Yer brain's most likely too small to formulate an opinion on what I said, if it's large and sophisticated enough to actually read and retain any amount of information. But even if it were, even if it were, yer brain's clearly too small to actually formulate a a response. Or even a proper original insult, they don't even make you pricks type out the link codes anymore, there's a button now *facepalm

You are pitifully annoying. I did not submit an opinion because the conjecture you put forth is due to the words said by an egotistical, sexist media bigot who has been exposed for lying to deliberately support her own argument. She is the scum of feminism, who horribly projects a pseudo pursuit for equality, when her actions and statements clearly unveil her sexism. I do not wish to refute or support statements concerning her and any of her distasteful idiosyncrasies. Males are primarily the shooters because of how they react to extreme emotional pressure. Their reaction is fueled by their capacity for anger and testosterone that differs a male's mind and body from a female's. This is simple psychology and biology and has nothing to do with sexism, manhood, or any of that shit. In addition, it is an idiotic argument for feminism, which is the only reason this woman brought it up, so she could ignorantly try to spin it in her direction. Please call me an idiot because I'm the one listening to unsophisticated controversy hounds and forming opinions from said people.

Lol got you to reply in a semi coherent and thought out way, I am proud. I agree with you in regards to the nature of how males react to pressure. If you had actually fully read and understood my OP, you'd realize that I address Anita's conjecture, but it's not a central point of reasoning. It just got me to thinking. I disagree with her as I state in the last couple sentences. She's at best got the worst case of tunnel vision in history, that is, working the misogyny angle in anyway she can in any place she can. I think to say that masculine ideals are responsible for mass shootings may not be totally meritless, but it's got to be like 5% of the problem. To claim it as the direct cause is, to say the least, doing a disservice. To say more she's part of the problem herself by obscuring the truth and refusing to address problems larger than misogyny simply because they are larger problems and therefore would belittle her plight. They probably wouldn't though, since problems in society are everyone's problems.

Please, do not attempt to indulge yourself by saying my writing was semi-coherent. It is an insult to your own intelligence and societal understanding. I read your original post, very thoroughly in fact, before I posted the picture I did. Your reply to my second post, has literally no meaning other than a spout of immaturity of you needing to get the last word in. Do not think that because I did not necessarily address everything you said, my reply was insufficient. I never once claimed that you were supporting her. I have already explained specifically why she is ignorant with her endeavors, which I then followed with a correlating statement contradicting the insult you had said to me. The actual issue at hand is that school children are dying, not that a male is doing it. This woman, however, utilizes these shootings to attempt to support her "feminism" movement. Your post is oriented in a way that is opinionated due to her idiotic manipulation of the situation. Males are psychologically and biologically more ample to commit serious acts of crime as compared to females, which is further affected by their sanity and comfort in society. There is not some complicated formula to figure out why this is, however it does require some form of scientific logic, which I'm afraid the woman behind your opinion is apparently without. So now, if you would please stop replying, we can be done with this conversation.