,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
You’ve got to see this logic from a con libertarian.
Actually making an argument that brain damaged children are the preferred option, since without pesticides they’d surely starve to death.
Con logic. Ensure corporations make money, consequences be damned.
Actually making an argument that brain damaged children are the preferred option, since without pesticides they’d surely starve to death.
Con logic. Ensure corporations make money, consequences be damned.
That’s the mindset of the con crowd. As long as corporations are making profits and jobs are available for them, they don’t care what the impact is on the environment or human health.
It’s not a partisan issue to expect food consumption in 2019 NOT to result in brain damage.
It’s not a partisan issue to expect food consumption in 2019 NOT to result in brain damage.
But cons make it a partisan issue. Only liberals and the left would worry about the effects of pesticides on children’s growing brains.
Carpe diem. Live in the moment. As long as they get what they want in the immediate future, screw everybody else.
Carpe diem. Live in the moment. As long as they get what they want in the immediate future, screw everybody else.
This isn’t conservatism. This is anarchy and might makes right. Only a selfish ghoul would argue a brain damaged child is a better option than finding alternatives to harmful pesticides.
Food safety isn’t an optional outcome for any partisan. But it is for cons.
Food safety isn’t an optional outcome for any partisan. But it is for cons.
Is this just mind boggling stupidity claiming false justification, or do cons not understand brain damage is permanent?
This is the mindset that resulted in Flint water crisis.
This is the mindset that resulted in Flint water crisis.
Canadian consumers need to be aware of the mindset cons have when making policy regarding food safety. Apparently safe consumption isn’t the priority. Ensuring the makers of dangerous pesticides continue to make profits is.
