38 ms·

> This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?

by declan_roberts 3y ago

fwungy 3y ago
[flagged]
- Ma8ee 3y ago
  You know clearly absolutely nothing about Greta Thunberg.
  - NovaDudely 3y ago
    It is an idea that many floated as soon as Greta turned up in the news. They didn't like the message, so they decided to attack her rather than the ideas. Use some media based pareidolia and they had a conspiracy to make the world seem right again. It is easier to attack the person and the ideas of climate change, to stay pure in ideals and intent, than to accept dirty truth that we the people may have had any influence on the world that is even vaguely negative.
  - fwungy 3y ago
    I know a lot. Her parents are quite well connected and used their child because it works well in the media. Children want to please their parents and mimic their views. It's not a great idea to push young children into the media spotlight. It rarely turns out well for the child.
    - Ma8ee 3y ago
      This is what I meant with that you know nothing about her. Her parents didn't push her into the media spotlight. I'm certain some Youtube channel has told you otherwise, but the facts are that she herself was the driving force behind her activism, and she was the one that pushed her family to become more conscious about climate change.
      - fwungy 3y ago
        Tell me you don't have children without telling me. When a child makes it to a top tier of media attention parents are always involved. Children do not have the drive or capability necessary to do such things on their own. Of course the parents say it was all the child's doing, because the real story is not inspiring and actually somewhat ugly.
        Ma8ee 3y ago
        I do have children. Children with their own wills and drives, that don't all originates from us. They aren't in any way unique in that way. So you don't know anything about Greta, and has instead this made up story of her that isn't supported by any evidence, and you make up things about what you imagine children are to support your made up story. You aren't worth the time. Bye.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Keeping children out of our political system enables us to ignores their rights and needs. It's a form of discrimination. Young people get thrown under the bus, politically, all over the west. Non-dischargeable loans, reduction in spending for youth clubs, completely ignoring their needs when it comes to city planning. We are literally destroying the future of our society.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  Do you have kids?
- ersatzz 3y ago
  I don't know about you but when I was five I was busied myself by picking my nose and playing my gameboy. If given a soapbox I would probably voice something to the effect of being allowed to do the former with unlimited access to the later. I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really. Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.
  - anderskaseorg 3y ago
    A five year old child is a person who has rights. If those rights are being trampled on, then it’s 100% appropriate for the child’s guardians to seek legal recourse on their behalf (provided that it can be shown to the appropriate legal standard that the guardians are acting in the child’s interest, which seems like it wouldn’t be difficult in this case). What the child would say with a soapbox isn’t the relevant question.
    - ersatzz 3y ago
      I do not advocate for the oppression of children. Nothing I said have called into question the rights of a five year old. I never said that guardians can't advocate for their children. In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them. Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points. Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.
wyager 3y ago
It does seem weird that you can just hire random children for astroturfed legal campaigns like this, where the child has no direct connection to the case. Seems like that should probably fall afoul of child labor laws at some point.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  I assume that the young citizen is a resident of the state of Montana, and is potentially being harmed by the state. What other "direct connection" to atmospheric gasses and climate change do you need? That's what gives the child standing. This talk of "hiring" is just trolling, but since you brought it up. Montana is currently considering weakening its child labor protections, so there's that. https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-laws-under-attack/ https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-laws-under-attac...
ethbr1 3y ago
Are the elderly prevented from making claims in the legal system?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vkou 3y ago
It can be reasoned have a more significant claim to the future than some 85-year old.
- brink 3y ago
  Doesn't change the fact that a five year old is not going to understand this complicated issue enough to make a balanced argument.
  - GolfPopper 3y ago
    An official government policy of "pretend climate change doesn't exist" is not a complicated issue.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      Much more complicated is making policy because of climate change that is hardly defined precedent anyway. It's not priority for some.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Fortunately, we live in a adversarial legal system, where each side in a courtroom makes a self-serving argument, as opposed to a balanced one, and its up to the jury and judge to figure out a balanced path that reconciles those self-serving viewpoints. (And if we're going to limit rights to people who can understand complicated issues and make balanced arguments about them, an awful lot of 85-yer olds are going to be in a bit of a pickle. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to explore excluding anyone who, say, needs to wear diapers from both political and legal processes... There is a minimum voting age, after all, why not a maximum one?)
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      Exactly. If the 5 year old can understand "These people are making climate change worse and will make the world hotter when I grow up." (which is in the capacity of most 5 year olds) then it's perfectly fine. There are adults who don't understand intricacies of their positions, why should a 5 year old?
gedy 3y ago
Activist parents usually arrange these things as a PR move
8note 3y ago
5 year olds still have constitutional rights that can be violated
- pxmpxm 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure he or she would be able to articulate the meaning of the proper nouns you used in that sentence. Less generous take would be "enviro-hobby parents pimp out their pre-K kids for a publicity stunt"

> This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?

fwungy 3y ago

[flagged]

Ma8ee 3y ago
You know clearly absolutely nothing about Greta Thunberg.
- NovaDudely 3y ago
  It is an idea that many floated as soon as Greta turned up in the news. They didn't like the message, so they decided to attack her rather than the ideas. Use some media based pareidolia and they had a conspiracy to make the world seem right again. It is easier to attack the person and the ideas of climate change, to stay pure in ideals and intent, than to accept dirty truth that we the people may have had any influence on the world that is even vaguely negative.
- fwungy 3y ago
  I know a lot. Her parents are quite well connected and used their child because it works well in the media. Children want to please their parents and mimic their views. It's not a great idea to push young children into the media spotlight. It rarely turns out well for the child.
  - Ma8ee 3y ago
    This is what I meant with that you know nothing about her. Her parents didn't push her into the media spotlight. I'm certain some Youtube channel has told you otherwise, but the facts are that she herself was the driving force behind her activism, and she was the one that pushed her family to become more conscious about climate change.
    - fwungy 3y ago
      Tell me you don't have children without telling me. When a child makes it to a top tier of media attention parents are always involved. Children do not have the drive or capability necessary to do such things on their own. Of course the parents say it was all the child's doing, because the real story is not inspiring and actually somewhat ugly.
      - Ma8ee 3y ago
        I do have children. Children with their own wills and drives, that don't all originates from us. They aren't in any way unique in that way. So you don't know anything about Greta, and has instead this made up story of her that isn't supported by any evidence, and you make up things about what you imagine children are to support your made up story. You aren't worth the time. Bye.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

Keeping children out of our political system enables us to ignores their rights and needs. It's a form of discrimination. Young people get thrown under the bus, politically, all over the west. Non-dischargeable loans, reduction in spending for youth clubs, completely ignoring their needs when it comes to city planning. We are literally destroying the future of our society.

t0bia_s 3y ago
Do you have kids?
ersatzz 3y ago
I don't know about you but when I was five I was busied myself by picking my nose and playing my gameboy. If given a soapbox I would probably voice something to the effect of being allowed to do the former with unlimited access to the later. I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really. Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.
- anderskaseorg 3y ago
  A five year old child is a person who has rights. If those rights are being trampled on, then it’s 100% appropriate for the child’s guardians to seek legal recourse on their behalf (provided that it can be shown to the appropriate legal standard that the guardians are acting in the child’s interest, which seems like it wouldn’t be difficult in this case). What the child would say with a soapbox isn’t the relevant question.
  - ersatzz 3y ago
    I do not advocate for the oppression of children. Nothing I said have called into question the rights of a five year old. I never said that guardians can't advocate for their children. In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them. Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points. Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.

wyager 3y ago

It does seem weird that you can just hire random children for astroturfed legal campaigns like this, where the child has no direct connection to the case. Seems like that should probably fall afoul of child labor laws at some point.

jonathankoren 3y ago
I assume that the young citizen is a resident of the state of Montana, and is potentially being harmed by the state. What other "direct connection" to atmospheric gasses and climate change do you need? That's what gives the child standing. This talk of "hiring" is just trolling, but since you brought it up. Montana is currently considering weakening its child labor protections, so there's that. https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-laws-under-attack/ https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-laws-under-attac...

ethbr1 3y ago

Are the elderly prevented from making claims in the legal system?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

vkou 3y ago

It can be reasoned have a more significant claim to the future than some 85-year old.

brink 3y ago
Doesn't change the fact that a five year old is not going to understand this complicated issue enough to make a balanced argument.
- GolfPopper 3y ago
  An official government policy of "pretend climate change doesn't exist" is not a complicated issue.
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    Much more complicated is making policy because of climate change that is hardly defined precedent anyway. It's not priority for some.
- vkou 3y ago
  Fortunately, we live in a adversarial legal system, where each side in a courtroom makes a self-serving argument, as opposed to a balanced one, and its up to the jury and judge to figure out a balanced path that reconciles those self-serving viewpoints. (And if we're going to limit rights to people who can understand complicated issues and make balanced arguments about them, an awful lot of 85-yer olds are going to be in a bit of a pickle. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to explore excluding anyone who, say, needs to wear diapers from both political and legal processes... There is a minimum voting age, after all, why not a maximum one?)
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    Exactly. If the 5 year old can understand "These people are making climate change worse and will make the world hotter when I grow up." (which is in the capacity of most 5 year olds) then it's perfectly fine. There are adults who don't understand intricacies of their positions, why should a 5 year old?

gedy 3y ago

Activist parents usually arrange these things as a PR move

8note 3y ago

5 year olds still have constitutional rights that can be violated

pxmpxm 3y ago
Yeah, I'm sure he or she would be able to articulate the meaning of the proper nouns you used in that sentence. Less generous take would be "enviro-hobby parents pimp out their pre-K kids for a publicity stunt"