|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 29 2014 02:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:48 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:43 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it. That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years. And yet its so effective. Only at showing the person making the statement have a very limited understanding of what took place during that time and is making grand assumptions based on that.
Or someone that knows the topic well enough to be able to recap it in a simple way.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On May 29 2014 02:48 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:43 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it. That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years. And yet its so effective. Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.' Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas. this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen. If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that. Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
Eh, I'm not sure that pickup stuff is about getting women pregnant. I think it's more about getting laid. If your goal was to have lots of offspring, your best bet is probably to get a graduate degree, be in amazing shape and health etc through lots of effort, and then donate to a sperm bank. Do anything and everything to boost your stats so that you're more likely to be used. You could have like 10+ kids this way, and they'll be well cared for! In america if you're under 6' tall this isn't an option but otherwise it's probably your best bet.
|
On May 29 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.' Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas. this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
...and I know dozens of people from dating communities who care about becoming better people with the premise that to be attractive you need to be attractive to your self more than anything else. Hell, there are insane differences between American and European communities and even huge regional differences depending on which people are most active behind the scenes. Does that mean it's full of saints? Of course not.
In fact, I know no other "community" that's as diverse as various pickup- and dating communities. You can find literally all ages, professions and backgrounds in one place.
The only common ground all pickup communities share is "I want to be more satisfied with the relationships I have with women". Any single claim that adds to this isn't shared by everyone involved, there are literally hundreds of ways and ideas on how to go about this common goal. And yes, it's safe to say that as a whole things have evolved way past "I want to get laid" as the primary common goal.
|
On May 29 2014 02:56 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:48 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:43 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 02:18 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 02:12 radscorpion9 wrote:On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote:
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges. I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V. I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that It's a men's ego. World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it. That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years. And yet its so effective. On May 29 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.' Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas. this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen. If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that. Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved. Eh, I'm not sure that pickup stuff is about getting women pregnant. I think it's more about getting laid. If your goal was to have lots of offspring, your best bet is probably to get a graduate degree, be in amazing shape and health etc through lots of effort, and then donate to a sperm bank. Do anything and everything to boost your stats so that you're more likely to be used. You could have like 10+ kids this way, and they'll be well cared for! In america if you're under 6' tall this isn't an option but otherwise it's probably your best bet.
So getting women pregnant isn't getting laid......mkay
And men wants choices to who they impregnate, there goes the sperm bank.
|
The problem is not that people get mad. They do and there are outlets to vent your agression and frustration. Society never has been any more liberal and the opposite of oppressive.
Those are people that dont know how to defend themselves properly so they lash out by grabbing a gun and paying people back for the "injustice" they perceive.
In my opinion the option to get a gun and shoot people is just way too easy and too "clean." You dont really get your hands dirty and you dont need physical strength. People always say "bad people will find a way to get a gun" but most of those are high school kids, introverts with low body strength. They would never be able to get a gun from an illegal source.
In Germany i have no idea where to get a gun illegally and i would probably get in trouble in the process of finding out. If your friends or relatives dont have a gun, i dont see any way for a high school kid to get a gun. Make stricter laws for the sake of your children.
Then people who get mad just have to choose other options to vent their agression. And if they are not strong enough to start a physical fight they just need to learn to suck it up. Its just crazy to think that its more convenient to get a gun and shoot instead of getting over the cruel stuff society does to you.
And how often does someone break into your house and you need to defend yourself? You get yourself into more trouble if you interfere and do you really want to shoot at a living person? just let them have your stuff in the rare case someone robs you and walk away with your life and dont take the 50/50 chance to draw a gun. Why would you put your life on the line? just let the cops handle it. And its even more rare that people come at you with the intention to kill you. It just doesnt make any sense whatsoever. I think its just an ego issue. I need to be able to protect myself and my family and thats why everybody needs to be armed. Just chill and dont provoke shit and you're chances to survive are probably better.
On the one side some people are mentally so weak but so lethal when you give them a gun. Guns dont make your weak mentality strong. You're so scared so you get a gun, just be strong and courageous and face a robber without being armed. He wont feel threatened, nobody has to die. Police will catch him sooner or later. End of story.
|
On May 29 2014 01:49 Boblion wrote:
Introverts and psychorigid people don't express their anger in the same way than most people. They just EXPLODE.
The character Lester Nygaard in the current TV series Fargo is a prime example of anger being held back for too long until it all explodes.
So is Elliot Rodger.
His way of seeing himself as the supreme gentleman is an indicator for how hard he was trying to "fit in".
When his surroundings didn't appreciate his "effort", anger started building up inside him. He couldn't release his anger because he was still the supreme gentleman after all.
The only way to release his anger was total apocalypse.
|
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
|
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
|
On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway.
He murdered people cause he was a crazy nutjob, not cause he was frustrated. There's plenty of frustrated dudes and they don't go shooting people.
|
On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway. Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
|
On May 29 2014 03:15 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway. Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way. Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons. Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
|
On May 29 2014 02:48 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem? So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better. What kind of stupid asshattery is this? He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.) The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect. And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.' Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas. this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen. If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that. Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
That's some pretty mad generalizations yo. There are lots of men that don't want to procreate at all and plenty that are not attracted to women, and still more that value things other than appearance. please don't reduce my gender to a bunch of horny dogs. And i just cant believe the motives you've laid out for the other 50% of the population is accurate.
And whats this reservoir of violence you think human men have? is there anything to support this? because most studies seem to indicate that violence is always a result of outside influence and without negative outside influence there is no violence. Additionally "getting out your violence" according to this inherent need should reduce the violence in the future but studies show that people committing violent acts are more likely to do so again in the future. I personally feel evolved enough that I don't have unprovoked urges of violence that I cant control but if people cant control their testosterone better than rottweilers maybe they should be neutered like them.
|
On May 29 2014 03:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:15 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway. Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way. Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons. Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important. Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On May 29 2014 03:23 Xiphos wrote:
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
The only thing his "manifesto" clearly states is that he was a nutter, and beting a nutter drove him to murder.
|
On May 29 2014 03:26 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:23 Xiphos wrote:
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
The only thing his "manifesto" clearly states is that he was a nutter, and beting a nutter drove him to murder.
To murder those people that he disliked. He didn't kill anybody else.
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On May 29 2014 03:29 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:26 Blazinghand wrote:On May 29 2014 03:23 Xiphos wrote:
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
The only thing his "manifesto" clearly states is that he was a nutter, and beting a nutter drove him to murder. To murder those people that he disliked. He didn't kill anybody else.
Murdering people, even people you dislike, is a classic sign of being a nutter imo
Though hey whatever
|
On May 29 2014 03:23 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:19 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:15 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway. Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way. Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons. Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important. Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women. It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them. Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder. So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
|
On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 03:23 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:19 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:15 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:07 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote:
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper. "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event. He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration. No degradation, just a logical segway. Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way. Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons. Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important. Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women. It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them. Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder. So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death. That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
|
The kid was clearly unstable.
If you read his manifesto he wouldn't actually go up to women and ask them to go up with him or anything of the sorts EVER.
He would just randomly wander town for absurd amounts of time (6 hours!) or lounge around in random restaraunts and expect women to come up with him and tell him to have sex with him and get extremely angry when it doesn't happen.
You can really tell he was extremely socially awkward and instead of trying to fix his problem he decided to blame everyone else including the other men for "taking what he deserved", he thought that he was a perfect human being while everyone else was completely wrong.
His belief was that women should throw themself on him because he "deserved" it and they should have no control over their own sex lives whatsoever. He goes so far to say that women should be locked up and be forced to only give sex to guys who "deserve it" and fuck everyone else and that he'd be the supreme ruler of this government and the reason it can't happen is because women have too many rights in this country over their own god damn body.
He's was utterly fucked up in the head and he wrote down every single fucked up thought he ever had.
Being a virgin at 22 isn't even that uncommon it's not like he was 40 years old you can't even make a porn until you're 18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
