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

[Anaiah Carlson]

Seriously? Die in a fire.

Im saying she will feel terrorized. That's her choice to react with terror when the actions don't merit terror.

 

[Toasty]

Im saying she will feel terrorized. That's her choice to react with terror when the actions don't merit terror.

Then why do you do it then? It's clear to me that you seek to harass women to punish them for not doing what you want.
Humans. Have the right to choose whom they will associate with, or allow into their lives.
Please seek help for your entitlement issues. I'll just go ahead and leave you like everyone else eventually will.
I wish you the absolute best of everything you deserve.

 

[Baby Yoda]

Then why do you do it then? It's clear to me that you seek to harass women to punish them for not doing what you want.
Humans. Have the right to choose whom they will associate with, or allow into their lives.
Please seek help for your entitlement issues. I'll just go ahead and leave you like everyone else eventually will.
I wish you the absolute best of everything you deserve.

Just look at Andrew's face. Does this turn you on?

 

[Bloitzhole]

I'd like for you to address two points, if at all possible

A)

I think some relationships are obligatory

If i think i deserve someone in my life i will fight to keep them in my life against their wishes. I still maintain it is something owed to me.

How do you come to that conclusion?
If someone wants someone else enough, they are owed their affection?
After all, how deserving one feels is purely a matter of imagination. One can easily construe oneself to be deserving of whatever one wishes, given enough mental gymnastics. As such, any person could consider themselves deserving of any other person. Is therefore any other person obligated to have a relationship with someone, once that person feels they deserve it enough? What criteria do you base this obligation on and how can they ever be objective? If they are subjective to you, then why should anyone outside yourself be beholden to them?

B)

Dumping someone in a cruel way is comparable to attempted murder, thats how evil it is.

Sure they chose to do it, but you influenced them to do it. Influence is important in accountability.

Every measure of undeserved suffering you cause another ought to be inflicted on you in at least as severe a capacity.

I find it funny that me doing pretty minor things that isnt even horrible would cause her to have such a reaction.

My goal isnt to terrorize her but if she refuses to give me another chance for friendship then she will feel terrorized and if she does ill feel bad but at the same time i wont feel guilty because shes choosing to feel terrorized. So its on her not me

That's her choice to react with terror when the actions don't merit terror.

Do you not see that there is a direct conflict between your stances here?
On the one hand you expect that when someone breaks up with someone, and they take it badly, that this action be considered akin to incitement to suicide - it is in your own words "evil", not because of the action itself, but because of the reaction it causes in the other party. The onus, the responsibility is in your view on the party doing the breaking up, to look out for the other party's feelings - they are, in your view, morally obligated to take the other party's individual vulnerabilities into account and accommodate for them. In your examples you bring up that something that is clearly meant facetiously ("Try and drink bleach") is not acceptable when the other party has certain vulnerabilities.

On the other hand, you postulate that action X objectively does not merit terror and thus, her reaction is one she chooses and it is NOT your responsibility. If you know this individual enough to be able to foretell that she may react with terror, is this not, as you have stated before, inflicting suffering knowingly (and thus, you ought to face punishment by your own moral worldview?) and are you not obligated to forego your actions?

In short - is someone responsible for their actions, but not your/other party's reactions OR are people responsible for their actions AND other people's reactions?

If it is the former, someone breaking up with someone else in a subjectively "cruel way" is not morally reprehensible or evil, since the one doing the breaking up is only responsible for their actions, and not the reaction.
If it is the latter, if a person feels terrorized, it is because you are terrorizing her. Her reaction is your responsibility.

If it is the former, you are not entitled to any moral outrage or compensation for being made to feel bad.
If it is the latter, you are not entitled to stalk another person, even in what you might construe as being a minor capacity, if it might cause them to feel terror.

 

[Toasty]

I'd like for you to address two points, if at all possible

A)





How do you come to that conclusion?
If someone wants someone else enough, they are owed their affection?
After all, how deserving one feels is purely a matter of imagination. One can easily construe oneself to be deserving of whatever one wishes, given enough mental gymnastics. As such, any person could consider themselves deserving of any other person. Is therefore any other person obligated to have a relationship with someone, once that person feels they deserve it enough? What criteria do you base this obligation on and how can they ever be objective? If they are subjective to you, then why should anyone outside yourself be beholden to them?

B)










Do you not see that there is a direct conflict between your stances here?
On the one hand you expect that when someone breaks up with someone, and they take it badly, that this action be considered akin to incitement to suicide - it is in your own words "evil", not because of the action itself, but because of the reaction it causes in the other party. The onus, the responsibility is in your view on the party doing the breaking up, to look out for the other party's feelings - they are, in your view, morally obligated to take the other party's individual vulnerabilities into account and accommodate for them. In your examples you bring up that something that is clearly meant facetiously ("Try and drink bleach") is not acceptable when the other party has certain vulnerabilities.

On the other hand, you postulate that action X objectively does not merit terror and thus, her reaction is one she chooses and it is NOT your responsibility. If you know this individual enough to be able to foretell that she may react with terror, is this not, as you have stated before, inflicting suffering knowingly (and thus, you ought to face punishment by your own moral worldview?) and are you not obligated to forego your actions?

In short - is someone responsible for their actions, but not your/other party's reactions OR are people responsible for their actions AND other people's reactions?

If it is the former, someone breaking up with someone else in a subjectively "cruel way" is not morally reprehensible or evil, since the one doing the breaking up is only responsible for their actions, and not the reaction.
If it is the latter, if a person feels terrorized, it is because you are terrorizing her. Her reaction is your responsibility.

If it is the former, you are not entitled to any moral outrage or compensation for being made to feel bad.
If it is the latter, you are not entitled to stalk another person, even in what you might construe as being a minor capacity, if it might cause them to feel terror.

If not for double standards, these Torah followers would have none at all.

 

[redcent]

Your logic is flawed. no one is obligated legally to care for anyone at any age. You could literally sign away your rights in adoption services or get them into foster care. We aren't talking about legal obligation. we are talking about a moral obligation. Morally you are obligated to help your family relatives in their time of need. Family never ceases to be family regardless of what anyone might say. An adult child wanting their parents to still take care of them is different than an adult child who is homeless and literally needs their parents absurd. It is a most disgusting and immoral idea that once you become an adult you can just abandon your family.

Theres also a little something called honor your father and mother. of course thats not compelling simply because the bible says it but its a universal moral truth that all religions agree to and only the most morally deficient people would disagree with. we are called to honor father and mother. It doesnt say honor them if you like them. Honor them no matter what. their your parents
Fucking honor them. Its an inherent moral truth no religious text or group can abrogate it and no amoral person can refute and no law can make it invalid.

Even if your father was Hitler, honor him. The most evil parents should still be honored. But honor doesnt mean be friends with no matter what. but it means treating then with the good they deserve from you. They always deserve some good from you. Same with any immediate family relatives. They are family. you have a basic moral duty to them.

And for example, any person adopted by other people who then decades later upon finding out that their birth parent wants to meet them for the first time, if they refuse to meet their parent, they are a disgusting person. And likewise anyone who dumps or divorces someone and refuses to give them a fair chance of reconciliation, is a morally disgusting and evil person.

In my case, my ex gf is currently a disgusting and evil person due to her treatment of me but she has the opportunity to redeem herself and i am morally obligated to give her that chance and not write her off. I am morally obligated to fight for the chance of being with her again. If i refuse to pursue her then that makes me the morally disgusting person. i am ethically obliged to try to change her mind. My conscience compels me to pursue her

Amazing you want to quote the commandment honour your father and mother but when it comes to coveting what others have it all becomes lax

What was it Jesus said about looking at a woman with lust? That it's better to pluck your eye out rather than let it cause you to sin?

Or are we going to get a whole lot of mental gymnastics like what Mel does to excuse your behaviour?? Oh, who am I kidding, we're already there

Andrew, no arguing, no ifs or buts. You have to stop stalking your ex.

Period

It's a necessary thing you must do or you truly are a monster and will fuck up not only her life but yours and your family's.

 

[Baby Yoda]

Andrew do you still talk to Lyndsey Bodker?

 

[Begemot]

Im saying she will feel terrorized. That's her choice to react with terror when the actions don't merit terror.

Get help or maybe some Black Israelites will 'terrorize' your throat with their dicks. It's your choice to react with terror when the throat-fucking doesn't merit terror.

 

[Baby Yoda]

@Marshall Castersen have you ever considered going MGTOW?

 

[redcent]

Get help or maybe some Black Israelites will 'terrorize' your throat with their dicks. It's your choice to react with terror when the throat-fucking doesn't merit terror.

... Dude.....

@Marshall Castersen have you ever considered going MGTOW?

I think earlier in the Mel thread he already admitted he was into that

 

[Begemot]

... Dude.....

I think earlier in the Mel thread he already admitted he was into that

What? You want to join in?

 

[redcent]

What? You want to join in?

No

There's enough sickfuckerry from Andrew as is

 

[Begemot]

No

There's enough sickfuckerry from Andrew as is

Trying to redeem Andrew may take extreme measures. Not everyone here is an apathetic doomer. Nice attempt at gaslighting, though, sweetie....

 

[Baby Yoda]

What would you do or how would you feel if your newest ex got pregnant with some other guy's child? Would you be happy for her?

 

[redcent]

Trying to redeem Andrew may take extreme measures. Not everyone here is an apathetic doomer. Nice attempt at gaslighting, though, sweetie....

I'm not a doomer I'm too old for that. I just live in a world where we have cops for that shit.

 

[Begemot]

I'm not a doomer I'm too old for that. I just live in a world where we have cops for that shit.

I'd say the current protective order against Andrew is enough but we all know he will break it. He is utterly insane and one day he'll cross the wrong person. My black Israelite comrades might just speed up that response.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Looking at all those statements taken together, this guy is just Russell Greer but he can close his mouth. He has the exact same view of relationships and women as Russ.

 

[Baby Yoda]

breeding.zone

Go to that website man. You'll love what you see.

 

[Begemot]

breeding.zone

Go to that website man. You'll love what you see.

Mate, please don't give him any ideas. This little weirdo has already been created from a fetid stew of idiosyncrasies and delusions. He doesn't need patriarchal mgtow nonsense on top.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Then why do you do it then? It's clear to me that you seek to harass women to punish them for not doing what you want.
Humans. Have the right to choose whom they will associate with, or allow into their lives.
Please seek help for your entitlement issues. I'll just go ahead and leave you like everyone else eventually will.
I wish you the absolute best of everything you deserve.

They may have the right to "choose" in the way that someone has the right to choose whether they are going to murder or rape someone. As in they have a right to make that choice, but if they make that choice, they deserve to be killed because of how evil they are.

Just look at Andrew's face. Does this turn you on?:

My face looks different now.

I'd like for you to address two points, if at all possible

A)





How do you come to that conclusion?
If someone wants someone else enough, they are owed their affection?
After all, how deserving one feels is purely a matter of imagination. One can easily construe oneself to be deserving of whatever one wishes, given enough mental gymnastics. As such, any person could consider themselves deserving of any other person. Is therefore any other person obligated to have a relationship with someone, once that person feels they deserve it enough? What criteria do you base this obligation on and how can they ever be objective? If they are subjective to you, then why should anyone outside yourself be beholden to them?

B)










Do you not see that there is a direct conflict between your stances here?
On the one hand you expect that when someone breaks up with someone, and they take it badly, that this action be considered akin to incitement to suicide - it is in your own words "evil", not because of the action itself, but because of the reaction it causes in the other party. The onus, the responsibility is in your view on the party doing the breaking up, to look out for the other party's feelings - they are, in your view, morally obligated to take the other party's individual vulnerabilities into account and accommodate for them. In your examples you bring up that something that is clearly meant facetiously ("Try and drink bleach") is not acceptable when the other party has certain vulnerabilities.

On the other hand, you postulate that action X objectively does not merit terror and thus, her reaction is one she chooses and it is NOT your responsibility. If you know this individual enough to be able to foretell that she may react with terror, is this not, as you have stated before, inflicting suffering knowingly (and thus, you ought to face punishment by your own moral worldview?) and are you not obligated to forego your actions?

In short - is someone responsible for their actions, but not your/other party's reactions OR are people responsible for their actions AND other people's reactions?

If it is the former, someone breaking up with someone else in a subjectively "cruel way" is not morally reprehensible or evil, since the one doing the breaking up is only responsible for their actions, and not the reaction.
If it is the latter, if a person feels terrorized, it is because you are terrorizing her. Her reaction is your responsibility.

If it is the former, you are not entitled to any moral outrage or compensation for being made to feel bad.
If it is the latter, you are not entitled to stalk another person, even in what you might construe as being a minor capacity, if it might cause them to feel terror.

I acknowledge that my two points of view seem contradictory and may in fact be contradictory. I did realize that I was typing the second point.

However here's my answer: it is not wrong to make yourself be afraid, while it is wrong to kill yourself. therefore, if someone influences you in a way that encourages you to be afraid, that's not the same as encouraging you to kill yourself. they are objectively very different things ethically. That being said, I do agree with the general principle that you should not cause people undeserved suffering. So if I know someone is in genuine terror over certain actions, I may be in the wrong to do those actions. In which case, then, I have to figure out as least a terrifying way as possible to do those things. But if they are still terrorized after I do my best to diminish the terror of my actions, then I can't be to blame when I went out of my to try to make my actions as sinisterless as possible.

People are usually responsible for their own actions, and they are sometimes partially responsible for other people's reactions, You can't really do a universal statement because there are valid exceptions in these things. A case where you aren't really responsible for your actions would be if you turn the key to your car to turn on your car, and unbeknownst to you, someone had wired a bomb to your car, whereby you turning the key to start your car sets off the bomb and kills everyone in your car instantly. While you caused the action, you were in total ignorance, and your ignorance as justified and not your fault and not your responsibility. For this reason, your actions you were not responsible for in that instance. And likewise, for other people, we are usually responsible for how people react to what we do, but not always. For example, if you do something good and right, but the person gets angry because they are in general a very angry person, you cannot be held responsible. Even though your action contributed to their anger, it wasn't your "fault". So I would make a distinction between actions you contributed to and are at fault for and actions you contributed to and are not at fault for. The differentiating basis is intent. if your intent is to hurt and harm without justification, then yes you are at fault. But if your intent is to do something good, and unintentionally the person takes it the wrong way, you may not be at fault, depending on the nature of your nonintended harm that you caused. if its something which you should have known better, then you are still at fault even though you didn't intend it.

It may be true that i am in the wrong to knowingly do something that is likely to cause someone to feel terror. But regardless, my goal and intention is that they won't feel terror, but if they do, I won't feel too bad about it, because of the "terror" they caused me in the first place.

If not for double standards, these Torah followers would have none at all.

Double standards apply to all people groups irrespective of their religions, though some of course are far worse than others. I try to avoid double standards and I usually do a good job of it in most other topics, but perhaps in issues of more personal pain to me, I may have double standards, particularly when it comes to women. The good news though is I proudly proclaim that I am not righteous and not saved as of yet, so I deprive myself of the most obnoxious aspect of double standards and that is the double standard of painting oneself as without error. you can look at this thread earlier, where I grapple back and forth over how wrong I was to treat tamar the way I did, over which things I may be justified to have done, and which things I definitely think i was in the wrong about and went too far, and which things are more blurry for me and unclear. At least in the moment, I think I am in the right and justified, but it may come to pass after my ex girlfriend finds out what Ive done, that i may realize once again i went too far and I was in the wrong. I many times I acknowledge I was wrong, far more often than most religious people. I have great ability to change my views based on evidence. keep in mind other peoples opinions and ethical arguments don't qualify as evidence, they are just counter assertions. Though a well argued ethical argument may make me think long and hard and could constitute evidence. But simple assertions I am wrong don't qualify as evidence in and of themselves so they don't do much for me without the backing of a forceful compelling argument that I simply cannot refute and I have to acknowledge is true to be consistent with my values.

Amazing you want to quote the commandment honour your father and mother but when it comes to coveting what others have it all becomes lax

What was it Jesus said about looking at a woman with lust? That it's better to pluck your eye out rather than let it cause you to sin?

Or are we going to get a whole lot of mental gymnastics like what Mel does to excuse your behaviour?? Oh, who am I kidding, we're already there

Andrew, no arguing, no ifs or buts. You have to stop stalking your ex.

Period

It's a necessary thing you must do or you truly are a monster and will fuck up not only her life but yours and your family's.

Wanting to be reconciled with my ex girlfriend isn't the sin of lust or coveting that Jesus spoke of. But I have always maintained my primary weakness and moral flaw is my lust for women. and that it is one of the primary things that makes me unrighteous and not saved as of this time. You may think I'm just saying this, but i have abundance of evidence that I have consistently made this claim over the last 10 years and not once in the last 10 years have I ever claimed to be saved and instead have always claimed I am damned and hellbound due to my sin issues in my life.

My ex girlfriend won't fuck my family's life. maybe just mine. so be it if that happens. its worth it to me.

Andrew do you still talk to Lyndsey Bodker?

like once every 1-2 years I try to reach out to her but she's always nasty to me and lashes out at me and usually blocks me after rebuking me. So I pretty much give up on it. With Lyndsey I have compelling reason to believe she has paranoid schizophrenia. because of her truly total and utter lack of mental stability, I don't find it useful or beneficial to keep reaching out to her. But even so, I may still try to reach out to her someday when she's in a nursing home or something. We will see. I used to check on her facebook page often, but she basically made her facebook page offline for a long time, and since then I haven't bothered to keep checking up on her. plus even when i do see her fb page, there's nothing there usually. So there's just not much to look for her, and its just a waste of time to even bother with her. I also feel nothing for her anymore. She means nothing to me. Maybe deep deep down inside there's still some pain she caused me and i still care about her, but in the most practical and conscious sense of it, she means nothing to me and I feel nothing for her. still fantasize about her on a very rare occasion though.

Get help or maybe some Black Israelites will 'terrorize' your throat with their dicks. It's your choice to react with terror when the throat-fucking doesn't merit terror.

I already have a plan of what to do if a guy was to ever try to rape me. basically i would be tried for murder or horrific assault if my claim of self defense wasn't accept. unlikely scenario to experience a gang rape. If that happens, then I'll just kill them in their sleep or after I get out of jail I'll hunt them down and kill them one by one.

@Marshall Castersen have you ever considered going MGTOW?

I know you asked someone else, but MGTOW is absurd. Maybe a few aspects of it are valuable, but most of it is crazy stuff. I would never separate myself from women. MGTOW is all about you don't need a woman to be happy. While I agree with that, in practice, and in my true heart of hearts, I desperately need and want a woman to be happy and I will never give up that desire. So i'll never be a mgtow. mgtows are losers.

What would you do or how would you feel if your newest ex got pregnant with some other guy's child? Would you be happy for her?

You mean in the far distant future? No I wouldn't be happy for her so long as she refuses to speak with me. I would be partially happy for her but partially angry at her. Because its mixed, and my anger against her would override my happiness for her, I would say overall, no. But i'd probably keep that to myself. But if she and i were on speaking terms again then that's a totally different story. I'd be far more optimistic and happy about her having a happy marriage.

I'd say the current protective order against Andrew is enough but we all know he will break it. He is utterly insane and one day he'll cross the wrong person. My black Israelite comrades might just speed up that response.

Yes you can count on it that by the end of the PO i will definitely have already broken it, and how many times, no one will know.

Looking at all those statements taken together, this guy is just Russell Greer but he can close his mouth. He has the exact same view of relationships and women as Russ.

Except Russell says that about women that are complete strangers to him or clearly are not interested in him, including celebrities like taylor swift. Whereas for me I've said it to only people ive been in very close or intimate relationships with, 1.ex wife (aka ex sexual partner that I was in a committed relationship with) 2.former friend (who at one point expressed strong interest in the possibility of pursuing marriage with me), and 3.ex girlfriend in a 15 month deeply personal and committed relationship.