Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10

I saw that number too but first they’re adding up since the dawn of time, to get those 61 females you have to count murders that occurred as far back in the 19th century. Meanwhile Harold Shipman alone killed 250 people in the UK up until 1998.

Second almost all of those female killings were murders for money: “black widows” who poisoned their husbands, prostitutes who killed their johns so they could rob them, spiteful women poisoning people they had a grudge against, etc. Almost always the victim was someone known to the female killer, virtually zero cases of a woman solo killer torturing her victims for pleasure and certainly zero cases of a woman torturing a stranger for pleasure.

The closest thing you have is some nurses who killed their patients with medication. But even then it was not torture.

- women comit 2% of mass shootings; men comit the other 98%
- women comit 11% of all murders (not just serial) but in almost 90% of those murders, they know their victims
- so that already takes female “stranger” killings to 1% of all murders before we even examine how many might be serial killings.



Huh? What does this have to do with anything? I never said women weren’t victims. Quite the opposite actually.


These I will grant you are probably much closer to zero, and probably statistically zero, especially when you take out those being told what to do by men (like Allison Mack). However, that's not what you said in your original post.


That is a factually wrong statement. Period.[/quote]

Maybe we need to revisit what we consider to be a serial killer. I would say someone who kills multiple victims for thrill instead of financial gain or personal grudge

   

There is a term for this kind of attack: Spree killer

   

American serial killers = dawn of time.

Correct. You would also do it to get the 256 male serial killers.


And Miyuki Ishikawa killed over 100 babies in Japan. It's easy to find fucked up singular instances.
I'm not sure why knowing them or not makes it better to you, that's a strange position to have. I would say all the women who mass killed their children are pretty bad. Also not sure why the motivation matters. They killed (several) people. That makes them serial killers by definition.

And yes, there are definitely cases of a woman killing or torturing a stranger for pleasure. Clemintine Barnabet would hack up entire families with an axe.
Christine Falling murdering several young children.
Bertha Gifford killed 17 people in her town.
Black Widow Murders, where two women killed homeless people
Lizzie Halliday seemed to kill anyone she ever came in contact with
Sheila LaBarre lured men to her farm and tortured them.
Jane Toppan - She is quoted as saying that her ambition was "to have killed more people—helpless people—than any other man or woman who ever lived".

This is completely ignoring all of the nurses who kill their patients.
If you don't think arsenic poisoning (a favourite of theirs) or long term poisoning of any kind is torture, you're a fucking idiot.

Not serial killers. Those are spree killers. Also not zero.
Again, not sure why knowing them makes a difference, but again, not zero. You said statstically zero. That's not this.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you trying to twist out of the fact that you said blatantly false things and got called on it?

You implied women serial killers are unimportant because it is "stastically zero". Which is false. In fact there is a higher percentage of women serial killers than there are women abused in relationships. So if women serial killers are statistically zero, and we can completely ignore them, then women being battered is also statistically zero, and we can ignore that too right?

I'm pointing out your flippant disregard for crime perpetrated by women "because it's not as many" is ludicrous. In North America Men are over three times more likely to commit suicide, so we should completely ignore women's mental health issues. Men 100% are more responsible for death and suffering of both men and women. But to sweep the crimes of women entirely under the rug because it doesn't happen as often is irresponsible and dangerous. That's the point I'm trying to make. Don't make flippant statements (especially blatantly false ones) and get butthurt when you get called on it.

Congratulations, what you think is a serial killer does not matter. Typically it's classified as someone who has committed three or more killings with some sort of "cooling off" period in between. You can have sexual, financial, psychological, etc motives behind it, but the point is it fits the prototypical "several killings over time."

   

You both agree that t significant majority of mass killings are by men, so why argue about

   

Because if you say there are "statistically zero rapists" who are women, you completely invalidate any one who's been raped by a woman, whether they be men or women. If you say there are zero serial killers, you've erased the horrors that many women have inflicted on people. It's also just flat fucking wrong, and makes his point shit because of it. Making a valid point but including hyperbolic statements that are demonstrably false does nothing but weaken the point.

   

^^^

It's about the strength and form of the of the argument.

   

No you haven’t “erased” anything by acknowledging something is rare. Getting trampled by an elephant while wearing a purple hat on valentines day is statistically zero. Doesn’t mean I’m erasing the horror of anyone that’s happened to.

But you’re losing sight of the whole point if this discussion:

Women who poison their family members for money or the girlfriend who ignores her boyfriends S&M safe-word and penetrates him without consent are aweful but they are anomalous and aren’t equivalent to men who stalk and break into strange women’s homes to rape and torture them for pleasure. These are not the same thing AT ALL. Nor are they anywhere near the same frequency.

The whole point of this discussion is that male perpetrated rape/murder is “toxic masculinity” while the female vary is NOT “toxic femininity”. Violence and sexual violence in men is naturally more common: people with an extra male Y chromosome are hyper-violent, not so for those with extra female X.

What difference would it make if it’s statistically 0% o

   

What I'm saying is it isn't rare. Again, you're just wrong. You have the same issue Martin and Fiddle do, when you say something stupid, you can't admit you're wrong. You're the same as them.


Yes because that's a valid comparison to the thousands of victims of female assaulters.

You are the reason that male victims of rape feel they can't come forward. Congratulations, you contribute to rape culture. You're a piece of shit.

Maybe it's just me, but I hold crimes on the same level of horrific regardless of who is doing it. Do women need your protection when they commit crimes? Is that why you do this?
You're right, they aren't the same thing. I never argued that. I argued that you made a blatantly wrong and offensive statement. Just fucking admit it already.

Because then the victims are statistically 0%. It means you just swept away hundred of thousands of crimes because you think women aren't capable of this. You've taken this want to be seen as a feminist so far, you are now bringing women down as a result. Because women are the main victims of female rapists. I guess only the rapists matter to you. And considering my (female) roommate was raped by a woman, I ain't about that shit.

   

Just keep in mind beaver is the same guy who made jokes about teen suicides.

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10