Posted on 05/19/2018 6:53:58 PM PDT by Trump20162020
The 17-year-old suspect in Friday's shooting at a Texas high school killed a classmate who turned down his repeated advances, killing her first in his deadly rampage that also killed nine others, according to the girl's mother.
Student Shana Fisher's mother told the LA Times that junior Dimitrios Pagourtzis gave her daughter "4 months of problems" before Fisher rejected him publicly in front of classmates.
"A week later he opens fire on everyone he didn't like," she wrote to the newspaper. "Shana being the first one."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
By anyone’s reckoning, these are crimes of passion. Guess who wins in a passionate fight? My experience is when it comes to passionate hatred and fear, that women give as good as they get. They are just not very effective at the combat part of it.
Another item is porn on the internet, my wifes a teacher and they have problems with the 12-14 year olds, both boys and girls watching that stuff.
If i was young and not had sex and thought that is what is done it would scare me to death to even ask a girl out.
One other minor point - I was involuntary celibate at 17 but most boys were in the early 60s and we did not shot anything other than rabbit and squirrels with our .22
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18523113
I think you need some help with the statistics. 11% is the total of intimates killed who had a restraining order. People that fight get police calls, arrested, EMT treatments and, yes, restraining orders. Guess who gets restrained regardless of who starts the fight? The male. 99% of the time.
And, your statistics do not reveal how many of those restraining orders were provoked by mutual combat. Until you have stood in an arraignment room for a couple dozen Monday mornings, when Saturday night carnage is assessed, as I have, you will not understand that drunken and jealous women cause their share of this carnage, but, as I said before, they are not usually very good at it. Hence, when it turns fatal, women get buried, men go to prison.
“Kids have NO sense of Godly right and wrong, and the idea of guilt; and also parents that don’t teach their kids right and wrong, with discipline being one of the forms of teaching it.”
Agree with you 100%. Libs have worked like devils to erase basic principles from the young heart and mind that were drilled into most of us when WE were growing up. So we have young people with no moral compass, no spiritual values (even basic ones), no civility, no respect for life, no values (they are all “fluid” and changeable according to liberal philosphy) - then libs act mystified about the results and consequences over and over again.
Then, we largely agree. Both men and women have negative traits Western/Christian civilization sought to mitigate, with men’s propensity to violence being perhaps The most significant one. Ironically, male violence, directed properly, is what protects the weak and vulnerable from those for whom civilization didn’t “take.”
Good point. The hectoring female who goads the male into violence, and then suffers for it, is never held respnsible. In the same way, it’s much easier for women to kill “in self defense” and get away with it.
And add to it to it that the feminist idea of feminine “power” is, in large part, many of the worst things about women, wielded unapologetically, and you have a recipe for disaster. Only a small percentage of males, especially adolescents, will be content with their new role as betas.
You are talking about fighting couples. My statement is about men who get rejected or left. Do you understand the difference?
Now that you realize I am not the person you thought you were talking to when you accused me of dishonesty or willful blindness, feel free to apologize.
I knew to whom I was talking; I was confused by your extremely broad statements, not realizing, in your application of general crime stats, that you were referring only to this specific crime. To be honest, you’re all over the place.
Lol, so you use broad criminal statistics to justify...something, and then want to confine the discussion to men who were rejected? So, ALL those intimates who are in prison for murdering did so because they were rejected? Ludicrous.
It’s you who are all over the place. From my first post on this thread, post #42, my only stance was that rejected men turning violent is a problem that precedes feminism.
And you use crime stats which obviously include many instances other than men being rejected. So, you argue generally about male/female domestic violence when it suits you, and then confine it to rejected men when it doesn’t. Both men and women can act badly when rejected, the point made in post 42, which you took issue with, confining that behavior to violence specifically. Lol, and you even used an absurd trope about scorned women being a figment of male literature. Wow.
Guys are rejected every day all the time. They don’t go out and shoot up a bunch of classmates. Most don’t go out and shoot the gals who rejected them.
I am reminded of a school shooting at my high school. It happened the year before I was in school there. A guy walked into a portable, shot his ex girlfriend and himself. He didn’t shoot anyone else. I had a class in that portable two years later.
A local teacher was recently murdered allegedly by her ex husband or someone he paid. Police have yet to solve the crime. It happened in November. She repeatedly told coworkers that if she did not show up for work, then he had killed her. At her memorial service, the preacher said he believed she had come to terms with the inevitability that her ex would kill her one day and that she was ready. Like she had a vision of it. By all accounts from teachers who knew her for years, the ex is a psychotic, unhinged nut. He is a military officer. (not sure if he retired yet.) I don’t know if he was always crazy or if he became that way due to an accident.
And this brings me to a conversation we had this morning. I was talking about this loon in Texas being publicly rejected by a girl, and my daughter said she had recently publicly rejected a boy in front of his friends. Ugh. She said he has left her alone since then, but prior to the public rejection, he would not leave her alone. The boy definitely has access to weapons, but daughter is not concerned. The boy must not give off a crazy vibe. Most of the folks here carry weapons. I bet if you went through the vehicles at the high school, you would find weapons.
They were to show that men are more likely to react violently to being rejected because men are more violent in general. Which you agreed with.
So, you argue generally about male/female domestic violence when it suits you, and then confine it to rejected men when it doesn’t.
I was talking to a person who was bringing up domestic violence to me in order to make a case that women can also be violent when angry. This may be true, but it was not my point. My point is and always has been that men being violent when rejected is not the result of feminism. It's how men have always been. Which you agreed with.
Both men and women can act badly when rejected, the point made in post 42, which you took issue with, confining that behavior to violence specifically.
That sentence is incomprehensible. Post 42 is MY POST. Can you restate?
Lol, and you even used an absurd trope about scorned women being a figment of male literature. Wow.
He was using a quote from male literature as some sort of proof. I pointed out it was a quote from male literature.
No matter what you say, the facts remain that a rejected man is more likely to murder than a rejected woman. This is not the result of feminism. This is simply how men are.
“It isnt hard to tell when a supposed conservative uses the same mocking and dismissive language against males that the typical pussy hat wearing tub of lard uses.”
I’ve never seen a liberal feminist bewail the “war on boys”, and I don’t think “poor liddle boys” is an inappropriate response to the nonsense that the killer’s bruised ego is a justification for a murderous rampage.
“When a group of overly-sensitive girls cant derive intention and meaning from a post, and instead go off into some meltdown”
Quite ironic coming from the person who makes the outlandish accusation of cherry being a feminist, anti-conservative plant based on your failed clairvoyant attempts to decipher meaning that is NOT apparent in her post. And indeed someone IS having a meltdown, but I don’t think it is cherry.
This thread is about a boy, not girl, who was apparently so “overly-sensitive” (as you put it) that he had a meltdown and also became a serial killer over it. So it is quite an odd analogy when your original post is about how you wish you could have talked him down and reasoned with him. I’m pretty sure, based on your overreaction to cherry, that suicide counselor is probably not the career you’re best cut out for.
“I didn’t make a mistake... try to think before they emote”
You’re the one emoting all over the forum with your nastiness and angry defense of your bruised ego. You should follow your own advice.
And, by the way, the idea of liberals emoting instead of thinking is a meme that I was probably the first to post on this forum many years ago, and you’re misusing it. There is a time and place for emotion. And when a deranged killer guns down several people in cold blood, it is a reasonable time to feel emotions. In fact, it is what normal, healthy humans are supposed to do.
Unfortunately, the emotions that you’ve chosen to express are anger toward people who criticize your posts, and pride over how superior your thinking and words are supposedly compared to everyone else’s... so much so that you are unable to acknowledge even the possibility of making a mistake. But you are far past a mere mistake.
If you were misunderstood, as you claim, the appropriate response is to clarify your intent. Your reaction is first-hand evidence that your complaints about people being “overly-sensitive” is just projection. And you have provided all the proof needed of your own hypocrisy by doing the very thing you accuse others of.
If that’s your only point, then you are likely correct. Women act out their anger and hurt in various other ways, generally. Boys learn pretty quickly not to provoke someone who is likely to kick their ass. Girls don’t, I guess.
Cherry wasn’t “bewailing” the “war on boys,” she was mocking the concept that it even exists.
That was my only point. I am only sorry it took this long and this much explanation to help you understand it. I’ll leave off expected the apology you owe me, as it would undoubtedly take another 10 posts for you to understand that as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.