Lolcow Andrew Peter Carlson / Anaiah Carlson / Tamarlover / Xtamarlover - Jewish/Christian Wannabe Cult Leader, Stalker, Ugly af, dogfucker, mayor of spitsville

[Anaiah Carlson]

If you can't recognize the concept of a lie by omission, you are a craptastic theologian and should find another line of sperg.

You realize that every single bad guy in history, except maybe Tamerlane, said exactly the same thing, right?

I recognize the concept but its a falsely named concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer

Stalking someone to this extent is generally a prelude to a violent act. It could be said that stalking is emotional violence, since the intention is to make the person being staked question their safety.

I would think the exact same thing if you had a vagina. Most people would.

It is NOT nor has it ever been my intention to make Tamar feel unsafe or question her safety. I did not think at all that she was afraid for her safety until I heard her speak in court. I wouldn't have done many of the things I did if I had known ahead of time she was going to be afraid for her safety because of it. Stalking is a much more nuanced and deeper issue than you all think. You can't pigeonhole all stalkers and all stalking behaviors into the same category or the same box. I made a video identifying 32 different types of stalkers. And they most certainly do not all intend to cause someone to question their safety. If thats what you think all stalkers are like you have a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject.

 

[Arse Biscuit]

I recognize the concept but its a falsely named concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer

Except that you're wrong. You have lies of commission, ie, actively disinformation), and lies by omission (deceiving someone by deliberately telling less than the full truth). This is not a new concept, and pretty much every theologian in history has been on board with it. There is no other name for it.

Deception is lying, no matter what you call it.

You can't pigeonhole all stalkers and all stalking behaviors into the same category or the same box.

Also nominating for newsfeed.

 

[Broken Pussy]

It is NOT nor has it ever been my intention to make Tamar feel unsafe or question her safety. I did not think at all that she was afraid for her safety until I heard her speak in court. I wouldn't have done many of the things I did if I had known ahead of time she was going to be afraid for her safety because of it. Stalking is a much more nuanced and deeper issue than you all think. You can't pigeonhole all stalkers and all stalking behaviors into the same category or the same box. I made a video identifying 32 different types of stalkers. And they most certainly do not all intend to cause someone to question their safety. If thats what you think all stalkers are like you have a fundamental lack of understanding on the subject.

I'm okay with having a lack of understanding of a reprehensible behavior.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Did Lot commit wickedness though?

Also in the original scripture Sodom and Gomorrah isn't just a place of homosexual deviants. I'm curious why you believe Lot was being sarcastic, especially in the presence of 2 angels...

I believe Lot committed wickedness but he was less accountable than his daughters. A writing I accepted which claims to be older than Genesis, a book called the Book of Jubilees, places blame also on Lot. "16:5 And in this month the Lord executed his judgments on Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Zeboim, and all the region of the Jordan, and He burned them with fire and brimstone, and destroyed them until this day, even as lo I have declared unto thee all their works, that they are wicked and sinners exceedingly, and that they defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh, and work uncleanness on the earth. 16:6 And, in like manner, God will execute judgment on the places where they have done according to the uncleanness of the Sodomites, like unto the judgment of Sodom. 16:7 But Lot we saved; for God remembered Abraham, and sent him out from the midst of the overthrow. 16:8 And he and his daughters committed sin upon the earth, such as had not been on the earth since the days of Adam till his time; for the man lay with his daughters. 16:9 And, behold, it was commanded and engraven concerning all his seed, on the heavenly tablets, to remove them and root them out, and to execute judgment upon them like the judgment of Sodom, and to leave no seed of the man on earth on the day of condemnation.
"

Except that you're wrong. You have lies of commission, ie, actively disinformation), and lies by omission (deceiving someone by deliberately telling less than the full truth). This is not a new concept, and pretty much every theologian in history has been on board with it. There is no other name for it.

Deception is lying, no matter what you call it.

Then lies by omission are not wrong.

 

[Jaded Optimist]

But lot was not laying with his daughters by choice. Am I correct or do you disagree. Is committing a sin a blanket term or a judgement?

 

[Arse Biscuit]

Then lies by omission are not wrong.

Okay, this I gotta hear. Explain.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

I'm okay with having a lack of understanding of a reprehensible behavior.

Except if you misunderstand it it could have disastrous results. You could underestimate how dangerous someone is. Or you could overestimate how dangerous someone and both could have major problems in society if you do that. It is a good idea to have a proper understanding about the extent and severity of ones issues and how much of a threat they are and in what way. It is not smart to think everyone who does something reprehensible is equally a danger to society. There is clearly a spectrum from mild to extreme and from low risk to extremely dangerous.

Okay, this I gotta hear. Explain.

We have to look at the concepts themselves. We have to see what makes "Lying" wrong. It depends how you frame it. For example, I usually make a distinction between killing and murder. Such as not all killing is murder. However, Tamar had this tendency to consider killing and murder as one and the same. So she would actually talk with me about murder as if it was sometimes a good thing and that we should sometimes do. I was very uncomfortable with her choice of language. Whereas I see a distinction between nonmurderous killing and murderous killing, she thinks all killing is murder, and therefore murder is sometimes ok to do in her mind. So if you apply that to telling lies. I have been maintaining from my understanding that there is nonlying deception and lying deception. And that only lying deception is wrong. But you like Tamar would classify all deception as lying. She believes lying is not wrong. But unfortunately she does not think its really ever wrong to lie except in court, business dealings, or with someone who you should tell the truth to them in the specific issue. Whereas for me, I think its always wrong to lie but not always wrong to deceive but if we define all deception as lying, then I think that lying by omission is not wrong.

Take a look at this list on wikipedia of what they identify as different types of "lying". Clearly either not all of these are actual lying or if they are all lying, they aren't all wrong. So we have to find a balance of when it is ok to lie and when its not. And for me I think its ok to lie if everything you say is technically true even though you hope and might even intend them to come to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Whoops here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Types

 

[Jaded Optimist]

I don't know if you will respond or not to my last post @tamarlover but I'm staying out of this. I'll leave this here though kiwis (and a lesser extent Andrew)

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
-George Bernard Shaw"

 

[Arse Biscuit]

We have to look at the concepts themselves. We have to see what makes "Lying" wrong. It depends how you frame it. For example, I usually make a distinction between killing and murder. Such as not all killing is murder. However, Tamar had this tendency to consider killing and murder as one and the same. So she would actually talk with me about murder as if it was sometimes a good thing and that we should sometimes do. I was very uncomfortable with her choice of language. Whereas I see a distinction between nonmurderous killing and murderous killing, she thinks all killing is murder, and therefore murder is sometimes ok to do in her mind. So if you apply that to telling lies. I have been maintaining from my understanding that there is nonlying deception and lying deception. And that only lying deception is wrong. But you like Tamar would classify all deception as lying. She believes lying is not wrong. But unfortunately she does not think its really ever wrong to lie except in court, business dealings, or with someone who you should tell the truth to them in the specific issue. Whereas for me, I think its always wrong to lie but not always wrong to deceive but if we define all deception as lying, then I think that lying by omission is not wrong.

Take a look at this list on wikipedia of what they identify as different types of "lying". Clearly either not all of these are actual lying or if they are all lying, they aren't all wrong. So we have to find a balance of when it is ok to lie and when its not. And for me I think its ok to lie if everything you say is technically true even though you hope and might even intend them to come to an incorrect conclusion.

My takeaway from this is that you define "good lying" as the lies you tell, and "bad lying" as lies other people tell. Even in game theory, deliberately introducing incorrect data - by omission or commission - is a non-starter, outside of wartime...Which is, interestingly enough, the only time it's considered morally okay to kill, as well.

You really are a lousy theologian. Not because I disagree with you, but because you're really bad at it.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

But lot was not laying with his daughters by choice. Am I correct or do you disagree. Is committing a sin a blanket term or a judgement?

The oldest manuscripts we have of Genesis say this, from the Septuagint translation: "33 So they made their father drink wine in that night, and the elder went in and lay with her father that night, and he knew not when he slept and when he rose up. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the elder said to the younger, Behold, I slept yesternight with our father, let us make him drink wine in this night also, and do thou go in and sleep with him, and let us raise up seed of our father. 35 So they made their father drink wine in that night also, and the younger went in and slept with her father, and he knew not when he slept, nor when he arose."

Compare to the later manuscripts: "33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 35 Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
"

See in the original version, he did not know when he arose and when he slept, implying he partially consented when he was drunk but his knowledge was impaired. But the scribes changed it to make it so that the daughters were the ones he didn't know when they lay down or when they arose implying he didn't know when they had sex with him. But in the original version he did know they had sex with him, but he didn't know when he slept and when he rose because he was so heavily drunk. There was some blame shifting going on to try to make Lot look more righteous and make the women look more guilty.

 

[SourDiesel]

Okay NOW I have a question @tamarlover

Just the one question though because I think the answer will be hilarious. Don't get any ideas.

You stated:

Don't need God telling me. I do what I believe is the right thing to do.

Why do you believe quoting biblical scripture is proof of the righteousness of your behavior, yet do admit you do not fundamentally believe in Christian God's almighty wisdom as creator? How can you cite the bible to justify things when you don't believe the word of very god the religion is based on or are even , in fact, a christian or catholic? This god is very clear that he alone can cast judgments, for instance. He is also very clear about coveting thy neighbors wife as minor examples of basic scripture you do not follow, yet you cite obscure passages to prove your points. How do you explain this apparent hypocrisy?

 

[dunbrine47]

Lolcows quoting scripture. Where have I seen this before?

 

[The Great Chandler]

@tamarlover
Jesus didn't need a wife to keep him happy because he was already content on what he had to accomplish.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Okay NOW I have a question @tamarlover

Just the one question though because I think the answer will be hilarious. Don't get any ideas. You stated: Why do you believe quoting biblical scripture is proof of the righteousness of your behavior, yet do admit you do not fundamentally believe in Christian God's almighty wisdom as creator? How can you cite the bible to justify things when you don't believe the word of very god the religion is based on or are even , in fact, a christian or catholic? This god is very clear that he alone can cast judgments, for instance. He is also very clear about coveting thy neighbors wife as minor examples of basic scripture you do not follow, yet you cite obscure passages to prove your points. How do you explain this apparent hypocrisy?

Here's your answer.

The Bible is a collection of information. In its original form, part of it was spoken by God, but a large portion of it was written by man and man's own ideas. So when its man's ideas, its someone's opinion or perspective, not necessarily fact. Then there is the issue of change over time in the copies. Scribal alterations, and translation issues can really alter the meaning of passages. So we must have a standard higher than the Bible if we are to be safe and make valid applications in our lives. If we blindly believe whatever the Bible says, that's a logical fallacy. Called the appeal to authority fallacy. I believe in the almighty wisdom of the Almighty God, but I think that this God is largely absent and prefers to be that way, only getting involved if absolutely necessary to accomplish his ultimate purposes. otherwise he would much rather us do things on our own and figure things out. So he gave us some guidance and then the rest is up to us to try and be the best we can be with what we've been given. I'm not going to ask God for permission every time I need to go to the bathroom. "Is it ok God if I go to the bathroom now? I have to pee really bad." No, rather you don't need God to tell you things.

When God does tell you things you should listen, but if He doesn't tell you certain things, you don't have to say "oh well God didn't tell us so we can't do it." So if you are thinking about whether to kill someone who just invaded your home by breaking into it, you don't have time to wait until God gives you permission to kill him. And besides He already gave us permission. He gave us a lot of rules and guidelines and advice which if we study in advance, it should give us a good reliable guide of the right things to do in life. But sometimes, things can be a little fuzzy even if you do a lot of seeking and studying. In these cases you have to do what you believe is the best/right thing to do. So I don't need to know what God says about whether i can deceive people or not becaues that's not how it works. Rather, you use the principles established in life and history to determine if it is something that is acceptable or not. Is it ok to deceive someone for such and such reasons and in such and such way? That's something you can try to figure out on your own with your own reasoning mind.

One of the ten commandments is "Do not kill." But then other places in the bible God commands people to kill others. So then the command "do not kill" must not be universal and must have some exceptions.

Similarly then, it is possible that the command of not coveting your neighbor's wife may not be universal and may have some exceptions, and I believe it does.

Likewise the command to not steal has exceptions.

The command to honor your parents has exceptions. I would argue that each of the ten commandments refers to a very narrow specific issue that is always forbidden.

Likewise the command to not have other gods before him must be understand in its intended meaning. because in other places in scripture we are told that humans are gods and that we are not to respect the gods and that God is the God of gods and King of kings and Lord of lords. Implies there are other gods. So rather than saying all gods are wrong, its saying gods in a certain way are wrong always. but in other ways, it could be fine as long as it doesn't violate the one way that God's command spoke against.

Likewise the command to not have graven images. Yet other places God commands people to make graven images. So we must understand it only speaks of a certain type of graven image, not all graven images.

The command to keep the Sabbath by not doing work on it. Its talkin about a certain type of work. Not all work is wrong to do on the Sabbath. And specifically for those who are not in covenant with God, the sabbath is not commanded for them.

When it speaks of not bearing false witness, it is not saying that all false witness is being outlawed. Rather its speaking about a certain type of false witness. The type of intentional falsehood. But a witness is false even if they think they are remembering things correctly but they are actually misremembering.

As for adultery, if you define adultery as "Sexual intercourse by a married person with someone other than their spouse." according to the Bible, God actively encourages and never once condemns the practice of concubinage which is surrogate spouses for the sake of childbearing. Also known as spouse swapping. What that means is a man and wife can agree ahead of time for a different woman that the man is not married to to take her place and be his wife until the main wife wants to be the main wife again. And likewise I believe that a man and wife can agree ahead of time for a different man that the woman is no married to to take his place and be his husband until the main husband wants to be the main husband again. The Bible endorses this for men using other another woman as a surrogate/concubine. So why wouldn't this also be allowed for women to do for men? But i believe it has to be consensual with everyone involved, and no group sex. So I believe that if Tamar's husband found out he couldn't have children, and they wanted children, they could ask me to take his place and impregnate Tamar for him. And that would not be wrong if they both wanted that to happen. Obviously that's never going to happen, nor do I want that to happen, I'm just using an extreme example to make a point as to what I believe.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

not to disrespect* the gods i meant to say

 

[Broken Pussy]

Except if you misunderstand it it could have disastrous results. You could underestimate how dangerous someone is. Or you could overestimate how dangerous someone and both could have major problems in society if you do that. It is a good idea to have a proper understanding about the extent and severity of ones issues and how much of a threat they are and in what way. It is not smart to think everyone who does something reprehensible is equally a danger to society. There is clearly a spectrum from mild to extreme and from low risk to extremely dangerous.

Or, I could assume that, were I the object of your "affection", you are capable of anything, and I should avoid you, and have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Which seems like the appropriate course of action, when a stalker is involved.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Or, I could assume that, were I the object of your "affection", you are capable of anything, and I should avoid you, and have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Which seems like the appropriate course of action, when a stalker is involved.

What if by doing that you enrage the person and when they come out of jail they might kill you as revenge? If you are just going to assume without evidence someone is dangerous, then you would have no way of knowing if putting them in jail would actually put your life in much much worse danger.

 

[LD 3187]

What if by doing that you enrage the person and when they come out of jail they might kill you as revenge? If you are just going to assume without evidence someone is dangerous, then you would have no way of knowing if putting them in jail would actually put your life in much much worse danger.

If you go to jail unfairly it's the fault of a bad justice system. You can't expect every citizen to be an expert in every kind of threat. What is expected is for you to report suspected threats and the justice system figure them out. Also didn't you say before that nothing justifies murder? Did you read anything about DMT theory and entities btw?

 

[Cato]

What if by doing that you enrage the person and when they come out of jail they might kill you as revenge? If you are just going to assume without evidence someone is dangerous, then you would have no way of knowing if putting them in jail would actually put your life in much much worse danger.

"How dare they accuse me of being insane, threatening and dangerous, simply for stalking! I'll kill them for that! I'll kill them all!!! That will prove how wrong they were!"