Posts by feralmaker7

Is it just curiosity?😕 I’m not sure. When someone mentions a serial killer, my mind immediately jumps to some guy with major issues involving his mother or an ex—someone who lashes out at women as a way to settle those old scores. And they usually grab some kind of trophy along the way. That’s just my first thought, anyway.
P.s. I could see the sexual thrill aspect fitting a serial killer profile, but the whole money thing? It feels too calculated for me... I get the impression that most killers are driven by some deep psychological break rather than just being after a paycheck. Hard to say.

Kevin Flores2 said:But look, if a mother kills her own child and then goes on to have more children just to kill them with that same intent, she is nothing less than a serial killer. Regardless of the underlying motive—and I realize the legal sentencing might differ due to mental health factors—if they commit multiple murders with cooling-off periods in between, they meet the definition.🤷

I have to disagree here. I'm not entirely sure what the official FBI definition of a serial killer is, but I'm pretty certain the threshold isn't strictly based on hitting a magic number like three victims. There have to be other criteria met—if we follow your logic where she's intentionally having children specifically to kill them, then sure, maybe that fits. But if she's just having kids and then killing them to cover up something else, I wouldn't label her a serial killer. To me, the motivation matters immensely—it's probably the defining factor that separates a serial killer from a mass murderer or someone who just happens to kill multiple people. Serial killers usually have these specific, often incomprehensible motives, a particular psychological profile, or a signature *modus operandi*... it's about the pattern, not just the body count.

copperharbor47 said:Look, there’s actually a term for it—infanticide—and then you’ve got postpartum depression, plus probably a whole list of other clinical labels. It doesn't necessarily mean a woman doesn't want her baby; it's more like she just completely snaps because of the depression or whatever else is going on, and then the unthinkable happens.

I get that. But when it happens repeatedly, I’m not sure we can just brush it off. There was a case over in Germany—a woman had nine children and left all nine of them to starve; she didn't physically suffocate them, she just let nature take its course. And why did she have those kids in the first place? Because apparently, using a condom is such a sin! Well, if abortion is a sin, then letting them die isn't? It's a strange logic.🤷 Regardless, this doesn't fit the profile of a serial killer.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from—but personally, I wouldn't label women who kill their own newborns as serial killers; I just don't think they fit that specific mold. They aren't out there hunting for pleasure—it’s more about trying to solve a desperate, impossible situation through a horrific lens—they simply didn't want those children. Obviously, there are massive mental health struggles involved since they could have chosen adoption or even giving them up to a shelter, but that isn't the mindset of a serial killer—those people go looking for strangers to target.

Kevin Flores2 said:Well, men tend to be more aggressive in general, and they often struggle more with controlling those impulses. Not only are there more male killers, but their methods are also quite distinct compared to what you see with women. Women are often more inclined to use things like poison, whereas men seem to "prefer" axes, guns, knives, or even just their own hands (though there are plenty of other ways, obviously 😳).
Sex workers can be easy targets, but I also suspect that certain men harbor an intense amount of resentment toward them for various reasons, which leads them to act out in such horrific ways (I remember watching an interview with someone in that field a long time ago). But, do you honestly think there aren't any female serial killers out there? There are, certainly—it’s a relatively small percentage, but they definitely exist.

I’d also add that the victim profiles are worlds apart—male serial killers almost always target women and children, while women rarely kill children or other women, at least from what I can tell (maybe I should dive into some actual research); they mostly kill men—so, men tend to prey on the vulnerable, while women seem to do the opposite, which says a lot. And the motives are probably different too—compared to men, anyway.

Laura Jackson56 said:It’s because I was planning to have a baby in about three years—but then, well, it happened in just three months. Honestly, thank God. My original timeline was pretty flawed—looking back now—so this happened at the perfect moment, rather than when I had everything strictly mapped out.
But it wasn't like my husband and I went out that night specifically trying to conceive—that wasn't it.
It was more like... there was just this massive surge of sexual energy between us.

So, who gets to tell me that I don't love my husband or my child just because our timing shifted a little?

I think you're taking this way too personally—you're seeing conflict where there isn't any. In my experience, most kids just happen, and only a tiny fraction are actually planned with such specific intention. That's just how it seems to me.

As for who's imposing anything on you? I wouldn't know—probably nobody. You might just be a bit sensitive about this whole thing.

I don't find it offensive—though, honestly, I'm not really the type to nitpick standard headlines or hunt for hidden subtext.
Just because something "happened" doesn't mean it wasn't born out of love, but it certainly isn't always a conscious choice. It's like how not every child conceived with intention is necessarily the product of a romantic connection.

The headline seems straightforward enough to me—nothing offensive about it.

If I can jump in—I don’t have all the facts, but from what I know, it’s highly likely they were executed because of their sexual orientation. If they had actually raped a 13-year-old girl, they’d still be breathing—just saying. Sorry if that's a bit blunt.

I think this ☕ is actually the worst emoji out there—it feels so condescending, you know? Like it’s looking down its nose at you from the side. It really gets under my skin (even though I’ve definitely used it before). The other ones—the way more blunt and rude emojis—are honestly just funny to me, regardless of the situation. But this one—🤦—is my absolute favorite. You don't even need words for it, and I don't buy the idea that it's meant to belittle people; to me, it just perfectly captures that specific "fuming" reaction someone is having.🙂

slyscout192 said:Someone mentioned that abortion is actually legal here in our country—I honestly had no idea!!!!That just shows how much of a "Catholic nation" we really are—it’s all just a facade, ladies and gentlemen, honestly... yuck. Cheers.

I find it hard to believe anyone living in this country doesn't realize abortion is legal.😲 No matter how much we claim to be a Catholic nation, it's just wrong to force our faith on people who don't share it—and by extension, trying to ban abortion because of it.

slyscout192 said:Look, if I don't want to go see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, nobody has the right to force me—but at the same time, I think anyone else who decides to go has that same right to their own freedom.

Why would anyone force you to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra? It’s all about choice. But the real issue arises when that choice isn't actually there—or when the options are set up in a way that actively harms women's health.

slyscout192 said:Under Church law, using birth control pills to regulate a cycle—basically just to track fertile days and help with conception—is actually permitted—but artificial insemination? That’s an entirely different story altogether...

😲😲😲 What are you even talking about? The Church doesn't permit birth control pills—period. I remember back when I was just a kid in middle school, I actually got a flyer sent straight to my house that framed that kind of contraception as murder. Even as a little girl, it just infuriated me how people can be so incredibly dense. Like, how do you even track fertile days or try to help conception using the pill when the entire point of the pill is to prevent exactly that?! Honestly, the things people believe...😲

slyscout192 said:We were talking about rights... I feel the exact same way.
So—should we really be talking about letting pedophiles adopt children? It’s a question that honestly feels like it shouldn't even need asking.

Your comparisons are just absurd—I mean, really. You wouldn't hand a child over to anyone without considering what’s actually best for them, and obviously, that doesn't include someone like a pedophile—or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, or even a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Personally, I wouldn't trust people with your mindset to raise a kid—not because I'm against anyone, but because having such limited thinking just isn't a healthy environment for a child to grow up in. Honestly? I'd much rather have a stable, normal gay couple raising a child than someone with your perspective.

slyscout192 said:As far as I'm concerned—everyone should be free to chase whatever they want. But... Then it'll just be a free-for-all—pedophiles and rapists getting exactly whatever they want.Honestly—those ideas are just plain nonsense...
Will they ever just reach an agreement and finally meet in the middle...?

Oh, sure—because that’s a perfectly fair comparison to make.🙄🙄🙄

slyscout192 said:Some people argue that the biggest threat to a democracy is when a small minority ends up pulling all the strings over the majority—it’s like a single passenger trying to steer the whole bus.
It turns out a single non-Catholic vote carries about as much weight as a hundred Catholic ones...—it’s just how the math works out.So, what kind of logic are we actually looking at here—and does this even count as democracy or real voting?

The total number of votes doesn't actually matter—because at the end of the day, everyone is equal regardless of gender, age, nationality, or faith. That one single vote carries just as much weight as the other hundred combined. To deny one person the right to something that benefits them—without hurting anyone else—just because a hundred others are against it? That’s a straight-up violation of human rights. It's pure oppression. It reminds me of how Jews were persecuted back in the day simply because they were a minority in Catholic countries.

slyscout192 said:And this law—well, it’s just another example. It’s really the responsibility of the church and people of faith—because when this happens, it hits right at the heart of marriage and family life.

It’s not about silencing them—they have every right to their own opinions—but they shouldn't be forcing those views on every single citizen in America. The Church really has no business meddling in state affairs, especially since that goes against everything our Constitution stands for. Our ministers can't just pass laws based on religious faith—that would be straight-up discrimination—and at the end of the day, we have to look out for the common good.
How does this actually tear at marriage and family life? Well—it’s pretty simple—by stripping away people's ability to have children, which is essentially the foundation of starting a family. This law basically stands in direct opposition to building a household. As for marriage itself? It doesn't really touch that part at all.

slyscout192 said:Oh, please—stop with this nonsense! I’m actually totally on board with the law. I personally live with Lupus, I'm 27, and there's an 80% chance I'll never conceive—and even if I did, the odds of a healthy baby are slim—so it never even crossed my mind to try and play God with my life.If God doesn't grant me a child, then there's a reason for it.Plus, there are far too many abandoned kids in foster care just waiting for someone to notice them, let alone adopt them. I truly feel for what you guys are going through, but I can't agree with any part of your argument. By that logic, should gay couples be allowed to raise children too, so kids grow up thinking having two dads or two moms is the norm? To me, that's similar to cohabitation outside of marriage—it's just natural for a child to grow up in a marriage with a man and a woman, providing that foundational support in life. And as for how many abortions our Secretary Milinovic facilitated (if he even did)—well, everyone answers for their own sins, including him.

Regarding the bolded part—are you suggesting that God is punishing you by withholding a child?😲Has it ever occurred to you that all these medical advancements allowing infertile people to have children might actually be gifts from God? Don't get me wrong, it's science, but believers could see it as something God enabled. And if He made it possible, then it isn't a sin like the Church claims (🙄). Have you never heard the saying "God helps those who help themselves"? By that logic, we shouldn't even seek medical treatment—we should just pray and wait to be healed? That's just silly.
How, exactly, is someone "playing God" by helping people conceive when nature doesn't take its course? If you really want to go there, God (or luck) is the one deciding if an embryo takes hold. So, are doctors playing God too? Honestly, I can't believe some people have such narrow perspectives.
For people who think like you, laws aren't even necessary because they won't use them anyway. But in this country, you know, there are people who aren't religious or Catholic, and they need to be able to have children with as little struggle and pain as possible—especially for the women. Making an already difficult process harder for women is just inhumane.
I truly believe God has nothing against IVF. Besides, the Church is run by people, after all.
I'm not even going to comment on the rest of the post.👎👎👎

hiddensailor14 said:A few, maybe three or four. That's just too many.

Oh, there are plenty. It's just that people always find a way to wiggle out of it by claiming that where they grew up, they speak and write differently.😁

I'm with you on that.👍
Besides, it doesn't really bother me either way, since I rarely make mistakes myself...😬

👍😁

Jerry Martin19 said:Glad you two smoothed things over so fast. Usually, these petty bickering matches turn into multi-day wars, but thank God you guys are reasonable. 🙂

Scarlett, Jeremy Diaz9 explained the point of the thread and why he feels the way he does. It isn't about whether your intentions were good or someone else's were bad (even though we mostly criticized those doing it with bad intentions); it's about the fact that correcting someone's grammar almost never stays on topic. It just spawns arguments, bickering, or more simply, ad hominem attacks and other garbage that has nothing to do with the actual discussion. I started this topic specifically so these things happen less often. For my own sake, and hopefully for everyone else's too...

p.s. regardless of grammar, good intentions are still good intentions. They might be misinterpreted, or have a negative cause (like this case), and sadly, they're becoming less accepted on this forum. Anyway, it's good to know there are still some users here you can actually talk to normally. 🙂

Honestly, I'm also relieved we wrapped up that debate (I really hope so!). The main thing is that everyone understood what the other person was trying to say. Or they didn't—but it doesn't matter. I'm feeling much calmer now. Staying on track with the topic, 🙂 I already mentioned that editors shouldn't be punished—since I don't see their actions as malicious or provocative—but if something is clearly meant to be insulting, then yes, it should be, because there's never an excuse for being rude. Even when someone starts it and you feel that urge to snap back—there are plenty of people who are just... well, you can't talk to them nicely, if you catch my drift. And it just occurred to me—how did I not think of this sooner?! 😕—that if someone really wants to point something out, they could just send a private message. That way, they aren't putting the person on the spot in front of everyone, and they can settle it between themselves. Hopefully. 🙂

hiddensailor14 said:Well, you probably realize just how many different grammar rules we juggle here. It feels like our linguists can only agree on one thing: they can't agree on anything else...😁
People make mistakes—typos, slips of the pen, whatever. So how exactly are you planning to decide who's writing correctly and who's just uneducated?
It seems to me that spelling errors only bother you when people are actually trying to write, or when they're attempting a specific regional dialect. Meanwhile, folks from the rural South or the Midwest can write however they want, provided they aren't totally butchering the basic vocabulary.😕 That doesn't really matter. Look at me. I can barely manage the standard way or the regional ways, so what am I even supposed to do?🤷 If I were small and tried to write something decent, I'd probably get a failing grade. And yet, I'd still try to write something smart...
I just sat down to read a few things...🤔
But it doesn't really matter what the main rule is...👏

Honestly, I’m not even sure how many different style guides we actually have to choose from—I still find myself sticking to the old-school ones from back in the early '70s.🙂 Look, since standard American English is the official benchmark, if you try to write using that specific formal structure and mess up, it just looks like you don't have a handle on the language—generally speaking. But when you lean into regional dialects, you get a bit more leeway because there aren't strict rules to follow—unless, of course, you're measuring them against the formal standard. Speaking in a local dialect is honestly like knowing a second language; we have so many variations that it's almost like people from one small town can't even understand someone from the next county over, right? So, reading this post written in that heavy regional dialect feels like reading an entirely foreign language. Strictly speaking, anything that isn't standard American English would be considered "wrong," but since those dialects are still part of the American linguistic fabric, they aren't actually wrong. They are—but they aren't.🙂If I remember my school days correctly—and my memory isn't *that* bad—the regional dialect used to be an official language back in the day.
Honestly, I just don't have the energy to argue about this anymore—people can make up their own theories about what's "right" regardless of the actual rules. I was just pointing out what bothers me about poor grammar; I wasn't looking for a fight. To wrap this up: I don't think editors should be punished—but those people using insults just to mock others? Yeah, they definitely should. I know most of you disagree, but I’m not asking for consensus—I’m just saying my piece because I can, you know?🙂
On a side note—I happened to stumble upon my namesake with an apostrophe today. She actually signed up a whole year before I did, so... yeah, I guess I'm just stuck without my little apostrophe!
Your accent is pretty charming—really—but I have to be honest, it takes me a second longer to process what you’re saying when I read it. Just because of that, I'm hoping you might try sticking to standard American English, even if you make a few mistakes here and there.🙂 The main thing is just having something smart to say—and I mean that sincerely, not ironically or anything like that, just so there's no confusion.
Kind regards!👍

Jeremy Diaz9 said:Anyway, let's not hold a grudge.
The bottom line is, playing editor for other people's comments never ends well; it always just ends up provoking someone into an argument.
Just look at where this thread has headed ever since you showed up with your "editing skills."
It’s particularly irritating when someone who is also illiterate tries to act like an editor.
You can claim you're perfectly literate, of course, but you aren't.
And I would never, ever nitpick about someone forgetting a space after a comma if you hadn't taken it upon yourself to correct others.
The same thing applied to Jason Campbell70.
And this thread itself is proof of that.
Let me repeat: whenever editors show up—whether they mean well or not—the whole discussion goes off the rails.
That's all there is to it.
As for how you write, frankly, I couldn't care less, as long as I can understand what you're trying to say.
Is that clear enough for you now?

It isn't the correcting itself that gets under my skin—it's the attitude behind it. I wrote my first post because I simply wanted to share my perspective, and I didn't expect it to spiral into some massive debate. Am I perfectly literate? No—perfection doesn't exist—but I'm certainly not illiterate. And I wasn't "playing editor"; I was just expressing what bothers me and providing an example to make my point clearer. I don't consider that being a grammarian. I could easily list every mistake you made in this post right now, but I won't—because that's not what I do. That doesn't mean I don't notice them. At least you're putting spaces after your commas. 🙂