Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[LoverofPi]

The belief that Sumerian clay tablets were before Hebrew is scholastic OPINION. Not FACT. Genesis is the beginning of human history. No pagan scholar is going to change my mind on that.

No, it's a fact. We have evidence of early hebrew, from before it was a proper language, and even that is younger than the Sumerian tablets. Genesis is still not a history, it is a creation myth.

The definition of a "fool" is someone who doesn't follow The Torah. So your attempt at trying to mimic my use of Proverbs is erroneous. You are trying to take the word "fool" out of the Hebraic context. Doesn't work.

Even by your definition you are a fool, because you absolutely do not follow the Torah.

 

[Spergichu]

Jesus, don't encourage the boring twatwaddle to flow from her any further. You won't get a solid answer any way, if you get any answer at all. Just deflection, excuses and Torah blabety blah.

She’s gonna keep coming back regardless of how much her thread dies. Might as well mílk some tardcum out of it.

 

[Toasty]

She’s gonna keep coming back regardless of how much her thread dies. Might as well mílk some tardcum out of it.

I suppose if the monkey is going to put on a performance, you might as well bring your finest pokey stick to poke at the monkey to make it dance then.

 

[Assman]

The definition of a "fool" is someone who doesn't follow The Torah. So your attempt at trying to mimic my use of Proverbs is erroneous. You are trying to take the word "fool" out of the Hebraic context. Doesn't work.

The only thing that doesn't work is your brain. With that being said, I am morbidly curious about what you think the super duper special "Hebraic context" is for a word that merely describes a person who acts unwisely (i.e. Melinda Leigh Scott.)

 

[Karl der Grosse]

I love it, she's so desperate to ever appear wrong that she can't even admit that social interaction with others on the media of Kiwi Farms is social media. As with everything else, if Melinda wants to do it, she finds an excuse or 'belief' that lets her do it. I'm just surprised she hasn't started claiming that even though other people's social media use is sinful, hers is downright holy.

Then again, I don't think she actually has any genuine belief in what she spouts. It's a facade built of delusion, selfishness, narcissism, self-righteousness, and spite. Lots and lots of spite.

 

[White Baby]

There is no such thing on Kiwi Farms

I don't know if you've realized how many pages back the lolcow section goes, but I guarantee you if you stopped posting the thread would be dead as a squashed bug in two weeks.

Of course, we feed your narcissistic need to prove yourself as superior to all pagans, so we all know that's not gonna happen.

 

[Karl der Grosse]

She will never stop. The possibility that someone could have the unanswered last word absolutely terrifies and infuriates her.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

She’s gonna keep coming back regardless of how much her thread dies. Might as well mílk some tardcum out of it.

At this point we're milking fucking rotten curds

 

[Adamska]

REEE PAY ATTENTION TO MEEE THE NARCISSISTIC HOLE REEE~

I literally forgot you existed until you begged for more attention by posting. Begone, hole.

 

[Sir Dank-a-Lot]

Don‘t listen to them, you magnificent moron! If you leave, the laughs stop. The more autism you spout out of your 2 inch cock sucking mouth, the better. We’re stuck in our homes. Don’t take away our entertainment!

 

[Toasty]

Don‘t listen to them, you magnificent moron! If you leave, the laughs stop. The more autism you spout out of your 2 inch cock sucking mouth, the better. We’re stuck in our homes. Don’t take away our entertainment!

The entertainment, sadly, has ceased. It's just the last plays for attention by a narc who has to get the last word. It's just going around in circles of stupid.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

This is just people talking on a thread. It functions very differently than the ones I mentioned. This website might technically fall under a standard definition of social media, but I don't see simple threads like this one on the same level as Facebook, etc.




You are talking about calendars but that is all based on dating according to scholastic opinion.

I'm not misrepresenting Kant at all. The moral absolute here is spousal rape. You're trying to subdivide rape and that is not correct, philosophically speaking. Kant did not say that maxims have to be generalized in such a way.

As far as your evidence question, which I am willing to answer, let's first define "evidence". People can argue what constitutes valid "evidence". So don't just give me the cookie cutter dictionary definition. What are you asking for in context of science and academia?



There is no such thing on Kiwi Farms

Well let's just take Kant's words at face value then.

"No matter what torments I have to suffer, I can live morally. I must suffer them all, including the torments of death, rather than commit a disgraceful action. The moment I can no longer live in honour but become unworthy of life by such an action, I can no longer live at all. Thus it is far better to die honoured and respected than to prolong one’s life … by a disgraceful act … If, for instance, a woman cannot preserve her life any longer except by surrendering her person to the will of another, she is bound to give up her life rather than dishonour humanity in her own person, which is what she would be doing in giving herself up as a thing to the will of another."

This is of course taken from Kant's own "Lectures on Ethics."

Kant is VERY clear, a woman should rather die than "surrender to the will of another." This doesn't say "unless she's married." Rape is, according to Kant, one of the most disgraceful things on the planet. You're wrong. Now stop disrespecting my favorite Ethicist.

Also you're wrong about the calendar thing. It isn't an "opinion" that it is 2020 by the Gregorian calendar just like it isn't an "opinion" on when things happened in Mesopotamia according to the Sumerian calendar. This argument is stupid.

Also as for facts and evidence I will accept something that isn't the Torah, since the Torah is factually not a historically accurate source of information. One of the key pieces of evidence I have for this is the idea that Israel split from Judea after Solomon's death. All anthropological evidence, including Phoenician and Mycenean texts, point to the conclusion that Israel and Judea had developed independent identities and and that Judea was a fucking backwater until the 1st millennia BCE. If you listen to the Torah it says some bullshit about Solomon's son being weak and Israel turning away from God, even though there's very little evidence that even a majority of Israelites at any time worshipped God over the "Caananite" gods (note: the: "Caananites" didn't exist as the Torah portrays and the "Caananite" gods were literally just Mesopotamian gods.)

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

The only thing that doesn't work is your brain. With that being said, I am morbidly curious about what you think the super duper special "Hebraic context" is for a word that merely describes a person who acts unwisely (i.e. Melinda Leigh Scott.)

Proof of said actions that are unwise? What the hech are you talking about?

No, it's a fact. We have evidence of early hebrew, from before it was a proper language, and even that is younger than the Sumerian tablets. Genesis is still not a history, it is a creation myth.



Even by your definition you are a fool, because you absolutely do not follow the Torah.

You're accusing me of not following The Torah?

If you're so against social media, why do you let Marshall post videos on YouTube and use other social media sites?

That question has already been answered.
I never asked Marshall to make videos. As I said here before, Marshall and I had a signed agreement in which one thing we agreed on was that he would NOT post videos on YouTube and he chose to do it anyway. The one video you hear me in in the background he put me on the spot and pressured me to say something. If you notice, I pushed back at first and tried to avoid being in the video. But he kept pressuring me so I allowed my voice to be in the audio. Then a second time he recorded me without me knowing in the car (the video that appears dark with my audio).

I'm still to this day against YouTube and I don't look on his video making with favor, but he continues to do it anyway. That's his own free will. He's his own person, what makes you think I can control him? No one can control anyone else.

I already told you a few pages back that this is an area Marshall and I don't agree on. It's been a source of constant tension in our covenant and that's just the way it is. No further comments, I might say something I regret, because I have nothing nice to say about this topic.

Well let's just take Kant's words at face value then.

"No matter what torments I have to suffer, I can live morally. I must suffer them all, including the torments of death, rather than commit a disgraceful action. The moment I can no longer live in honour but become unworthy of life by such an action, I can no longer live at all. Thus it is far better to die honoured and respected than to prolong one’s life … by a disgraceful act … If, for instance, a woman cannot preserve her life any longer except by surrendering her person to the will of another, she is bound to give up her life rather than dishonour humanity in her own person, which is what she would be doing in giving herself up as a thing to the will of another."

This is of course taken from Kant's own "Lectures on Ethics."

Kant is VERY clear, a woman should rather die than "surrender to the will of another." This doesn't say "unless she's married." Rape is, according to Kant, one of the most disgraceful things on the planet. You're wrong. Now stop disrespecting my favorite Ethicist.

Also you're wrong about the calendar thing. It isn't an "opinion" that it is 2020 by the Gregorian calendar just like it isn't an "opinion" on when things happened in Mesopotamia according to the Sumerian calendar. This argument is stupid.

Also as for facts and evidence I will accept something that isn't the Torah, since the Torah is factually not a historically accurate source of information. One of the key pieces of evidence I have for this is the idea that Israel split from Judea after Solomon's death. All anthropological evidence, including Phoenician and Mycenean texts, point to the conclusion that Israel and Judea had developed independent identities and and that Judea was a fucking backwater until the 1st millennia BCE. If you listen to the Torah it says some bullshit about Solomon's son being weak and Israel turning away from God, even though there's very little evidence that even a majority of Israelites at any time worshipped God over the "Caananite" gods (note: the: "Caananites" didn't exist as the Torah portrays and the "Caananite" gods were literally just Mesopotamian gods.)

That's an incorrect use of a quote. You are infusing your own opinion of what the terms "disgraceful" mean. The words "disgraceful" and "dishonor" are subjective. You are taking moral guidelines invented in your own head (ie "spousal rape is bad") and then imposing it on the text. Whereas, the only proper way to define right and wrong is firstly from The Torah.

Again, you are relying on secular academia to displace The Torah and the scriptures. I completely disagree with that approach. The Scriptures are historically accurate and the first source of information.

 

[Karl der Grosse]

Let's be real here, you don't push back against anything Marshall does because you know you'll get a backhand slap if you do.

 

[Czolg]

You are taking moral guidelines invented in your own head (ie "spousal rape is bad") and then imposing it on the text. Whereas, the only proper way to define right and wrong is firstly from The Torah.

Nobody cares about Torah as much as you and everyone thinks that rape is bad (spousal or not, it doesn't matter, rape is rape) except you.

If you can't notice that there is something wrong with your judgement based on that, then there is no hope for you.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Proof of said actions that are unwise? What the hech are you talking about?




You're accusing me of not following The Torah?




That question has already been answered.
I never asked Marshall to make videos. As I said here before, Marshall and I had a signed agreement in which one thing we agreed on was that he would NOT post videos on YouTube and he chose to do it anyway. The one video you hear me in in the background he put me on the spot and pressured me to say something. If you notice, I pushed back at first and tried to avoid being in the video. But he kept pressuring me so I allowed my voice to be in the audio. Then a second time he recorded me without me knowing in the car (the video that appears dark with my audio).

I'm still to this day against YouTube and I don't look on his video making with favor, but he continues to do it anyway. That's his own free will. He's his own person, what makes you think I can control him? No one can control anyone else.

I already told you a few pages back that this is an area Marshall and I don't agree on. It's been a source of constant tension in our covenant and that's just the way it is. No further comments, I might say something I regret, because I have nothing nice to say about this topic.





That's an incorrect use of a quote. You are infusing your own opinion of what the terms "disgraceful" mean. The words "disgraceful" and "dishonor" are subjective. You are taking moral guidelines invented in your own head (ie "spousal rape is bad") and then imposing it on the text. Whereas, the only proper way to define right and wrong is firstly from The Torah.

Again, you are relying on secular academia to displace The Torah and the scriptures. I completely disagree with that approach. The Scriptures are historically accurate and the first source of information.

See you're doing what you're saying I am. You're applying your fucked up interpretation of the Torah on Kant, who was not a Jew, and obviously hated rape so much he said women should rather die. So you're wrong.

Also give me some third party information stating the Torah is 100% accurate.

 

[Trigger Me Timbers]

I already told you a few pages back that this is an area Marshall and I don't agree on. It's been a source of constant tension in our covenant and that's just the way it is. No further comments, I might say something I regret, because I have nothing nice to say about this topic.

that’s understandable, however Marshal really does seem to get your family in trouble with his videos, I am surprised you don’t put your foot down more since it haa repercussion for your whole family. Would he hit you if you told him to stop making videos?

 

[Toasty]

that’s understandable, however Marshal really does seem to get your family in trouble with his videos, I am surprised you don’t put your foot down more since it haa repercussion for your whole family. Would he hit you if you told him to stop making videos?

Fascinating how she's suddenly started calling her thing with Marshall a "covenant" instead of a marriage.
God I'm getting sucked down into this Dana Cain level of black hole of a thread.

 

[Fwiffo]

Proof of said actions that are unwise? What the hech are you talking about?




You're accusing me of not following The Torah?




That question has already been answered.
I never asked Marshall to make videos. As I said here before, Marshall and I had a signed agreement in which one thing we agreed on was that he would NOT post videos on YouTube and he chose to do it anyway. The one video you hear me in in the background he put me on the spot and pressured me to say something. If you notice, I pushed back at first and tried to avoid being in the video. But he kept pressuring me so I allowed my voice to be in the audio. Then a second time he recorded me without me knowing in the car (the video that appears dark with my audio).

I'm still to this day against YouTube and I don't look on his video making with favor, but he continues to do it anyway. That's his own free will. He's his own person, what makes you think I can control him? No one can control anyone else.

I already told you a few pages back that this is an area Marshall and I don't agree on. It's been a source of constant tension in our covenant and that's just the way it is. No further comments, I might say something I regret, because I have nothing nice to say about this topic.





That's an incorrect use of a quote. You are infusing your own opinion of what the terms "disgraceful" mean. The words "disgraceful" and "dishonor" are subjective. You are taking moral guidelines invented in your own head (ie "spousal rape is bad") and then imposing it on the text. Whereas, the only proper way to define right and wrong is firstly from The Torah.

Again, you are relying on secular academia to displace The Torah and the scriptures. I completely disagree with that approach. The Scriptures are historically accurate and the first source of information.

You are conflating scientific proof and facts with philosophical opinions. They are nothing alike. 2 plus 2 is 4 even if the Torah says it’s shellfish.

Melinda... why do you have a thread here on Kiwifarms?

 

[Logical Fallacies]

You can't tell someone to just "walk away" when they have children wrapped up in the scenario.

Your moral theory is not true in the slightest bit! Just because women are smaller on average than men doesn't give them the right to verbally and mentally abuse a man without being struck. They don't get sovereign immunity from striking just because they are women.

Verbal attacks and mental abuse warrant physical attacks. That's why The Torah says to kill adulterers. Adultery is mental abuse on a partner. And what's the punishment? A PHYSICAL attack. That's also why it says THE FOOL'S MOUTH CALLS OUT FOR A BEATING, HIS MOUTH GETS HIM INTO FIGHTS. IE--verbal abuse calls out for physical striking.

Not to mention the particular person I was talking about tried burning Marshall with a cigarette/threw it at him, but I won't even emphasize that point, because even if she didn't her pagan idolatrous behavior got what she provoked.

This woman is putting words in my mouth. Where have I ever said that verbal or emotional abuse is in any way okay? I said that it does not warrant physical attacks. Even if she threw a cigarette at him. He should have walked away to avoid what happened after but his brain is not big enough to think past the next five seconds. Probably too impulsive, too.

Newsflash: You live in America not Israel. Nobody, esp. not the American law gives a shit about what the Torah says. You are fucking crazy to think that what applies in the Torah will apply to a western and worldly society in 2020, like the US. You will have to abide the worldly law of the USA as long as you live there which will be forever. So stay mad. lol

Your weakling of a husband got rightfully punished for what he did. Doesn't matter how many temper tantrums you throw. Any man with a better character would be ashamed about what happened and shut up and not go around bragging about it. As if overpowering someone weaker than oneself is something to brag about.

You two deserve each other. I hope you have to live with each other for the rest of your sad, pathetic lives.

Edit: Stop calling the tings I say moral theories. It's called logic and common sense. But I know you don't like either of these two, one you're not capable off and the other you're not smart enough to apply.