By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

reggin_bolas on 27 May 2014
Pristine20 said:
reggin_bolas said:
Pristine20 said:
Porcupine_I said:
curl-6 said:

This is a sad reminder of just how powerful and dangerous misogyny and sexism still is in today's world.

This man was a product of a society that promotes the belief that a man is entitled to sex and attention from women; a society that says that a man's worth is determined by sexual conquests and violence/domination. Since he couldn't achieve the former, he resorted to the latter.

An excerpt from his manifesto, which you can read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225936731/Untitled




Seems like he'd be right at home with the  taliban or something. Talking about taking away the rights of others because they don't want him. It's always funny to hear guys complain about girls who reject them when they themselves won't date every girl. The whole time, he was crying about blondes. How many blondes are there? Perhaps if he had just being a little less shallow, he'd have found plenty of girls who were attracted to him.

I made similar mistakes in undergrad when looking for relationships. I was always going after the "it" girls when I really had nothing to offer them. Good thing I have omega thick skin  and I'm not entitled so I simply reevaluated my life and approach  afterwards. Through graduate school, I sat back and paid more attention only to realize that there were plenty of girls who wanted me too. I was just ignoring them. I'll bet good money that this was his number one problem.

Well that's pretty much summarizes it. You just have to curve your expectations and work on your approach. If we assume that human physical attractiveness can be measured on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is the lowest and 10 is the highest then most people will fall in the 5 range. If you are a 5 you should be dating within your attractiveness range. Most people do. It's rare to find a couple where one is disproportionately ugly or pretty in relation to the other. When you do see this there are often ulterior motives such as monetary gain.

If I were to rate the killer, and this is all subjective, I'd place him anywhere from 5-6 to 6-7 at the high end. Sounds like he was going for girls who were in the upper crust, the 7-8s or 8-9's. This doesn't work. Girls are usually aware of how attractive they perceive themselves to be and more importantly how OTHERS perceive them. People don't look for mates who they perceive the be less attractive than they are. It's not being shallow, it's being real about what you want in a partner.

Physical attractiveness is the founding blocks of any relationship. Emotional attachments and other compatibiity factors come second. 

So I commend you Pristine20 for finally realizing you were being unrealistic with your expectations. 

I dont think it's that simple actually. Plenty of ugly guys with much prettier girls. I think it comes down to what can I offer in a relationship to this person who I want to be my partner. People always think of relationships in terms of what they can receive without ever thinking of what they can give. An ugly guy who is extremely funny might be providing a much prettier girl entertainment while a very rich guiy may be providing a much poorer prettier girl with access to wealth (this is very common). He seems like he was trying to use his wealth to gain girls who may already be wealthier than him....not a recipe for success.

Should've worked on other aspects of himeself, joined groups of people who shared similar hobbies so his potential partner would have someone to relate to, etc.


I'm afraid I don't agree. The above is basically myth; you have to some kind of physical compatibility or you won't have a romantic/sexual relationship. I can explain the varience you might have observed in real life. Yes, it does appear that sometimes ugly guys are with pretty girls. For one, it could be that the guy is just fat and the girl is not. It's common for both men and women to gain weight after they've been dating for so many months or years. Just because a guy is fat doesn't mean he wasn't attractive at one point. 

Further, guys tend to care less about their appearance in public; girls are the polar opposite. This might also explain some varience but for the most part couples are physically matched. You may have some deviations but they are small like a 5 dating a 6-7. You rarely see a 5 dating a 10 for example. This is social law.



Around the Network
Aielyn on 28 May 2014

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

Sometimes, the Onion is incredibly insightful and accurate with their "satire".



Dark_Lord_2008 on 28 May 2014

This recent gun massacre just like many other gun massacres will continue in America. The mass killer gets demonised, there is public anger, mourning for the victims but the gun laws remain unchanged. Nothing will change in America and gun related crimes will continue on indefinitely because American Gun lobbyists have too much power and influence.



reggin_bolas on 28 May 2014
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
This recent gun massacre just like many other gun massacres will continue in America. The mass killer gets demonised, there is public anger, mourning for the victims but the gun laws remain unchanged. Nothing will change in America and gun related crimes will continue on indefinitely because American Gun lobbyists have too much power and influence.


What's the problem here? Anti-lobbyists want to regulate heavy firearms such as automatic rifles yet these guns are rarely used in the shooting sprees you mentioned. Most involve small fire arms and how will you regulate those? They are already heavily proliferated and not to mention how will you circumvent the 2nd amendment? 



thranx on 29 May 2014
the2real4mafol said:
thranx said:
the2real4mafol said:
This issue still makes no sense to me. The gun issue is clearly an american except. Why do people find it necessary to own guns for "protection"? It's the 21st century not the fucking 19th!! There are no bandits of criminals going round killing and robbing people anymore and unless you live in some wood somewhere you weren't get attacked by a wild animal.

And yeah I have changed my mind, guns shouldn't be banned altogether. Banning them, much like drugs or alcohol or prostitution just means more lucrative trade for cartels. But what i struggle to get at is the lack of common sense on this issue in America. The land where anyone regardless of their past can get a gun easily, I just find that crazy. People should be trained how to use these things because it seems alot of the incidents that occur happen because the owner of the gun was reckless in some way. Also, a gun ain't like any other commodity or product and so due to the risks of owning one, they shouldn't be so freely accessible. The lack of stuff like mental health checks when buying these sort of things also makes no sense.

Also, gun advocate reasons are just as stupid. You lot really think you can take on the state? How naive of you to think like that? You may have your guns but they can bomb you, nuke you etc before you even have a chance to fight. Also, you gun advocates can't carry on deluding yourselves while innocent people are being killed. Countries like Switzerland rarely if ever have this sort of incidents, because they are properly trained and know how to be responsible gun owners. I don't want to write off american gun owners but these incidents (homicide, misogyny etc.) seem to be quite common and something must change. Calling people you disagree with "moron liberals" won't change anything.

Something must change, and the US constitution would be a start. It needs to reflect the 21st century and modern society in general. Right now I think it's holding you lot back.


Bundy did. He kept his land, for now. Americans who talk about the government arent as fearful of the army, navy, marines, and air force, as they are of the EPA, BLM, and DHS. All armed federal branches with no link to the  military forces. When it come to them, the state may even back you up against them, as they are federal agencies, not state level. Having guns can and will protect you from them over reaching (we will see if they try in texas next). I doubt the Army, Navy, Marines, or Air force would shoot on american citizens, but armed federal agnecies I dont think would have a problem. They are the threat that americans fear, not the army. When you have even the IRS arming itself, and being used as a politacal hammar it may be wise to protect yourself, or atleast hold them off for the rest of america to see and decide what to do, like what happened in Bundy's case. Had he not had weapons, poeple, and the interent there to help him, he would be in jail right now, or dead.

But how do we decide when someone is protecting their property and when someone is just outright breaking the law. This guy killed others who were innocent and from the sounds of it the guy over-reacted, guns allowed him to easily take the lives of these people prematurely. To me life is precious, i don't see why one freedom (right to bear arms) should allow the other to be so easily infringed upon  (right to life). 

Also, where is this tyranny you speak and why do people only assume the government to be like this? What of private companies like this want to forcibly take people's land to build keystone XL on or to frack on? Ain't fair is it but in no circumstances would it be acceptible to 'protect' or really kill such trespassers. As a European, I just find it very hard to understand this issue as i said before. 

Is there even any cases where armed citizens have managed to protect others from criminals? 

And also if people are afraid of federal agencies like the EPA, then there is seriously something with American democracy. The irony in that is laughable for a country that proudly calls itself a democracy, i guess it ain't so. 

guns allowed him to take lives of half the people, cars and knives covered the rest. I think people have forgotten about the mail bombing, and other attrocities that mentally unstable people perform. Take away guns and other items can and will be used, and at this point in time its pretty easy to build guns from home. These mass shootings are all planned and exectuted with thought and time, that same thought and time can and will go into makeing their own guns and bombs from itewms bought at home depot. so its a moot point to disarm an entire nation, so a few people who can wreck havock with out guns dont have them. These are not spur of the moment kind of things, but build up over months and years.

Ptivate companies can only take land with the help of the government. If keystone wants to take land for their pipleine it would be done through eminant domain (a government law /program) which is used to take private land for the greater good (rather socialist to be honest). With out that, they would actually have to deal with the owners of the land, instead of a government land grab like it would be right now. Dems/Repubs, they both use these laws.

 

Yes there are many, it happens almost daily. Just do a search on google.

What the frackers are doing wouldn't be possible if  it wasn't for emminent domain that allows them to bypass the normal process of buying land. Another travesty against the constitiution, dreamed up to to help make things "equal" and "fair" "for the greater good". All things that would not fly with the original intent. The reason the big government programs are bad is because both sides use them for abuse, private companies can use them to take land for the greater good, and hippie enviromentalist can use them to take land for the greater good. They are just tools that will be abused, so best not to have and to hvae a small limited government.

Demoacracy does not mean everyone agrees or everyone is happy. What has happened in the US is that our constitution was thrown out the window. We had steps in place that would help protect angainst mob rule, and would help protect those that had more niche views on life and government. Over time these have been erroded in the name or "fairness" and "equality" . But all government should be feared, as all government holds power over people, the bigger the government the more power they hold that can be used against you. But as bad as it is here, I know there are far worse governments out there, and besides select places in Europe I dont think I would live any where else.

 

Ptivate companies can only take land with the help of the government. If keystone wants to take land for their pipleine it would be done through eminant domain (a government law /program) which is used to take private land for the greater good (rather socialist to be honest). With out that, they would actually have to deal with the owners of the land, instead of a government land grab like it would be right now. Dems/Repubs, they both use these laws. What the frackers are doing wouldn't be possible if  it wasn't for emminent domain that allows them to bypass the normal process of buying land. Another travesty against the constitiution, dreamed up to to help make things "equal" and "fair" "for the greater good". All things that would not fly with the original intent. The reason the big government programs are bad is because both sides use them for abuse, private companies can use them to take land for the greater good, and hippie enviromentalist can use them to take land for the greater good. They are just tools that will be abused, so best not to have and to hvae a small limited government.

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/?page=all#pagebreak

I'll just leave this here too, it relates to the bundy case, and why americans may fear the government. And also illustrates why the feds are building up fed agencies SWAt teams in a way that may be bypassing a need to even use our armed forces against americans.

 

But please read up on emminate domain, and this article I posted. Your fun to discuss things with.



Around the Network
the2real4mafol on 31 May 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
the2real4mafol said:
SocialistSlayer said:
the2real4mafol said:
omringaren said:
Why call yourself "SocialistSlayer"? Are you a fan of Anders Behring Breivik? Do you know what a socialist is? Please consider changing your name to something less hateful.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know what socialism is to be honest. Easier to believe the propaganda on TV than question it, always. Alot of people who claim to hate socialism don't understand it nor bother to find out about it in depth.   

thats a pretty funny and ironic statement coming from you, when you so display your naivety on an abundance of issues.

That may be so but I want to learn about the world and why it is the way it is. My opinion is obviously based on the knowledge i do know. But either way it is interesting. 

Anyway, the other person makes a good point about your name. I don't find it offensive but it's never good to suggest killing anyone who disagrees with your views, which is sort of what your name does from how I see it.  

it doesnt mean kill socialists, it mean defeat them. its alliteration, thats why i used it

Ok probably wrong thread for this but what don't you like about socialism? 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

the2real4mafol on 31 May 2014
Shadow1980 said:
the2real4mafol said:

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know what socialism is to be honest. Easier to believe the propaganda on TV than question it, always. Alot of people who claim to hate socialism don't understand it nor bother to find out about it in depth.


 

Most people don't know what "socialist" really means. Much like how George Orwell bemoaned how even in his time the word "fascism" had been devalued into a cheap insult, so too do we see in today's discourse the term "socialist" get devalued to a mere slur. Any person, group, or policy perceived to be to the left of Reagan is immediately denounced as "socialist," and sometimes even "communist" or "Marxist," as if those terms were completely interchangeable, which they're not (besides, I doubt those who use "Marxist" as their term of choice have probably never even read a synopsis of the Manifesto or the ponderous tome that is Das Kapital, much less the actual works themselves). But socialism is not progressive taxation, business regulations, the minimum wage, or liberalism or any of the other things conservatives hate. In the most general sense, "socialism" is defined as public ownership of the means of production, either directly (e.g., cooperatives, worker-owned factories) or by the state. There are many different varieties and sub-varieties (e.g., libertarian socialism, anarcho-socialism, democratic socialism, market socialism, Marxism & its offshoots), but public ownership is the single unifying element. Last I checked, liberals and Democrats weren't exactly pushing for every business to become a co-op, much less calling for outright nationalization of the whole economy. Even in the most liberal states in the Union, or even in that supposed bastion of socialism that is Europe, private businesses thrive. Point being, if anybody uses "socialist" to describe anything other than public ownership of the means of production, they're using it wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I used to think socialism was the first bit you said but the more i looked into the subject the more i realise that it is not. However, i still agree with the idea that workers should control there industries for their own benefits. It worked in Argentina on a small scale, why can't it work on a international level? (a key part of most socialisms). I guess the welfare state and regulations of business are social democratic or liberal ideas. Stuff that wouldn't be needed in a socialist system.  

But it's nice to see an American know what socialism is. Due to all the lies about it from countries like Russia which falsely used the term, to it's use as an insult like you said. It is greatly misunderstood. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Ganoncrotch on 31 May 2014

I'm not sure which is sadder, the fact that someone got friendzoned so badly they decided to kill 6 people and take their own lives or that the media in places has jumped on this 1/6billionth of the population of the planet as the way that all men think or act.

It is exactly that type of thinking the "paint everyone with the same brush as the absolute worst aspects of a group" that leads to things like sexism and horrible treatment of certain groups, how people can preach so loudly they don't hear what they're actually causing is beyond me.

That said, horrible horrible tragedy which I'm sure will effect tons of people since 7 family's have lost their loved ones.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Dragon246 on 31 May 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
Dragon246 said:
Hypothesis-
Case 1 - Give a psychopath a knife/sharp object and see how many people he could kill before being apprehended.
Case 2 - Now give him a gun (any lethal gun would do) and see how many people he could kill.

Most of the world except USofA are fine without "right to killing with guns". And dear US still cannot afford to change a centuries old law that is probably one of the most obsolete laws in any big democratic constitution.

wait, are you telling me the rest of the world has a right to kill each other with means other than a gun?

No, its just that they are saner than US by not allowing most of the population to own something called "firearms" because a sane society doesnt need everyone armed with a weapon which allows people to kill each other at whims.



Ganoncrotch on 31 May 2014
Dragon246 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Dragon246 said:
Hypothesis-
Case 1 - Give a psychopath a knife/sharp object and see how many people he could kill before being apprehended.
Case 2 - Now give him a gun (any lethal gun would do) and see how many people he could kill.

Most of the world except USofA are fine without "right to killing with guns". And dear US still cannot afford to change a centuries old law that is probably one of the most obsolete laws in any big democratic constitution.

wait, are you telling me the rest of the world has a right to kill each other with means other than a gun?

No, its just that they are saner than US by not allowing most of the population to own something called "firearms" because a sane society doesnt need everyone armed with a weapon which allows people to kill each other at whims.

you can kill someone with your bare hands at a whim, a sane society should perfectly be able to own whatever they want and use it responsibly. Do you want to ban water because we can drown in it?



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive