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

[Anaiah Carlson]

You "cared" for Melinda because you wanted to get in her pants. When that failed, you stalked her relentlessly. Just like you stalk your newest ex. You're a sociopath and us KiwiFarmers see right past your bullshit excuses and autistic rationalizations.

Not true. There was a time i could have had her as my wife. I actively resisted it and was being extremely cautious knowing what she's looe
Further when i helped her ouy my goal was to restore friendship. Thats it. I actively encouraged her directly to reconcile with marshall and try to make it work many times during the summer of 2019.

You don't understand charity, clearly. Charity is when you give to someone freely, expecting nothing from that person or anyone else connected in return. You did not give freely. You gave out of a demented plan to win her affections back, by your own admission. That is not charity, that is at best bribery, and at worst a pathetic attempt at soliciting a woman as if she was a whore.


You don't. Once you have all basic needs secured and debts paid, the rest of that money can go to charity. You proclaim that you are different from everyone else, that you truly care about the poor, but you squirm just like everyone else when confronted with this simple fact. Every time you buy a video game, every time you buy a new shirt, every time you invest your money in some hare-brained investment scheme; that was money that could have gone to the poor. I only hold you to a standard beyond the human level because you demand that everyone else live above that level. Practice what you preach, and remove the plank from your eye before speaking of the splinter in your brother's.


Correct. I am saying that, right now, you don't give to the poor at all, putting you beneath both. By your own scheme, you will be at the level of the Pharisee; which is not a good place to be. Allow me to remind you of another verse:
"It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."


Because you do not care about the hardships of the world. The fact you squirm and dance and flee from your basic obligations to your own family, much less selfless love towards others, shows that. You use the hardships of the world to try and whip me into compliance, because assuming the moral high ground is your fallback tactic. I am not stupid enough to fall for your spurious pseudo-intellectualism, and I refuse to play along with your subterfuges, so your only remaining tactic, besides fleeing this website for a time and coming back with an "update", is to try and paint yourself as morally righteous. Over three hundred pages testify to the opposite.


And, of course, let us not forget what you pretend not to see: you have claimed that chemical reactions that "alter the chemical structure of an object" are "unnatural" and "an affront to God". Your entire superstitious belief about medicine and cooking is founded on this cornerstone. However, every chemical reaction does this; when you sweat, when you breathe, when you eat and drink, all of these things involve incredible amounts of chemical interaction that causes structures to change, new chemicals to be created, old ones destroyed, etc. Do you bite the bullet and say that natural chemical interactions created by God's will are unnatural and an affront to God, or do you admit that your categorization of "unnatural chemistry" is based on an elementary-schooler's understanding of chemical reactions?

Your conflation of chemical reactions is in error. Some chemical reactions are natural some are unnatural. Something unnatural is what doesn't occur normally in nature when left on its own. Sorry youre an idiot if you think computers come into existence naturally. It takes an unnatural/abnormal process to create such things that is not find in nature. Nature will never produce on its own computers. Now, cooking doesn't happen in nature either. But the key is it doesnt involve an alteration of its chemical structure. Sure it has chemical reactions but it remains what it is in its basic chemical form
Whereas what chemists do is they completely change the chemical compositions of things well beyond mere reactions. They create new compounds and combine them in dangerous harmful ways.

I disagree with your analysis of charity and such. Poor people arent require to give to the poor til they become rich. Once rich then you must start giving to the poor. And its wrong to say you cant have video games or such. You need some entertainment to help you cope with life. As long as you have moderation its ok.

 

[break these cuffs]

Your conflation of chemical reactions is in error. Some chemical reactions are natural some are unnatural. Something unnatural is what doesn't occur normally in nature when left on its own. Sorry youre an idiot if you think computers come into existence naturally. It takes an unnatural/abnormal process to create such things that is not find in nature. Nature will never produce on its own computers. Now, cooking doesn't happen in nature either. But the key is it doesnt involve an alteration of its chemical structure. Sure it has chemical reactions but it remains what it is in its basic chemical form

You are retarded. Proteins getting denatured into amino acids and oxidation don't alter chemical structure? Just heating your oil above its smoke point creates free radicals. Do you know what baking soda fucking does? Here's what happens when it's exposed to heat and acid: a) acid - NaHCO3 + H+ → Na+ + CO2 + H2O b) heat - 2 NaHCO3 → Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2. The CO2 is why your bread rises you fucking idiot.

You understand cooking and chemical reactions as well as you understand non-retarded cult religions and women.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

You are exceptional. Proteins getting denatured into amino acids and oxidation don't alter chemical structure? Just heating your oil above its smoke point creates free radicals. Do you know what baking soda fucking does? Here's what happens when it's exposed to heat and acid: a) heat - NaHCO3 + H+ → Na+ + CO2 + H2O b) acid - 2 NaHCO3 → Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2. The CO2 is why your bread rises you fucking idiot.

You understand cooking and chemical reactions as well as you understand non-exceptional cult religions and women.

There is a clear difference between cooking and gene splicing. There is a clear difference between making juice and splitting atoms. There is a clear differencr between preparing a slain animal to be eaten and growing meat from cells in a test tube. There is a clear difference between using wood, stone, and steel to build houses, and making plastics. There is a clear difference between manual masturbation and making a sex robot. There is a clear difference between wearing glasses and getting eye surgery or mechanical eyes. There is a clear difference between communism and capitalism.

 

[break these cuffs]

There is a clear difference between cooking and gene splicing. There is a clear difference between making juice and splitting atoms. There is a clear differencr between preparing a slain animal to be eaten and growing meat from cells in a test tube. There is a clear difference between using wood, stone, and steel to build houses, and making plastics. There is a clear difference between manual masturbation and making a sex robot. There is a clear difference between wearing glasses and getting eye surgery or mechanical eyes. There is a clear difference between communism and capitalism.

Way to shift the goalpost you fucking mong.

Now, cooking doesn't happen in nature either. But the key is it doesnt involve an alteration of its chemical structure. Sure it has chemical reactions but it remains what it is in its basic chemical form

You don't know shit about shit.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Now, cooking doesn't happen in nature either. But the key is it doesnt involve an alteration of its chemical structure. Sure it has chemical reactions but it remains what it is in its basic chemical form

Patently false. Cooking meat alters the chemical structure of its proteins, breaking down complex chains into simple ones. Making bread, as outlined above, involves a complex chemical reaction that creates new chemicals and remakes chemical strucutres. You responded to this with typical empty rhetoric about how there's a "clear difference" between this and... I guess a bunch of nonsense that you don't approve of (what, exactly, do you think your computer is made out of, if not "unnatural" plastics?) None of this overrules the simple fact that your definition of what is "unnatural chemistry" is nonsense: as is several other claims. For example: nuclear fission "doesn't happen in nature"? The Oklo piles swould beg to differ. They were generating nuclear fission power before life on Earth was more advanced than jellyfish.
Perhaps this is deliberate; maybe you think that if you throw a bunch of unrelated points at people, they will feel overwhelmed and give in. I don't work like that.
Again: . Do you bite the bullet and say that natural chemical interactions created by God's will are unnatural and an affront to God, or do you admit that your categorization of "unnatural chemistry" is based on an elementary-schooler's understanding of chemical reactions?

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Way to shift the goalpost you fucking mong.

You don't know shit about shit.

Water remains h20 regardless of what form it is in. Thus if you cook/heat water, or cool/freeze water, the water changes its form, but not its chemical composition (h20).

 

[break these cuffs]

Patently false. Cooking meat alters the chemical structure of its proteins, breaking down complex chains into simple ones. Making bread, as outlined above, involves a complex chemical reaction that creates new chemicals and remakes chemical strucutres. You responded to this with typical empty rhetoric about how there's a "clear difference" between this and... I guess a bunch of nonsense that you don't approve of (what, exactly, do you think your computer is made out of, if not "unnatural" plastics?) None of this overrules the simple fact that your definition of what is "unnatural chemistry" is nonsense: as is several other claims. For example: nuclear fission "doesn't happen in nature"? The Oklo piles swould beg to differ. They were generating nuclear fission power before life on Earth was more advanced than jellyfish.
Perhaps this is deliberate; maybe you think that if you throw a bunch of unrelated points at people, they will feel overwhelmed and give in. I don't work like that.
Again: . Do you bite the bullet and say that natural chemical interactions created by God's will are unnatural and an affront to God, or do you admit that your categorization of "unnatural chemistry" is based on an elementary-schooler's understanding of chemical reactions?

Andrew makes the classic cow mistake of thinking everyone is dumber than he is. Nobody here is stupid enough to fuck him like his exes who bought his bullshit. Nobody here is willing to overlook his bullshit because they want to fuck him or think he's god like his exes. The only people who buy into Andrew as an intellectual are other cult members and women dumb enough to bang him. He exposes clear inconsistencies in his beliefs and beliefs that are demonstrably false such as this pseudo scientific idiocy about unnatural chemical reactions. Then he just deflects or shifts the goalpost when someone points out he's wrong in an undeniable manner. Melinda does this all the time as well. They'd be perfect for each other if they both weren't too stubborn and ignorant to admit they can be wrong.

Water remains h20 regardless of what form it is in. Thus if you cook/heat water, or cool/freeze water, the water changes its form, but not its chemical composition (h20).

Now, cooking doesn't happen in nature either. But the key is it doesnt involve an alteration of its chemical structure. Sure it has chemical reactions but it remains what it is in its basic chemical form

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Patently false. Cooking meat alters the chemical structure of its proteins, breaking down complex chains into simple ones. Making bread, as outlined above, involves a complex chemical reaction that creates new chemicals and remakes chemical strucutres. You responded to this with typical empty rhetoric about how there's a "clear difference" between this and... I guess a bunch of nonsense that you don't approve of (what, exactly, do you think your computer is made out of, if not "unnatural" plastics?) None of this overrules the simple fact that your definition of what is "unnatural chemistry" is nonsense: as is several other claims. For example: nuclear fission "doesn't happen in nature"? The Oklo piles swould beg to differ. They were generating nuclear fission power before life on Earth was more advanced than jellyfish.
Perhaps this is deliberate; maybe you think that if you throw a bunch of unrelated points at people, they will feel overwhelmed and give in. I don't work like that.
Again: . Do you bite the bullet and say that natural chemical interactions created by God's will are unnatural and an affront to God, or do you admit that your categorization of "unnatural chemistry" is based on an elementary-schooler's understanding of chemical reactions?

It doesnt happen in the way we do it tho. Secondly how do we know those are natural occurring things? Could be left over from earlier age which had that scientific understanding.

Andrew makes the classic cow mistake of thinking everyone is dumber than he is. Nobody here is stupid enough to fuck him like his exes who bought his bullshit. Nobody here is willing to overlook his bullshit because they want to fuck him or think he's god like his exes. The only people who buy into Andrew as an intellectual are other cult members and women dumb enough to bang him. He exposes clear inconsistencies in his beliefs and beliefs that are demonstrably false such as this pseudo scientific idiocy about unnatural chemical reactions. Then he just deflects or shifts the goalpost when someone points out he's wrong in an undeniable manner. Melinda does this all the time as well. They'd be perfect for each other if they both weren't too stubborn and ignorant to admit they can be wrong.

Maybe i use words inaccurstely but the conceprs im talking about are correct. Whatever you want to call it, there are clear differences between genetic modification of animals and cooking food.

 

[Trombonista]

Maybe i use words inaccurstely but the conceprs im talking about are correct.

Have you ever considered proofreading before you post?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

It doesnt happen in the way we do it tho. Secondly how do we know those are natural occurring things? Could be left over from earlier age which had that scientific understanding.

1. Yes it does, the process of atomic fission doesn't materially change if you stick an axle above it. Peptide chains don't magically alter based on whether they were done in a stomach or a beaker.
2. Because the nuclear reaction started 2 billion years ago. AKA before life on Earth was more advanced than some sponges or jellyfish. Let's add "basic geology, biology, and paleontology" to things you have negative understanding of.
Again: Do you bite the bullet and say that natural chemical interactions created by God's will are unnatural and an affront to God, or do you admit that your categorization of "unnatural chemistry" is based on an elementary-schooler's understanding of chemical reactions?

 

[break these cuffs]

Maybe i use words inaccurstely but the conceprs im talking about are correct. Whatever you want to call it, there are clear differences between genetic modification of animals and cooking food.

You cannot articulate your beliefs in a way that makes you seem correct to other people because you don't have a coherent system of belief. Let me breakdown your natural vs unnatural argument. What I think is Good = Natural. What I think is Bad = Unnatural. It folded immediately upon the most basic of refutation and all you have left now mewling about trying to shift the goalpost. Let's break your other reply to me down.

Water remains h20 regardless of what form it is in. Thus if you cook/heat water, or cool/freeze water, the water changes its form, but not its chemical composition (h20).

So you're saying that when sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) breaks down under heat into salt, the chemical kind not the common NaCl used for cooking, (Na+), water (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) that not only are you not altering the chemical structure of sodium bicarbonate, because cooking is natural, but the water released during the reaction was always water white it was a part of the sodium bicarbonate compound? THERE IS ONLY ONE HYDROGEN IN SODIUM BICARBONATE AND THERE ARE TWO IN WATER. YOU NEED EITHER TWO SODIUM BICARBONATE MOLECULES OR AN ADDITIONAL HYDROGEN, SUCH AS FROM AN ACID.

Just how badly did you fail chemistry in both middle school and high school?

Maybe you're a visual learner. Here are visual representations of the molecules and chemical bonds of both sodium bicarbonate and water:

Please again make your cooking does not alter chemical structure and water is always water arguments using chemical equations or visuals representations of chemical bonds and compounds.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

You cannot articulate your beliefs in a way that makes you seem correct to other people because you don't have a coherent system of belief. Let me breakdown your natural vs unnatural argument. What I think is Good = Natural. What I think is Bad = Unnatural. It folded immediately upon the most basic of refutation and all you have left now mewling about trying to shift the goalpost. Let's break your other reply to me down.

So you're saying that when sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) breaks down under heat into salt, the chemical kind not the common NaCl used for cooking, (Na+), water (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) that not only are you not altering the chemical structure of sodium bicarbonate, because cooking is natural, but the water released during the reaction was always water white it was a part of the sodium bicarbonate compound? THERE IS ONLY ONE HYDROGEN IN SODIUM BICARBONATE AND THERE ARE TWO IN WATER. YOU NEED EITHER TWO SODIUM BICARBONATE MOLECULES OR AN ADDITIONAL HYDROGEN, SUCH AS FROM AN ACID.

Just how badly did you fail chemistry in both middle school and high school?

Maybe you're a visual learner. Here are visual representations of the molecules and chemical bonds of both sodium bicarbonate and water:

View attachment 1199622

Please again make your cooking does not alter chemical structure and water is always water arguments using chemical equations or visuals representations of chemical bonds and compounds.

I dont agree with using baking soda actually. I got probably c range in school for chemistry. The production of the baking soda is the unnatural part.

 

[TheUltimatePickle]

I dont agree with using baking soda actually. I got probably c range in school for chemistry. The production of the baking soda is the unnatural part.

"A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this" - Psalm 92:6

 

[break these cuffs]

I dont agree with using baking soda actually. I got probably c range in school for chemistry. The production of the baking soda is the unnatural part.

You are oh so very bad at deflecting. I don't care what you cook. Cooking = natural you idiot. Haven't you read the works of noted think and acute religious mind Andrew Peter Carlson?

 

[Un Platano]

I dont agree with using baking soda actually. I got probably c range in school for chemistry. The production of the baking soda is the unnatural part.

Actually sodium bicarbonate is found in nature as the mineral nahcolite. It forms as an evaporite mineral from saline lakes and hot springs. We don't eat it because it's comparatively rare compared to typical evaporite minerals and is therefore hard to produce, but this natural form of sodium bicarbonate behaves exactly like synthetic sodium bicarbonate and differs only in that the natural form has more impurities.

 

[AnOminous]

There is a clear difference between communism and capitalism.

There is a clear difference between anything you say and even an iota of sense.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Actually sodium bicarbonate is found in nature as the mineral nahcolite. It forms as an evaporite mineral from saline lakes and hot springs. We don't eat it because it's comparatively rare compared to typical evaporite minerals and is therefore hard to produce, but this natural form of sodium bicarbonate behaves exactly like synthetic sodium bicarbonate and differs only in that the natural form has more impurities.

Sure it may he found in nature but its produced naturally. The issue is unnatural production of it. For example it would be immoral/unnatural to create life from nonlife if we ever discover the science to do that.

A pickle or banana can be used as a dildo but thats unnatural use of it.

 

[Un Platano]

Sure it may he found in nature but its produced naturally. The issue is unnatural production of it. For example it would be immoral/unnatural to create life from nonlife if we ever discover the science to do that.

A pickle or banana can be used as a dildo but thats unnatural use of it.

Where does nature say I cannot fornicate myself with a banana?

 

[break these cuffs]

Sure it may he found in nature but its produced naturally. The issue is unnatural production of it. For example it would be immoral/unnatural to create life from nonlife if we ever discover the science to do that.

A pickle or banana can be used as a dildo but thats unnatural use of it.

So you would approve of someone raping a live frog as a sexual aid because monkeys do it in nature? You support fratricide and fillicide along with the general violence and rape that occur regularly in the "nature world"? What is natural Andrew? Please don't define it as "things I like", again.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

So you would approve of someone raping a live frog as a sexual aid because monkeys do it in nature? You support fratricide and fillicide along with the general violence and rape that occur regularly in the "nature world"? What is natural Andrew? Please don't define it as "things I like", again.

No, i think i made it clear that just because something can be done in nature doesn't mean its natural. Since humans are part of nature. Doesn't mean everything humans do is natural. I believe that animals are moral equals to humans and have the ability to be morally good or morally evil stemming from their own free will choices. thus their actions that are immoral are by definition unnatural. all things that are immoral are unnatural.