Because of course putting some pink paint on something that was easily removed is as bad as not caring about the climate crisis.
— Amanda Sather (she/her) (@Amanda_Sather) March 2, 2023
"X is bad, so if Y is less bad than you should be allowed to do Y" is the logical leaps that delusional believers in global warming engage in. Mr. Sather is only the latest to be guilty of it.
As is typical of eco-nutters, the actual facts on the ground don't line up with their beliefs. Alan appears to be in his mid-30s, which means for his entire adult life he hasn't witnessed any manmade global warming. Let's put that aside for now though, and let's assume that Mr. Sather's garbage beliefs at all align with the facts. Let's actually say that X is bad, and then let's also presume that petty vandalism (Y) isn't particularly bad.
With Sather allow conservatives the exact same path forward? For example, say a gun rights advocate (worried that hateful government policies will literally "erase" us) decided to protest a proposed hunting ban by vandalizing this BC mural devoted to dogs?
How about if paint is used on an office building to protest a nearby library letting faggots in dresses read to little kids? Because of course putting some paint onto something that's easily removed is as bad as not caring about child molesters recruiting kids into their evil lifestyle.
That's how this works, right? It's not just something you're excusing specifically because you (stupidly) believe in the same cause as the mammoth protesters, is it?
