tenta

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    735

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tenta

  1. Posted

    2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

    Do you realize what it’s like for a woman to get an abortion? You talk about abortion as if it’s like going to the dentist for a tooth cleaning. For most women, this is a mentally, emotionally and physically stressful process. Quite often women need therapy to work through it. As well, many women do not have easy access to clinics that perform abortions or have the financial means to pay for it. 

    This is a straw man. Liberals to not want to pull out babies three days before the due date and kill it. The vast majority of liberals want restrictions on abortions, for example it can only be done in the first two trimesters, unless the woman’s life is in danger. As well, the early developmental stage is an embryo and a later developmental stage is a fetus. An embryo is not a “baby” or “unborn child”. A baby or child is the developmental stage after birth. . . . It would be like calling an infant an “un-aged senior citizen”. 

    what a low IQ disgusting bootlicker fa***** nig*** you'd have to be to say this, lol

    I'm pointing out the complete hypocrisy of thinking someone's life only matters after they come out of the womb and you can't address it

    and I also said abortion is not pleasant for a woman so it should be avoided

     

    But keep being vegan to make a 0.00001% difference thinking you're doing the right thing or whatever

  3. Posted

    5 hours ago, remember said:

    @tenta would you want to go back to a time when women risked their life to get an abortion? like the thousands of years before - lets be honest a ban on abortion is a form of enslavement of the right of a woman to decide for herself if she wants or wants not to risk her life and additionally spend her life energy on child care. if there was a massive shift in men behavior you could maybe think about alternatives - but even giving a child into an adoptive care not knowing who will care for her child and how, is not really a safe option for every mother after ruining maybe her health or even dying - a lot of men don’t even think about paying for the childcare. there are so many stories of abuse i could tell you because men think they have a right to decide what’s the best for themselfs. maybe before going back to the middleages we would need to evolve in these aspects. get yourself a family and care for them even if they leave you and stop trying to control other people’s lifes, at least let them own that.

    So you didn't read the entire post? I am not for simply banning abortion, but for having some kind of punishment or disincentive against it, this includes more access to birth control/better education. And again if it was banned then women would get into situations in which they have to have an abortion at a lesser rate.

  5. Posted · Edited by tenta

    16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Lol

    By this logic no law would ever get broken.

    The fact is that banning abortion has been tried and women still do it when it is illegal.

    Overwhelming majority of people disagree with you, so in a democracy abortion will be legal.

     

    Let's not ban theft because people will do it anyway? No, it does reduce the number of theft committed.

    There's no candidate that will ban abortion if they get elected therefore if over 50% wanted it banned it wouldn't get banned.

  6. Posted

    To liberals killing a baby while it hasn't been born yet and it's awaiting to be born is not immoral, however killing it shortly after it's born would be immoral and would be murder according to them.

    So much moral outrage over a distinction which is really just arbitrary. And ofc this is because they are conforming to the status quo. Abortion is obviously necessary in a number of cases, but is something that it doesn't have to get to, banning abortion would clearly reduce the number of abortions, as opposed to making it happen illegally, because then less women would be in the position where they need to do it as they would know it's illegal (or has some kind of punishment attached to it - a punishment to HELP prevent having to do an abortion).

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, crab12 said:

    It low-key blows my mind how intolerant progressives are. Surely all of you have done plenty of shadow work on your own consciousness. This is exactly the opposite of shadow integration.

    Why allow those subreddits on reddit? They were stupid and obnoxious, you could have tried arguing with them but it wouldn't have worked. Now that they're banned those communities will no longer be promoting bad ideas and hate against groups of people.

  21. Posted

    9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

     

    If you think it's justified, that's okay, but it wasn't self defense at all - even if he didn't pull out his gun while chasing him, there was nothing indicating he was doing anything other than running away after firing the taser, he was just watching him run and shot him, (also the fact that he could be paralyzed by the taser, therefore he should fire if he isn't paralyzed, is not a good argument) see comments on page 8.

    If you think it was justified, you're arguing that he should be given a death penalty for a previous offense by a cop.

  22. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Recursoinominado said:

    @AtheisticNonduality They are not, but here stage green people still say that cops are unnecessary or they are all bad, all the time, not acknowledging the giant dark problem they have to face every day, for years.

    In America right now, the same is happening because people don't realize the complexity of the problem because they are detached from real-world experience and trying to solve a complex problem with what they THINK things should work. 

    Just because people are exposing this as police brutality and murder, doesn't mean they're saying all cops are bad.

  24. Posted · Edited by tenta

    From what I see, the cop that shot him was the one who he attempted to taze while he was running away, so the cop figured that if he was tazed by him, he wouldn't let him run away further and would shoot him, which is bad because you can just report his offences afterwards, or he did it because of panic. If he did it because of panic he should have told himself "I won't shoot this guy if he tries to taze me, my partner is next to me".

    If he was tazed successfully then the guy could have taken his gun and shot at his partner, that's why he shouldn't have chased someone with a tazer and instead let him run then get other people to arrest him for his offences instead of killing him.

    Also remember, more importantly, he shot him while seeing that he was running away and not attacking them because he never turned around.

    But I understand it was a messy situation.

  25. Posted

    44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Do you understand that if a cop gets successfully tazed, he is now immobilized and the criminal can just grab his gun?

    You think criminals will not exploit this loophole?

    Tazing a cop is a very serious and dangerous offense.

    The problem is that he was running away, if he's running away that means that he can get reported and then arrested later on for the offenses committed (the policeman's reasoning was not that he should shoot him to prevent him from becoming a fugitive). Instead of "he's running away and he deserves to get killed for resisting arrest".