Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   A Wall Street Journal columnist wonders if the women who were saved by men in the Aurora shootings were worth the sacrifice. Sounds like this guy would make for an AWESOME boyfriend   (uproxx.com) divider line 330
    More: Sick, Wall Street Journal, morning, George Costanza, shootings, James Taranto  
•       •       •

17370 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2012 at 11:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-25 02:53:14 PM  
On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.
 
2012-07-25 02:53:19 PM  

Strategeryz0r: greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.

Instinct says die with the woman you love.

Logic says one of you needs to live for the sake of the children.

I would say the latter is the correct course of action. Otherwise 2 people die, and your children are farked for life. Nobody is done any favors. If you live, it's a terrible tragedy that your wife is gone. However, the reality is you did everything you could to save her, and by ensuring your children have at least one parent in their life you can continue to honor her legacy.


of course the catch is to be able to use logic at a time of incredible stress. I can't even do that when i have an erection
 
2012-07-25 02:54:39 PM  

greenboy: Strategeryz0r: greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.

Instinct says die with the woman you love.

Logic says one of you needs to live for the sake of the children.

I would say the latter is the correct course of action. Otherwise 2 people die, and your children are farked for life. Nobody is done any favors. If you live, it's a terrible tragedy that your wife is gone. However, the reality is you did everything you could to save her, and by ensuring your children have at least one parent in their life you can continue to honor her legacy.

of course the catch is to be able to use logic at a time of incredible stress. I can't even do that when i have an erection


That is, of course, the catch. But, thankfully, this is only a hypothetical conversation.
 
2012-07-25 02:54:52 PM  
"Wall Street Journal columnist" is really all you need to know.

Peggy "Still Humping Reagan's Corpse" Noonan is a regular contributor, if that tells you anything.
 
2012-07-25 02:55:19 PM  
My husband is not very observant, so it is possible that I could manage to save him before he saved me. He is, however, larger than me. Should he decide to be the protector, I could not prevent that from occurring. So I think we would have a 50/50 chance of whom saved who.

If we were to have children, that dynamic would change. Not only would I not put my life ahead of his, but I would expect him to try and save mine.... while I was pregnant with his child, and up to around 2-3 years old. This is a calculation based on the fact that I would be the main provider for the child until it was weaned and ambulatory. Once the child was able to walk and eat normal food, etc... I would be more inclined to be the one to save my husband. Because after that point, my husband would be more physically capable of protecting the child.
 
2012-07-25 02:55:34 PM  

Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.


Your attitude is the reason why I will always consider feminism to be nothing more powerful than a bad joke.
 
2012-07-25 02:56:40 PM  

Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.


They probably didn't act because society says their lives are worth less than women.

They probably acted because a person they deeply care about was in an extreme amount of danger. So they did the right thing, and tried to protect those they care about.

People don't join the military or the police forces because society says their lives are worth so little they should sacrifice themselves for everyone else. They join because they WANT to protect those they care about. Since when does doing the right thing immediately mean you did so because society told you your life is worth less than the person you saved?
 
2012-07-25 02:59:11 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: A Leaf in Fall: So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?

Anyone who sacrifices themselves for another, regardless of any individual defining characteristics, is a hero in my eyes.


I don't really like the term hero as I personally feel it's abused far to often. However I concur and would even add that risking your life without losing it for another is heroic and worthy of praise.
 
2012-07-25 02:59:24 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Ladies, he's single:

[www.alarmingnews.com image 425x281]


If Rushbo and a Dominican street boy had a child....
 
2012-07-25 03:07:43 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: A Leaf in Fall: So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?

Anyone who sacrifices themselves for another, regardless of any individual defining characteristics, is a hero in my eyes.


that's not true. not everyone is worth saving. sometimes the sacrifice is a waste or worse. don't make me godwin this shiat.
 
2012-07-25 03:07:48 PM  
If they aren't shooting AT you, they're probably worth saving.

/tool
 
2012-07-25 03:07:59 PM  

Coolfusis: As much as the dude is a douche for saying that, it makes me wonder what it'd be like for one of those girls were they cheating on their boyfriend at the time. Can you imagine having to live with that?


Well, if she was cheating in the first place she's probably cool with it because now it means she gets to be with the other dude now. And the guy she cheated on will never find out. So I would guess the girl would generally be relieved/happy to be off the hook, unless part of the thrill was the cheating itself.

CliChe Guevara:

there is that kind of person out there. and i've seen it - it would only be weeks. not months, weeks. and that long only because her schedule is currently filled up being the center of attention about rising the coattails of someone else's sacrifice right now.

folks don't risk that kind of danger and sacrifice because others are good enough people to be worth saving - they generally aren't.
folks risk that kind of danger and sacrifice because THEY are good enough of a person to just be the type to do that.

performing an action like they did really isn't a comment on the relative worth of the people they saved, its only a commentary on the people doing the saving.
we should remember that, whether those saved actually rise to deserving it or not.


Worth repeating.
 
2012-07-25 03:09:22 PM  

Strategeryz0r: Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.

They probably didn't act because society says their lives are worth less than women.

They probably acted because a person they deeply care about was in an extreme amount of danger. So they did the right thing, and tried to protect those they care about.

People don't join the military or the police forces because society says their lives are worth so little they should sacrifice themselves for everyone else. They join because they WANT to protect those they care about. Since when does doing the right thing immediately mean you did so because society told you your life is worth less than the person you saved?


The "right thing"? When society tells you that doing the "right thing" means laying down your life for someone else it is also implicit that your life has less value.
 
2012-07-25 03:09:57 PM  

itazurakko: greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.
I think (rationally, sitting here being a computer screen eating lunch) that I would jump out of the way at the last moment I think I can survive, because yeah, the kids.

Who even remotely knows in real life, though - the lizard brain can be unpredictable.

Thinking the same way though, if it were ME on the tracks I certainly wouldn't want my spouse (or heck, even a friend) to die with me. Stay nearBY sure, but dammit, when it's the last possible moment for you to survive, JUMP AWAY.


Most women (I hope) would be begging him to save himeself for their kids' sake. I hope I would.
 
2012-07-25 03:10:46 PM  
Guys, if happens again, and it will. After your girlfriend is shot and dead, use her as a shield to get away.
 
2012-07-25 03:11:26 PM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-25 03:18:18 PM  
we can haz retraction and fake apology from fat douchebag tomorrow?

no? okay.
 
2012-07-25 03:20:03 PM  

Strategeryz0r: greenboy: Strategeryz0r: greenboy: here's a followup question:
You are married and you have kids (i know it's a foreign concept to many farkers). Your wife is stuck on the train tracks. You desperately try to free her as a train is bearing down. Do you stay and die with her, or do you save yourself for the benefit of the kids?
My honest feeling is that i would rather die with her, but would save myself for the kids.

Instinct says die with the woman you love.

Logic says one of you needs to live for the sake of the children.

I would say the latter is the correct course of action. Otherwise 2 people die, and your children are farked for life. Nobody is done any favors. If you live, it's a terrible tragedy that your wife is gone. However, the reality is you did everything you could to save her, and by ensuring your children have at least one parent in their life you can continue to honor her legacy.

of course the catch is to be able to use logic at a time of incredible stress. I can't even do that when i have an erection

That is, of course, the catch. But, thankfully, this is only a hypothetical conversation.


Yeah. But if my kids and I both fell through a hole in the ice, and my husband could only reach one of us, I'd sure as hell be screaming at him to pick the kids.
 
2012-07-25 03:21:10 PM  

Skyrmion: Strategeryz0r: Skyrmion: On one hand, I do admire the selflessness of those men. But at the same time I consider them to victims, not only of the shooter, but of a sexist society that tells men to act as if their own lives are worth less than those of women. This fact makes it tricky to praise them without perpetuating the problem.

They probably didn't act because society says their lives are worth less than women.

They probably acted because a person they deeply care about was in an extreme amount of danger. So they did the right thing, and tried to protect those they care about.

People don't join the military or the police forces because society says their lives are worth so little they should sacrifice themselves for everyone else. They join because they WANT to protect those they care about. Since when does doing the right thing immediately mean you did so because society told you your life is worth less than the person you saved?

The "right thing"? When society tells you that doing the "right thing" means laying down your life for someone else it is also implicit that your life has less value.


In all honesty, that's a pretty warped view. If that's how you truly see it, I feel sorry for you. If you truly care about someone, I mean really truly care, your instinct will be do what it takes to keep them safe(especially speaking as a man). Sacrificing yourself for those you love is the ultimate display of affection and care. Its not symbolic of your life being worth less.

Likewise people take up the role of protectors(police/firefighter/military /etc) because somebody has to do it. Sure some do it for a power trip, but a great many do not. It's one of the most noble things a person can do. And taking up that responsibility does not mean your life is worth less than others. It means you see the inherent value in life so much you're willing to protect others' right to live.

This is not about who's life is worth more. Its about who cares enough to do the impossible. Who loves their spouse/significant other so much, that they will throw down their life in defense of them. There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend. If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.
 
2012-07-25 03:23:05 PM  

A Fark Handle: don't make me godwin this shiat.


It already has been...
 
2012-07-25 03:29:40 PM  

doubled99: How come women don't do this for their men?


Cause generally we're smaller and less physically powerful. I believe we should be allowed to vote, work, smoke, drink etc, but I still believe we are the weaker sex in general, just based on physical attributes and the fact that many of us are different emotionally from men.

/mars and venus
//total equality is impossible, we're not biologically the same
 
2012-07-25 03:32:59 PM  
If I grab the nearest fat guy and use him as a human shield for myself and my wife/girlfriend, what does that make me?

What if I use the nearest fat women?
 
2012-07-25 03:35:03 PM  

A Leaf in Fall: So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?


Yes, anyone who gives their life unflinchingly to save that of another is a hero in my mind
 
2012-07-25 03:36:41 PM  

dopekitty74: A Leaf in Fall: So...what if a man had saved his boyfriend? Or his brother? Or his dad? Or even his buddy? Would he be as heroic as the men who saved women?

Yes, anyone who gives their life unflinchingly to save that of another is a hero in my mind


This, very much this.. The idea of saving someone else is not gender exclusive, and saving a woman over a man doesn't make you more or less of a hero. At the end of the day, you did something few would be willing to do and took the defense of someone you may or may not know to heart. By doing the most selfless thing one person can possibly do, you are without question a hero.
 
2012-07-25 03:38:40 PM  

Strategeryz0r: There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend.


Sure, no way to prove they weren't. But I doubt it happened, and I bet you do as well.

If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.

If there were a social expectation that women sacrifice themselves to protect men when necessary, I would absolutely be calling bullshiat on it.

There are some analogous situations: some conservatives tell women that they should be willing to die to protect their fetus rather than have a life-saving partial-birth abortion, for example. That's messed up.
 
2012-07-25 03:44:07 PM  

Skyrmion: Strategeryz0r: There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend.

Sure, no way to prove they weren't. But I doubt it happened, and I bet you do as well.

If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.

If there were a social expectation that women sacrifice themselves to protect men when necessary, I would absolutely be calling bullshiat on it.

There are some analogous situations: some conservatives tell women that they should be willing to die to protect their fetus rather than have a life-saving partial-birth abortion, for example. That's messed up.


And you know what? I wont argue that one bit, because you'e right(also I'm pro-choice). The social expectation, though, is not what caused those men to act. Otherwise the body count would be all men and 0 women. As every man in the theater would jump to perform their societal expectation of ensuring all the lives of the women who are worth more are saved.

This did not happen. Instead 3 boyfriends jumped to save the women they cared about. The end. Anyone who tries to claim their motivations were anything other than caring or love is simply looking for some alternate explanation for their actions. People are capable of loving each other, and this is proof positive of that.
 
2012-07-25 03:44:32 PM  
best lol ftfa: (after comparing this guy to George from Seinfeld)

''Ladies, whatever you do, if you somehow find yourself engaged to James Taranto,
don't lick the wedding invitations...''

/almost missed that line between the videos
 
2012-07-25 03:51:52 PM  
James Tarant ends his article with: "Chris did get out. He enrolled in the college courses with me, and although it was hard, he gutted it out like he always did. He went on to college and eventually became a lawyer. Last week, he entered a movie theater. Just in front of him, some dude tear gassed the place; then pulled a gun. Chris, who'd always made the best peace, tried to break it up. He was shot in the throat; he died almost instantly. Although I hadn't seen him for more than 10 years, I know I'll miss him forever. I never had any friends later on like the ones when I was twelve. Christ, does anyone? Suck on that, hoes."
 
2012-07-25 03:55:18 PM  
Did anyone else notice the Summer of Love™ got it's start in Haight?
 
2012-07-25 03:56:40 PM  

Strategeryz0r: There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend.


I'm pretty sure I can say it: Those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and they certainly weren't stopped from doing so because they just got overpowered by their boyfriend.

If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.

If it was reversed, I would be asking my girlfriend Scarlett Johanssen why the unicorns in the front row didn't combine forces with the leprechauns in the back to save the women.
 
2012-07-25 04:00:49 PM  

umad: Strategeryz0r: There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend.

I'm pretty sure I can say it: Those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and they certainly weren't stopped from doing so because they just got overpowered by their boyfriend.

If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.

If it was reversed, I would be asking my girlfriend Scarlett Johanssen why the unicorns in the front row didn't combine forces with the leprechauns in the back to save the women.


And a perfectly enjoyable, rational, intelligent discussion is visited by the typical misogynistic troll. Gotta love guys who refuse to believe that women have saved their spouses before, and are capable of that kind of selflessness.

But I'm sure your angst comes from a recent, difficult, break-u.... I'm sorry, I couldn't finish that sentence. The idea of you ever having a girlfriend is so laughable I can't even type it with a straight face.

Enjoy your moms basement! And thanks for making men everywhere look like pigs. Those of us who don't have your out-dated world view appreciate it.
 
2012-07-25 04:04:27 PM  

Deep Contact: Guys, if happens again, and it will. After your girlfriend is shot and dead, use her as a shield to get away.


or just use telepathy like a normal human.

find out what's bothering him. and if it's lack of love replace it with fear!
 
2012-07-25 04:17:39 PM  
Fark won't let me submit this as a link. But here's his latest spin.

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
 
2012-07-25 04:19:17 PM  

Strategeryz0r: umad: Strategeryz0r: There is no way to say those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and just got overpowered by their boyfriend.

I'm pretty sure I can say it: Those women weren't trying to do the same thing their men did and they certainly weren't stopped from doing so because they just got overpowered by their boyfriend.

If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's? Call me nuts, but I doubt it.

If it was reversed, I would be asking my girlfriend Scarlett Johanssen why the unicorns in the front row didn't combine forces with the leprechauns in the back to save the women.

And a perfectly enjoyable, rational, intelligent discussion is visited by the typical misogynistic troll. Gotta love guys who refuse to believe that women have saved their spouses before, and are capable of that kind of selflessness.

But I'm sure your angst comes from a recent, difficult, break-u.... I'm sorry, I couldn't finish that sentence. The idea of you ever having a girlfriend is so laughable I can't even type it with a straight face.

Enjoy your moms basement! And thanks for making men everywhere look like pigs. Those of us who don't have your out-dated world view appreciate it.


That's right. It's never happened before but it "could". You keep telling yourself that.
 
2012-07-25 04:22:17 PM  
Every man for himself.
Hallelujah.
Yodel-ay-hee-hoo.
 
2012-07-25 04:36:12 PM  

umad: That's right. It's never happened before but it "could". You keep telling yourself that.


It HAS happened before. You're just refusing to believe that not only has it occurred before, but the possibility still exists. Women are not some selfish gender that you seem to believe they are. Your world view is inherently warped by some notion that either women believe they are superior to the point they don't have to do anything, or that they're so weak that they aren't capable of saving a man.

You're just an idiot troll dude. For real, gtfo. This was actually a pretty decent thread, but morons like you just can't let that be can ya?
 
2012-07-25 04:39:56 PM  
In fact here are examples of life saving women in the military for starters. Many of which received commendations for combat actions, which women are not supposed to be engaged in infantry combat period. That's why they're traditionally assigned support roles, but these chicks were put on the spot and came out aces. Also saved the lives of several male servicemen.

If you need examples of civilian women who have stuck their necks out for others, or more military examples, I would suggest you get your ignorant ass to google. I don't have the desire to educated morons like you any further than I already have.

Stop making men seem like sexist pigs. You do nobody any favors.
 
2012-07-25 04:40:51 PM  

LeGnome: Every woman's a feminist until the shooting starts.


Or until my concealed weapon out of my purse & protect myself & as many others as possible. Bet you'd be hiding behind me, tough guy.
 
2012-07-25 04:41:08 PM  

Strategeryz0r: If you need examples of civilian women who have stuck their necks out for others, or more military examples, I would suggest you get your ignorant ass to google. I don't have the desire to educate morons like you any further than I already have.


FTFM

Proofread then submit... Proofread then submit. Less multitasking, more focusing damnit.
 
2012-07-25 04:41:52 PM  

Strategeryz0r: umad: That's right. It's never happened before but it "could". You keep telling yourself that.

It HAS happened before. You're just refusing to believe that not only has it occurred before, but the possibility still exists.


Not taking a side here but googling this:

Woman shot protecting husband

Only turns up stories about women being shot by their husband and women being shot by their husband....

It would be interesting to read about a case where it has happened, but I don't have the time to apply the proper google-fu.
 
2012-07-25 04:42:27 PM  

jst3p: Strategeryz0r: umad: That's right. It's never happened before but it "could". You keep telling yourself that.

It HAS happened before. You're just refusing to believe that not only has it occurred before, but the possibility still exists.

Not taking a side here but googling this:

Woman shot protecting husband

Only turns up stories about women being shot by their husband and women being shot by shooting their husband....

It would be interesting to read about a case where it has happened, but I don't have the time to apply the proper google-fu.

 
2012-07-25 04:52:11 PM  

jst3p: Strategeryz0r: umad: That's right. It's never happened before but it "could". You keep telling yourself that.

It HAS happened before. You're just refusing to believe that not only has it occurred before, but the possibility still exists.

Not taking a side here but googling this:

Woman shot protecting husband

Only turns up stories about women being shot by their husband and women being shot by their husband....

It would be interesting to read about a case where it has happened, but I don't have the time to apply the proper google-fu.


googled: woman killed saving husband

A 60-year-old woman died when she tried to stop her brother-in-law and his son from beating her husband.

Woman Killed While Saving Grandson from Fires

Woman dies trying to save husband from bullet

chaosangel: Or until my concealed weapon out of my purse & protect myself & as many others as possible. Bet you'd be hiding behind me, tough guy.


Good on you. Seriously. I wish more women would take their own self defense to heart like that. It's a struggle sometimes to even get some women to consider the idea of carrying a can of pepper spray for godsake. Let alone a gun.t
 
2012-07-25 05:03:56 PM  

Fano: I never had any friends later on like the ones when I was twelve.


Awesome movie.
 
2012-07-25 05:17:18 PM  
I'm late to the party and I know this will be unpopular - but let's face it....equality goes out the window awfully damn fast when there is actual trouble.

I'm not sure if we should continue to insist that men and women are equal. Maybe we're better off for it, maybe we aren't. But I do get awfully tired of everyone playing both sides of the coin. If you consider yourself a feminist, if you believe men and women are equal, if you think women and men should get paid the same and that nobody should be told what profession they can or cannot do because of their gender....

How can you also support the idea that, at the first sign of any trouble, whomever has a penis is worth less and inherently better to handle danger and/or death?

Granted, that's about as extreme of a situation as you can find; but it really does illustrate a point. A woman can hide behind her human shield of a boyfriend/husband/even stranger and it's heroic. Reverse the genders and the whole world would be up in arms against the pussy of a man who cowered behind a woman. Hell - some people would want to call it murder on the assumption that the only way that could even happen is if a big strong man forcefully held a woman out in front of him to shield himself.
 
2012-07-25 05:23:24 PM  

Strategeryz0r: googled: woman killed saving husband


I bow to your superior google-fu.

Today at least.

We shall meet again!
 
2012-07-25 05:24:46 PM  
To be fair, they probably weren't. Not that the men were much better, but, hey, they had the balls to do the right thing as their last act. Unlike the women. could you imagine people fighting each other over who would save whom?
 
2012-07-25 05:25:50 PM  

Fano: James Tarant ends his article with: "Chris did get out. He enrolled in the college courses with me, and although it was hard, he gutted it out like he always did. He went on to college and eventually became a lawyer. Last week, he entered a movie theater. Just in front of him, some dude tear gassed the place; then pulled a gun. Chris, who'd always made the best peace, tried to break it up. He was shot in the throat; he died almost instantly. Although I hadn't seen him for more than 10 years, I know I'll miss him forever. I never had any friends later on like the ones when I was twelve. Christ, does anyone? Suck on that, hoes."


Yes, I have.

If I hadn't had friends like that later in life, I'd wonder what I was doing wrong with my life.
 
2012-07-25 05:26:02 PM  

Coolfusis: As much as the dude is a douche for saying that, it makes me wonder what it'd be like for one of those girls were they cheating on their boyfriend at the time. Can you imagine having to live with that?


I'm guessing it wouldn't affect them much if they were already cheating on them, since they were already terrible people. That's how terrible people work. Nothing really fazes them.
 
2012-07-25 05:26:31 PM  

Strategeryz0r: If it was reversed would you be saying how sad it is that those women felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's?


When have you ever met a woman that felt their life was worth less than their boyfriend's?

Its hard enough to find one that thought their shoes were worth less than the life of their boyfriend.
 
2012-07-25 05:26:44 PM  

jst3p: Strategeryz0r: googled: woman killed saving husband

I bow to your superior google-fu.

Today at least.

We shall meet again!


Nothing to bow too. It doesn't have to be a shooting for a woman to save her man or anyone else ;). What you were searching hinged on the basis that she was shot. Which, unfortunately, will turn up the wrong kind of results real quick :)

Until next time!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report