|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 29 2014 06:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:36 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
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. Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed. Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice. Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him.
Such a black and white mentality.
|
On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:36 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed. Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
To quote the great Simon Phoenix: "You can't take away people's right to be assholes."
The kid was legitimately crazy. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that the TL community has a fairly high incidence of young men who have had (at one point or another) problems with women and dating. I highly doubt that many (if any) have had or acted upon the same kinds of psychotic urges that this kid did. You have to fix the crazy before you look at anything else.
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On May 29 2014 06:33 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed. Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice. Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him. Such a black and white mentality.
In the sense that "we have a society that allows this kind of thing to happen and doesn't have the preventative measures in place to stop it before it starts", this is all our fault. We should always strive to do better as a country, even if we may not agree on what exactly we need to do in order to be better. In that sense, you are correct. Although he is the one who committed the actions, we as a society failed him when we didn't intercede before this happened. We didn't have enough screening, enough access to mental health resources, enough psychiatric interventions, whatever. Maybe it wouldn't have been possible to stop this kind of thing even if we spent a lot of effort to stop it, but we could have done more, and we didn't.
However, that does not excuse him from moral culpability even a tiny bit. Yes, we failed him by not locking him up and/or fixing him before this. But at the same time, he is the one who is responsible for his actions. Anyone who was dickish to him or whatever is not morally culpable. Their hands weren't on the trigger. His? Were.
He didn't shoot people based on some kind of logical extrapolation of who was nice to him or whatever. He shot people because he was a nutter. We failed to prevent this beforehand with a mental health interventions or stricter gun control or looser gun control or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that yeah, this guy was a nutter and he shot guys and it's not like you could reason with a nutter who's running around shooting guys.
|
Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
|
On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:36 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed. Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
That's taking it too far. You make some fair points about his upbringing and the insanity of hollywood culture - but that's on his parents, and BOTH men and women, on society as a whole.
"If women were nicer" is BS.
|
On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
To declare this one guy as an icon of MRAs and PUAs is like declaring the most vile radical feminist who believes all intercourse to be rape and that all men should die (you would be surprised by their prevalence) to be an icon of the feminist movement.
EDIT: The idea behind MRA isn't all that fringe to be honest.
|
On May 29 2014 07:21 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women". To declare this one guy as an icon of MRAs and PUAs is like declaring the most vile radical feminist who believes all intercourse to be rape and that all men should die (you would be surprised by their prevalence) to be an icon of the feminist movement. EDIT: The idea behind MRA isn't all that fringe to be honest.
The difference is that this guy actually fairly represents their politics when they talk about politics. The most popular blog in the entire PUA community has Stormfront writers on their official blogroll if that doesn't drive the point home enough concerning how they think.
|
On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
There's nothing extreme about most MRAs, frankly I find them considerably more reasonable than feminists. What is extreme is what the mainstream media is currently doing, which is using a tragedy to try to do a hatchet job on their political enemies.
|
On May 29 2014 07:46 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 07:21 Ghostcom wrote:On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women". To declare this one guy as an icon of MRAs and PUAs is like declaring the most vile radical feminist who believes all intercourse to be rape and that all men should die (you would be surprised by their prevalence) to be an icon of the feminist movement. EDIT: The idea behind MRA isn't all that fringe to be honest. The difference is that this guy actually fairly represents their politics when they talk about politics. The most popular blog in the entire PUA community has Stormfront writers on their official blogroll if that doesn't drive the point home enough concerning how they think.
I willingly admit that my experience with both PUA and MRA is limited however I think you and I must be getting very different hits on google.
EDIT: I find it kinda hilarious that the first hit on google if you search for "PUA stormfront blog" is a debate on stormfront about how the whole PUA movement is jewish.
|
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
|
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
|
On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
|
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
I think there is nothing specifically wrong with the idea in concept, but there appear to be some flaws with the culture and attitudes of a group of men who's sole purpose find easy ways to get laid. Its not that the group or the basic idea behind the group are inherently bad, but you have to ask yourself what sort of person that set if ideas is going to attract. If you go to their site, it gets into the non-sense pretty quickly. And its sleezy as fuck, but thats just my personal opinion.
On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
They don't degrade the women while they are trying to pick them up, thats not the plan. I would recommend going to the site and just browsing for a few minutes and seeing the non-sense in first person. They have lingo, like the same way people talk about SC2, with a "mid game" and weird phrases like "anchoring". Its super trashy and not really a healthy way to view relationships or sexual interaction as a game.
|
On May 29 2014 07:20 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:36 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
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. Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed. Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice. That's taking it too far. You make some fair points about his upbringing and the insanity of hollywood culture - but that's on his parents, and BOTH men and women, on society as a whole. "If women were nicer" is BS.
The point still remains if people even attempted to try in the first place.
On May 29 2014 06:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 03:36 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
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. Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed. Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice. To quote the great Simon Phoenix: "You can't take away people's right to be assholes." The kid was legitimately crazy. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that the TL community has a fairly high incidence of young men who have had (at one point or another) problems with women and dating. I highly doubt that many (if any) have had or acted upon the same kinds of psychotic urges that this kid did. You have to fix the crazy before you look at anything else.
Yes but almost 90% of the people have experienced warmth or kindness from women/girls and it appears that he never got it.
On May 29 2014 07:00 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 06:33 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 06:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 06:24 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 06:21 MstrJinbo wrote:On May 29 2014 06:09 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:30 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:21 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 04:10 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 04:01 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors. Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women. Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact. And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around. He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers. Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable. You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind. I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action. You can't argue against that. There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice. Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him. Such a black and white mentality. In the sense that "we have a society that allows this kind of thing to happen and doesn't have the preventative measures in place to stop it before it starts", this is all our fault. We should always strive to do better as a country, even if we may not agree on what exactly we need to do in order to be better. In that sense, you are correct. Although he is the one who committed the actions, we as a society failed him when we didn't intercede before this happened. We didn't have enough screening, enough access to mental health resources, enough psychiatric interventions, whatever. Maybe it wouldn't have been possible to stop this kind of thing even if we spent a lot of effort to stop it, but we could have done more, and we didn't. However, that does not excuse him from moral culpability even a tiny bit. Yes, we failed him by not locking him up and/or fixing him before this. But at the same time, he is the one who is responsible for his actions. Anyone who was dickish to him or whatever is not morally culpable. Their hands weren't on the trigger. His? Were. He didn't shoot people based on some kind of logical extrapolation of who was nice to him or whatever. He shot people because he was a nutter. We failed to prevent this beforehand with a mental health interventions or stricter gun control or looser gun control or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that yeah, this guy was a nutter and he shot guys and it's not like you could reason with a nutter who's running around shooting guys.
At least you get that this problem could be prevented by outside sources.
|
On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
Yeah, I agree on all of those points, but I still don't see it as a "problem" or something that is as bad as it is made out to be. I have a good friend who got really into the PUA thing and was really good at it. I never got into it because I didn't want to be "that kind of guy" and I had my own image in my head of what I wanted. Still, I can't really deny that there's some truth to the fundamental premises of PUA methodology -- as ugly as it may be in some cases. Embrace it. Denigrate it. Ignore it. It doesn't really matter what you choose to do with it. Doesn't change the fact there's something of substance there.
|
I dont care about PUA as I stay away from men who practice it and women who fall for it.
That being said, I am pretty sure none of us can judge why he became this fucked up but it seems likely that in a perfect society this wouldnt have happened. Unfortunately that is not the case so I am just sad he turned out this way and even more sad about his victims.
|
On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
The guy sat in public areas for hours waiting for women to magically approach him, please find me literature from that community that advocates that kind of lazy entitlement. Coincidentally weren't some of his posts located on a website called 'PUAhate' or something?
|
On May 29 2014 08:21 Wombat_NI wrote:
For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
The guy sat in public areas for hours waiting for women to magically approach him, please find me literature from that community that advocates that kind of lazy entitlement. Coincidentally weren't some of his posts located on a website called 'PUAhate' or something?
I think someone brought up the idea that he represented the worst of that specific community and the discussion went from there.
|
On May 29 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women? What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
Define "normal person".
How attractive are those "smart women"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
