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

tamarlover said:
I assume the other constitutional amendments are the one about slavery and free speech. I did not say i'd remove free speech but that i'd place heavy limits on it.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have a First Amendment, your dumb ass would have been in prison years ago and you'd currently be deep throating one black cock after another.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant, antisocial, Scribbler and 3 others
tamarlover said:
If i published the book that would ruin ALL chances of ever being her friend again. so the answer is no.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it would ruin all chances? I mean, you've been pretty open about everything so far and you still think there's a chance she'll fall for you.

tamarlover said:
The right to bear arms only refers to forming a militia. it doesn't refer to most gun right laws. If you had a felony you can't own a gun. If you are convicted of domestic violence you can't own a gun. I can't own a gun right now because of the protective order. if the constitution GUARANTEED the right for every citizen to own a private gun, they wouldn't be allowed to take away that right.

I assume the other constitutional amendments are the one about slavery and free speech. I did not say i'd remove free speech but that i'd place heavy limits on it. As for slavery, a convincing argument can be presented to congress, and slavery according to the law is actually not illegal. If you look at the law, the government has the right to incarcerate people for breaking the law and force them to work without getting paid. Look at the amendment about slavery: "
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
"
Click to expand...
What kind of limits would you put on free speech, exactly?
 
Fangsofjeff said:
What makes you think it would ruin all chances? I mean, you've been pretty open about everything so far and you still think there's a chance she'll fall for you.

What kind of limits would you put on free speech, exactly?
Click to expand...

My books is very private and personal. I provide many details of her life as well as mine in an intimate manner and fashion. What i have said her is nothing compared to what I have said in the book. It is very revealing and she would be utterly embarrassed if i shared it and full of shame if i shared it. I would not do that to her.

I'd look for excuses like how you can't say fire on an airplane. I'd limit certain things can only be said on television at certain hours of the day moreso than they already are. I would do my best to suppress the voice of atheism and other dangerous ideologies.
 
  • Islamic Content
  • Deviant
  • Informative
Reactions: fuzzyrodent85, TheUltimatePickle, Trasha Pay That A$$ and 11 others
tamarlover said:
My books is very private and personal. I provide many details of her life as well as mine in an intimate manner and fashion. What i have said her is nothing compared to what I have said in the book. It is very revealing and she would be utterly embarrassed if i shared it and full of shame if i shared it. I would not do that to her.

I'd look for excuses like how you can't say fire on an airplane. I'd limit certain things can only be said on television at certain hours of the day moreso than they already are. I would do my best to suppress the voice of atheism and other dangerous ideologies.
Click to expand...
Wait, how is atheism dangerous? People who commit crimes in the name of atheism are pretty rare.
 
Fangsofjeff said:
Wait, how is atheism dangerous?
Click to expand...

Its an extremely morally repugnant position that breeds a very poor moral understanding. It suggests that morality is relative and subjective and not objective from one culture to another. So in one culture rape is moral, and in another culture is not. Atheism validates that idea. Which is very dangerous. Cultural moralism and subjective moralism is a very negative thing and atheism is the biggest proponent of such loose moral compass. Atheists are generally good people, but that's only because they have little to no incentive to do very immoral things. If the incentive were there, they'd be more likely to do it since morality is relative to them anyways. There are other dangerous ideologies that some versions of Christianity have a doctrine of if you are a christian you can't do any sin that makes you lose your salvation. If possible I'd suppress or outlaw that doctrine from being publicly taught anywhere. Any muslim extremist ideology would be shut down as well.

The idea of rape in prison being a very common thing so common that you have to be afraid you'll be raped if you go to prison is similar in stupidity and absurdity to the idea of saying to a woman she cannot go out at night by herself because she's going to be raped. While there is a higher chance of her getting raped in that situation, it is still a very rare thing and doesn't happen all the time to justify the idea that women should assume they'll be raped if they go out at night by themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Islamic Content
  • Deviant
  • Dumb
Reactions: Robert Sanvagene, Trasha Pay That A$$, ConSluttant and 10 others
tamarlover said:
Its an extremely morally repugnant position that breeds a very poor moral understanding. It suggests that morality is relative and subjective and not objective from one culture to another. So in one culture rape is moral, and in another culture is not. Atheism validates that idea. Which is very dangerous. Cultural moralism and subjective moralism is a very negative thing and atheism is the biggest proponent of such loose moral compass. Atheists are generally good people, but that's only because they have little to no incentive to do very immoral things. If the incentive were there, they'd be more likely to do it since morality is relative to them anyways. There are other dangerous ideologies that some versions of Christianity have a doctrine of if you are a christian you can't do any sin that makes you lose your salvation. If possible I'd suppress or outlaw that doctrine from being publicly taught anywhere. Any muslim extremist ideology would be shut down as well.
Click to expand...

You can be an atheist and a moral absolutist. Atheism is not synonymous with moral relativism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Sanvagene
tamarlover said:
The right to bear arms only refers to forming a militia. it doesn't refer to most gun right laws.
Click to expand...
D.C v. Heller says otherwise.
tamarlover said:
I did not say i'd remove free speech but that i'd place heavy limits on it.
Click to expand...
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" You do know what abridging means, right?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: IAmNotDavid
NotAKitty said:
D.C v. Heller says otherwise.

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" You do know what abridging means, right?
Click to expand...

ok but laws change over time. the law has changed radically in many ways. So there is nothing a big deal if something is currently illegal "right now". the whole point is trying to change the law. D.C. v. Heller made a huge mistake because its clearly not what the second amendment originally intended.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it couldn't be any clearer. It is identifying a wll regulated militia as the right to bear arms. Personal possession of arms is not a right, and besides I already provided examples where that "right" is taken away by the law such as if you are guilty of a felony. So clearly exceptions to the "right" to bear arms are in the law already and more exceptions can be added. I will add as many exceptions as possible to eradicate guns as much as possible.

Adamska said:
I dunno if the man who seeks to exploit the homeless on a non-farmable patch of land, who is too stupid to not stalk a really dumb ho, and who believes that those who disagree with him deserve 40 lashes has a leg to stand on when talking about morality.
Click to expand...

I'm going to sell the land and buy land and exploit the homeless on a farmable patch of land instead.

Never said those who disagree with me deserve 40 lashes. Your behavior is what deserved it, not disagreeing with me.

and besides i actually said only one person deserved 40 lashes. the rest i said deserved some lashes but didn't say everyone here deserved 40 lashes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Dumb
  • Deviant
  • Autistic
Reactions: fuzzyrodent85, Trasha Pay That A$$, snailshell and 8 others
tamarlover said:
ok but laws change over time. the law has changed radically in many ways. So there is nothing a big deal if something is currently illegal "right now". the whole point is trying to change the law. D.C. v. Heller made a huge mistake because its clearly not what the second amendment originally intended.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it couldn't be any clearer. It is identifying a wll regulated militia as the right to bear arms. Personal possession of arms is not a right, and besides I already provided examples where that "right" is taken away by the law such as if you are guilty of a felony. So clearly exceptions to the "right" to bear arms are in the law already and more exceptions can be added. I will add as many exceptions as possible to eradicate guns as much as possible.
Click to expand...
  1. The "well-regulated militia" part? That's what's known as a preamble. It explains why the right to bear arms is required.
  2. By committing felonies, you infringe upon the rights of other people and therefore give up many of your own. Your plan suggests that ordinary people would have their firearms confiscated from them even though they hadn't committed any crimes, making it unconstitutional.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DracoRincewind, Ti-99/4A, Rumpled Foreskin and 1 other person
"
  1. (transitive) To use for one’s own advantage.
  2. (transitive) To forcibly deprive someone of something to which she or he has a natural right.
"
Definition #1: good
Definition #2: bad

"
Noun[edit]
exploit (plural exploits)

  1. A heroic or extraordinary deed.
  2. An achievement.
    The first trek to the summit of Mount Everest was a stunning exploit."

Definition # 1: good
Definition #2: good

Language has a wide nuance of meaning.

I also believe in manipulating people, and selfishness, and I approve of dictatorship.

manipulate:
"
  1. (transitive) To move, arrange or operate something using the hands
  2. (transitive) To influence, manage, direct, control or tamper with something
  3. (transitive, medicine) To handle and move a body part, either as an examination or for a therapeutic purpose
  4. (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use"
selfish:
"
  1. Holding one's own self-interest as the standard for decision making.  [quotations ▼]
  2. Having regard for oneself above others’ well-being.
"

dictator:
"
  1. A totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government
  2. Originally, a magistrate without colleague in republican ancient Rome, who held full executive authority for a term granted by the senate (legislature), typically to conduct a war
  3. A tyrannical boss, or authority figure
  4. A person who dictates text (e.g. letters to a clerk)
  5. A ruler or Führer, the highest level of authority.
"

tyrant: "
  1. (historical, ancient Greece) A usurper; one who gains power and rules extralegally, distinguished from kings elevated by election or succession.  [obsolete) Any monarch or governor.  [despot; a ruler who governs unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  [person who abuses the power of position or office to treat others unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  [villain; a person or thing who uses strength or violence to treat others unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  [tyrant birds, members of the family Tyrannidae, which often fight or drive off other birds which approach their nests.  [quotations ▼]
"
So a tyrant can be good, so can a dictator, so can selfishness, so can manipulation. It depends how you use the language.
 
  • Autistic
  • Dumb
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Trasha Pay That A$$, ConSluttant, DracoRincewind and 12 others
tamarlover said:
"
  1. (transitive) To use for one’s own advantage.
  2. (transitive) To forcibly deprive someone of something to which she or he has a natural right.
"
Definition #1: good
Definition #2: bad

"
Noun[edit]
exploit (plural exploits)

  1. A heroic or extraordinary deed.
  2. An achievement.
    The first trek to the summit of Mount Everest was a stunning exploit."

Definition # 1: good
Definition #2: good

Language has a wide nuance of meaning.

I also believe in manipulating people, and selfishness, and I approve of dictatorship.

manipulate:
"
  1. (transitive) To move, arrange or operate something using the hands
  2. (transitive) To influence, manage, direct, control or tamper with something
  3. (transitive, medicine) To handle and move a body part, either as an examination or for a therapeutic purpose
  4. (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use"
selfish:
"
  1. Holding one's own self-interest as the standard for decision making.  [quotations ▼]
  2. Having regard for oneself above others’ well-being.
"

dictator:
"
  1. A totalitarian leader of a country, nation, or government
  2. Originally, a magistrate without colleague in republican ancient Rome, who held full executive authority for a term granted by the senate (legislature), typically to conduct a war
  3. A tyrannical boss, or authority figure
  4. A person who dictates text (e.g. letters to a clerk)
  5. A ruler or Führer, the highest level of authority.
"

tyrant: "
  1. (historical, ancient Greece) A usurper; one who gains power and rules extralegally, distinguished from kings elevated by election or succession.  [obsolete) Any monarch or governor.  [despot; a ruler who governs unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  [person who abuses the power of position or office to treat others unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  [villain; a person or thing who uses strength or violence to treat others unjustly, cruelly, or harshly.  [tyrant birds, members of the family Tyrannidae, which often fight or drive off other birds which approach their nests.  [quotations ▼]
"
So a tyrant can be good, so can a dictator, so can selfishness, so can manipulation. It depends how you use the language.
Click to expand...
I didn't know we were in ancient Greece or Rome...
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: ConSluttant, O Gato Preto, IAmNotDavid and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back