Lurker > Tenlaar

mybbqrules posted...

And no one here supports late term abortions unless the mothers life is in danger.

Speak for yourself.

It obviously can be depending on the circumstances.

I dont know what you mean, but Im going to go ahead and guessthe passage of time?

You continue to be wrong and desperate twist things however you can to justify a drastically excessive response to theft. Covering your face during a crime is not intimidation.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Then stop making pointless posts that mean nothing. This wasnt burglary either, they didnt enter the building illegally. We have these words that distinguish crimes for a reason. This was plain old theft.

Somebody hasnt watched The Princess yet.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

So your view of this would be different if they werent wearing ski masks?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Thieves, not robbers. Distract and grab tactics are not taking by force or the threat of force. You are wrong.

hockeybub89 posted...

Irrevelant. A woman should still be able to abort her unborn baby for absolutely any reason. Bodily autonomy doesn't care about babies and the government can shut the fuck up

Do you think that Im saying using viability for legality leads to abortion being outlawed because I think thats a good thing?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Stealing something doesnt go from not being a threat to being a threat based on which side of the counter the product is on. Stealing alone is not a threat to somebodys safety and all they did was steal.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

As medical technology continues to improve that point of viability will continue to get closer to fertilization, all the way until we reach the point of artificial wombs.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Imagined threats still dont count no matter how many times you repeat them.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Robbery is taking by force or threats of force. Neither of those elements were present. It was just stealing.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

They were stealing. Stealing is not a threat to somebodys safety.

Kimberly posted...

Anyone who is attempting to rob you, even if you can't visually confirm a weapon...they value their score more than your livelihood. It's not a stretch to think that they may also value their score above your life, too.

Ive already said that self defense should be a response to a verified actual threat, not an imagined one.

What made you fear for your safety?
He went for my vapes on the other side of the counter!

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Viability as the metric for the legality of abortion leads to abortion being outlawed and the loss of reproductive rights.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ive got video of what actually happened, though.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/5/AAaA_zAADilf.jpg

CedarPointcp posted...

how do you know he was trying to grab cigs? Not from the video i've seen. He was prob going for the register

He waited until the cashier walked away around the corner of the counter on the other side of the register. The thief then started grabbing vapes from the wall, they were in his hands when the cashier ran back over and started stabbing him from the side. That is not self defense, it is trying to kill somebody for stealing vapes.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

There is video that shows the guy didnt lunge over the counter at him. The guy jumped the counter and grabbed something, it looks like vapes watching it again, from the wall behind the counter while the cashier was a good 5+ feet away around the corner and on the other side of the register then the cashier moved to him and started stabbing him from the side.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Hes the one where the robbers stole his stuff and then jumped the counter to attack him right?

No, not right. That didnt happen. They guy was grabbing cigarettes or something.

CedarPointcp posted...

they guy jumped over the counter , prob trying to take his cash register etc.........

He jumped over the counter and grabbed cigarettes or something. That is not a threat to the cashiers safety.

Self defense should require an actual threat, not an imagined one, and also require a proportional response. Neither of those were met, so yes.

How is it not your place to say something if youre responsible for training her? That seems like not just your place but your responsibility.

Fuck no, my found family are kind and generous people who do good in the world.

At least you can acknowledge that there was space between them before he chose to become the aggressor and move towards the thief. Pre-emotive self defense isnt a thing no matter what terrible scenarios you imagine could have happened.

DeadBankerDream posted...

Two robbers boxing the clerk in behind the counter is absolutely reasonably read as an act of aggression. The idea that the clerk had the clarity and time to read the situation as "oh he will just take a pack of cigs and leave" is preposterous.

It is not preposterous that self defense should require a proportional response to a real threat, not your imagining a threat that could have happened even though it didnt. Also, he was away from the guy with a weapon in his hand and charged towards him. Again, that is not self defense.

Shadow_Don posted...

I think its pretty funny that literally their entire routine is now about the left being "offended"

Well thats not even remotely true.

Solid_Snake07 posted...

he was robbing him and jumped the counter. Thats a clear act of aggression from someone whos made it clear theyre ready to harm you to take your shit. Dont be dense

Somebody trying to snatch shit from a store is not an act of aggression and the guy made no move at all towards the cashier. The cashier charged towards the guy. This was not self defense.

MrAndersonWb posted...

well said. Stop lying tenlaar, we know your pattern

Im not lying, you are. Speaking of patterns, which oft banned user coming back on a new alt would you be?

Kloe_Rinz posted...

not republicans

Not you either, obviously.

laughable and pathetic considering the people you defend

Pointing out dishonesty is not defending the target of the dishonesty, it is criticizing the person being dishonest.

Kim_Seong-a posted...

You are morally obliged to do whatever the fuck is necessary to make sure that person never attacks you again.

The person didnt attack him a first time for there to be an again.

It is crazy how many of you think that being the aggressor and trying to kill somebody based on an entirely imagined threat is the way things should work.

They didnt seem to be threatening the cashier at all, self defense needs to be proportional to an actual threat and not based entirely on imagination. Not at all justified but Im not surprised to see so many people here with terrible the moment he stole something worth $7 his life was forfeit hot takes.

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30

Well thats not even remotely accurate.

Evillink2000 posted...

You do almost nothing but jump to the defense of shitty policies. Don't get offended when you get called out on it.

Not true, and neither is saying I defended such a policy. Being offended has nothing to do with pointing out when dishonest people are lying.

MrAndersonWb posted...

hot on the heels of defending GOP plans to deny lunch to LGBTQ kids (check that topic), now Tenlaar is defending genital inspection policies.

I am flabbergasted

I did not defend such a thing, maybe stop lying.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

dont particularly care about the lying, if there even is any, if it means republicans get hated more

Yeah, well, were not all dishonest people like you. Some of us have standards for behavior that dont change when it comes to people we dislike.

DrizztLink posted...

If you're going to react like this, then yes.

React like what, exactly?

Can you go a single day without bitching about your job?

Saying that pride flags are partisan is already bad, but to say that providing your pronouns is partisan is truly absurd.

hockeybub89 posted...

They are literally doing it. Sorry you are unable to read between the lines and that you take things at face value

Then you should be able to provide even a single example of somebody enacting, trying to enact, or even talking about enacting the kind of policy that this would prevent.

DespondentDeity posted...

The protection of civil rights is in the purview of the federal government, if the measures are proactive, that is far better for marginalized groups then reactive protections.

It is not the purview of every government agency to do it wherever and however they want to. Thats not how anything works. If they were arguing that the Department of Education was exceeding their authority by implementing anti-discrimination policies in schools it would be a different matter entirely.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Correct, I brought up Nazis as an example of the worst people. There is no wiggling your way out of this guy used Nazis as an example of terrible people so he must love Nazis being incredibly stupid. I bear no blame for you doing incredibly stupid things.

cjsdowg posted...

I have literally showed examples of them attacking LGBT students in different ways, and explained what is stopping them from doing it here. You are doing your best Ben Shapiro, and just like with him. When it comes to real human interaction and not a debate hall. It just makes you look like you are willingly being obtuse.

Duh I don't understand how you could think this party with a history of attacking the LGBT community could be doing something to attack the LGBT community.

You can just acknowledge that you can find zero examples of anybody even talking about doing what you are saying they want to do.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

the reality is that republicans support it and that makes it inherently evil unless there is excessive evidence to the contrary

Their position being a shitty one does not justify lying about it to make it seem even worse. Period.

cjsdowg posted...

So right now there are protections for these students. The Republicans are literally trying to break those protections. Also I guess after the Nuremberg Laws went into effect people should not have worried about things getting worst until it happened ?

They are arguing that the USDA is exceeding its authority by trying to enforce what they see as a political agenda in an area outside of their purview. If you want to argue that their intention is something other than that you need to provide an actual argument for that. They are bad so I can make up any bad thing and attribute it to them is not an actual argument. So can you provide any examples
of people enacting, trying to enact, or talking about enacting a policy of denying lunch to LGBT students?

cjsdowg posted...

We have literally seen Republican go out of their way to attack people in the LGBT+ community. Making books about them banned from schools, calling them groomers, trying to make sure that they can't get married. And so when they are fighting for the right, to not fed gay students. (This is literally what they are fighting for ). You say oh let's just believe them when they say, the possibility of hurting gay students is just side effect of what we want to do .

Can you provide an example of anybody enacting such a policy, trying to enact such a policy, or even talking about enacting such a policy?

TheOtherMike posted...

The difference is the "pedo panic" isn't based on anything in reality. Conversely, Republicans have actually been doing everything in their power to legalize discrimination against people they don't like, so taking proactive steps to protect from that isn't "panic" in any sense of the word.

The pedo panic behavior that I am referring to is that whenever these bills come up there are invariably people trying to make it out like the intention is to allow random people to perform genital checks on demand and molest the athletes because Republicans are the REAL pedophiles.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Republicans have done everything they can to lose every single ounce of goodwill they ever had, if they ever had any to begin with. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt and its extremely dangerous and stupid to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This has nothing to do with good will and its not about giving the benefit of the doubt. Its about actually reading the bill and making criticisms that are based in reality and not the same pedo panic behavior that is rightfully scorned when right wingers do it.

HairyQueen posted...

I feel sorry for the pearls that are being so viciously clutched to the point of shattering in here

Youre really going to act like he could have used love instead of sex when describing homosexuality to the 9 year old is some crazy prudish pearl clutching stance?

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Why does that matter? As we have seen it is imperative people are proactive and make sure they can't ever do these things because they have shown that these are the kinds of things they will attempt to do.

It matters because nobody has done it, or tried to do it, or even talked about doing it, but wanting to do it is totally their motivation rather than what they say is their motivation is not exactly a sound argument. Republicans are notorious for stupid government overreach stuff, making up things to make it seem worse is dishonest.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Why shouldn't this be within their scope?

Im not sure whether it actually is or not, I would have to do a lot of reading about the authority given to the USDA to determine that. Im just saying that is what people should be arguing about instead of doing this they just want to murder children routine.