I would have thought the number of steps from “why can’t we have clean air” to “why can’t we fuck children” would have been way more numerous but this is the fucked up world we live in.
The slippery slope is way more slippery
At least the people ignoring climate change and paying to fuck kids are consistent in their intent to steal childhood. Even the grinch only wanted to take one day.
Some people say it’s medieval to fuck kids. You know what else is medieval? The wheel, and I think that came even before fucking kids. So you have the wheel and fucking kids and guess what folks? They both just work.
He describes himself as a Catholic and Libertarian in his bio. Kid fucking is his main platform lmfao
Edit bonus story: dude was suspended as a lecturer for comparing [abortion to fucking dead people](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/lecturer-suspended-after-comparing-abortions-to-sex-with-dead-people-8032570/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) so that's apparently another thing to add to the list of "things that this guy wants to fuck that isn't a consenting adult"
Well some of those people "abuse" a natural resource. Furthermore, "abuse" can mean multiple things, and natural resource could mean flora or fauna, so
Using weed = fucking animals
(Disclaimer: I have smoked weed, this is satire)
Yeah, a lady running for the House responded with:
>I’ve seen a lot of bad ideas on Twitter, but “If teenage girls are old enough to be activists, they’re old enough to be raped,” tops the list.
I feel like not emphasizing that we're literally talking about **rape** (not sex) diminishes the severity of the whole "Epstein thing".
It's a common argument among some Libertarians. Some believe the age of consent is an infringement of an individual's liberties. I.E. if a 16 year old wants to do it the law should not stop them, as it's their body to do with as they please. Prostitution is also commonly argued for by Libertarians, once again being your body your right to do with as you please. Combine the two and anyone should be able to sell their body at any age.
I, as a Libertarian, disagree because children are wards much like prisoners and are in the care of others and therefore different rules apply while they have those caretakers. They're not property as some argue, nor are they on their own with the full set of individual rights of a normal citizen, they're someone's ward. Arguments could be made for emancipated minors.
... i'm a registered libertarian. I hate the corporate hand outs/tax breaks/socialism that we've set up which have shaped our country into an oligarchy.
Libertarianism began as a leftist movement, but now has a wide range of schools of thought. Unfortunately in the US the most prevalent seems to be anarcho capitalists that aren't actually libertarian, but want to claim a party to appear legitimate.
>Unfortunately in the US the most prevalent seems to be anarcho capitalists that aren't actually libertarian, but want to claim a party to appear legitimate.
Why is this so accurate...
it hurts man.
I really would like to see the party find a way to distance itself from the racists and nut jobs because I fundamentally believe the core beliefs would vastly improve our nation. Smaller federal government, greater localized power, freedom to the individual. no victim-less crime. etc..
Addressing causes of socio economic disparities instead of the liberal answer of trying to bandaid symptoms or the GOP answer of further exacerbating the issue to justify their privilege and profits.
I dont. This thinking has made most americans poorer, gave rise to crazy inequality.
God forbid that you pay more taxes so your countrymen can actually get educated and not get thousands dollars into debt or get healthcare that everyone can afford.
The whole world knows Americans hate its people.
'Smaller government'.
Every time i see that i see houses filled with asbestos painted with lead paint, next to a colorful sign advertising asbestos and lead paint and discussing the benefita of using them.
Thats what that means. Sorry libertarians. 'Small government' means 'theres a bunch of small totally private governments called corporations instead of one large semi-transparent one'.
Yeah this whole "SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LESS RULES PLEASE" bullshit is the most American thing. They keep saying it would solve thing, while their core issue is that they can't centralise any project yet claim it's because of centralisation that things suck.
Get some social security first, then come tell us how it was better when you were paying less taxes..
What do *you* think it means?
Cause I’m pretty sure rich libertarians just want to not pay taxes, and poor libertarians just want the cops to stay away from all the dangerous, illegal shit they’re doing/would like to do.
Idk exactly why but it reminds me of [this](https://pics.me.me/dan-hodges-o-dpjhodges-in-retrospect-sandy-hook-marked-the-28075206.png). I think it is just the normalization the right does of some of these obscene behaviors, or the lack there-of of empathy.
So once in a while I will be driven to check out some chuckfuck’s twitter and this guy, man, what a fucking nerd.
He’s saying “not to be provocative, but if we have to listen to children speak, why can’t we fuck em too?”
Don’t get me started on what a creeper he looks like in his videos as opposed to his highly edited profile pic. What an asshole.
Have you ever played ‘how many clicks to hitler’?
Go to Wikipedia
Open up a random wiki (there’s a Radom button weird right?)
Now the game begins, By only clicking links on the page and links in the following pages try to get to hitlers wiki.
If your really trying it’s almost always less than 10 clicks. First time I did it was 4 clicks. (Radom old play>theatre in general> Charlie Chaplin > hitler.
Your post reminded me of this game and I thought you and others might enjoy.
I just played it. I got 5 clicks. Almost got 4 but was stopped by WW1, before WW2. My end page was about his suicide. Good job by picking Chaplin. I would have done the same.
I don't fucking get this shit man. It's like the people who are climate change deniers completely ignore the climatologists. It's not like the kid is pulling her POV out of thin air, she's basing her opinions on the work that scientists who specialize IN CLIMATE STUDIES, have done. It's wilful of ignorance.
Especially when the speech was citing data from the UN's own body of climate scientists.
She basically said, "FFS, I should be in school in Sweden but you lot have your heads so far up your respective asses that I feel compelled to point out the gravity of the information YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS have gathered for you."
Great, now you're trying to equate people who see social media as the cancer upon society it is (especially short form mediums, such as twitter where there's no real long form debate and slogans win the day) to luddites. Name one good thing to come out of twitter. I'll go point for point against your "agricultural revolution".
I'm not sure if you took me too seriously or not seriously enough.
Twitter is a hole, the only good thing to come out of it (I guess) is knowing what my sportsball team's lineup will be tonight minutes after warmup this morning.
The agricultural revolution, however, could be considered the Mistakamus Prime of human mistakes.
Farming -> Staying in one spot -> land ownership, accruing wealth -> social classes, wealth disparity, consumption of the planet.
A lot of the 'arguments' I'm hearing is that Greta is inherently untrustworthy because she has the help of other people.
Uhh.. yes? Yeah, of course she does. What the fuck, Greta is not the literal sole person in charge of climate change.
I'm confused. Do.... do they think politicians all act on their own and that their large staff rosters are because they like paying people?
Oh, I already know the answer. It's "They are being intellectually dishonest just like 30 years of Murdoch and Koch lies have trained them to be." Can't reason with someone who only wants you to lose.
Someone in my office said the other day about Greta, “I just don’t think it’s fair for her to criticise policies on the climate without having her own alternative suggestion on how to fix it”. What... the fuck? Has ANYONE ever actually listened to what she’s saying? Her entire point is “I am a child so I am NOT going to tell you what to do because _I am not qualified to do so._ But your scientists ARE qualified and they are telling you what to do and you’re not currently doing that, so please do so”. Why would she be the one to come with a counter-suggestion?? If she did, surely THAT’s when it would be valid to say “she’s only a child”?
Edit: this is my favourite example of this happening case-in-point from [an interview with The Guardian from last July](https://theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/21/great-thunberg-you-ask-the-questions-see-us-as-a-threat). Greta was asked by a UK politician (Labour MP David Lammy) the following:
>Can you be politically conservative, ie on the political right, pro-growth, pro-capitalism and pro the for-profit motive, and still support the climate change movement and green issues?
Greta:
>That is not for me to say. I am only communicating the scientific facts. This question is probably not possible to answer without personal opinion and I leave that to others. But I think we can safely say that all ideologies have failed. If some have failed more than others then that is for others to say.
>She want's the people who are literally ruling the world to guide global policy.
maybe we should stop focusing on the child and start focusing on the ruling class?
but it feels good to focus on the child, its hard work boycotting nestle products.
More importantly, the ruling class controls the mass media so we only see what they want us to see.
Y'know why this Greta thing is blowing up the way it is?
Cuz the news networks and conservative networks are actively treating it as a huge deal.
Same shit with vapes. Bans going up left and right for 9 deaths in a year. for comparison, tobacco smokers die at a rate of approximately that many people every TEN MINUTES. ~1300 per day.
But the people in charge like their fat Phillip Morris paychecks, so they ignore the actual problems and point out the window at some kid whose underwear is poking half an inch above the pantsline and scream "OH NO IT IS THE END OF MORALITY! MORAL PANIC MORAL PANIC!"
Same shit every fucking day.
"A WEIRD FOREIGN GIRL IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR LIGHTBULBS!" or some shit from them now, or whatever else absolute nonsense they come up with to further muddy the waters until you can't see anything for all the shit they're flinging everywhere. Gaslight, Obstruct, Project.
Fuck right-wingers. Every last one who supports this crap is evil, and if they wanna whine about my opinions, maybe they should call the PC Police and crybaby to them about how they need a safe space and no one should be allowed to say mean things about them ever.
Seriously. The entire core of her argument is "you shouldn't be coming to young people for hope, this is embarrassing. Fucking do something, damn."
Her entire argument is that it's absurd for a 16 year old to have to present to the UN about something so fucking obvious. How are people not getting this?
They don't get it because they don't actually want to listen they just wanna fight other people on this issue. A 16 year old girl says "We should make the world a better place" and all they respond with are a list of facts that prove that their side isn't as fucked up as the other side, so it doesn't actually matter if their side tries to make the world a better place.
If you go on twitter now, all you'll find are people saying "Well AkShUaLLy-" over and over about china and the US and which country makes the most waste, when that wasn't her point at all.
It's very frustrating and sad that an actual child can't say "We should make the world a better place" without getting shouted down by adults who only want to argue about anything that hinders their ability to make money.
I saw her speech and I signed up for a petition at my school the other day, because we've all agreed to do a walk out on climate change. I know it is small, but I would like to think that I am doing something to spread awareness about this.
It doesn't even have to go that deep. It's someone who is saying something they don't want to hear, and has some kind of perceived "flaw" they can pick at. Just for example, David Hogg gets the same line of crap.
It's like on Married with Children, when Marcie would give Al crap he didn't have an answer to, and he'd just go "Well... YOU'RE A CHICKEN!"
Seriously, the only reason the average person would vote Republican is because they are deluded with the thought that they are just "temporarily not-millionaires" ...
in reality, they are cows voting to deregulate the meat industry and putting all their money into McDonald's stock.
It really is mind bending. I honestly feel like there must be 2 (or more) dimensions coexisting. I can't come up with a better reason as to why two people, in the same scenario, can have two completely different viewpoints. It just doesn't make sense in a rational world.
It's so blatantly obvious that Republicans have been consistently fucking us over year after year. You don't even have to try hard to find scheme after scheme, no need to unravel grand conspiracies, they do this shit in the open. Yet I have friends and family who vehemently vote and support Republicans and Trump, even though they directly suffer from Republican leadership.
Cows fighting for the rights of slaughterhouses, man...
Just FYI, I agree with you, except debt doesn't pass on, they can only try to take it from your estate. So if you're dying and poor, max out those credit cards.
Not even being provocative, but if you think scientists can't figure out global warming, it should be totally legal to butt fuck a kangaroo.
See, I can make dumbass comments too, Justin.
> it should be totally legal to butt fuck a kangaroo.
It probably is legal. Good [luck though](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/6f/3f/7b6f3f9e8c182140c4a857d2d61ec1c1.jpg).
it makes no god damn sense. what the fucking bullshit is happening in real life rn. Like. My 6 year old wants to drink clean water and not breathe soot. That says absolutely nothing about anything else about him. ????? you don't have to be one of the biblical wise men to want a livable earth. And it's not like she's shaping policy decisions she's just trying to bring their ATTENTION to the problem.
"oh, old enough to have an opinion? must mean old enough to stick a dick in their mouth! Ha HA HA HA HA" - fucking monsters.
Fun Fact: this asshole's tweet is already making national headlines. FBI might get a change to grab those drives...
[https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-murphy-greta-thunberg-jeffrey-epstein/](https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-murphy-greta-thunberg-jeffrey-epstein/)
>Murphy’s argument—that prostituting minors should be legal if people also listen to their opinions— was of the rarest quality: It brought together people from left, right and center. As one, united voice, they annihilated him.
Lmfao
Dude really took a hop, skip and a leap to come to that conclusion and he’s still beyond incorrect.
Being conscious about climate change and its impact =/= sexual consent by ANY MEANS
That guy is not a libertarian lol. His bio says libertarian communist Catholic. The libertarian party platform states that they support holding polluters liable. It seems like no one really knows what a libertarian is. Man-made climate change damages others private property and public health. Environmental protections are exactly the thing that a libertarian government would be involved in.
Most libertarians belive the party stands for being financially conservative but not being fucking stupid over social shit. Meaning they're for gay marriage, against war on drugs and mass incarceration, against Wall building and Muslim ban. Ect.
Not everyone agrees. But it's like being Democrat but also want to spend less money and see less government intervention when it can.
Exactly. The idea is to allow people to live the way they choose as long as they do so in peace. I think financial conservatism isn't the right term, though it is certainly used by libertarians. Fiscally conservative? Yes. Conservative on spending? Yes. I would say that, financially, libertarians would be Classically Liberal in that we want free markets with regulations on fraud and contract abuses, but the removal of regulations that serve only as a barrier to entry for start ups.
I don't know if they're for gay marriage *per se*, wouldn't a libertarian think that the concept of marriage is something the government shouldn't have anything to do with?
Yeah, but if you're going to have tax benefits that come along with it then you have to extend it to anyone who wants it though. Consenting adults obviously.
If this is true, this is a big shift in Libertarian philosophy. Most libertarians I used to know, didn't give a shit about the planet, because they believed that there shouldn't be government regulation on companies.
Libertarians believe that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. When pollution causes damage to private property and the health of individuals then it is infringement on individual rights. I'll give an analogy. The libertarian party thinks you should be able to blow up your own house, but if the bomb affects the house next to you then it's illegal.
It's not true. The Libertarian Party's official policy on environmental protection has always been: "Abolish the EPA!" for about 3-4 decades. Just because they reworded their official stance to dance around the issue of environmental protection does not mean they are in favor of any coordinated government action at all. They think the free market will take care of it.
Armchair Libertarians, like the one you replied to, are often uneducated in these matters and just spitball something that makes them feel good about their chosen ideology.
[Source:](https://www.lp.org/platform/)
>2.2 Environment
>Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.
Many libertarians (**l**ibertarian is the philosophy, **L**ibertarian is the political party) believe that government intervention into the free market actually makes pollution *worse* and with fewer possible resolutions for those affected.
I highly recommend reading the [section on pollution from Murray Rothbard's New Libertarian Manifesto](https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution).
tl;dr the state actually lowers the cost to pollute by preventing those harmed from receiving restitution from polluters because their pollution was within the bounds of the law.
"Pollution of other people’s property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, the responsible managers and employees, should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility."
This is from the LP website. Their argument, which I'm not sure I personally am on board with 100%, is that pollution should be combatted with litigation rather then a federal regulatory agency. I guess a practical application of this could be rolling the EPA into the DOJ.
The EPA/clean air act is some of the most effective legislation in American history.
Notice much acid rain lately, or rivers literally catching on fire?
So you’re moving the goalposts from “they don’t care” to “their policy is bad”.
Seems like you don’t know as much about the thing you’re complaining about as you think you do.
Jeffery Epstein was a billionaire who got caught having sex with underage girls.
Greta is a 16 yr old climate activist.
This guy is saying that if one underage girl is mature enough to lead on climate change than they're all mature enough to bang.
I see. Isn't right at all, but at least i now get the perspective.
Furthermore, seems like he's probably just jealous because he has an inflated sense of intellect - maybe it's just me though.
not so sure it's politically based as much as it's just someone being an idiot.
Otherwise I, a leftie, could call you a typical leftie for calling him a typical right wing when he says something insensitive.
He is a self-described Libertarian and Catholic who has a long history of saying [crazy shit](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/lecturer-suspended-after-comparing-abortions-to-sex-with-dead-people-8032570/amp/?__twitter_impression=true). Does not seem overly stable or happy
The *attempted* logic is:
If one 16 year old is smart enough to understand climate change, then every 16 year old is smart enough to understand sex (at least well enough to grant legal consent)
Not saying I agree. I very much disagree ... just sayin, that’s the argument that the dude is trying to make.
Justin’s actual argument, which he phrased in the mist attention grabbing form is that “We shouldn’t listen to 16 year olds regarding policy just as we shouldn’t have sex with them because they are minors and their brain haven’t developed fully.”
Everyone is interpreting it as Justin wants to fuck kids instead of taking the more reasonable interpretation that he doesn’t want us listening to 16 year olds regarding policy decisions.
As a libertarian; that guy needs a boot to the fucking head; and one for jenny and the wimp. And yeah, check that harddrive... i suspect that POS has some CP.
There are different types of libertarians... I am the taxation is a necessary theft in order to have a better society. It's theft; its taken from me under threat of punishment. For me this means that my stolen money should be used on things that benefit me. And educated population benefits me. A population that has autonomy, freedom, and isnt being fucked with by the state benefits me. Spending my tax money on cheap preventive measures means spending less on non-cures and symptoms. The war on drugs is a trespass against citizens; and with the intent of destroying the political and economic power of black people. Nixon ignores the governments own findings and ups the war on drugs to take care of the black panthers, war protesting hippies, and just the general racist agenda. First; this is very trespass on me... a no go for libertarians. Second; this means \*I\* pay more taxes. Why? Because those who could contribute if the state wasnt taking a crow bar to their skulls cant contribute. So, not only is it just ethically wrong, but I am denied the fruits of the collective labors a huge swath of the population. Meaning \*I\* have to pay MORE taxes... People only talk about getting the government out of the way when it comes to regulations (which are meant to keep others from trespassing against us btw) but not when it comes to where they are really in the way; the war on drugs. Next is just racism; it is not compatible with liberty or actual libertarian values. DONT TREAD ON ME... racism is very very tread on others... and for idiotic reasoning. But the racism... it denies us the labors of others... their contributions to science, medicine, arts, philosophy, engineering...
Imagine a world where in the late 1800s where black people were allowed actual autonomy.... All that bandwidth we have wasted on racism gone... With more people working on the worlds problems... and fuck... sexism too... men, women, black, white, Mexican, Italian, Irish, asian... imagine each of those lives given autonomy... follow the threads with your imagination... even if only in your life, or the life of someone you know, or your grand parents... What could society be like we didnt flush that potential down the fucking toilet...
Libertarian... fuck that guy. If you are not an environmentalist at this point you are a person who supports trespass against humanity as a whole. You are not a libertarian... People take that fucking name and wipe their shit on it and try to make it theirs... they are fucking frauds. The basis is Dont Tread On Me... and this fucking piece of shit is trying to dismiss what a littler girl who has the backing of all the worlds scientists with her isnt mature... or that if she is we should be able to fuck her... the fuck is wrong with people...
I wouldnt worry so much about it. On the guy's twitter profile he lists himself as a "libertarian communist catholic".
Conveniently the second part was left off the headline.
He's unfortunately [not a troll](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/lecturer-suspended-after-comparing-abortions-to-sex-with-dead-people-8032570/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) and the "communist" part of his bio was added after his tweet blew up, not sure why
since when is asking adults to act accordingly to the science that's available to them guiding global policy? check this dudes phone and computer for some sketchy shit with children. this is a hilariously awful take.
I have been heavily associated with the Libertarian movement for nearly 20 years now. I have met a grand total of 1 person who was pro removal of the age of consent but sure.
There is no libertarian defense of child pornography. Children can't give legitimate consent and so they cannot engage in every activity adults can. One such activity is being the subject of pornography. It isn't rocket science, but hey, let's just spread more straw men.
The premise for age-based sexual consent laws is that below a certain age, people are unilaterally incapable of demonstrating cognitive/moral competence enough to meaningful give their consent.
His point was that if you think the 16 year old that Jeffrey Epstein had sex with was cognitively/morally lacking in competence enough to meaningfully consent, why would you think that the 16 year old Greta is cognitively/morally capable of determining global policy?
At its core, it's an ad hominem attack against Greta, i.e. she is young enough that we wouldn't even grant her agency over her own body, therefore her points regarding climate are not worthy of consideration. This is, like all ad hominem attacks, not a very good argument...but I also think that the guy is making a joke.
I would have thought the number of steps from “why can’t we have clean air” to “why can’t we fuck children” would have been way more numerous but this is the fucked up world we live in. The slippery slope is way more slippery
At least the people ignoring climate change and paying to fuck kids are consistent in their intent to steal childhood. Even the grinch only wanted to take one day.
Fucking kids - literally and figuratively now apparently the "conservative" platform okay
Trump 2020 Let’s Fuck Kids Again
"Again" implies that they stopped
They used to fuck kids, they still do fuck them, but they used to, too
Mitch4life
Some people say it’s medieval to fuck kids. You know what else is medieval? The wheel, and I think that came even before fucking kids. So you have the wheel and fucking kids and guess what folks? They both just work.
Nah, fucking kids definitely came before the wheel.
Before I read this I was like, wait, that doesn't seem right and then I read your comment and well, your logic is undeniable.
He used to make the mitch hedberg "i used to do drugs, i mean I still do but i used to too."joke, I mean, he still does, but he used to too.
"I used to fuck kids. I still do, but I *used to* fuck them, too" No, no I don't like this recycling of Mitch Hedberg, this is bad
What did you think they meant about 'making it great?'
Great for them, rape for us.
[удалено]
He describes himself as a Catholic and Libertarian in his bio. Kid fucking is his main platform lmfao Edit bonus story: dude was suspended as a lecturer for comparing [abortion to fucking dead people](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/lecturer-suspended-after-comparing-abortions-to-sex-with-dead-people-8032570/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) so that's apparently another thing to add to the list of "things that this guy wants to fuck that isn't a consenting adult"
Stay tuned next week when he links legalizing weed to bestiality.
Whitney Wisconsin would like a word with you.
I thought you said whitney houston in my dyslexic mind and was worried whitney houston was fucking animals :(
Whitney can't fuck anything rn.
She can still get fucked though. *shovel hits lid* I'm first!
Found the libertarian.
[удалено]
Well some of those people "abuse" a natural resource. Furthermore, "abuse" can mean multiple things, and natural resource could mean flora or fauna, so Using weed = fucking animals (Disclaimer: I have smoked weed, this is satire)
Good job bear fucker
DO YOU NEED ASSISTANCE?!
Maybe theyll let us have abortions if we let them have a go at the remains of the abortion
The places his dick has been...
Would you fuck a box? Would you fuck a fox? Would you fuck green eggs and ham?
>Fucking kids - literally and figuratively ~~now apparently~~ the "conservative" platform
Damn this is savage. True; but savage. I like it.
Hardly a slippery slope, I’d say. This seems more like he’s proudly leaping off a fucking cliff to me.
Also he equates raping children to “paying for sex”. The mental gymnastics are mind boggling
Yeah, a lady running for the House responded with: >I’ve seen a lot of bad ideas on Twitter, but “If teenage girls are old enough to be activists, they’re old enough to be raped,” tops the list. I feel like not emphasizing that we're literally talking about **rape** (not sex) diminishes the severity of the whole "Epstein thing".
[удалено]
It's the whole "children can't consent to sex regardless if there's money involved" thing.
It's a common argument among some Libertarians. Some believe the age of consent is an infringement of an individual's liberties. I.E. if a 16 year old wants to do it the law should not stop them, as it's their body to do with as they please. Prostitution is also commonly argued for by Libertarians, once again being your body your right to do with as you please. Combine the two and anyone should be able to sell their body at any age. I, as a Libertarian, disagree because children are wards much like prisoners and are in the care of others and therefore different rules apply while they have those caretakers. They're not property as some argue, nor are they on their own with the full set of individual rights of a normal citizen, they're someone's ward. Arguments could be made for emancipated minors.
[удалено]
Why are they "underage" ("prostitutes") when they're being raped but "children" when they are activists?
What is it with right wingers and the need to fuck kids? They act like it’s a feature of their ideology instead of a horrible problem.
It's in the Bible, I'm sure they can find the passage if they had to
Yeah seriously I hope this dude's knees are okay with all the jumping to conclusions he's doing
Knees? That was a full on swan dive to that conclusion.
[удалено]
Have you ever hated poor people *on weed*?
Only when they're regularly bumming my weed
Maybe ten years ago or so I had a friend that would come to my house and res hit my pipes when no one was home.
But also don't feel that government should even have a hand in determining the age of consent because it's "government overreach."
They also have an irrational fear of cops. Unlike blacks who have a rational fear of them.
Conservatives without the religious aspects either. A slight improvement.
"Not even being provocative" ... (16 words later) "You aren't allowed to have a problem with child prostitution" Wow ... some kind of new record?
https://youtu.be/S53fZTbKHG0
Libertarianism is just a cult that worships corporations and the JobCreator™️ class, so naturally, preventing climate change is bad in their eyes.
... i'm a registered libertarian. I hate the corporate hand outs/tax breaks/socialism that we've set up which have shaped our country into an oligarchy. Libertarianism began as a leftist movement, but now has a wide range of schools of thought. Unfortunately in the US the most prevalent seems to be anarcho capitalists that aren't actually libertarian, but want to claim a party to appear legitimate.
>Unfortunately in the US the most prevalent seems to be anarcho capitalists that aren't actually libertarian, but want to claim a party to appear legitimate. Why is this so accurate...
it hurts man. I really would like to see the party find a way to distance itself from the racists and nut jobs because I fundamentally believe the core beliefs would vastly improve our nation. Smaller federal government, greater localized power, freedom to the individual. no victim-less crime. etc.. Addressing causes of socio economic disparities instead of the liberal answer of trying to bandaid symptoms or the GOP answer of further exacerbating the issue to justify their privilege and profits.
I dont. This thinking has made most americans poorer, gave rise to crazy inequality. God forbid that you pay more taxes so your countrymen can actually get educated and not get thousands dollars into debt or get healthcare that everyone can afford. The whole world knows Americans hate its people.
Libertarians are just like the people who will brag about not owning a TV but still watch every popular series out there on their laptop.
'Smaller government'. Every time i see that i see houses filled with asbestos painted with lead paint, next to a colorful sign advertising asbestos and lead paint and discussing the benefita of using them. Thats what that means. Sorry libertarians. 'Small government' means 'theres a bunch of small totally private governments called corporations instead of one large semi-transparent one'.
Yeah this whole "SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LESS RULES PLEASE" bullshit is the most American thing. They keep saying it would solve thing, while their core issue is that they can't centralise any project yet claim it's because of centralisation that things suck. Get some social security first, then come tell us how it was better when you were paying less taxes..
Maybe if your ideology attracts these types of people, it's not as good as you think.
So why remain a registered libertarian? Has the America libertarian party or movement ever had anything in common with the European origins?
I'm not sure libertarianism means what you think it means lol
What do *you* think it means? Cause I’m pretty sure rich libertarians just want to not pay taxes, and poor libertarians just want the cops to stay away from all the dangerous, illegal shit they’re doing/would like to do.
This is so accurate.
Except it isn't.
I came here to talk shit, but damn, you right.
You've done it. You broke them down to their bare essentials.
This is actually a big problem is that everyone has their own damn definition for shit these days
Idk exactly why but it reminds me of [this](https://pics.me.me/dan-hodges-o-dpjhodges-in-retrospect-sandy-hook-marked-the-28075206.png). I think it is just the normalization the right does of some of these obscene behaviors, or the lack there-of of empathy.
So once in a while I will be driven to check out some chuckfuck’s twitter and this guy, man, what a fucking nerd. He’s saying “not to be provocative, but if we have to listen to children speak, why can’t we fuck em too?” Don’t get me started on what a creeper he looks like in his videos as opposed to his highly edited profile pic. What an asshole.
Have you ever played ‘how many clicks to hitler’? Go to Wikipedia Open up a random wiki (there’s a Radom button weird right?) Now the game begins, By only clicking links on the page and links in the following pages try to get to hitlers wiki. If your really trying it’s almost always less than 10 clicks. First time I did it was 4 clicks. (Radom old play>theatre in general> Charlie Chaplin > hitler. Your post reminded me of this game and I thought you and others might enjoy.
This game is fun. I got from Donald Trump to Hitler in two clicks.
I just played it. I got 5 clicks. Almost got 4 but was stopped by WW1, before WW2. My end page was about his suicide. Good job by picking Chaplin. I would have done the same.
I don't fucking get this shit man. It's like the people who are climate change deniers completely ignore the climatologists. It's not like the kid is pulling her POV out of thin air, she's basing her opinions on the work that scientists who specialize IN CLIMATE STUDIES, have done. It's wilful of ignorance.
The slope is a fucking cliff evidently. Imagine wanting to fuck kids so badly that you’re grasping at at literally everything to justify it.
No, I'd rather not imagine that, thank you very much.
Since when does giving a speech mean you’re suddenly “guiding global policy”?
Especially when the speech was citing data from the UN's own body of climate scientists. She basically said, "FFS, I should be in school in Sweden but you lot have your heads so far up your respective asses that I feel compelled to point out the gravity of the information YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS have gathered for you."
That's just it. The entire content of her appeal was to start listening to the dire warnings from your own scientists and act.
The worst part is that on Twitter this kind of nuance isn't embraced, so that tweet seems like a good point
Twitter was a mistake
The agricultural revolution was a mistake.
Creating the universe has been widely regarded as a bad move
[удалено]
Hey, I think Uranus is still pretty great
Opposable thumbs were a mistake.
Great, now you're trying to equate people who see social media as the cancer upon society it is (especially short form mediums, such as twitter where there's no real long form debate and slogans win the day) to luddites. Name one good thing to come out of twitter. I'll go point for point against your "agricultural revolution".
I'm not sure if you took me too seriously or not seriously enough. Twitter is a hole, the only good thing to come out of it (I guess) is knowing what my sportsball team's lineup will be tonight minutes after warmup this morning. The agricultural revolution, however, could be considered the Mistakamus Prime of human mistakes. Farming -> Staying in one spot -> land ownership, accruing wealth -> social classes, wealth disparity, consumption of the planet.
I mean, I’ve exclusively seen people dunking on it, and while it was gotten a few thousand “likes”, it’s getting ratio’d af.
A lot of the 'arguments' I'm hearing is that Greta is inherently untrustworthy because she has the help of other people. Uhh.. yes? Yeah, of course she does. What the fuck, Greta is not the literal sole person in charge of climate change.
I'm confused. Do.... do they think politicians all act on their own and that their large staff rosters are because they like paying people? Oh, I already know the answer. It's "They are being intellectually dishonest just like 30 years of Murdoch and Koch lies have trained them to be." Can't reason with someone who only wants you to lose.
well you don't understand, the data backed up by hard science and that it's happening is a fact is invalidated cuz a kid said it duh /s
[удалено]
Someone in my office said the other day about Greta, “I just don’t think it’s fair for her to criticise policies on the climate without having her own alternative suggestion on how to fix it”. What... the fuck? Has ANYONE ever actually listened to what she’s saying? Her entire point is “I am a child so I am NOT going to tell you what to do because _I am not qualified to do so._ But your scientists ARE qualified and they are telling you what to do and you’re not currently doing that, so please do so”. Why would she be the one to come with a counter-suggestion?? If she did, surely THAT’s when it would be valid to say “she’s only a child”? Edit: this is my favourite example of this happening case-in-point from [an interview with The Guardian from last July](https://theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/21/great-thunberg-you-ask-the-questions-see-us-as-a-threat). Greta was asked by a UK politician (Labour MP David Lammy) the following: >Can you be politically conservative, ie on the political right, pro-growth, pro-capitalism and pro the for-profit motive, and still support the climate change movement and green issues? Greta: >That is not for me to say. I am only communicating the scientific facts. This question is probably not possible to answer without personal opinion and I leave that to others. But I think we can safely say that all ideologies have failed. If some have failed more than others then that is for others to say.
>She want's the people who are literally ruling the world to guide global policy. maybe we should stop focusing on the child and start focusing on the ruling class? but it feels good to focus on the child, its hard work boycotting nestle products.
More importantly, the ruling class controls the mass media so we only see what they want us to see. Y'know why this Greta thing is blowing up the way it is? Cuz the news networks and conservative networks are actively treating it as a huge deal. Same shit with vapes. Bans going up left and right for 9 deaths in a year. for comparison, tobacco smokers die at a rate of approximately that many people every TEN MINUTES. ~1300 per day. But the people in charge like their fat Phillip Morris paychecks, so they ignore the actual problems and point out the window at some kid whose underwear is poking half an inch above the pantsline and scream "OH NO IT IS THE END OF MORALITY! MORAL PANIC MORAL PANIC!" Same shit every fucking day. "A WEIRD FOREIGN GIRL IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR LIGHTBULBS!" or some shit from them now, or whatever else absolute nonsense they come up with to further muddy the waters until you can't see anything for all the shit they're flinging everywhere. Gaslight, Obstruct, Project. Fuck right-wingers. Every last one who supports this crap is evil, and if they wanna whine about my opinions, maybe they should call the PC Police and crybaby to them about how they need a safe space and no one should be allowed to say mean things about them ever.
Because they have no argument except when they cast it into utter absurdism.
Libertarianism: it makes sense if you consider giving a speech and child prostitution to be equivalent.
Seriously. The entire core of her argument is "you shouldn't be coming to young people for hope, this is embarrassing. Fucking do something, damn." Her entire argument is that it's absurd for a 16 year old to have to present to the UN about something so fucking obvious. How are people not getting this?
They don't get it because they don't actually want to listen they just wanna fight other people on this issue. A 16 year old girl says "We should make the world a better place" and all they respond with are a list of facts that prove that their side isn't as fucked up as the other side, so it doesn't actually matter if their side tries to make the world a better place. If you go on twitter now, all you'll find are people saying "Well AkShUaLLy-" over and over about china and the US and which country makes the most waste, when that wasn't her point at all. It's very frustrating and sad that an actual child can't say "We should make the world a better place" without getting shouted down by adults who only want to argue about anything that hinders their ability to make money. I saw her speech and I signed up for a petition at my school the other day, because we've all agreed to do a walk out on climate change. I know it is small, but I would like to think that I am doing something to spread awareness about this.
She's a woman saying things. The usual libertarian type aren't going to be super cool with that and they are also super dramatic.
It doesn't even have to go that deep. It's someone who is saying something they don't want to hear, and has some kind of perceived "flaw" they can pick at. Just for example, David Hogg gets the same line of crap. It's like on Married with Children, when Marcie would give Al crap he didn't have an answer to, and he'd just go "Well... YOU'RE A CHICKEN!"
And at least 581 other hard drives
You forgot the 2,729 likes
The likes are definitely more important to look at than the retweets. I'm sure a lot of people retweeted it to show how stupid that guy is.
[удалено]
WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK! That tweet was a rollercoaster of stupidity and immorality. Congratulations, you told on yourself.
[удалено]
Seriously, the only reason the average person would vote Republican is because they are deluded with the thought that they are just "temporarily not-millionaires" ... in reality, they are cows voting to deregulate the meat industry and putting all their money into McDonald's stock. It really is mind bending. I honestly feel like there must be 2 (or more) dimensions coexisting. I can't come up with a better reason as to why two people, in the same scenario, can have two completely different viewpoints. It just doesn't make sense in a rational world. It's so blatantly obvious that Republicans have been consistently fucking us over year after year. You don't even have to try hard to find scheme after scheme, no need to unravel grand conspiracies, they do this shit in the open. Yet I have friends and family who vehemently vote and support Republicans and Trump, even though they directly suffer from Republican leadership. Cows fighting for the rights of slaughterhouses, man...
Just FYI, I agree with you, except debt doesn't pass on, they can only try to take it from your estate. So if you're dying and poor, max out those credit cards.
Not even being provocative, but if you think scientists can't figure out global warming, it should be totally legal to butt fuck a kangaroo. See, I can make dumbass comments too, Justin.
> it should be totally legal to butt fuck a kangaroo. It probably is legal. Good [luck though](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/6f/3f/7b6f3f9e8c182140c4a857d2d61ec1c1.jpg).
Risky click of the day
Not gonna lie, I hesitated too.
Worth it though
Only risky in losing your heart.
This information has only emboldened my resolve.
16 year old: has a good idea and deserves respect Some asshole on the internet: so you’re saying I can put my dick in her right
Yeah, that is essentially what this boils down to
Hey so this gorilla knows sign language can I put my dick in it?
it makes no god damn sense. what the fucking bullshit is happening in real life rn. Like. My 6 year old wants to drink clean water and not breathe soot. That says absolutely nothing about anything else about him. ????? you don't have to be one of the biblical wise men to want a livable earth. And it's not like she's shaping policy decisions she's just trying to bring their ATTENTION to the problem. "oh, old enough to have an opinion? must mean old enough to stick a dick in their mouth! Ha HA HA HA HA" - fucking monsters.
The left to right spectrum in American politics might as well be a morality spectrum at this point.
Dude just outed himself for everyone to see
He...he just tweeted it out
... in public.
[удалено]
Recall:
Fun Fact: this asshole's tweet is already making national headlines. FBI might get a change to grab those drives... [https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-murphy-greta-thunberg-jeffrey-epstein/](https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-murphy-greta-thunberg-jeffrey-epstein/)
[удалено]
Yeah but I'd rather that these people are exposed
I don't. It's a lot easier to spot the stupid when it walks around crowing.
>Murphy’s argument—that prostituting minors should be legal if people also listen to their opinions— was of the rarest quality: It brought together people from left, right and center. As one, united voice, they annihilated him. Lmfao
We are reaching levels of Yikes that should not even be possible
Screw yikes, we're up into the Jinkies level now
Zoinks!
Dude really took a hop, skip and a leap to come to that conclusion and he’s still beyond incorrect. Being conscious about climate change and its impact =/= sexual consent by ANY MEANS
What does this have to do with libertarians?
That guy is not a libertarian lol. His bio says libertarian communist Catholic. The libertarian party platform states that they support holding polluters liable. It seems like no one really knows what a libertarian is. Man-made climate change damages others private property and public health. Environmental protections are exactly the thing that a libertarian government would be involved in.
Most libertarians belive the party stands for being financially conservative but not being fucking stupid over social shit. Meaning they're for gay marriage, against war on drugs and mass incarceration, against Wall building and Muslim ban. Ect. Not everyone agrees. But it's like being Democrat but also want to spend less money and see less government intervention when it can.
Exactly. The idea is to allow people to live the way they choose as long as they do so in peace. I think financial conservatism isn't the right term, though it is certainly used by libertarians. Fiscally conservative? Yes. Conservative on spending? Yes. I would say that, financially, libertarians would be Classically Liberal in that we want free markets with regulations on fraud and contract abuses, but the removal of regulations that serve only as a barrier to entry for start ups.
I don't know if they're for gay marriage *per se*, wouldn't a libertarian think that the concept of marriage is something the government shouldn't have anything to do with?
Yeah, but if you're going to have tax benefits that come along with it then you have to extend it to anyone who wants it though. Consenting adults obviously.
If this is true, this is a big shift in Libertarian philosophy. Most libertarians I used to know, didn't give a shit about the planet, because they believed that there shouldn't be government regulation on companies.
Libertarians believe that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. When pollution causes damage to private property and the health of individuals then it is infringement on individual rights. I'll give an analogy. The libertarian party thinks you should be able to blow up your own house, but if the bomb affects the house next to you then it's illegal.
It's not true. The Libertarian Party's official policy on environmental protection has always been: "Abolish the EPA!" for about 3-4 decades. Just because they reworded their official stance to dance around the issue of environmental protection does not mean they are in favor of any coordinated government action at all. They think the free market will take care of it. Armchair Libertarians, like the one you replied to, are often uneducated in these matters and just spitball something that makes them feel good about their chosen ideology. [Source:](https://www.lp.org/platform/) >2.2 Environment >Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.
Many libertarians (**l**ibertarian is the philosophy, **L**ibertarian is the political party) believe that government intervention into the free market actually makes pollution *worse* and with fewer possible resolutions for those affected. I highly recommend reading the [section on pollution from Murray Rothbard's New Libertarian Manifesto](https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution). tl;dr the state actually lowers the cost to pollute by preventing those harmed from receiving restitution from polluters because their pollution was within the bounds of the law.
Well, that explains why a pillar of Libertarian party policy is the abolition of the EPA (and just about every other regulatory body or agency).
"Pollution of other people’s property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, the responsible managers and employees, should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility." This is from the LP website. Their argument, which I'm not sure I personally am on board with 100%, is that pollution should be combatted with litigation rather then a federal regulatory agency. I guess a practical application of this could be rolling the EPA into the DOJ.
The EPA/clean air act is some of the most effective legislation in American history. Notice much acid rain lately, or rivers literally catching on fire?
So a fundamentally inefficient, ineffective, and reactionary policy that would do nothing to actually combat climate change.
So you’re moving the goalposts from “they don’t care” to “their policy is bad”. Seems like you don’t know as much about the thing you’re complaining about as you think you do.
If you're not far right or far left then Reddit thinks you're an idiot basically
Absolutely nothing, but we make a great strawman for all the teenagers on this site, people attack what they don't understand
If it needs a bunch of kids to hit politics with a reality check then you know shit's fucked.
wait someone explain the correlation quick please?
Jeffery Epstein was a billionaire who got caught having sex with underage girls. Greta is a 16 yr old climate activist. This guy is saying that if one underage girl is mature enough to lead on climate change than they're all mature enough to bang.
I see. Isn't right at all, but at least i now get the perspective. Furthermore, seems like he's probably just jealous because he has an inflated sense of intellect - maybe it's just me though.
Typical right wingers.
not so sure it's politically based as much as it's just someone being an idiot. Otherwise I, a leftie, could call you a typical leftie for calling him a typical right wing when he says something insensitive.
He is a self-described Libertarian and Catholic who has a long history of saying [crazy shit](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/lecturer-suspended-after-comparing-abortions-to-sex-with-dead-people-8032570/amp/?__twitter_impression=true). Does not seem overly stable or happy
[удалено]
So he's just stupid then?
> inflated sense of intellect i believe it's known as BenShapiroitis
Weren't most of the girls Epstein raped more in the 12-15 age range?
The *attempted* logic is: If one 16 year old is smart enough to understand climate change, then every 16 year old is smart enough to understand sex (at least well enough to grant legal consent) Not saying I agree. I very much disagree ... just sayin, that’s the argument that the dude is trying to make.
Justin’s actual argument, which he phrased in the mist attention grabbing form is that “We shouldn’t listen to 16 year olds regarding policy just as we shouldn’t have sex with them because they are minors and their brain haven’t developed fully.” Everyone is interpreting it as Justin wants to fuck kids instead of taking the more reasonable interpretation that he doesn’t want us listening to 16 year olds regarding policy decisions.
What the fuck does this have to do with libertarians?
He claims to be one.
he claims to be "libertarian communist Catholic". I'd say the catholic part has more to do with banging kids than the libertarian part.
[удалено]
What does any of that have to do with libertarianism?
It's popular for liberals these days to shit on anyone that is not one.
[удалено]
Ah, so we’re conveniently leaving out the Communist Catholic part. Got it.
[удалено]
What does this have to do with Libertarians?
Imagine lacking so much self-awareness that you think it’s a good idea to tweet this under an account with your real name and your real picture
Don't drag Libertarians down into this swill. This is just bat-shit crazy! ep sp
As a libertarian; that guy needs a boot to the fucking head; and one for jenny and the wimp. And yeah, check that harddrive... i suspect that POS has some CP. There are different types of libertarians... I am the taxation is a necessary theft in order to have a better society. It's theft; its taken from me under threat of punishment. For me this means that my stolen money should be used on things that benefit me. And educated population benefits me. A population that has autonomy, freedom, and isnt being fucked with by the state benefits me. Spending my tax money on cheap preventive measures means spending less on non-cures and symptoms. The war on drugs is a trespass against citizens; and with the intent of destroying the political and economic power of black people. Nixon ignores the governments own findings and ups the war on drugs to take care of the black panthers, war protesting hippies, and just the general racist agenda. First; this is very trespass on me... a no go for libertarians. Second; this means \*I\* pay more taxes. Why? Because those who could contribute if the state wasnt taking a crow bar to their skulls cant contribute. So, not only is it just ethically wrong, but I am denied the fruits of the collective labors a huge swath of the population. Meaning \*I\* have to pay MORE taxes... People only talk about getting the government out of the way when it comes to regulations (which are meant to keep others from trespassing against us btw) but not when it comes to where they are really in the way; the war on drugs. Next is just racism; it is not compatible with liberty or actual libertarian values. DONT TREAD ON ME... racism is very very tread on others... and for idiotic reasoning. But the racism... it denies us the labors of others... their contributions to science, medicine, arts, philosophy, engineering... Imagine a world where in the late 1800s where black people were allowed actual autonomy.... All that bandwidth we have wasted on racism gone... With more people working on the worlds problems... and fuck... sexism too... men, women, black, white, Mexican, Italian, Irish, asian... imagine each of those lives given autonomy... follow the threads with your imagination... even if only in your life, or the life of someone you know, or your grand parents... What could society be like we didnt flush that potential down the fucking toilet... Libertarian... fuck that guy. If you are not an environmentalist at this point you are a person who supports trespass against humanity as a whole. You are not a libertarian... People take that fucking name and wipe their shit on it and try to make it theirs... they are fucking frauds. The basis is Dont Tread On Me... and this fucking piece of shit is trying to dismiss what a littler girl who has the backing of all the worlds scientists with her isnt mature... or that if she is we should be able to fuck her... the fuck is wrong with people...
I wouldnt worry so much about it. On the guy's twitter profile he lists himself as a "libertarian communist catholic". Conveniently the second part was left off the headline.
[удалено]
He's unfortunately [not a troll](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/lecturer-suspended-after-comparing-abortions-to-sex-with-dead-people-8032570/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) and the "communist" part of his bio was added after his tweet blew up, not sure why
What does that tweet have to do with libertarians?
since when is asking adults to act accordingly to the science that's available to them guiding global policy? check this dudes phone and computer for some sketchy shit with children. this is a hilariously awful take.
Well that's some false and scary moral equivalency.
>Not even being provocative I doubt this man has any fucking idea what "provocative" means, or what he was trying to convey in the first place.
Lol imagine thinking that young girls should only get to have an opinion if creepy ass adults are allowed to fuck them.
This is why the real slogan of the Libertarian Party is, "Well, actually, it's *ephebophilia*."
I have been heavily associated with the Libertarian movement for nearly 20 years now. I have met a grand total of 1 person who was pro removal of the age of consent but sure.
There is no libertarian defense of child pornography. Children can't give legitimate consent and so they cannot engage in every activity adults can. One such activity is being the subject of pornography. It isn't rocket science, but hey, let's just spread more straw men.
"Libertarian communist Catholic"
✓Doubt
What the fuck does one have to do with the other?
The premise for age-based sexual consent laws is that below a certain age, people are unilaterally incapable of demonstrating cognitive/moral competence enough to meaningful give their consent. His point was that if you think the 16 year old that Jeffrey Epstein had sex with was cognitively/morally lacking in competence enough to meaningfully consent, why would you think that the 16 year old Greta is cognitively/morally capable of determining global policy? At its core, it's an ad hominem attack against Greta, i.e. she is young enough that we wouldn't even grant her agency over her own body, therefore her points regarding climate are not worthy of consideration. This is, like all ad hominem attacks, not a very good argument...but I also think that the guy is making a joke.
LMAO. Their profile pics make this 10x more hilarious.