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

Toasty

Through the thunder I could hear you scream
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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

Grogu
kiwifarms.net
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?
1605891673072.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Rafal Gan Ganowicz

Bloitzhole

OH RUSTY ANCHOR
kiwifarms.net
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

Through the thunder I could hear you scream
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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

Do you have cable?
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rafal Gan Ganowicz

Begemot

What you eat defines you....
kiwifarms.net
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

Grogu
kiwifarms.net
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

Do you have cable?
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Begemot

Begemot

What you eat defines you....
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: redcent