An attorney tells ABC News that one of his clients told the House Ethics Committee that she witnessed then-Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz having sex with a minor.
I don’t get it at all… My best guess is that because OP once heard Darwin say “people tend to cue fights they anticipate in hopes it will deter the fight”, that OP somehow hoped by saying “a minor is not a child”, no one would have a fight regarding if a minor is a child?
But like, obviously it would cause the fight, so that can’t be it. And it leaves me with so many questions…
A minor is of an age that they are incapable of giving consent, so everything after is just linguistic debates pushed by pedos right?
What does Charles Darwin have to do with this at all?
How, in this case, are evolution and fight prevention related?
How is evolutionary based fight prevention and the definition of “a minor” related?
Please explain what I missed, because I don’t appear to be the only one.
Read the Charles Darwin bit a few times till it seeps in?
I don’t get it at all… My best guess is that because OP once heard Darwin say “people tend to cue fights they anticipate in hopes it will deter the fight”, that OP somehow hoped by saying “a minor is not a child”, no one would have a fight regarding if a minor is a child?But like, obviously it would cause the fight, so that can’t be it. And it leaves me with so many questions…A minor is of an age that they are incapable of giving consent, so everything after is just linguistic debates pushed by pedos right?What does Charles Darwin have to do with this at all?How, in this case, are evolution and fight prevention related?How is evolutionary based fight prevention and the definition of “a minor” related?Can a joke be funny, even if no one gets it?Edit: Shit, just got it.
This is a very stupid game. If you’re not going to tell me what I missed, forget it.