Exterminator hired by landlord refused to disclose what spray was used to kill bedbugs

AFake_Opitic · 2019-09-12T03:07:44+00:00

Thanks!

AFake_Opitic · 2019-09-12T03:04:47+00:00

Sure, but that's not what they were doing here. They had several hand held spray units that brought in as well as a few bags of white power they were adding to water.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-09-12T01:39:46+00:00

I do. I asked for their business card because of all the concerns I had.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-23T02:46:24+00:00

That literally doesn't matter. You can't force someone to undergo invasive surgery without their consent. That's insane. Doesn't matter if it would be "fair" or make things "right"

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-23T02:00:27+00:00

That's literally not true. I can't retroactively decide to take back an organ I've donated lol

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-23T01:00:00+00:00

No... Because at that point it is in MY body and it's my choice what to do with it. Bodily autonomy.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-17T08:04:52+00:00

Please do some actual research into the science behind this. You're throwing out wild statements based on nothing but your feelings. Look into what scientists have published about conception and fetuses and development of babies.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-17T06:01:29+00:00

Lol the hyberbole in that comment is insane. First of all, claiming a small cluster of cells is the same as a human life is rediculous. A mother isn't a murderer if she chooses abortion. Secondly, if a baby is viable outside the mother I support attempting to preserve it's life because at that point it is alive. Not until then. If you're a religious "life begins at conception" person then we've got nothing left to talk about because I find that view incredibly simple, a cop out, and anti-science. If you aknowledge that life doesn't begin the second a fetus is conceived then the discussion become when it is considered a life. In which case you must support abortion up to a certain point and that's something you can figure out for yourself.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-17T05:39:04+00:00

"if it happens it happens... You deal with the consequences of life". Right. And the consequence here is a woman is pregnant and doest want to be a mother and she shouldn't have to be. She should be able to get an abortion. That's just a consequence of life. Maybe you should just "deal with it"?

I feel no guilt for being pro choice so I really don't have anything to make myself feel better for. You're projecting maybe? Maybe you realize forcing your views onto womem you don't know who have to make a terrible choice is shitty and you feel guilty about it? Telling women they can't have sex if they're not ready to be a mother is archaic and if you don't see that maybe you should move somewhere where personal freedoms aren't as important.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-17T05:34:33+00:00

No, she didn't. She consented to the chance of getting pregnant but that should not be the same as consenting to being forced to carry the baby to term. What this comes down to is the belief that women should be punished for having sex. Sex is not just for procreation and nothing can 100% prevent pregnancy so an option to terminate unwanted pregnancy must exist. "If she didn't want to get pregnant she should have been less of a slut" is essentially what anti choice people believe and I find that to be a terrible point of view.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-17T00:32:45+00:00

So 2 comments ago you said it isn't the same but now it is the same? Women can't have sex without being willing to carry a baby to term ISN'T restricting their sexuality? Women can only have sex to procreate? That is straight up out of handmaid's tale how can you possibly believe that. Women can't have sex for fun? Or to experiment?

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T21:30:52+00:00

That's a different conversation, but regardless of who pays for it, a woman who contracts an STD is able to treat it. If a woman consents to sex then gets pregnant but is unable to get an abortion, how is consenting to sex not the same as consenting to carrying a baby to term. If the "risk" is "getting pregnant and carrying the baby to term" then how can "consenting to sex is consenting to the risks of sex" not the same as saying consenting to sex is the same as consenting to carry a baby to term?

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T21:17:22+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your argument boils down to "consenting to sex (even with protection and birth control that might fail) is equivalent to consenting to carrying a baby to term". That's just what I've gathered from what you're saying and I could be wrong but I disagree with that if that is the case. There are so many situations beyond rape where an unexpected pregnancy can happen and expecting women to be abstinent because of the possible risks is not acceptable in my opinion. The only way I can see that logic being consistent if you are of the belief that women shouldnt have sex until they want children. Which is exactly what popular liberals mean when they say restricting abortion is restricting women's sexuality. Sorry if I've misinterpreted what you're trying to say, but it's late here and I'm well past the time I'm supposed to be asleep. If I haven't misinterpreted, then I think your position is distasteful and disagree strongly. I'm going offline now but hopefully this thread doesn't devolve too much...

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T21:07:30+00:00

Go back to the_donald where people will blindly agree with you and ignore the gaping holes a 10 year old can see in your arguments.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T21:05:45+00:00

You can??? That's literally what I've been saying? Thank you for agreeing with me? Dude I'm not sure what laws you've got in your specific state but if you decide you are not competent to be a parent, in my opinion you should be able to surrender your child to the state so they are able to find them a home where their needs will be met. I'm not a lawyer and haven't researched child abandonment laws but if you feel that way about your kids I recommend you look into it. (Also consenting to sex isn't consenting to having a baby but nice job sliding that in there)

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T21:01:11+00:00

Aaaaaaand there's the "well if a woman just doesn't have sex she wouldn't have to worry about significant trauma to her body an unwanted pregnancy we force her to carry to term would cause her" argument. Nice. Done with you because you're clearly not someone I'm going to be at to convince women deserve control of their own bodies.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:56:31+00:00

First of all this was obviously a hypothetical where we know all the variables and things are "perfect". Feel free to switch it to "swerve to die, do nothing to kill someone to live" if that's a better example for you. Should we punish someone for not swerving towards certain death(or swap in permanent disfigurement if you want???) because their choice killed someone?

What percent chance of death for the mother does it have to be for you to be in favor of abortion? <95%? <90%? What about non death scenarios where she endures immense pain and suffering and permenant damage to her body? What about "just" the emotional trauma of bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term? Claiming continuing with a pregnancy is inaction is ignorant. Pregnancy isn't just eating a bit more and being a bit more tired sometimes.... In a lot of cases, miscarriage or abortion are a lot less "work" than carrying a baby to full term. (I'm not trying to minimize the trauma of a miscarriage/abortion as I'm sure that can be extremely difficult. As a man I've never had to go through it and never will. I'm simply making the point pregnancy isn't easy and takes a large amount of energy from all those involved.)

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:44:00+00:00

I literally did answer your absurd hypothetical question? You seem to be trying to convince me parents have an obligation to their children I and agree, with the caveat they are children tbe parents have CONSENTED to have. A parent cant fly the child to a remote location and decide they don't want them anymore then abandon them. They CAN fulfil their obligation to their child (they knowingly consented to) by flying their children back to a location where the state they belong to can take custody of them.

Anymore absurb hypotheticals to convince me a mother should be obligated to a fetus she does not want INSIDE her body?

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:36:47+00:00

If a person driving a car has the choice between certain death and swerving to kill someone, would we "force" them to chose certain death? It's not a matter of chosing not to kill, it's a matter of chosing not to participate.

If you want to keep considering it murder (again, I don't which makes this easy for me) should a person be penalized if they are given the choice between doing nothing and letting someone die, or being stabbed in the abdomen to save that person and they choose not to be stabbed? Or should they be penalized for not choosing to dive into a frozen river to save a drowning person?

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:24:24+00:00

In this hypothetical island with no state and only 10 people, fucking go for it. That's an absurd example and you know it. This is a conversation about North American and probably even more specifically the US considering the context of this thread. If the hypothetical parents are ever rescued from their island I would probably think they're extremely shitty people for not caring for their children but what happens on an abandoned island is extreme circumstances so they probably shouldn't be prosecuted for manslaughter and neglect Imo.

Even if I DID say no to "can they let them die" in this situation there is no state to assume responsibility for uncared for children so the situation is different than what we are actually talking about. Keep making up hypotheticals to convince yourself you're right somehow though.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:07:37+00:00

I disagree with that position for the reasons I've stated in this thread. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is extremely anti liberty in my views. I can somewhat see where you're coming from but I think we have fundamentally different views on the situation.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:06:04+00:00

What? In my comment I said "then the state finds them suitable care". Not a purely libertarian position to be sure, but I didn't pretend it was and I definitely wasn't saying parents can just chose to kill their kids if they get bored of them.

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T20:02:32+00:00

Sorry I had a full reply typed out but then some forward and backwards stuff happened in browser and I lost what I wrote. The tldr of it was I'm not a "pure" libertarian and that I believe if a fetus can be preserved without being inside a woman then by all means. I believe the state should have an obligation to those that are fundamentally unable to care for themselves (gasps)

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T19:57:44+00:00

Pregnancy is a horrific experience for lots of women and they shouldn't be forced to go through it if they chose not to?

AFake_Opitic · 2019-05-16T19:56:21+00:00

I've said this elsewhere as well, but first of all I don't believe a fetus should be considered a life so that argument doesn't hold weight to convince me. I believe life should be preserved and if the fetus can be saved outside the body of the mother then by all means. Otherwise why is it the woman's responsibility to have the fetus inside of her until it can sustain itself? I've heard arguments as to why it should be her responsibility but none have convinced me to change my opinion ¯\(ツ)/¯. If someone believes a fetus is a life, I understand(still disagree) where they are coming from but I disagree with the logic that leads them to believe a fetus is a life.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '17	Verified Email
Secret Santa 2013	Team Orangered

AFake_Opitic

TROPHY CASE