- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
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.
My face looks different now.
View attachment 1740390
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you that MGTOW are losers, but only because they are MSTOW or Men Sent their Own Way. If you look at any MGTOWs in real life or on their youtube channels they are all balding, ugly, stupid, poor losers that women wouldn't want anyways. They just use MGTOW to cope and pretend they are voluntarily going their own way, when in relaity women never wanted them because of their subhuman genetics. If you dont believe me, google "Neo Nazi Tinder Experiment" or "Pedophile Tinder Experiment". Inb4 Tinder isnt real life. Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin were all coveted by many women due to their looks and status.
Everything else you said is horrifying. Could you give me Lindsey's cell? I want to say hi and become friends with her.