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

  • DDoS is active again.

Anaiah Carlson

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
Alright - Universal morality as laid out and interpreted by whom from which source?

What is the correct way to dump someone as defined by universal morality.
Correct way to dump a boyfriend or girlfriend is trying to work things out with the person first, and giving them ultimatums and requirements to give them a chance to either change themselves or to change their mind. And it involves a post breakup discussion and evaluation of the pros and cons of the relationship.

Correct way to dump a spouse is only if they did something to deserve it

Thats like asking "Grass is green according to whose interpretation and from which source?" The source is your eye balls. The interpretation is your brain giving the signals which identify as green. Similarly, the universal moral principle evident to all is do NOT do to others what you dont want done to yourself. This is as obvious and selfevident as the grass is green. Would you want someone to dump you without giving you closure? If no, then its wrong to do such to someone else.

Would I want someone to refuse to give up on former friendship they had with me? Yes I would.
 

Bloitzhole

OH RUSTY ANCHOR
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
the universal moral principle evident to all is do NOT do to others what you dont want done to yourself.
So you are citing the golden rule as the universal moral principle everyone recognizes. While I do not agree entirely, I think this is a decent common ground to argue from.
If 2 people have wildly different views on how a breakup should be handled and what justifies it, these 2 people will have wildly differing views on what they would want "done" to them.
In this case, whose view is to be respected more?
Correct way to dump a boyfriend or girlfriend is trying to work things out with the person first, and giving them ultimatums and requirements to give them a chance to either change themselves or to change their mind. And it involves a post breakup discussion and evaluation of the pros and cons of the relationship.

Correct way to dump a spouse is only if they did something to deserve it
Why is this a general rule? Why should others have to adhere to this merely because you feel this to be the case. If we are sticking to the golden rule as the universal moral source, and someone does not require or wish for any or all these things for themselves during a breakup, why should they provide this? I have been in a few relationships, all of which were enjoyable, and I am still (quite close) friends with all of my former SOs except for one. None of the breakups have followed this pattern, nor would I wish for it to be so - if my SO insisted on the pattern you have outlined, as you do with your former SOs, why should I comply? After all, I do not expect it to be "done" to me, thus, why should I be expected to adhere to it? And if I shouldn't, why should the people involved with you?
Would I want someone to refuse to give up on former friendship they had with me? Yes I would.
You, yes. Not the case for everyone. Does your application of the golden rule override the application of others (say, the other person involved in your friendship)? If so, why?
For example - I don't want people to go to lengths to salvage a friendship if it has been damaged. I happen to be someone who does not mind severing ties and as such, I do not mind if someone feels it necessary to sever ties with me. This is perfectly acceptable and as such, I will not pursue those that give up on a friendship, regardless of how they come to this decision. This is me applying the golden rule from my POV. Yours differs wildly of course - but why should your POV of the golden rule take precedence if the other party happens to, for example, feel as I do?

On a side note:

1621799616508.png

Bloody hell you're still not over her are you?
 

Illuminati Order Official

A Murder of Crows
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Why do the mods allow this stupid shit from the yoda accounts?
You can go crazy over Mel, we can go crazy over @Toasty. She at least enjoys our interactions.
Hypothetically these two accounts could post replies to each other back and forth.
Very different styles so unlikely.
This thread is about me and my cringiness. So please keep the stupid shut off the thread.
Well, it made you post some cringe content... so goal accomplished?
Most admins on other sites eventually clean pages up that have been cluttered with spam posts.
That's why we're on this site and not some other lame site that forces us to stay on topic all the time.
As defined by universal morality.
No such thing.
Would I want someone to refuse to give up on former friendship they had with me? Yes I would.
I would want people to respect my boundaries and not enter my personal space so as you see - no universal morality, no universal solution to problem at hand. Don’t do unto others what you want others to do unto you, you may have very different tastes.
 

Toasty

This one is his.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
So, @Illuminati Order Official, if a romantic partner or spouse egregiously violated your personal boundaries or made threats of violence against yourself or your loved ones, what do you think the appropriate way to dump them would be? Would it involve negotiations over correcting this behavior? What if the partner made light of it and said it was no big deal? Any body else can answer too of course. What if a spouse keeps doing little things that make you consistently uncomfortable. Like for example, if you leave the room when talking to your mom, or a friend on the phone for some privacy and they follow you, so you keep moving, and they keep following? Or you catch the spouse telling your friends or family that you are ill, stressed out, or acting paranoid, when you know that you are fine. What do you do in those cases? How do you negotiate a break up where you need to sit down and say, you have two more weeks to stop telling me that you are going to poison my cat, or I'm leaving you. Because according to Andrew, you need to make ultimatums before you dump someone.
I'm of the opinion that anyone has the right to walk away anytime. Is it polite? Nope. Is it easy? Nope. Do people get the fuck over it? Yes they do. And on that note, my squishy @Baby Yoda I'm not ignoring you. Shit's been weird.
 

Illuminati Order Official

A Murder of Crows
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
So, @Illuminati Order Official, if a romantic partner or spouse egregiously violated your personal boundaries
If it's a spouse very few boundaries remain. Those are ones I never lift. Besieging them is a bad idea no matter how much we care about each other.
or made threats of violence against yourself or your loved ones, what do you think the appropriate way to dump them would be?
My rule goes like this: if we're to live under the same roof and\or have sex I need to feel safe and comfortable sleeping in the same room with you.
Would it involve negotiations over correcting this behavior?
Rule for people I really care about is this: I don't give third chances.
What if the partner made light of it and said it was no big deal? Any body else can answer too of course.
I can't imagine someone like this being my spouse, romantic partner or even a partner for casual sex. I'm not very picky when it comes to looks but extremely picky when it comes to character.
What if a spouse keeps doing little things that make you consistently uncomfortable. Like for example, if you leave the room when talking to your mom, or a friend on the phone for some privacy and they follow you, so you keep moving, and they keep following?
If I don't feel comfortable talking to my family or friends next to them they can't be my spouse, romantic partner or a partner for casual sex.
Or you catch the spouse telling your friends or family that you are ill, stressed out, or acting paranoid, when you know that you are fine.
If someone I care about suggested I'm mentally unwell I would probably go out of my way to verify the claim.
What do you do in those cases? How do you negotiate a break up where you need to sit down and say, you have two more weeks to stop telling me that you are going to poison my cat, or I'm leaving you.
You threaten the cats - you're out and have a song for goodbye.
Because according to Andrew, you need to make ultimatums before you dump someone.
I think we established Andrew is a broken man a while ago.
 

Toasty

This one is his.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If I don't feel comfortable talking to my family or friends next to them they can't be my spouse, romantic partner or a partner for casual sex.
It might not be you. It's the privacy of the other person. We're looking at a spouse here that cannot allow you the space to have a private sensitive conversation with your brother about his business failures or your mom about her divorce.
Obviously what I've been tossing around are some examples I've pulled from stories I've heard, or from when I used to do some work in DV counseling.
I find it funny that Andy here thinks that when you decide that a person is not good for you, instead of breaking up, you should set up some kind of obstacle course and ultimatum program for them to meet in order for you to not break up with them. For example:
Person A likes to cuddle every night before bed and doesn't think that their spouse should have friends of the opposite sex.
Person B dislikes cuddling and also doesn't think that their spouse should be friends with the opposite sex.
A and B fall in love and are happy with their mutual desire to keep the object of their affection from talking to whoever. But person A keeps trying to cuddle and getting super upset with B for not feeling it. Eventually person A starts trying to physically force B to cuddle, going so far as to restrain them and hold them against their will. When person B gets loose, what ultimatums could they possibly give to person A that would make the relationship work? Or, leaving this rather silly and simplified example, what conditions can you expect a psychopath to live up to in order to reestablish a bond that doesn't exist? Once a violent abuser has hit you one time, do you discuss why you broke up? Give them parameters for your continued relationship? Make ultimatums?
 

Anaiah Carlson

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
So you are citing the golden rule as the universal moral principle everyone recognizes. While I do not agree entirely, I think this is a decent common ground to argue from.
If 2 people have wildly different views on how a breakup should be handled and what justifies it, these 2 people will have wildly differing views on what they would want "done" to them.
In this case, whose view is to be respected more?

Why is this a general rule? Why should others have to adhere to this merely because you feel this to be the case. If we are sticking to the golden rule as the universal moral source, and someone does not require or wish for any or all these things for themselves during a breakup, why should they provide this? I have been in a few relationships, all of which were enjoyable, and I am still (quite close) friends with all of my former SOs except for one. None of the breakups have followed this pattern, nor would I wish for it to be so - if my SO insisted on the pattern you have outlined, as you do with your former SOs, why should I comply? After all, I do not expect it to be "done" to me, thus, why should I be expected to adhere to it? And if I shouldn't, why should the people involved with you?

You, yes. Not the case for everyone. Does your application of the golden rule override the application of others (say, the other person involved in your friendship)? If so, why?
For example - I don't want people to go to lengths to salvage a friendship if it has been damaged. I happen to be someone who does not mind severing ties and as such, I do not mind if someone feels it necessary to sever ties with me. This is perfectly acceptable and as such, I will not pursue those that give up on a friendship, regardless of how they come to this decision. This is me applying the golden rule from my POV. Yours differs wildly of course - but why should your POV of the golden rule take precedence if the other party happens to, for example, feel as I do?

On a side note:

View attachment 2195393
Bloody hell you're still not over her are you?
Dumping someone isnt the same as breaking up with them. Dumping means throwing them away as worthless trash. If you are going to do that you owe them basic human decency. But in your case you stayed friends with all but one so its not applicable. Thats not being dumped in either direction if you stay friends, aka value each other still.

At any rate maybe my exact procedure laid out is not necessary on a universal basis, but to dump someone is always cruel and wrong unless they were so evil they deserve to be dumped. So if you want out of a relationship its wrong to dump someone but you can break up with them if you arent their spouse and its usually permissible to break up if the person us someone you dont want to marry for whatever reason. Different rules apply to spouses whom you already made a commitment so to back out of it for whatever reason short of extreme evil is wrong on a universal basis.
 

Illuminati Order Official

A Murder of Crows
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It might not be you. It's the privacy of the other person. We're looking at a spouse here that cannot allow you the space to have a private sensitive conversation with your brother about his business failures or your mom about her divorce.
Yes, I get your meaning - invading privacy. If I care about the person that does it I would explain them it bothers me and why it bothers me. Can't imagine agreeing to live under the same roof with someone who can't respect my privacy.
Different rules apply to spouses whom you already made a commitment so to back out of it for whatever reason short of extreme evil is wrong on a universal basis.
Evil is relative, just like morality. What someone finds to be the ultimate evil can be a mere misdeed for me and the other way around.
 

obliviousbeard

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Evil is relative, just like morality. What someone finds to be the ultimate evil can be a mere misdeed for me and the other way around.
Spot on. To mention a concrete example domestic violence can fall under this. Some people think that it's just and good thing to keep their family in check (whether spouses, children etc) with means including physical, sexual, mental etc violent. Which to another family, might be an abhorrent thing.

And tbh ultimatums and shit tests are what immature people give to others.
 

Toasty

This one is his.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
So by Andrew's metric, after someone beats their spouse, rather than just dump them and walk away, the beaten spouse has a duty to sit down, explain why they are dumping the abuser, and give them an ultimatum to never ever beat them up again or else! Otherwise they are morally wrong for dumping them like a piece of trash.
 

Anaiah Carlson

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
So by Andrew's metric, after someone beats their spouse, rather than just dump them and walk away, the beaten spouse has a duty to sit down, explain why they are dumping the abuser, and give them an ultimatum to never ever beat them up again or else! Otherwise they are morally wrong for dumping them like a piece of trash.
The punishment for abuse in the Bible is eye for an eye. If someone punches their spouse, the proper punishment for that person is punching them back. After being physically hurt in the same measure, the person is to be embraced once again by everyone in the community. The very notion of rejection of someone from communal interaction due to physical abuse is antithetical to the bible and antithetical to the human race.
 

Toasty

This one is his.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The punishment for abuse in the Bible is eye for an eye. If someone punches their spouse, the proper punishment for that person is punching them back. After being physically hurt in the same measure, the person is to be embraced once again by everyone in the community. The very notion of rejection of someone from communal interaction due to physical abuse is antithetical to the bible and antithetical to the human race.
Nobody besides you and melinda gives a fuck about your book of fables. If someone physically harms their spouse on purpose, they have committed assault. Just as if they had walked out the front door and hit a stranger for no reason. It is assault, and it is a crime. If you get mugged, the problem isn't solved by you mugging them back. How do you plan to equalize the power dynamics in a relationship where trust has been abused and broken by one party by just saying " they punched the other one" ok, now you, come hit them, ok? Every thing is fine now! According to Melinda Scott and a book of Jewish fairy tales. Meanwhile you idiots got lost in a tiny desert for 40 years. Fools.
 
Last edited:

Anaiah Carlson

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
Nobody besides you and melinda gives a fuck about your book of fables. If someone physically harms their spouse on purpose, they have committed assault. Just as if they had walked out the front door and hit a stranger for no reason. It is assault, and it is a crime. If you get mugged, the problem isn't solved by you mugging them back. How do you plan to equalize the power dynamics in a relationship where trust has been abused and broken by one party by just saying " they punched the other one" ok, now you, come hit them, ok? Every thing is fine now! According to me Melinda Scott and a book of Jewish fairy tales. Meanwhile you idiots got lost in a tiny desert for 40 years. Fools.
Do you believe in rehabilitation or retribution for dealing with crime? You cant have rehabilitation if you shun people for past crimes they committed and were punished for. Let me guess. Youre a hypocrite who thinks they believe in rehabilitation but actually doesnt.
 

Toasty

This one is his.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I believe in rehabilitation to a degree. Some people cannot be rehabilitated, like pedophiles. Some people don't believe that they have done anything wrong and thus cannot be rehabilitated, like you. Some people can feel remorse and do wish to live a different way. These people deserve a chance. But to say that a domestic abuser's crime can be absolved by the person they hit simply hitting them back is so far off the mark as to be nonsensical. It doesn't even take into consideration you know what dude, you actually think it's just about someone just off the cuff smacking a person. You don't even consider trust or physical inequalities or financial dependency, cultural norms, blame and manipulation, you think the other spouse can even involve the community. They can't even speak. You are so fucking stupid. If you walk out of your front door tomorrow and some stranger takes a crowbar to your head, please tell me how eye for eye works out for you when it comes to PTSD about being afraid of strangers holding crowbars outside. How will your attacker make you whole and be welcomed back into the community?
 

Illuminati Order Official

A Murder of Crows
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Do you believe in rehabilitation or retribution for dealing with crime? You cant have rehabilitation if you shun people for past crimes they committed and were punished for.
You get the retribution part pretty much right but you miss the idea of rehabilitation entirely. For any kind of rehabilitation to begin the guilt needs to be understood, internalized and worked through. There is no chance for rehabilitation without regret.
Your idea? You punch me, I punch you, all forgiven and forgotten. It doesn't work like this. If you punch me for no reason I don't want to punch you, I never want to see you again and I have every right to feel this way. Even if you feel sorry for punching me I have no obligation to forgive you. If you don't want to suffer consequences just don't do bad things. If you do bad things, accept consequences: legal, emotional, any other kind.
Let me guess. Youre a hypocrite who thinks they believe in rehabilitation but actually doesnt.
Let me guess: You haven't figured out how other people think, how they feel and what drives them to do what they do.
 

Baby Yoda

Grogu
kiwifarms.net
I believe in rehabilitation to a degree. Some people cannot be rehabilitated, like pedophiles. Some people don't believe that they have done anything wrong and thus cannot be rehabilitated, like you. Some people can feel remorse and do wish to live a different way. These people deserve a chance. But to say that a domestic abuser's crime can be absolved by the person they hit simply hitting them back is so far off the mark as to be nonsensical. It doesn't even take into consideration you know what dude, you actually think it's just about someone just off the cuff smacking a person. You don't even consider trust or physical inequalities or financial dependency, cultural norms, blame and manipulation, you think the other spouse can even involve the community. They can't even speak. You are so fucking stupid. If you walk out of your front door tomorrow a d some stranger takes a crowbar to your head, please tell me how eye for eye works out for you when it comes to PTSD about being afraid of strangers holding crowbars outside. How will your attacker make you whole and be welcomed back into the community?
@Toasty I believe in showing shithole.

@Anaiah Carlson What ethnicity are you?
 

Anaiah Carlson

Anaiah Carlson, Catfucker
Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
I believe in rehabilitation to a degree. Some people cannot be rehabilitated, like pedophiles. Some people don't believe that they have done anything wrong and thus cannot be rehabilitated, like you. Some people can feel remorse and do wish to live a different way. These people deserve a chance. But to say that a domestic abuser's crime can be absolved by the person they hit simply hitting them back is so far off the mark as to be nonsensical. It doesn't even take into consideration you know what dude, you actually think it's just about someone just off the cuff smacking a person. You don't even consider trust or physical inequalities or financial dependency, cultural norms, blame and manipulation, you think the other spouse can even involve the community. They can't even speak. You are so fucking stupid. If you walk out of your front door tomorrow a d some stranger takes a crowbar to your head, please tell me how eye for eye works out for you when it comes to PTSD about being afraid of strangers holding crowbars outside. How will your attacker make you whole and be welcomed back into the community?
It works in communism. Its difficult to make work in a modern society due to the way justice is administered. The abusers need to fear the community for it to work. Basically the police report would be filed and then the judges would rule after a trial that the abuser is to be harshly punished to the same degree. If the abuser inflicted lots of terror and it went on for a long time, the bible allows for a maximum of 40 lashes at a time. So say someone was abusing a spouse every day for a whole year. The judges could rule the person be flogged up to 40 times repeatedly for the entire year. 40 lashes then give them time to heal only to lash them 40 times again. Give them time to heal, and keep repeating until the number of days is reached

You get the retribution part pretty much right but you miss the idea of rehabilitation entirely. For any kind of rehabilitation to begin the guilt needs to be understood, internalized and worked through. There is no chance for rehabilitation without regret.
Your idea? You punch me, I punch you, all forgiven and forgotten. It doesn't work like this. If you punch me for no reason I don't want to punch you, I never want to see you again and I have every right to feel this way. Even if you feel sorry for punching me I have no obligation to forgive you. If you don't want to suffer consequences just don't do bad things. If you do bad things, accept consequences: legal, emotional, any other kind.

Let me guess: You haven't figured out how other people think, how they feel and what drives them to do what they do.
Completely wrong. You have no right to hate someone in that kind of way. There us always an obligation to seek healing and restoration with all people. To actively want to never see or talk to someone unconditionally is a crime. Conditionally, it is valid to never talk to or see someone until they change their ways. But to refuse to talk to or see someone ever again even if they change is a moral atrocity and should be a crime.
 

Illuminati Order Official

A Murder of Crows
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
So say someone was abusing a spouse every day for a whole year. The judges could rule the person be flogged up to 40 times repeatedly for the entire year.
You know that's slowly torturing someone to death, right?
Completely wrong.
That's relativism for you.
You have no right to hate someone in that kind of way.
You have a problem identifying emotions, work on it. That's something much, much worse than hate. That's indifference.
There us always an obligation to seek healing and restoration with all people.
Why do you try to take away my right to dislike someone?
To actively want to never see or talk to someone unconditionally is a crime.
@Useful_Mistake I think we need your legal expertise.
Conditionally, it is valid to never talk to or see someone until they change their ways. But to refuse to talk to or see someone ever again even if they change is a moral atrocity and should be a crime.
You don't understand human nature. Not everything can change. It's valid to dislike and avoid someone based on who they are, not what they do. And avoiding someone you dislike is the best thing you can do for them and for yourself. Much better than intentionally or unintentionally hurting each other.
 
Top