Girl killed by boy whose prom invite she turned down

Post Reply New Topic

I mean't she was not interested in him and did not want to associate with him, may have more to do with the fact he is an unstable dweeb



I think it's unfortunate that it has to descend into a gender issue when quite clear the man is a nutter,



you might be surprised that it's both societal and evolutionary...

It's ironic that in a country where 63% of the population believe in the literal translation of the bible that women's bodies are allowed to be objectified.

It's not like the bible shows any respect to females.

I think it's unfortunate that it has to descend into a gender issue when quite clear the man is a nutter,
[/quote]

Ok, you could have just said that to begin with. I sort of felt that you were the one fueling the debate. I guess I was wrong (?)

However, I do find the term nutter to be offensive. I looked it up a little and it looks like he may have been depressed. I don't think it's fair to refer to depressed poeple as "nutters". The man wasn't psychotic. He did this and he knew he what he was doing so he is criminally responsible. But he was not a nutter.

So, you say women should "use their brains" and pick out better men: I give the following advice to men: seek help when you are feeling down, you don't always have to be the macho man.

And, of course, as you say this has little to do with the incident. The girl was murdered for doing exactly what she was supposed to do: turning down someone she didn't want to date. I'm not following you very well throughout this thread.

Ok, you could have just said that to begin with. I sort of felt that you were the one fueling the debate. I guess I was wrong (?)

However, I do find the term nutter to be offensive. I looked it up a little and it looks like he may have been depressed. I don't think it's fair to refer to depressed poeple as "nutters". The man wasn't psychotic. He did this and he knew he what he was doing so he is criminally responsible. But he was not a nutter.

So, you say women should "use their brains" and pick out better men: I give the following advice to men: seek help when you are feeling down, you don't always have to be the macho man.

And, of course, as you say this has little to do with the incident. The girl was murdered for doing exactly what she was supposed to do: turning down someone she didn't want to date. I'm not following you very well throughout this thread.[/quote]

What 16 year old girl or by uses their "brains" when selecting romantic interests. I don't think human beings make those decisions logically until they are about 30, most humans anyway. I think we all are dictated by our hormones/ testosterone, especially at 16 years old. That and peer pressure, plus some other factors I couldn't imagine because I am not female. There may be exceptions, but I doubt many, especially in the US, not with the influences we have in media and society.

I agree, khaoz.

Also, keep in my in my mind, I didn't do the little quote thingy right. I don't feel like fixing it though.

I agree that nutter is inappropriate so I withdraw the comment. Many males become depressed but depression usually ends up in social withdrawal rather than asserting themselves on a stranger.

Its also not fair to assume only someone with some kind of mental problem would murder someone, actually people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than perpetrators of them....I assume that is more or less what the term 'nutter' is meant to refer to. However according to the article it says 'may have had ADHD and sometimes was depressed' doesn't confirm ADHD and doesn't confirm if he had a depressive disorder or just suffered from some situational depression.

does anybody in this cube actually sleep? why all this predawn assembly of theorists and prognosticators?

Its only 2:45 in the morning where I am.

8.46pm here...

i) The bit I bolded - you do realise that is actually impossible. What you're proposing there is something like an Escher drawing. Assuming we could in some way define 'attractive' beyond a person's personal tastes.

ii) That study didn't prove any such thing. Generally speaking, women ovulate thirteen times a year for roughly forty years. No woman follows through on 412 such inclinations to get together with a 'cad'. Necessary and sufficient conditions. Not only is it not sufficient for a woman to be ovulating to go for the 'bad boy', it is not even necessary. So, to pin it on some 'oh, it's inherent to female biology' is BS - is, indeed, misogynistic, an old tale that goes back to Adam and Eve.

Are teenagers thrown around and messed up by the biological change of puberty? Absolutely. Does this explain everything they do to themselves or each other? Not even close.

People of all ages make 'irrational' choices all the time. It's what we might call the human condition.

iii) And what counts as a 'poor choice'?

Women may have good cause to be distrustful of men. It does not follow that men don't have good cause to be distrustful of women. There's not a limited amount of distrust that women are hogging, you know. Plenty of distrust for everyone. Huzzah!

See, this is the problem when people look away from the facts and lived experience in front of them and retreat into their abstract theories. They'll believe all kinds of crap that simply doesn't fly - that is, indeed, impossible - just because the theory was come to by someone in a lab coat who included a biological measurement in their idea at some point.

I believe Cyberdad is worried about women, teens, even his own daughter's welfare, not criticizing women in general.

What he has said is true.

No one is saying women are dumb, but everyone, male or female, can be fooled, or see what they want to see when they are infatuated, or when 'courted' by a sociopath.


The victim may not have seen his dangerous side, only disliked him.

Not every high school boy (or grown man, for that fact), who is persistent, is dangerous, but maybe every woman and girl with an unwanted 'admirer' will be more wary, after this tragedy.

I have no problem with accepting people - men and women - make all sorts of bad decisions, and for all sorts of reasons.

The problem I have with cyberdad's approach - a fairly common one nowadays, as it thinks itself to be 'scientific' - was trying to pin the 'bad boy' phenomenom as though it were some sort of inevitable feature of female biology. It isn't. He was not, as he thought, paying heed to some controversial new biological understanding which those opposed simply couldn't face up to, but rather engaging in one of the oldest, most pernicious myths there is.

As I said, he is so taken with his theories he flat out states something impossible.

Of course, in this case the girl did not choose the guy, she said no to him. The guy seems to be an aggressive stalker, there is probably not much you can do against those.

I think its more likely if you've met one woman you've met one woman, these generalizations are a bit ridiculous...also plenty of abusive people will act like a decent human being to suck someone in and then slowly start abusing that person and by the time the person realizes the abuse or whatever its hard to get out of the situation due to fear of being harmed or killed by this abuser if you try and leave or get away.