All of the school and/or area shooters are low value males.

reply to post by Alyssa


What they had in common was psychosis that was potentially aggravated by some of the factors you mention. The specifics vary, and can be out and out psychopathy - though this is thought rare as psychopaths tend to be controlled ( serial killers ) - but often there are signs indicative of narcissism, depression, and/or many other specific illnesses - from a host of potential diagnoses.

Their illness then triggers a psychotic break that results in a rampage.

For the record, what you propose as a solution attacks the symptom and not the disease, and is called eugenics AKA social engineering and would actually create a world more likely to spawn more of these psychotic breaks than to reduce them.

The answer lay in biochemistry - not in creating a new class of serfs or untouchables. Caste systems based upon the behavior of less than a tiny fraction of the population?

Oh... also for the record. Not all spree killers are male.

~Heff

*

reply to post by Alyssa


Wow, you reminded me of a girl I knew. She was a couple years older than me and was very pretty... I never saw what she looked like without make up but, she was pretty and dressed like a model ...you know the whole nine yards. She often looked down her nose at people. She was married just a couple years when I showed her my engagement ring (I was showing it to all my friends I was excited).

She looked at my ring and smugly told me it wasn't a real ring, then flaunted her big diamond to me and said, "this is a real ring". I was a little hurt but, it didn't matter I was in love. I didn't need anything fancy.
About a decade later, my husband and I went to a restaurant for dinner...there she was divorced and serving us. I tipped her a little extra.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
According to a book I read recently about Columbine, Eric Harris was rather popular and certainly not a social outcast. He and Dylan both were extremely intelligent, in the gifted program, taking honors classes, etc. They were not the victims of bullying (as was first believed), they had one reason for doing what they did....fame and glory.

Specifically, they wanted to top McVeigh's "kill count." They intended to massacre as many people as possible.

They planted several tank bombs in the cafeteria, which, had they worked, would have killed hundreds. Luckily the bombs didn't detonate, but the shooters were able to kill several anyway.

Low-quality males? Doesn't fit here.

Yes, it does fit here. They are genetically inferior males with no possibility of greatness. Even if they didn't kill a bunch of people they still wouldn't of had a future.

@Crakeur: I didn't mean to insult them. What I meant was their existence as genetically inferior lifeforms dictated their downfall.

@calstorm: Those males you've stated are drones. So they do nice things for you just like the other million. They only do so anyway because they as inferior lifeforms have nothing of true value to offer.

@Everyone else on the site: Let's look at my test subjects.

Subject: 001X - Weak chin, Weak Jaw, Nose too long, Bad hair, Chubby Generic height - Will have trouble being noticed by other humans. His future is predict simply by is inferior genes unless he can gain money and friendship of more dominant males.


Subject: HG90 - Superior chin and jawline, naturally masculine body built for strength, Above average genes - Will have many friends and jobs. Nature designed him to pass on his genes to superior females. He will always have lots of money also.


Society is built around and for the superior genes to breed with each other. The average people are designed to be drones running society's dirty jobs for the superior. The lower value bad gene people are junk data.

God called. You've been fast-tracked for hell.

Originally posted by rtyfx
God called. You've been fast-tracked for hell.

Lucky for me god and karma doesn't exist. Unlike 99% of ATS, I'm not restricted by frontal lobe slavery.

Never mind.

reply to post by smyleegrl

I'm like the OP. I could care less about anything or anyone.

/sarcasm

LVT - Low Value Thread


ar·ro·gance
   [ar-uh-guhns]
noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.


I hope this is okay to post. I mean it is 'Deny Ignorance' not 'Deny Arrogance' right??

Because, believe me, it reeks of arrogance here!

reply to post by Alyssa

You know I gets the feelings you like to ignore my posts. But hey that's ok so does most everybody else, and truly I like it like that as I got other things to do but dandy points over nothing. And again the things you show are all in your mind, there is some truth to it, but it is not as all encompassing as that, and you overlook so many facts its quite obvious that you are no were near logical enough as you like to think, or to put it more bluntly as you would like to be, and you are basing things purely on emotions, mainly your emotions which are sore.

The first guy in the picture looks like he is some nerd about to eat pasta to me, dont know why. Must be because I could sure go for some pasta right now. But ya, that's what I get out of that picture...Pasta and some guys picture thrown in for good measure.

The second guy looks like he is trying to hard, I suppose he is good looking, but to me he just looks like a scrawny dude in a suit. Is it me or is his head way to big in proportion to his body. Hey maybe he is a gray in disguise...Like I said, you can look at it and things any way you so choose, it does not mean nothing but that you chose to look at it that way.

If they're really low value males, then maybe you don't want to aggravate things by shoving it into their faces.

Think about it.

People with social and mental problems will lash out at people just ebcause they've been told they're low value males all of their lives.

So really, why aggravate things?

Do you really think you're doing any good with junk like this?

Looking at the two pictures of the men on this page is interesting.

The second photo is certainly the ideal masculinity currently pushed in advertising.

However, change his haircut slightly and put him in an orange jump-suit and he resembles the men one sees in prison documentaries.
Although no teen will look like this, one cannot deny that "rough trade" in a suit is attractive.

The second image is more complex ... long nose, shabby hair and receding chin as stereotypical of being "low value" .. mmm, now where in history have we seen that before (although the similarities could be entirely incidental)?

The more "nerdish" looking young man could also be a future Bill Gates.
A lot of highly successful people aren't very attractive, and there's an argument that they end up being so successful because people weren't just nice to them because of their looks.
Although tastes vary, I wouldn't call Gordon Ramsey, Louis Theroux, the Naked Chef or even the male Kardashians very attractive (although they do try).
Yet they are very high value.

I'm not sure how long the shelf-life and value of attraction by itself can be in the modelling or adult industries.

That's not to say any person is low value, especially young people, just because they resemble somebody from a school shooting or America's Hardest Prisons, or they don't measure up to certain beauty standards at some point in their lives.
That's all rather shallow stereotyping, which can cut both ways when very attractive people are regarded as unintelligent or false.
Certainly making people feel low value cannot contribute to their mental health.

The entire premise is flawed.

Another point? Beauty and desirability are subjective and culturally variant. They are not universal. In fact, they are so subjective that ugly people can become beautiful to us, and beautiful people can become repellent.

Hollywood and Madison Ave seduce us with fantasy - a fantasy so persuasive and so pervasive that people begin buying into the myth.

Now people wish to lay that myth over reality and use it as a template? It doesn't work.

~Heff

No value? It's that kind of mentality that tormented many of the aforementioned shooters. Which, some would argue, was the cause of the mental breakdown needed to commit the crimes in the first place.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
I'm still trying to get over the fact that you seem to tie a persons "value" in with how attractive they are and how much money they earn.... Interesting theory.... materialistically biased...

Deny the fact that most people in civilized society place value in money and appearance, and you deny the truth.

So much wrong with this.... So many holes in the logic... Such a sinched up, tiny pinhole of an opinion. I can't comprehend such a psyche that could be so repugnant as to hold such high regard for this sort of thinking. It must be one without much worldly exposure, one with a sheltered and condescending upbringing.

Have you no idea of the realms of life BEYOND ones bank account or the number of friends at thier parties? You say you are not enslaved and bound to frontal lobe activity... Yet the apex of your thread here is found in money and popularity, which are certainly among the lowest vestiges of human aspiration.

reply to post by Alyssa


Alyssa, as an armchair enthusiast of evolutionary psychology, I think I can understand the direction from which where you're approaching this topic. Historically, alpha males were visually identified as having the brow ridge and deep voice indicative of higher testosterone levels, an above-average height allowing for more fruitful hunting expeditions and accurate identification of resources from a distance, and a multitude of other low-cost and high-cost features and behaviors employed to attract the highest-value mate.

Aside from these features being used to attract mates, they were also used to acquire leadership positions. And the lowest men on the totem pole were typically those with the fewest features on the list of those which indicated high levels of testosterone. What did this leadership role make way for? A better chance for survival. And not just for that man, but for any woman with which he mated.

It's all about survival, right? I think what Alyssa is trying to convey to those of you so willing to jump atop the haunted hayride of a bandwagon is that anyone - men and women - with expectations of greatness limited only by imagination, will have their day of reckoning, when they discover that their success is partially determined by factors that aren't within their control. That frustration can birth a rage in SOME people.

Ask any very tall girl. Or any very short man.

OP, I've noticed the same pattern as you, but through a slightly more experienced and schooled lens. It isn't eugenics, to whoever suggested that. Believing in my heart of hearts that the truth shall set us all free, I advocate for more honesty when preparing our young ones for the world. The singularly most useful piece of advice I received in my entire life was from my mom. She said "little chasingbrahman, you are very smart - but there will always be someone smarter that you". It has done me well to expect the smarter one to emerge in the circles I've frequented throughout my life - they were my very best teachers. And because of what I was taught when very young, I approached their superior knowledge base with enthusiasm instead of resentment.




I'd like to recommend a couple of books for you to begin educating yourself on how to substantiate these types of arguments which, when lacking the proper nuance, can cause some very intelligent posters to lose their minds all over your post:

Start with this one

Then give this one a whack

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
If they're really low value males, then maybe you don't want to aggravate things by shoving it into their faces.

Think about it.

People with social and mental problems will lash out at people just ebcause they've been told they're low value males all of their lives.

So really, why aggravate things?

Do you really think you're doing any good with junk like this?

You point out something really interesting EvilSaddamClone - I wonder if it was the bullying that "aggravated things". Alot of research has been done that shows children with faces that have poor symmetry have a higher incidence of abuse and neglect. So putting these two together, is it at all possible that someone told over and over by caregivers that they're of low value, then told again by children-cum-bullies, simply snap. They're children, after all. They're still developing healthy coping mechanisms.

Sorry ESC - I know you think this thread is junk, but this is my field, and what you said was very provocative!

I'd say beauty can be in the eye of the beholder.

At least when one talks about school shootings one should compare teens to teens, and not a photo of an unkempt teen from a bad angle with a model who looks like a 30-something-year-old cougar bait, or a gay "rough trade" fantasy in metrosexual clothing.
Not surprising that some teen females could confuse him with a teen (and what could lay ahead for him, although he's probably been around the block in life), when a lot of teen guys on television are played by men in their mid-twenties.

I knew people who looked like the supposedly unattractive guy above when I was a teen, and some of them are in their second marriages with kids and careers.

Strange, in the 1980s teen nerds were given their place in movies and popular culture, and their career potential and intelligence was celebrated as a type of attractiveness.

Although I'd find it somewhat disturbing to look at teen males (I've long found them generally spotty and unattractive since I grew out of that peer group), or even to rate these shooters, there's nothing to convince me that the Columbine shooters, for example, could not have grown up to be symmetrical and handsome young men if they hadn't been so disturbed.

Testosterone and the warrior gene are not always good attributes from a social point of view, and good looks alone don't always make for good mates.
The prisons are filled with handsome men.
I find the men on Mob Wives generally better looking than the women, and as soon as they're out of prison they have younger, naive women.
If an attraction to such mates is an evolutionary drive, then it explains a lot of female suffering.
It's no longer a cave-man culture where violence and strength rule the roost.

Just last night I watched a Dr Phil episode on a 18-year-old who had already impregnated two female teens.
Somewhere in the show Dr Phil (no oil painting himself) asked the girls what they saw in this guy, because when he looks at him he doesn't exactly see "James Bond".
The girls said he was always "nice" to them (perhaps implying that the truly hot guys are jerks).

Now this guy has already bred twice, but from looks alone, would he rate as high or low value?
He's pretty much zero on my scale, but that's just my taste.

OP is trying to fit the Selfish Gene Theory into the violent shooter framework. I understand what she is trying to say insofar as the masculine male gets the pretty girl schtick. Males choose pretty women because they are healthy and capable of rearing the kids. Women choos ethe rich or hunky guy (both work and are not the same) because the male can protect her while she raises the kid, give her safety, etc. The two approaches are vastly different, but work for their constituents.

The problem is trying to move this theory onto Colombine and the like. The only way you can do it is to selectively choose your examples.

Ted Bundy, for example. He came from a solidly middle-class background, had a B.A. in psychology from the University of Washington, was on track to become a lawyer, was very articulate and intelligent, and most would say he was ruggedly handsome. He was certainly "high value" in the sense the OP means.

Yet he killed several dozen women for no good reasons at all. So why isn't he on OP's list? because he doesn't fit the pattern she thinks she sees.

P.S. Bundy is in my high school yearbook. He lived a couple of miles from me and was two years ahead of me at Wilson High School, Tacoma, Washington. Your tidbit for the day.