Most reasonable folks don't believe all the doomsday is impending scenarios because many have already been proven wrong

Oh, really? Name three. Please provide citations of peer reviewed scientific research, not whatever bullshit you read in the popular press.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

* Snip lots of unrelated, pointless crap *

So then why is it that the outcry over this tragedy has immediately become slanted towards "violence against women!! men are terrible!!" The kid had horrific attitudes toward literally everybody around him, and was clearly an entitled little shit in every aspect of his life. In his world view all women were sluts and all men were intellectual nitwits and brutes, and NONE of them deserved to live if they got in his way. He outright said as much. Yet the social reaction to this not only emphasizes the effect it has on women, it actively EXCLUDES people from talking about the effect it has on men, and implicitly tries to lump all men in as perpetrators of the distorted mindset that Elliot Rodger had toward the world. It's divisive and bigoted, and frankly it's fucking disgusting.

If you believe that's what's happening, I can only assume your reading comprehension skills are pretty terrible. Talking about misogyny in no way excludes you from talking about how his beliefs are harmful to men, too. In fact, I've seen several women say as much -- that this tragedy proves that misogyny hurts men, too.

And if you think that it was his narcissism to blame more than his misogyny, I'm not sure what manifesto you read. I read the one where he said this:

I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.

And this:

You throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentlemen. I will punish all of you for it.

And this:

You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true alpha male.

His narcissism is sexually driven, to my eye, and a result of his deeply held belief that women owe him sex because he's better. In other words, the problem is as much his inability to grant agency to women as his narcissism.

And if you think that talking about this in some way is bigoted against men, then frankly you're part of the problem. Just like that other guy who said there's no point in having this conversation because people already agree with us, you're completely oblivious to the problems that are right in front of you, and you can't see past your own defensiveness when someone tries to explain it to you.

To you, I say, shut up and really try to listen, and don't assume it's all about you. Are you really so narcissistic that you believe that these women who are speaking out are talking about you?

On top of that, you've completely missed the point that most of the women I've read are making -- that the alpha male culture that encourages misogyny is the cause of this, not the misogyny itself. We raise men to be narcissistic and misogynistic and to be "alpha males," and then we're surprised when they shoot people or rape women or beat the shit out of the gay kid in class. There's a reason the vast, vast majority of mass shooters are men, and it's not that women don't know how to shoot straight.

There was a really great video where Aron Ra talks about the effects of this poisonous culture on boys here. I'd recommend you watch it before you spend any more time accusing people of being bigoted against men just because they decided to talk about women's problems for a change.

Sincerely, go fuck yourself.

You're as bad as the people who say, "Do we have to talk about gun control now, after that recent mass shooting?"

This is a conversation that's long overdue, and it needs to happen. If you want to class these people as trolls - these people who face discrimination every day, who are afraid to speak out on the internet because of what happens to women who do that, who deal with these creeps on buses and trains and in alleys day in and day out, who have a one in three chance of facing some form of abuse in their lives - then I'm ashamed to share the planet with you.

Go away and let the adults talk. We have a problem and people like you are making it worse.

As long as you've found someone to hate. That's what's truly important. Might want to be a little careful with that "mindless" adjective, though.

I'm terribly sorry for asking a philosophical question that went beyond your essential engineering considerations. After all, no good can possibly come in considering the wider implications of engineering decisions. And I'm even more terribly sorry for posting this on a website that depends on page views for revenue. I didn't realize this was an important design discussion. Next time I'm on break, I shall check with you to ensure I'm only talking about things that are on the approved conversation list and are essential topics for debate for the next product launch. I'll get right back to testing that hardware, boss.

Actually, this raises a more interesting question (at least to me) which your little thought experiment approaches. What if my autonomous car decides that the action to take that is likely to cause the least harm is to kill the driver? For example, what if the car has the opportunity to swerve off the side of a mountain road and drop you 1000 feet onto some rocks to avoid a crash that would have killed far more people than simply you? Is my autonomous car required to act in my own best interest, or should it act in the best interests of everyone on the road?

Uh-huh. You know what The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, The Chicago Tribune, and The New York Times have in common? They aren't scientific journals. Do you believe the press does an accurate job representing scientific consensus today? Probably not, if you've been paying any attention. So why do you think they were doing a better job 40 years ago?

That's the problem with people who get their science from the front page of Time magazine and such. They confuse journalists with actual scientists. Actual scientists have known for a long, long time that the earth is warming and will continue to warm. Journalists continue to get it wrong.

I think they're spending too much. Everyone knows this is just another trumped up threat by scientists to get government to pay for scientists' extravagant lifestyles. But asteroids are by no means settled science. Just because 99% of astronomers agree that a large asteroid hitting the earth would result in devastating consequences for the human race, I know this chemist who saw an asteroid enter the earth's atmosphere and burn up harmlessly. Why, just the other day, I saw one shoot across the sky harmlessly.

And don't try to tell me the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid. Everyone knows that volcanoes kill more dinosaurs every year than all the asteroids combined.

These asteroid alarmists need to get a life and calm down.

Perhaps if you want them to be trusted, you should start trusting them and stop spreading your anti-AGW lies. And while you're at it, perhaps you should try to distinguish the latest fad diet from some idiot who wrote a self-help book, or whatever some "science reporter" has tried to pass off as science to sell magazines, from the actual peer reviewed articles in journals that comprise actual science.

Like the free market never makes a bad investment. Is your argument truly that businesses fail sometimes, and therefore we should not bother trying to stop climate change?

Facts, evidence, and reason are readily available anywhere you want to look for them. At this point, about the only reason you left not to be familiar with them is willful ignorance. That's the reason you'll (hopefully) get modded into oblivion, not because there's a gospel or anyone's out to get you. Try reading a book once in a while that isn't written by someone working for an oil company.

You put facts in scare quotes and then argue with only two of them.

But I can provide citations for both. Rand Paul on the environment and Rand Paul saying he likes Ayn Rand.

Rand Paul, an anti-abortion, anti-progressive tax, anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-environment moron who won't even answer a question about how old the earth is and ascribes to the philosophy that we should specifically ignore the best interests of other people in the interests of ourselves is the man you choose as your exemplar of someone who has the interests of the people at heart?

Well, I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm a Canadian! And I'm amused!

Let's assume what you say is true for the moment (even though by all reports it's not). Are you seriously trying to claim that in a theater full of people, a 71 year old man being beaten by a 40 year old man had no recourse but to shoot him?

This is the problem with gun culture in the US. As soon as you introduce a gun into a situation, people start dying when, in saner countries, things would have ended much more calmly.