okay, i've read through the majority of these pages, and wow....

first off, i'd like to go back to this "statistic" thingy based on serial killers......someone posted a link, i believe it was Anir who provided a link, and it seems people are agreeing with it as if it's some sort of proof.....

first off, that link is total shit.....just take a look at it, but i (being a serial killer nut) can prove it....

take for example its "list"....claiming Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole as #2 on the most dangerous serial killer list........read what it says about them.......first off, Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole have "claimed" over 600+ (not 500+), and have been seriously suspected of 200+, but were only convicted of a few (forgive me for not knowing the actual number, though i seem to recall it was like 4....but i'm fairly certain it was no more than 10) [side note: most famous victim of Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole was the son of John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted].....also, that site isn't up to date, Henry Lee Lucas IS NOT sitting on death row anymore....George W. Bush Jr. did the unthinkable in the Texas penile system, changing Henry's sentence from death to life.....Ottis Toole IS NOT awaiting death either, he died years ago from liver problems....

so that link is crap....if you'd like a more official serial-killer website, go to www.crimelibrary.com.....they even have a "female-serial-killer" section......

now, speakin' in terms of serial killers, it's true that men make up the majority, specifically white males in their late twenties to early thirties.......but the most substantial difference between female serial killers and male serial killers are their methods.....women generally fall into the category of serial killers that are "gunners".....for example, David Berkowitz (the Son Of Sam) falls into this category....he killed people, but not with his "bare hands" per-se.......most female killers fall into this category.......such killers are not considered as dangerous as "sexual predators" or "highway killers" or "cannibals" or "child killers" or even "drunk killers" (yes, there is such a thing).......the most dangerous female serial killers are those that fall into the "child killer" category........but even then, they aren't as "evil" or "dangerous" as the male child killers.....such as Dean Corll (whether or not he truly was a serial killer is debateable, and i find it funny that the link Anir provided said he actually was a killer) considering that Dean Corll was found dead when the investigation began, which was the result of one of his "helpers" killing Dean and confessing to the crime, but it is true that Dean is a suspect and is suspected of tying teenage boys to a table, raping them and mutilating them.......you even have Westley Allan Dodd who kidnapped young boys and tortured them to death, even video-taping it [side note: Dodd now writes "How-To-Keep-Your-Children-Safe" books]......you also have Javed Iqbal (Pakistani serial killer) who raped and murdered an even-100 young boys, some suspected of bein' only 4 yrs old, and he's not on Anir's list........

Anir's list is somewhat interesting.....i was surprised it had Dean Corll, Carol Panzram (that's one evil mother-fucker for ya), Joe Ball........but that website is crap, pure and simple....

a good book about serial-killers is The A to Z of Serial Killers which was co-written by Harold Schechter who is one of america's leading serial-killer experts.....he's even featured on www.crimelibrary.com

anywho, i can go on and on and on and on and on about serial killers, but the point is, men are the most dangerous and extreme of the serial killer world....

now, as for men and women, who's more "dangerous"........well, no one really commented on my last post, which i thought should have been taken into consideration.....the deciding factor must take many things into account.....for example, emotions......women tend to be the more emotional of the two, and carry out their plans with passion......men tend to be the one who is more subject to lacking emotion...........so, which is more dangerous? someone with emotion, or someone without?

strength should be taken into consideration, but it shouldn't be the primary argument, and it isn't......but some of you keep takin' it into consideration......but there's so much more that needs to be considered....check my last post on page 2........

other factors such as motivation, bravery, psychology, fear-of-death, weapons, even power should also be taken into consideration.......like i said in my last post, Karla Homolka (infamous wife of Paul Bernardo....serial rapist and serial killer) is far more dangerous than Mr. Rogers, but Heinrich Himmler (leader of the SS, the man truly behind the extermination of Jews) was far more dangerous than Karla Homolka......

and, just because i like him, if any of you do check out www.crimelibrary.com, check out Melvin Rees.....he's my favorite serial killer simply based on his ideals pertaining to life and killing.....existentialism (something i have deep interest in, as i am an existentialist myself) was his defense.....i think it's a rather justifiable defense myself......and plus, he was a jazz musician.....how cool is that?!

That is a matter of opinion... I've met plenty of men who's animal cunning is second to none... At the same time, I've met plenty of women who are ultra aggressive...

In reviewing the posts thus far, I have concluded that one gender is no more or less dangerous than the other. It seems to depend on the circumstance at any given time as to who might be a greater threat than whom.

My conclusion is therefore, that women are as potentially useful in forward, direct combat units, as males. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring extremely useful and important combat resources for no better reason than their personal prejudices.

ah, but that is an answer to a different question, a question you didn't ask with your first post....your takin' one thing "who is more dangerous" and turning into "who is a better fighter".......in any circumstance that involves fighting, it depends on A. knowledge (such as, it seems to be what you're indicating, the ability to operate weapons [army, per se], hand-to-hand combat, self-defense); B. ability (obviously a man walkin' is a better fighter than a man in a wheel-chair....relatively speakin'); C. motivation (defense or offense).......

so, for you to proclaim that one of us (me for example) as bein' prejudice simply because we gave theories pertainin' to "who's more dangerous" is without justification as you've brought about another theory altogether.....

although i am willing to agree with you that in the "who's a better fighter" scenario, men and women (even children for that matter) may be matched (though i'd put my money on a male heavy-weight boxer over any female boxer), that doesn't answer the question at hand: "who's more dangerous/deadly"

sorry, but you haven't justified the "theory".....you've justified, loosely (in fact, there's no justification present whatsoever), a premise to said "theory"

If you want to know how silly that sounds, consider this. Men don't carry "rape whistles" when they go out on the town.

Look at violent crime statistics. It is overwhelmingly males that that are in prison for crimes of violence.

This discussion thread has a stupid title. Superior gender? The human race does not have a future without both!

The title was intended to invoke discussion. I'd say it worked, the discussion started the very day I posted my original question, and continues today through my response to your suggestion that it was a stupid title.

To suggest the title is stupid, would suggest that my original question is stupid. To suggest that the question is stupid would suggest any participation in this discussion is stupid. You have participated in this discussion on several occations. Are you in the habit of participating in stupid discussions?

This goes without saying.

ever read Y:The Last Man?

By Mary Shelly?

very few women do.

fuck rape whistles. i have a gun. someone tries to do a damn thing to me, and ill shoot them without an afterthought.

Well that's pleasant.

actually, i think it's by Brian Vaugn...

zing

The only thing I could find by that title was by Mary Shelly.
The story starts in England in the mid 21st century with the title character Lionel Verney, being incarcerated for poaching. The king of England abdicates in 2073. In the end, Verney ends up as the last man on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gArGOyLe^^ It would depend on the mother imo.

Your statement reminds me of an article I've read a while ago; I don't remember the title or the source...

But in a nutshell the article points out that women who own a gun for a self-defense purpose are more likely be killed by a predator than men who own a gun for the same purpose. The reason being is that women tend to ponder or reluctant if you will to "pull that trigger" at the most crucial moment.

So answer to the question is Yes, I do believe men are more dangerous in term of physical strength and audacity to withhold violent situation.

ah okay. interesting Statistically it would seem as if that is the case.

I don't really see how being statistaically more likely to be a loose cannon while in control of a firearm makes male the superior gender...

Well, that brings up the other side of the coin: Which sex contributes more posiive attributes to society? I want to say that we are even on that and we almost are but the fact that women are often the majority investing themselves in fields that involve intesive care for others and self-sacrifice; tips the balance slightly in their favour by my reckoning.

Well, this thread has become a battle of the sexes and so far it looks like both sides are even. I don't like the question of superiority. We share human qualities but differ in