Actually, wait nvm. I don't want to bully my friend.

Update with my Instagram story. Neither of them responded. Been waiting lol

"i'm trans so i can be mean" is the best comeback i've seen for today 😂 you just made my day

Good lol

hahaha remind me of this video from John Ward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJnVvssoRA&list=PLJa7Y_45wkz6fg8wehPp3DH8qD7O8IgGy&ab_channel=JohnWard

I don't know how to feel about the over population thing.

I think the main issue is how we treat the environment. And also how our dieting is with where our food comes from. I don't know if all of this makes sense.

Over population is a bigger issue in poorer countries, not in NA or EU

That
.... I can see.

I'm.. Not the best.. With the abortion topic...

Also another thing is I think Libs just don't give a real shit about the environment. Because if they think that being fat is healthy then I don't know how they can think McDonalds is healthy with it I think poissing people and the planet. (This is just one example. Don't take me too seriously.)

lol they support "living your best life" and "cheat days", railed against mcD but also dependent on it. did the bare minimum about environment but they had the pins to tell you all about it

That deserves a big BRUH

if they care, they would spend times talking with farmers and people who hunt and stuff to learn more about nature and actually LIVING in nature

they would also invest more in compost

Indeed. And also they can sue fast food restaurants for treating the animals like shit and feeding the animals horrible stuff and on top of that pretty much poisoning people. (This is an over exaggeration with the Poisoning part but I think you guys get the idea.) Also I find it ironic that a lot of liberal people really like Starbucks even though I heard Starbucks is complete fucking shit.

or make farmers not reliant on fertilizer

So if they actually supported organic farming?

🤦

...

🤦

...

🤦

What's the face palm for?

Humans have relatively nil impact on the environment on the scale that the activist claim

Justifying killing babies cause of "overpopulation" is so wrong and selfish it defies description in decent language.

Our cumulative affect on the worlds environment is somewhere around less than 3% over several decades. Sun cycles, galactic radiation, and other external forces account for the rest.

Overpopulation can be argued about cities, but outside of city centers, there are vast tracts of empty land.

All the arguments that I've ever seen for overpopulation only make sense if you've only lived in the middle of a city, and never traveled anywhere.

Why is it blurry?

The real reason for all the facepalms, is that all of you in this chat are not farmers, or forestry companies, or said employees, yet you want to make decisions with ZERO understanding of these industries.

That is not helpful or constructive in anyway.

Ok. ||My guy. I am just saying.|| 🤨 @Equalibrium

I know farmers, I know forestry personnel, and l've talked with them about these issues. People say all these things about fertilizers, trees giving of oxygen and not CO2 without understanding the facts.

It's the artificial fertilizers that are mandated by EPA regs that cause the issues we're dealing with in the US.
Only young trees give out more oxygen than CO2. Mature trees give off more CO2 and consume oxygen.

Not knowing these things and then regulating them so that you feel good, but are actually harming the environment in the same way you say you want to prevent damage to it is why we are at where we are now.

I understand but I don't get what your point is.... What is the moral of the story?

One could easily be - Do your research, for real, before asking for laws about things you don't understand.

Ok... I am still confused.

How about this is what both Libs and Conservatives get wrong about the enviroment?

...still confused.

Eh, I tried.

🤷