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

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

OL you are right now doubt. Do onto other as you would have them do onto you.

But I think she was posing a rhetorical question, and it seems she never wants to answer or give her real reasons why? Which is understandable but still, a poor sport, I mean WTF! as I think the real reasons are going to be more interesting then the fake reasons she is throwing out.




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Explanation: St*rred!

Oh REALLY!


NO FREAKING WAY!


Here is why ....


People need to be hit with the cold truth that some people have higher social values and genes which allows them to have an easier lifestyle (One of which you'll never have).


Note: All edits to bold and underline are mine for emphasis, showing that the entire thread was directed PERSONALLY in a shotgun
manner at everybody who reads it, and is not ment in a rhetorical manner at all.



Personal Disclosure: What is worth defending??? {Rhetorical ok because to answer would derail the thread}

Value is in the mind of the beholder!

To me the original post of this thread tries to appear deep and yet comes off as very shallow.

I evaluated that at a high enough value, in the negetive sence, to post a reply, which cost me time and resources, in an attempt to fill some voids I had noticed.

However I found the rest of the thread to be quite deep and it was just the beach that was very shallow!


I'm gald I dived in for a swim and a surf ... it has been good company except for the snobs kicking sand in our faces on the beach!



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird


The fact is things are varied in this subject, and the opposite seems to be more true and closer to reality and what actually is then what she purposes. The whole low male standing and elite or whatever has very little to do with looks or your genes, or the shape of your nose or whatever, like I said its purely a social society thing and has more so to do with social standing, and again the chances to pass on your genes in your given ecosystem ecosystem being for the majority of humans society. So basically when your in your in, when your out your out.


I think another problem with this thread is the picture of the low value male in the original OP.



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.



Firstly, the man's problem is not genetic-It's grooming. Shave the face, cut the hair and he''s fine. If the chin bothers him there is something that's called plastic surgery. I don't like that this is a side profile either. Comparing the two pictures we see a rather unkempt guy versus a very polished man in a suit. The problem isn't genetics it's called grooming. So yea, it is about social ideas. Ungroomed males are generally not liked by society.
edit on 17-10-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

Good post, however in this case (since facial hair is back in vogue) I'm not sure clean shaven is best.

An Abraham Lincoln type beard might be quite fetching.

I'm sure if we had pics of many 19th century figures clean shaven we might be quite amused.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alyssa

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.


LOL. Yeah...look at this inferior male with his oversized nose and large brow ridge and underdeveloped mandible:



Your theories about genetic superiority based on physical appearence were disproven and abandoned with the fall of the Third Reich.
edit on 17-10-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone



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


Sometimes truth is provocative.

And this is one area that should not be generalized, except to stop being bullied.

I believe that while these people may have already had the mental illness, perhaps if they've never been tormented while growing up, they probably might have learned how to get help and deal with their problems better.

And I know a few things about this kind of thing, because I am one of those low value males that have been bullied much of my life, especially when I was a kid.




LOL. Bill Gates was a "low value male" based on how he looked in highschool. Many of those "low value males" are now millionaires and billionaires and the good looking football team captain is pumping gas now.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Humans would also mate with goats for the novelty of it. The fact that these things can happen does not change the general "selfish gene" rule. And of course what is seen as attractive varies between cultures and over time. No question about that. Debating "what is sexy" is almost pointless when you indulge in your personal preferences, especially if you concentrate on exceptions, which tend to stand out and be noticed.

The rich nerd may very well fall into the "poweful" category these days by virtue of being able to provide a better nest, but poor nerds won't, and there are a lot more of them. The rich ones just get the press and even there we have exceptions. Paul Allen is a very rich billionaire nerd, but he's still overweight and lives with his sister.

I had a friend in high school we called "Proboscis" because of his oversized nose. He was also very short and did not do well in school. And he wore thick glasses. But he had the most beautiful girl friends you have ever seen. I remember his girlfriend Bobbie was an asbolute knockout. I went to him and said, "John, how do you do it?" he turned to me with a big grin and said,

"Charm."

Looking back on it today I think what John had going for him was a sense of self-assurance. He knew what he looked like, but he was very well socialized. He got along with everyone, jock, hood, or nerd, and always had a kind word for everyone. It's not that he never got in trouble--he did, but with authority, not his peers, and this "Bad Boy" tendancies helped him out there, too.

In any case, I think we have pretty well picked ove the carcass of OP's asertion. We're just battling over the scraps that are left.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



I evaluated that at a high enough value, in the negetive sence, to post a reply, which cost me time and resources, in an attempt to fill some voids I had noticed.


Explanations stared:


Ditto OL, explanation redressed. Negative contentions in it all = no doubt. and it may have cost you time OL but I doubt you are lacking in the resources in the few minutes it took you to post a reply, and for somebody who can chat and chatter on for hours and probably for days about wood stoves and other such fascinating subjects I seriously doubt it was all that strenuous on your part to post a response.

And if some same sort of void was not noticed in everybody that responded I doubt anybody would of posted on this thread at all, and it would of just been her opening post and that's all. Was it worth it to respond? Does it really matter, when the urge to fill the void fills you. And if you look at what she said it obviously makes no sense, so much so that its quite obvious she is just fishing to pull on the strings and emoticons of those that responded. The void they sensed compelled them to move and respond, even me I suppose, though I don't believe in voids, or at least don't believe in such things when its not convenient for me to do so.

Again look at it, and try to break it down...Does the sentence make any sense what so ever, its purely bait on peoples emotions, a sort of hollow insecurity they may have, and all the other insecurities that are put in there faces everyday by media and daily life and such things, basically it pulls on a single string that is tied to other things in peoples minds even if those things are not the same exact thing, they are alike in that it is there insecurities which they can band behind. And probably it may be that is what was intended anyways to begin with.

And if you look close at what she wrote it will show you her insecurities much more so then the random people that responded, however I think she is on some level just pulling strings that people have. For what reason? and is there any deeper reason then what is so blatantly shown, in fact when people are usually being this obvious on something they are not aiming for that target they so conveniently placed in front of you. However your guess is as good as any on what her issue is. I asked, but you know how it is in asking people questions, you never really get an answer, and even if you do its just another question that is posed as an answer. It is starting to get a bit annoying.


People need to be hit with the cold truth that some people have higher social values and genes which allows them to have an easier lifestyle (One of which you'll never have)


Personal Disclosure: All I think would take to dispel such things is a bit of rational thinking and looking at the world around you without first expecting to see something, and that is what these types of things are usually about, and attempt to emplace something that is not there in there minds eye for undisclosed reasons, and usually they are very specific reasons.

Its just playing on how the human mind operates, every time you talk to somebody you attempt to describe and to put images in there minds on what your trying to convey to them, the same thing it is with emotions or any strong emotion people may have...But like I said it is illogical what she said? she is not as logical as she claims to be....But then again she sure got people riled up, even you OL so she at least knows what people get flustered over. I will tell you one thing she is at the least more logical then most of the people who responded to this thread, because she at least knows how they will respond. And in fact i don't think she wanted people to actually take what she originally said as serious, because its quite obvious that its not. Either that or she is just lost, and shooting out, or it may be a bit of both.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 



Firstly, the man's problem is not genetic-It's grooming. Shave the face, cut the hair and he''s fine. If the chin bothers him there is something that's called plastic surgery. I don't like that this is a side profile either. Comparing the two pictures we see a rather unkempt guy versus a very polished man in a suit. The problem isn't genetics it's called grooming. So yea, it is about social ideas. Ungroomed males are generally not liked by society.


I dont know about that some seem to get a kick out of ungroomed dudes. Which again just proves my point that the picture proves nothing, in fact it still for some reasons makes me think that below his face he has some spaghetti or probably a bowl of cereal and is watching vids on youtube when that picture was taken. And in fact there isn't even any need any plastic surgery if his chin bothers him....Just grow out a beard or a goatee, problem solved. But like you know....whatever.
edit on 17-10-2012 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-10-2012 by galadofwarthethird because: goo tee, goat tee, goatee, confounded english.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



LOL. Bill Gates was a "low value male" based on how he looked in highschool. Many of those "low value males" are now millionaires and billionaires and the good looking football team captain is pumping gas now.


I think the op knows that, in fact its plain obvious. Low or high value has nowhere near the clout and while it may have something to do with genetics it is in fact the opposite, those things are dictated by society and its dictates of survival or the ability to thrive in said environment. And like I said females in general just go for what is the safe bet, and what has the higher chance to propagate, it has been proven time and time again in each and every age and new reformation of society. Males however still stay pretty much to the same old instinctual markers that have drawn them to females for eons, that is, looks, wide hips and buttocks for birthing, and pretty facial features, and all the same things that are really quite obvious, and really have stayed the same for all this time through out history.

And females instinctively do that, and so do males, even if the traits they are attracted to either knowingly or on a subconscious level are different, sometimes the complete opposite of each-other. But anyways, like everything else it has its up and its downs, if things are this predictable and concrete, well lets just say and hope that we never get invaded by any other alien species, especially any other type of compatible human type species. Or even one that can just mess with genetics for whatever reasons.

Because really all it would take to take over the earth is to take control of the societal aspects of our society, and really all it would take to replace the population is to take control of the money and societal standing aspect of it, and if they can get here from some other planet or dimension you best believe that our economy and its mysteries will not be all that hard to understand and take over. And once they do, well people will follow suit.....And there wont be any big fight like you see in the movies, humanity will just simply be outbreeded and they will do it willingly, after all they will have become the undesirables and the low value males and females in that society.
It would be ironic in many ways as that is mostly how homo sapiens got to be in the place they are today over the other types of humans that were running around back then.
edit on 17-10-2012 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by antonia
 


Humans would also mate with goats for the novelty of it. The fact that these things can happen does not change the general "selfish gene" rule. And of course what is seen as attractive varies between cultures and over time. No question about that. Debating "what is sexy" is almost pointless when you indulge in your personal preferences, especially if you concentrate on exceptions, which tend to stand out and be noticed.

The rich nerd may very well fall into the "poweful" category these days by virtue of being able to provide a better nest, but poor nerds won't, and there are a lot more of them. The rich ones just get the press and even there we have exceptions. Paul Allen is a very rich billionaire nerd, but he's still overweight and lives with his sister.


There are detractors to Dawkin's arguments. Specifically because he makes it all about the gene when it is unclear if it is the unit of selection. Are genes what cause evolution or are they the markers of evolution? It's a chicken and egg argument. I guess in the end it boils down to if you think everything is genetic. I tend to think it's more socially driven as what is and is not a high value male has shifted over the centuries. What makes a great hunter does not make a great businessman (or other high value male). Certainly I don't think the standards regarding looks have changed that much. I would counter what is valued is not certain features but rather symmetry of features. Those features which detonate good health such as healthy hair and clear skin are also more important than strong jawlines in my point of view. I think certain specific features are more important for women than men (such as waist to hip ratio).



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   


There are detractors to Dawkin's arguments.


The detractors tend to be theists and creationists, and those people really can't have an honest discussion without lieing about his arguments and purposely misleading people ANYWAY. It's best to take those detractors with a grain of salt.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Uh no, there are detractors within his own community as to the nature of selection (Mainly the group selectionists). The main problem being that the expression of a gene cannot be predicted as it operates in conjunction with an entire system. As the expression of that gene is unpredictable it is therefore rather presumptive to say organisms select for that trait. Furthermore, some desirable traits are recessive and not evident until well after reproductive age, so therefore you can't select for them. Most traits are polygenic and most genes are used in several traits, therefore you have to select the whole genome. While there is something to what he said it should not be taken as gospel.. There is better science than this. Dawkins is brilliant but his weakness in this regard is that he wrote to laypeople who really didn't get what he is saying because of his use of metaphors. The idea he created this theory is also entirely inaccurate. It was merely Dawkins putting forth the views of several other biologists. It's a retelling in layman's terms of these views. He didn't invent anything, he didn't bring anything new to the table in that regard. The jury is still out regard his views or those of those who ascribe to group selection. Neither side has enough to prove their case at the moment. I think the problem is people tend to ascribe to one or the other when it's likely they might both be right.

This argument has been going on for thirty years. It's really about what the unit of selection is.
edit on 18-10-2012 by antonia because: clarity



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The OP reminded me of the following:



"Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York.

I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips?

I dated a business man who makes average around $200K – $250K. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250,000 won’t get me to Central Park West. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right?

How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

•Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms…
•What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings
•Is there an age range I should be targeting like in 40s or what (I’m 25)?
•Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What’s the story there?
•Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows – lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

Here’s an answer that was posted..

Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.

Firstly, I’m not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here’s how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money.

Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity…in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you! So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold… hence the rub… marriage.

It doesn’t make good business senseto “buy you” (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets.

So, I wonder why a girl as “articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful” as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for a tryout. By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way.

I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know."



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
No the op knows what she is about it seems. And she still is does not like to answer or debate questions in the threads she makes, there's a big shocker.
I have a hard time trying to figure out what people are arguing about, especially since such things are kind of obvious. I mean it literally is no secret, and its obvious that what the op tried to tie together and put up a face about is false, in a inverse sort of way she is setting about doing the exact opposite of what she at first premises to show, and its deliberate...As to why? That to can be glimmed, but then again not as easily as the other threads.

So Alyssa you gonna tell us what the hell you talking about, and what you really trying to get at? And what your deal is because its annoying otherwise, and really quite pointless. The whole deceptive subversive thing is a foolish waste of energy.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Adam Lanza: Very low ranked male. No reproductive mating value at all.

1. Skinny
2. Short
3. Lack of social skills
4. Autistic




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Alyssa
 

Are you paying close attention to your own posts?

You're the kind of bully who makes these kind of kids.
edit on 12/15/2012 by PrplHrt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by Alyssa
 

Are you paying close attention to your own posts?

You're the kind of bully who makes these kind of kids.
edit on 12/15/2012 by PrplHrt because: (no reason given)


How am I the bully for pointing out how society functions? He was doomed the day his inferior genes came into an unstable environment. He is a creation of a society that no matter what he does will reject him. The rejected views you and your children as the enemy.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Alyssa
 

I pity every human being in your life. Do they know what you really think of them?

Oh wait, they're probably all mesomorphs.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join