OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:08 am
@Miller,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
And we still have A2K for the moment, I will miss it when it is gone (TWO THUMBS UP TO ROBERT)
nononono wrote:
He's shutting this down eh? That's too bad. Some posts and people here seem to be quite informative.
Miller wrote:
I will miss it too, when it's gone. Could the exit be approaching?

I don't know if there is a shutdown approaching, but there have been predictions that the planned revamping of the ignore switch to turn it into an offensive weapon will make the site useless as a forum for intelligent discussion.
Miller wrote:
At one time Craven ( Robert) wanted to charge members a membership fee. I think that's a good idea and a fair fee (?) might be $100/year. that fee may change the types of indivduals who join A2K and post items here.
I don t begrudge $1OO, its worth it,
but known human nature is so STINGY that I 'd expect
a drastic reduction in population in the site.

Miller wrote:
Since the membership is presently more than one million,
don't you think that 500,000 members could carry on, without difficulty?
Yes, I don 't. Tho I have not counted them,
active contributors I estimate to be fewer than 5O
(some of whom have declared their poverty).
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:15 am
If you count all the grade and high school kids, from the USA and elsewhere, who post daily ( or almost) I guess they may add-up to about 50,000.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:24 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:
If you count all the grade and high school kids, from the USA and elsewhere,
who post daily ( or almost) I guess they may add-up to about 50,000.
Those young students whom I have observed in the threads
I estimate to be fewer than 12.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I'll have to start counting them. How many kids from China are now posting on A2K? I suspect more than you think.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:36 am
@Miller,
I 've been rong b4.

I expect to be rong again.
0 Replies
 
Buttermilk
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 09:03 am
Ironically, as I'm reading this I made a thread regarding the subject of feminism in relation to the tragedy, which nobody touched (go figure) so I guess I'll say here. Since I live in SoCal and I have friends from UCSB I'll say the Mr. Rodgers hurt both men and women. CNN tried to make it a feminist issue as if Rodger's attack was reflective of the current social climate, it's not.

Mr. Rodgers was sick. His mind compartmentalized all those irrational feelings which influenced his behavior. Most men get rejected by women this doesn't mean men kill. In addition , most men don't make manifestos in a BMW, excuse me, a video. I will say that Hardline feminist are using this as a platform to argue women's rights which is foolish, interestingly enough, I saw this when I went to the memorial at UCSB. But to be fair I also saw gun rights advocates as well.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:16 am
@Buttermilk,
Buttermilk wrote:
Ironically, as I'm reading this I made a thread regarding the subject of feminism in relation to the tragedy, which nobody touched (go figure) so I guess I'll say here. Since I live in SoCal and I have friends from UCSB I'll say the Mr. Rodgers hurt both men and women. CNN tried to make it a feminist issue as if Rodger's attack was reflective of the current social climate, it's not.
The main flaw in his thinking
was that girls have a duty to approach him
and to open a conversation ultimating in their mating with him.
In his lengthy manifesto, he never addressed the concept
of girls' rights to mind their own business.
He implied, offering no supporting evidence,
that thay have no right to privacy.
In my student years, my way of life was minding my own business
(which included challenging teachers; that was my business;
I was paying them for that right).

Once, in my 2nd year of high school, a girl named Regina
challenged me on that. She accused me of being a "snob" because
I did not say "good morning" to her, just minding my own business.
I 'm a big believer in that; (not as much as Foofie, but still).

Regina implicitly denied that I have the right to mind my own business.





Buttermilk wrote:
Mr. Rodgers was sick. His mind compartmentalized all those irrational feelings
which influenced his behavior.

Most men get rejected by women this doesn't mean men kill.
Elliot Rodger never got rejected by any girl.
In his lengthy manifesto, tho he complains about rejection
very redundantly, he offers not even ONE instance
of any girl having declined his invitation to go out.
He never offered an invitation.
That was his downfall; he was disabled by fear.



Buttermilk wrote:
In addition, most men don't make manifestos in a BMW, excuse me, a video.
I will say that Hardline feminist are using this as a platform to argue women's rights which is foolish,
interestingly enough, I saw this when I went to the memorial at UCSB. But to be fair
I also saw gun rights advocates as well.
Yea, we get around.





David
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:42 am
@firefly,


Thanks. I checked out some of these sites.

Alcuin is accessible only to "invited readers," so I'm not sure how the SPLC knows what's going on it, but it doesn't seem to be capable of spreading a message of hate very far.

Boycott American Women is a pretty juvenile proposition featuring men complaining about American women and promoting marrying women from places like Russia and Korea. A forum for losers with masculinity problems and it's fair to say the tone is misogynist, but as any sort of threat to women in general it's pretty weak.

The Counter Feminist. I think it's a mistake to equate displeasure with "feminists" with misogyny, just as it would be a mistake to equate a displeasure with these sites as misandry. In any case this one doesn't seem to be much of anything.

The False Rape Society. This one I expected to find filled with noxious rants about how rape is not the serious crime we all know it to be. Instead I found a Drudge Report format containing links to articles, many from mainstream sources which relate to false accusations of rape.

One link http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html) was to a serious article, authored by two women, in Slate (hardly a misogynist periodical) discussing the question of how often women falsely cry rape.

The authors conclude that the number of false accusations amount to between 8% and 10% of all reported rapes, and pointedly note that with approx. 200,000 reported rapes a year that is between 16,000 and 20,000 false accusations. These are not insignificant numbers; especially to the thousands of men whose lives can be ruined by a false charge.

Take the case of Lewis McLeod, who was accused of rape by another student but whom the authorities, after investigating, declined to charge with any crime, and yet has been prevented by the University of obtaining his degree, only a few months before scheduled graduation.

http://www.drudge.com/news/179315/student-accused-rape-sues-duke-degree

I think the conclusion of the authors of the Slate article sums the topic up well:

Quote:
False allegations of rape aren't rampant. But they don't have to be to cause terrible trouble. This is a problem that a men's rights movement shouldn't trump up. And also one that feminists can't dismiss.


In Mala Fide: This site no longer exists as it's originator decided that a lot of the people it was attracting were toxically misogynist.

Based on the descriptions of the remaining sites in the SPLC list I chose not to explore further, reaching the conclusion (correct or incorrect) that they were all more of the same, either tedious blogs featuring the complaints of men with masculinity problems or somewhat obsessive but not necessarily inaccurate arguments about the wrongheadedness of some hardcore feminists.

Although the SPLC chooses not to address misandristic sites, they are out there too. Here are a couple.

http://dearmisandrist.blogspot.com/
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

All this is not to endorse or rationalize the overheated complaints about women in the so-called "manosphere," but these sites don't seem particularly dangerous to me. Some will argue that they can whip someone like Elliot Rodger into a frenzy and trigger a misogynist blood bath, while others will argue that they can serve as a useful means to allow frustrated men to blow off steam. None of the ones I reviewed are filled with rants about how women should be beaten, raped, or killed. I didn't find example of this sort of dreck SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. I'm sure that from time to time someone with the same sort of sick sentiment expressed in SCUM visits these sites and shares their poison, but that's a far cry from the sites being dedicated to the oppression and assault of women.

The SPLC has a very definite ideological bias, and is hardly the objective identifier of sources of "hate" they claim to be.

Unfortunately there are members of both genders who inflate and distort very legitimate concerns. It does no good in constructively resolving these issues.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:43 am
@Buttermilk,
We agree.
0 Replies
 
Buttermilk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Regardless, this isn't about rights. I'm talking about an irrational young man with irrational views who had access to deadly weapons.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:58 am
@Buttermilk,
Buttermilk wrote:
Regardless, this isn't about rights.
I think its about rights.






Buttermilk wrote:
I'm talking about an irrational young man with irrational views
who had access to deadly weapons.
OF COURSE he had access to deadly weapons.

Short of killing him,
HOW can u POSSIBLY prevent access to deadly weapons??
chains, garrotts, homemade boms, poisons, fire, heavy falling objects . . .
The boundaries are those of IMAGINATION.
(The actual weapon is the human mind.)

Criminals IN PRISONS are constantly making deadly weapons,
with the guards on-the-job.

I doubt that I was even 5 years old
before I began making deadly weapons,
putting sharp edges on metal shafts or wood.
I had knives anyway, but I still made them.

Elliot killed 2 Chinamen in his apartment by stabbing them
and he rammed 2 bicyclists on the road with his BMW.
He wrote of his plan to ram crowds of young people
in the streets with his father's Mercedes SUV.

Ever hear of a Molotov Cocktail?? Its a glass bottle with gasoline in it
and a burning fuse wrapped around it.

If the Police discover that someone has "irrational views",
like giving reparations to blacks, shud thay rob him of his weapons ??
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 12:05 pm
@Buttermilk,
You are aware, aren't you, that Rogers stabbed to death three of his victims, and so even if he did not have access to a gun, he would have been guilty of a heinous crime.

This is not a story about misogyny or guns, it is a story about a mentally ill person going on a rampage.

Ultimately, any chance of preventing this incident would have depended upon the recognition of his being dangerously disturbed, and the willingness and ability to remove him from society (hopefully to obtain the treatment he needed).

If our society is capable of recognizing the mentally ill who present a clear and present danger to innocent citizens, focusing that information on denying them access to guns is ridiculous. Obviously they shouldn't have access to guns, but it's their mental illness not their access to guns that leads to murder. That Rogers killed three people with a knife is proof of the fact that simply denying the mentally ill access to guns cannot prevent these rampages.

In addition, it is not a simple task to deny the mentally ill access to guns. Even means to prevent them from legally accessing guns is imperfect and can punish those who have experienced mental illness but have received successful treatment. The only fool-proof method is to eliminate guns from the face of the earth, and that, quite obviously, is never going to happen. I would argue that outlawing personal ownership of guns is also never going to happen (or at least not in our lifetimes) and that doing so would not be fool-proof.

The best and only remotely reliable chance to prevent these killing sprees is to improve the recognition and treatment of mental illness, however this carries with it a number of difficult questions we as a society must answer.

Are we willing to allow for the forcible, if necessary, examination, detainment and treatment of those who evidence signs of mental illness?

Do we trust the authorities to properly exercise this power, and to what extent are we willing to tolerate errors and abuse (as both would certainly occur)?

Are we willing to allow the government a much greater access to our personal information, including, obviously, our medical records?

Are we willing to provide immunity to those individuals and healthcare workers who alert the government to a potentially violent madman?

What do we do with the individuals who have never committed a crime, but whose mental illness proves untreatable? Are we willing to tolerate preventative imprisonment (even if the "prison" is a mental health institution)?

Certainly we can get better at denying access to guns to the mentally ill, identifying potential killers, and actually treating mental illness, but only around the edges. It's been said numerous times before that these crimes invoke in people considerable horror and fear, and a demand that they be prevented in the future.

Unfortunately meeting this demand is considerably more difficult than anyone pushing a single issue understands, and, frankly, I don't think those who appear after every one of these tragedies occur, declaring that they know the reason for them (gun ownership, bullying, Jed Aptow nerd movies et al) and demanding that these causes be addressed, are really all that concerned about preventing future crimes.

Any and all means of preventing tragedies like this one or Sandy Hook, or Columbine, involve the restriction of individual rights. For some, such restrictions seem entirely reasonable, while for others they are intolerable. It seems to me that before any of our existing rights are restricted or eliminated, we should have a much better idea of whether or not doing so has any real chance of actually being effective, and not a result of emotionally charged reflex or separate ideological agendas.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 12:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
A good look into human nature, if a power play works then it will continue to be used and expanded to get more. The bar on where female victimization starts is now so low as to be comical. We really need to reexamine the idea that those who gain the victim label should get what ever they want. We should have known how far down the rabbit hole we are when justice got redefined as " using the courts to give victims what they want". We should have know how far down the rabbit hole we are when challenging the assertions of the feminists became misogyny, which should be silenced, natch.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 12:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

A good look into human nature, if a power play works
then it will continue to be used and expanded to get more.
moving, inexorably, into becoming The Borg.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 12:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

A good look into human nature, if a power play works
then it will continue to be used and expanded to get more.
moving, inexorably, into becoming The Borg.

Except the Borg tended to be successful, through intelligence and correct appraisal of the situation. We seem to be hell bent on destroying what the human race has built over thousands of years with lies and stupidity. We think we can change reality by changing the word our language uses to describe that reality (retarded/handicapped/challenged)...and not only that but devote large amounts of time and energy into forcing the masses to adopt the new approved language. THe stupidity and waste of resources is spellbinding.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 12:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You are aware, aren't you, that Rogers stabbed to death three of his victims,
and so even if he did not have access to a gun, he would have been
guilty of a heinous crime.

This is not a story about misogyny or guns, it is a story about
a mentally ill person going on a rampage.

Ultimately, any chance of preventing this incident would have
depended upon the recognition of his being dangerously disturbed,
and the willingness and ability to remove him from society (hopefully
to obtain the treatment he needed).

If our society is capable of recognizing the mentally ill who present
a clear and present danger to innocent citizens, focusing that
information on denying them access to guns is ridiculous. Obviously
they shouldn't have access to guns,
The families of his victims
probably wish that Elliot had no access to OXYGEN.




Finn dAbuzz wrote:
but it's their mental illness not their access to guns that leads to murder.
That Rogers killed three people with a knife is proof of the fact that
simply denying the mentally ill access to guns cannot prevent these rampages.
If thay can make their own guns
or have recourse to underground gunsmiths, then u might as well discuss
making gold out of water or finding the last digit of pie.



Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In addition, it is not a simple task to deny the mentally ill access to guns.
Even means to prevent them from legally accessing guns is imperfect
and can punish those who have experienced mental illness but have
received successful treatment. The only fool-proof method is to
eliminate guns from the face of the earth, and that, quite obviously,
is never going to happen.
Yea, not if everyone can make his own guns.
That is legal, incidentally, under federal law.



Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I would argue that outlawing personal ownership of guns is also never
going to happen (or at least not in our lifetimes) and that doing so
would not be fool-proof.

The best and only remotely reliable chance to prevent these killing sprees
is to improve the recognition and treatment of mental illness,
however this carries with it a number of difficult questions
we as a society must answer.
Will telepathic diagnosis be necessary ?




Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Are we willing to allow for the forcible, if necessary, examination,
detainment and treatment of those who evidence signs of mental illness?

Do we trust the authorities to properly exercise this power,
and to what extent are we willing to tolerate errors and abuse
(as both would certainly occur)?

Are we willing to allow the government a much greater access
to our personal information, including, obviously, our medical records?

Are we willing to provide immunity to those individuals and
healthcare workers who alert the government to a potentially violent madman?

What do we do with the individuals who have never committed a crime,
but whose mental illness proves untreatable? Are we willing to tolerate
preventative imprisonment (even if the "prison" is a mental health institution)?
George Patton believed in re-incarnation.
Shud he have been confined to prison??
Jimmy Carter believes in flying saucers; shud he be dragged away
from his carpentry for the homeless, to be permanently imprisoned ?



Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Certainly we can get better at denying access to guns to the mentally ill,
Even tho thay can make their own?
As good as we have denied them access to marijuana and heroin????


Finn dAbuzz wrote:
identifying potential killers, and actually treating mental illness,
but only around the edges. It's been said numerous times before
that these crimes invoke in people considerable horror and fear,
and a demand that they be prevented in the future.

Unfortunately meeting this demand is considerably more difficult
than anyone pushing a single issue understands, and, frankly,
I don't think those who appear after every one of these tragedies occur,
declaring that they know the reason for them (gun ownership,
bullying, Jed Aptow nerd movies et al) and demanding that these
causes be addressed, are really all that concerned about preventing future crimes.

Any and all means of preventing tragedies like this one or Sandy Hook,
or Columbine, involve the restriction of individual rights. For some,
such restrictions seem entirely reasonable, while for others they are intolerable.
It seems to me that before any of our existing rights are restricted
or eliminated,
This cud only be done by legitimate amendment
of the US Constitution
. Call it the "anti-freedom amendment."
It is the innermost essence of Roosevelt-Kennedy liberalism
that the solution to EVERY problem is curtailment of Individual freedom,
either in forcing people to DO things that thay don t wanna do,
or in prohibiting them from doing what thay want to do.
Thay believe that the body politic will be safe
when there are so many iron chains upon it that it cannot move.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

A good look into human nature, if a power play works
then it will continue to be used and expanded to get more.
moving, inexorably, into becoming The Borg.

Except the Borg tended to be successful, through intelligence and correct appraisal of the situation.
The drones were 1OO% controlled in their thoughts n deeds by their government.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The drones were 1OO% controlled in their thoughts n deeds by their government.


sort of like the republicans and the democrats
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:08 pm
@djjd62,
U deny that I think for myself ????
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
i didn't say all, but many party politic folks follow blindly their leaders of choice
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Elliot Rodger
  3. » Page 34
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/10/2022 at 11:43:12