-or-ignore-it-that-is-the-question/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=will-lawmakers-investigate-elliot-rodgers-psychiatric-drug-use-or-ignore-it-that-is-the-question
"It seems pretty clear that psychiatric drugs played a key role in this killer’s life. Considering this data about Rodgers and the fact that there are 22 drug regulatory agency warnings from five countries and the European Union on psychiatric drugs causing violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, mania and homicidal ideation, and lawmakers still don’t get it… they still think the problem lies in the tool used in the killings?"
Taken from the link I posted.
It's a fact that all the major mass shootings we've seen over the past 15 years the killers were prescribed some form of psychiatric drugs. More people in the US are prescribed psychiatric drugs than anywhere else. They prescribe them throughout many schools all over the US. It's obvious this problem is getting worse the more people are prescribed psychiatric drugs.
Anyone hear of those bath salts that literally turned people into zombies and they'd go around biting people's faces off?
It's no accident.
http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/18/with-49-million-americans-on-psychiatric-drugs-renowned-psychiatrist-issues-call-for-psychiatric-drug-withdrawal/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/psychiatric-drugs-harm-than-good-ssri-antidepressants-benzodiazepines
|
This, like all the other spree shootings, is really sad. I don't really want to know more about the perpetrator, or dwell on his "ideology" or mental state. I wish he had not done this. I fear that the general public focuses on these murderers and creates anti-heroes out of them.
|
On May 28 2014 04:11 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 03:45 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 03:31 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 03:00 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this".. Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have Iuno, maybe if no one was racist Breivik wouldn't have been racist. Like you said its about the individuals; Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist. These were their self proclaimed primary motivations. And that's totally irrelevant. Because let's try and be a little realistic here for a second. We will never get rid of racism, sexism, etc.. entirely and even if we could I very much doubt that people wouldn't then just find other reasons to justify killing other people. As for your second statement, you demonstrate a weird understanding of causality. Yes Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist, but these things cannot be the ultimate causes of their actions, because people do not subscribe to ideologies in a vacuum, there are prior events, experiences, etc.. that inform that choice. Nobody is born as a racist or a sexist, there are events that can result in people becoming racist, sexist, nationalist, etc... and it's those events that are the actual causes of their actions, not them deciding to subscribe to a particular ideology at some point in their lives. And even that is assuming that they are rational enough to have their actions be consistent with their self-proclaimed ideology, which Elliot evidently was not. And of course all of this is ignoring the possibility that it we don't have a good enough understanding of biology and psychology to rule out the possibility that some people might just be genetically pre-disposed to be more aggressive, more envious, more hateful than others... we cannot systematically rule that out either. well i didn't ignore that possibility... or say anything about causation... so i'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm positive there were societal influences that shaped his ideology and made him feel entitled to women. (i still don't know where you're going with this arbitrary vacuum ideology thing) You don't think asserting that "the reason/his motive why he did X is Y" is a causal statement? And by the way, I told you repeatedly that I won't play this kind of ballgame where we kind of have to presuppose that we should even care what Elliot Rodgers' thoughts were, given the fact that he was evidently crazy. My stance is very clear on this, he was simply crazy, there are millions if not billions of people living worse lives than him and they don't go around killing people, so this has everything to do with Elliot Rodgers as an individual and absolutely nothing with his ideology.
A causes B causes C. its true that both A and B cause C. I was never saying A had nothing to do with it. A is what we as a society are (or should be) trying to get rid of. Individuals have ideologies. Crazy individuals still have ideologies. Some of these motivate them to do crazy things, like in this case. The fact that he is crazy affects what he believes but it does not make him incapable of believing anything.
You started this thread with "... perhaps we should now blame women for this shooting. Seems fair to me." I responded to you when you said he didn't hate women he hated everyone. after i pointed to where he repeatedly hated on women and explained how he can hate everyone while/because he hates women, you went with "he was inconsistent in who he killed", i disagreed that this had any significance, but you wouldn't let it go finally ending up bouncing around these points of "ultimate cause" and "ideology has nothing to do with the individual" Can you stop projecting your resentment for your mother to everyone that acknowledges misogyny. He tried really hard to make his primary motivator exceptionally clear and you still can't accept it. of course this motivator didn't come out of no where but that has nothing to do with if its the motivator or not.
|
On May 28 2014 04:41 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 04:11 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 03:56 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 03:45 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 03:31 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 03:00 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this".. Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have Iuno, maybe if no one was racist Breivik wouldn't have been racist. Like you said its about the individuals; Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist. These were their self proclaimed primary motivations. And that's totally irrelevant. Because let's try and be a little realistic here for a second. We will never get rid of racism, sexism, etc.. entirely and even if we could I very much doubt that people wouldn't then just find other reasons to justify killing other people. As for your second statement, you demonstrate a weird understanding of causality. Yes Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist, but these things cannot be the ultimate causes of their actions, because people do not subscribe to ideologies in a vacuum, there are prior events, experiences, etc.. that inform that choice. Nobody is born as a racist or a sexist, there are events that can result in people becoming racist, sexist, nationalist, etc... and it's those events that are the actual causes of their actions, not them deciding to subscribe to a particular ideology at some point in their lives. And even that is assuming that they are rational enough to have their actions be consistent with their self-proclaimed ideology, which Elliot evidently was not. And of course all of this is ignoring the possibility that it we don't have a good enough understanding of biology and psychology to rule out the possibility that some people might just be genetically pre-disposed to be more aggressive, more envious, more hateful than others... we cannot systematically rule that out either. well i didn't ignore that possibility... or say anything about causation... so i'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm positive there were societal influences that shaped his ideology and made him feel entitled to women. (i still don't know where you're going with this arbitrary vacuum ideology thing) You don't think asserting that "the reason/his motive why he did X is Y" is a causal statement? And by the way, I told you repeatedly that I won't play this kind of ballgame where we kind of have to presuppose that we should even care what Elliot Rodgers' thoughts were, given the fact that he was evidently crazy. My stance is very clear on this, he was simply crazy, there are millions if not billions of people living worse lives than him and they don't go around killing people, so this has everything to do with Elliot Rodgers as an individual and absolutely nothing with his ideology. A causes B causes C. its true that both A and B cause C. I was never saying A had nothing to do with it. A is what we as a society are (or should be) trying to get rid of. Individuals have ideologies. Crazy individuals still have ideologies. Some of these motivate them to do crazy things, like in this case. The fact that he is crazy affects what he believes but it does not make him incapable of believing anything.
Which I of course never said. Crazy people believe all kinds of things, there are even people who believe they can fly until they try it and fall to their own deaths. Which is why I don't understand how this particular crazy person's beliefs are supposed to be relevant to the non-crazy population now. Yes people can believe things even if they are crazy, but that in no way undermines the fact that they are primarily crazy.
You started this thread with "... perhaps we should now blame women for this shooting. Seems fair to me."
First of all thank you for quote-mining my post, you disingenous imbecile.
If you had actually posted the rest of what I said it would be very obvious that my statement was an attempt to criticise the mainstream media for causally linking events to irrelevant factors such as the perpetrator playing videogames.
I responded to you when you said he didn't hate women he hated everyone. after i pointed to where he repeatedly hated on women and explained how he can hate everyone while/because he hates women, you went with "he was inconsistent in who he killed", i disagreed that this had any significance, but you wouldn't let it go
And why? Because it's nonsense. To you what the person thought is more important than what the person actually did.
finally ending up bouncing around these points of "ultimate cause" and "ideology has nothing to do with the individual" Can you stop projecting your resentment for your mother to everyone that acknowledges misogyny.
Yes, let's instead make this about me now. Wonderful, feminist scare-tactics... "someone disagrees with me let's distort their arguments and focus on them as a person."
He tried really hard to make his primary motivator exceptionally clear and you still can't accept it.
And again, as I said repeatedly I don't care how crazy people justify their actions, I don't think it's relevant to us normal people at all. If his thought process was basically "No woman loves me, therefore I should kill them" - then he is simply crazy, no normal person would ever think like that, so I fail to see how it is relevant to anyone else except Elliot Rodgers himself.
|
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
|
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote:
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
|
Northern Ireland25573 Posts
He resented the men because they got the women he felt he deserved, they are inextricably linked in that sense.
|
On May 28 2014 05:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
He resented the men because they got the women he felt he deserved, they are inextricably linked in that sense.
Are they? How do you know that the men he killed got all the women he felt he deserved? I think it's very possible that some of the men he killed were still virgins. Unless you have that information and can be confident that Elliot Rodgers had that information when he commited the crime this just sounds like speculation on your part.
|
On May 28 2014 05:02 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote:
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different. You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
|
On May 28 2014 05:08 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
He resented the men because they got the women he felt he deserved, they are inextricably linked in that sense. Are they? How do you know that the men he killed got all the women he felt he deserved? I think it's very possible that some of the men he killed were still virgins. Unless you have that information and can be confident that Elliot Rodgers had that information when he commited the crime this just sounds like speculation on your part.
Because he said them himself on his manifesto....
EdIt: Because he wrote them himself on his manifesto....
|
|
|
On May 28 2014 05:12 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:02 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote:
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different. You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever. i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic. Show nested quote +No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
|
feeling entitled to someone else's emotions disregards their opinion on the matter as much as feeling entitled to anything else of theirs. pretty sure objectification is often used to describe being reduced to the value of ones looks (i.e. degrading their status to a mere object) which he does constantly referring to beautiful blonds that should be with him instead of black people. I don't know a definition of objectification that means being ignored and which the opposite is hypersensitivity to women
The term "objectification" is largely meaningless, because of its transfiguration into a vehicle for rhetorical attack by members of a certain Weltanschauung. It's also inaccurate because most people who are accused of"objectifying" people when we place an excessive emphasis on appearances are not actually objectifying them. As Balzac once wrote, every man is responsible for his own face.
I think that the issue you raise with his obsession with blondes might be an important angle, and I am not sure whether this has been considered yet. Some commentators have speculated this as the manifestation of his self-hatred, and his idealisation of his aesthetic opposite. There is a certain sense of racial inferiority as well by virtue of his half-bloodedness. It is evident that early in life he regarded his Asian half as a source of shame and a barrier to his claims of respectability and acceptance. His personal frustrations led him to rationalise his impotence through a variety of abstractions, including ones about race and gender. This conviction seems to have crystallised fairly early in his life, and later in life when he discovered that minorities, even lower on the racial hierarchy than himself enjoyed the fruits of female attention with greater facility, it exacerbated his sense of injury.
His racism and misogyny became waypoints in his search for the origins of his own afflictions. They go side by side with his eclectic conclusions about class, wealth, appearance, attitude, confidence. In short, in his search for a why, his mind sought the answer in almost intellectual crevice he could conceive, yet he never found that answer.
In his writing he never bothered to distinguish "sex" and "love." My impression was that he thought of them as the same thing. Having sex with a girl would make him feel loved. It is very difficult to assign a hierarchy between his romantic and sexual motivations, in my reading anyway.
|
I actually really disliked this video. Not necessarily for the content (although he cherry picks from the Rodger's story for his narrative), but instead because of his preachy tone. He also starts off by saying people are using this tragedy for their political agendas, and then throughout the video, obviously tries to impart his own world views.
@SlixSC
You're starting to sound extremely uninformed. Did you not read what I wrote earlier about why he killed the men he did? He didn't kill more men on purpose. Half of his victims were his roommates (3 of the 4 men killed), which he explicitly wrote he had to kill to prevent them from getting in his way for executing his killing spree. The fact that more men died does not disprove his misogynistic worldview.
|
On May 28 2014 05:16 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:12 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 05:02 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote:
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different. You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever. i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic. No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded? I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people. It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
@MoltkeWarding yeah i agree with that.
|
On May 28 2014 05:21 caelym wrote:I actually really disliked this video. Not necessarily for the content (although he cherry picks from the Rodger's story for his narrative), but instead because of his preachy tone. He also starts off by saying people are using this tragedy for their political agendas, and then throughout the video, obviously tries to impart his own world views.
Yeah I did not like how he started off either. It's very opinionated.
|
In ALL form of courtship, ALL parties are objectified.
Women feel "violated" because they are mainly objectified by shallowness of men by their appearance.
Guess what?
Women fucking objectifies men too but not by their looks but by what men can do in a shallow manner.
Everybody is objectified is one way or another.
So yeah ladies, you like me because I can provide the necessary experience for you to embark on with monetary support or any other extra curricular activities that I've learned and I like you because you are incredibly good looking.
Deal with it.
And if you are a good looking lady but don't want to be objectified, then destroy your beauty by gaining weights and messing up your skin so that's not the first thing in a men's priority list to look for and work on your personalities and abilities to get money in order to provide for the man.
If you don't do the above and still hope to not get objectified, well that ain't gonna to happen. So embrace the reality.
|
On May 28 2014 05:26 Xiphos wrote:
In ALL form of courtship, ALL parties are objectified.
Women feel "violated" because they are mainly objectified by shallowness of men by their appearance.
Guess what?
Women fucking objectifies men too but not by their looks but by what men can do in a shallow manner.
Everybody is objectified is one way or another.
So yeah ladies, you like me because I can provide the necessary experience for you to embark on with monetary support or any other extra curricular activities that I've learned and I like you because you are incredibly good looking.
Deal with it.
And if you are a good looking lady but don't want to be objectified, then destroy your beauty by gaining weights and messing up your skin so that's not the first thing in a men's priority list to look for and work on your personalities and abilities to get money in order to provide for the man.
If you don't do the above and still hope to not get objectified, well that ain't gonna to happen. So embrace the reality.
Did you just say that only ugly women have a hope of being liked for more than their looks and that they should make themselves ugly if that's what they want? Did you mean to post that in the dating thread i'm not following your segway.
|
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:16 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 05:12 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 05:02 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote:
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different. You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall. You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever. i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic. No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded? I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people. It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself. He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are good enough for them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
Didn't I say earlier that this was a pointless mental exercise? Do you agree with me now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
