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

xtamarlover

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
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.
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.

20201120_223914.jpg


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.
 

Baby Yoda

Grogu
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Begemot

Shaka Brah

Patriotic Ass-Blasting Poster
kiwifarms.net
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.
If they told you to fuck off, they're as good as strangers to you. You can't even pin this on autism because all of us and the US government have told you that you need to give up your ridiculous Love Quest with these women who hate you. It's not like you don't know they hate you, it's been entered into the legal record. You're a lolcow because you pretend like this is ambiguous and continue to let it run your life.
 

xtamarlover

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
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.
she changed her number years ago and since then I've not known her number. Its better that way.
If they told you to fuck off, they're as good as strangers to you. You can't even pin this on autism because all of us and the US government have told you that you need to give up your ridiculous Love Quest with these women who hate you. It's not like you don't know they hate you, it's been entered into the legal record. You're a lolcow because you pretend like this is ambiguous and continue to let it run your life.
I don't blame it on autism. It is my choice and I take full responsibility if I am in the wrong for it on judgment day or in jail if such judgment happens in this lifetime. In fact I would be offended if anyone tried to insinuate that my life choices are due to my autism as that tries to rob me of my core values. I own all my actions for better or worse. It is who I choose to be and not me being a victim of some mental illness that makes me do anything. It is my own choices and nothing can take that away from me.
 

redcent

Do you have cable?
kiwifarms.net
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.
Lust isn't always the thing involving boners. You want to possess your ex. You want her to be yours, and you want to control her. This is lust and it's a far more unhealthy thing than looking at someone a certain way

My ex girlfriend won't fuck my family's life. maybe just mine. so be it if that happens. its worth it to me.
No, you are fucking up your own life and your family's life. You think your fam wants you to be a stalker with criminal convictions? How do they feel about your actions? You're not only risking your career with criminal convictions but if you continue on with this you're going to have a red flag that will put off any other woman wanting you for good. At best you'd have a fat tumblrite who gets off to serial killers. But as for everyone else? Prepare to spend the rest of your life alone permanently

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.
Good! Move on!
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Begemot

xtamarlover

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
Lust isn't always the thing involving boners. You want to possess your ex. You want her to be yours, and you want to control her. This is lust and it's a far more unhealthy thing than looking at someone a certain way


No, you are fucking up your own life and your family's life. You think your fam wants you to be a stalker with criminal convictions? How do they feel about your actions? You're not only risking your career with criminal convictions but if you continue on with this you're going to have a red flag that will put off any other woman wanting you for good. At best you'd have a fat tumblrite who gets off to serial killers. But as for everyone else? Prepare to spend the rest of your life alone permanently




Good! Move on!
to be clear Lyndsey isn't my ex girlfriend. different person.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: redcent

Begemot

What you eat defines you....
kiwifarms.net
My fucking oath, lads. He's off his chops. The lustful malignancy can no longer be contained. He's gloating in his depravity. He's probably far more broken than Russell Greer.
 

Begemot

What you eat defines you....
kiwifarms.net
Remember we already established, long before, me being the mayor of spitsville.
Edomite, your writhing whimpering mouth bout to be an orifice for Black Israelite penile virility.

You just said people who abandon you are evil. You gloated about terror being applied to them. You are a selfish sophist and a delusional man-child. Eventually, unfortunately, your insolence will be punished.
 
Last edited:

Bloitzhole

OH RUSTY ANCHOR
kiwifarms.net
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?
I'd still be interested in your take on this. Especially considering:

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
Perhaps I missed by which less subjective criteria their right of choice is nullified by your personal feelings.
You apply a particular standard to Greer - you say these people are strangers to him (by your criteria) therefore, he is not entitled. Could not your criteria which you have outlined for why you do deserve a particular person's affection, be easily considered null and void in turn.
Because if the determining factor as to where the line is drawn is solely based on previous levels of perceived intimacy (not enough with Greer and Grande in your view, his perception no doubt differs), then again, anyone could justifiably feel entitled to anyone else, if only they consider the previous interactions with that person intimate enough. And consequently, anyone's right to choice is therefore nullified, if another party feels intimately drawn to them.

if someone influences you in a way that encourages you to be afraid, that's not the same as encouraging you to kill yourself
If an influence correlates strongly with precursors to suicide, where does that fall on the line? Stalking in all genders is a strong contributing factor to substance abuse and depression (Davis and Anderson 2002), which are strongly corelated with suicidal tendencies (Overholser et al. 1997, Hawton et al. 2003)


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.
What is the positive thing intended in this case that warrants stalking behavior?

If intent is grossly misjudged, do these rules still apply? If one person judges their intentions to be positive by their subjective perception, but that intent is not positive when applying less subjective guidelines, do these rules still apply?

I take full responsibility if I am in the wrong for it on judgment day or in jail if such judgment happens in this lifetime
Huh. This is an approach to morality that is rather foreign to me (and I mean that in a factual way, not a condescending one). Is a crime acceptable if one is also willing to accept the potential punishment? In my view, this is a nonsensical idea.
The punishment only exists as a deterrent, the acceptance of the potential punishment in no way justifies the crime in and of itself. If one inflicts harm upon another, whether one is punished for it or not, that harm was still inflicted. The harm inflicted is not undone. As such, the stance of the perpetrator towards the punishment / judgement is completely irrelevant.


Davis, K. E., Coker, A. L., & Sanderson, M. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of being stalked for men and women. Violence and Victims, 17(4), 429-443.
Overholser, J. C., Freiheit, S. R., & DiFilippo, J. M. (1997). Emotional distress and substance abuse as risk factors for suicide attempts. The Canadian journal of psychiatry, 42(4), 402-408.
Hawton, K., i Comabella, C. C., Haw, C., & Saunders, K. (2013). Risk factors for suicide in individuals with depression: a systematic review. Journal of affective disorders, 147(1-3), 17-28.
 
Last edited:

redcent

Do you have cable?
kiwifarms.net
Edomite, your writhing whimpering mouth bout to be an orifice for Black Israelite penile virility.

You just said people who abandon you are evil. You gloated about terror being applied to them. You are a selfish sophist and a delusional man-child. Eventually, unfortunately, your insolence will be punished.
You know I don't think threats really sink in with this guy. He's delusional enough to think he can kung fu his way out of it

Why not hit him where it hurts? Block Andrew from the Mel thread. As autistic as Mel is Andrews been watching it and getting some narc supply from the lulz

I'd he's going to be a psycho why cater to him?

Edit: in fact, what if his top secret plan was to egg this ex into coming here post a bunch of emails so he can see another Mel thread. He's been enjoying mels chimp outs who's to say he isn't trying to pull the same trick twice?
 
Last edited:

Begemot

What you eat defines you....
kiwifarms.net
You know I don't think threats really sink in with this guy. He's delusional enough to think he can kung fu his way out of it

Why not hit him where it hurts? Block Andrew from the Mel thread. As autistic as Mel is Andrews been watching it and getting some narc supply from the lulz

I'd he's going to be a psycho why cater to him?

Edit: in fact, what if his top secret plan was to egg this ex into coming here post a bunch of emails so he can see another Mel thread. He's been enjoying mels chimp outs who's to say he isn't trying to pull the same trick twice?
I feel you, I'm sure you recognise my dumb Larping. As for blocking Andrew from that thread, I don't know if any mod would block him as all he's doing is lurking and occasionally revenge rating. Andrew....likes to watch, y'see. He typically stays within the confines of legality but his craziness and delusion still simmers away.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: redcent

xtamarlover

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
I feel you, I'm sure you recognise my dumb Larping. As for blocking Andrew from that thread, I don't know if any mod would block him as all he's doing is lurking and occasionally revenge rating. Andrew....likes to watch, y'see. He typically stays within the confines of legality but his craziness and delusion still simmers away.
Only way to make me unable to read the thread is to make it a private thread.
 

Trombonista

tfw your Jojo OC is animated by Madhouse
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
You know I don't think threats really sink in with this guy. He's delusional enough to think he can kung fu his way out of it

Why not hit him where it hurts? Block Andrew from the Mel thread. As autistic as Mel is Andrews been watching it and getting some narc supply from the lulz

I'd he's going to be a psycho why cater to him?

Edit: in fact, what if his top secret plan was to egg this ex into coming here post a bunch of emails so he can see another Mel thread. He's been enjoying mels chimp outs who's to say he isn't trying to pull the same trick twice?
He's already banned from posting in it. We can't ban him from reading it.
 

Chariot Of Mara

kiwifarms.net
You know I don't think threats really sink in with this guy. He's delusional enough to think he can kung fu his way out of it

Why not hit him where it hurts? Block Andrew from the Mel thread. As autistic as Mel is Andrews been watching it and getting some narc supply from the lulz

I'd he's going to be a psycho why cater to him?

Edit: in fact, what if his top secret plan was to egg this ex into coming here post a bunch of emails so he can see another Mel thread. He's been enjoying mels chimp outs who's to say he isn't trying to pull the same trick twice?
Mel could always just.... not post. If she wasn’t addicted to being the sub and getting off to being wrong all the time as people humiliate her online. Notice, Mel hasn’t posted much and amazingly. Her thread has stopped advancing 50 pages per hour. Funny how that works.

Andrew seemed to piss himself when FBI had a few questions. As of right now he’s just a weird creep online with a distorted view of human relationships. At least he’s blatantly honest about it. I don’t think he has a master plan of bringing all his exes to the farms. Mel only came here after people tried to help her. And the screeching began.
 

redcent

Do you have cable?
kiwifarms.net
Mel could always just.... not post. If she wasn’t addicted to being the sub and getting off to being wrong all the time as people humiliate her online. Notice, Mel hasn’t posted much and amazingly. Her thread has stopped advancing 50 pages per hour. Funny how that works.

Andrew seemed to piss himself when FBI had a few questions. As of right now he’s just a weird creep online with a distorted view of human relationships. At least he’s blatantly honest about it. I don’t think he has a master plan of bringing all his exes to the farms. Mel only came here after people tried to help her. And the screeching began.
Andrew is a stalker, and stalkers are threats. He thinks his feeling are so justified he is above the law.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Shaka Brah