Matt Walsh advocated for impregnating 16 year olds because it's "technically when ... most fertile"

[Santander]

I don't see anything wrong with what they said.

And he asserted 17-24 is when women are most fertile, he didn't advocate for anyone of any age to be impregnated.

[Joe Republic]

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

You need to use more of your imaginative capacity if all you can visualize is, conveniently, the argument that makes him look the worst in your eyes, when a wide range of possibilities exists and they've not taken the step of giving us the source of the clip. Say we take your reading of his conclusion at face value; that still fails to make him look very bad. Teen pregnancy is a significantly less common thing in America than it was 40 years ago. Unwed pregnancies are on the other hand more common now than the start of the same time frame.

In any case, I think it's healthy to have skepticism and demand a higher burden of proof than "someone on Twitter decided to summarize it in X and Y terms". If they were so confident in this being the way they say it is (and also intellectually honest), they would have posted a link to something longer than a 139-second-long clip and allowed us to judge it for ourselves.

Minor anecdote here: back in 2014 Democratic senate candidate Mark Pryor was attacked by Republicans on the issue of Social Security. What they did was cherry-pick statements from him talking about potential social security reforms and then sold it as his unaltered opinions (essentially bending the truth to at least try to make him look bad). That's basically the same thing as what these Twitter users likely did here. I'm willing to consider both to be dishonest, I hope you can do the same.

I'll try again:

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

You need to use more of your imaginative capacity if all you can visualize is, conveniently, the argument that makes him look the worst in your eyes, when a wide range of possibilities exists and they've not taken the step of giving us the source of the clip. Say we take your reading of his conclusion at face value; that still fails to make him look very bad. Teen pregnancy is a significantly less common thing in America than it was 40 years ago. Unwed pregnancies are on the other hand more common now than the start of the same time frame.

In any case, I think it's healthy to have skepticism and demand a higher burden of proof than "someone on Twitter decided to summarize it in X and Y terms". If they were so confident in this being the way they say it is (and also intellectually honest), they would have posted a link to something longer than a 139-second-long clip and allowed us to judge it for ourselves.

Minor anecdote here: back in 2014 Democratic senate candidate Mark Pryor was attacked by Republicans on the issue of Social Security. What they did was cherry-pick statements from him talking about potential social security reforms and then sold it as his unaltered opinions (essentially bending the truth to at least try to make him look bad). That's basically the same thing as what these Twitter users likely did here. I'm willing to consider both to be dishonest, I hope you can do the same.

I'll try again:

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

(IFstudies)
Here's more info on the topic

(Pew Research)
(more info)
The ball is now in your court. Hysteria or reason. Which road will you go down?
Remember that it's never too late to enlighten yourself.

It's always funny how conservatives think teen pregnancy didn't exist back then. It's like how nobody cares to mention that the poverty rate in the 'prosperous' 50s was over 25%.

Up to 10% of females suffered through a teen pregnancy, while today less than 2% do. Shouldn't that be considered a good thing?

[Joe Republic]

(IFstudies)
Here's more info on the topic

(Pew Research)
(more info)
The ball is now in your court. Hysteria or reason. Which road will you go down?
Remember that it's never too late to enlighten yourself.

I'm not sure why you went to the effort of providing statistics that we already know.  I even said (twice) that the information Walsh provided "is true; we all know that".  The question is what broader point this creep is trying to make.  Because it sure as hell sounds like he's complaining about society's relatively recent decision that teenage girls getting married and impregnated is pretty gross.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's always funny how conservatives think teen pregnancy didn't exist back then. It's like how nobody cares to mention that the poverty rate in the 'prosperous' 50s was over 25%.

Up to 10% of females suffered through a teen pregnancy, while today less than 2% do. Shouldn't that be considered a good thing?

It's easier to maintain a fiction about some allegedly perfect (or close enough) past if you don't acknowledge some things that people in the present are doing better.
If the pendelum swings the other way and liberals lose out on the culture wars and society becomes more conservative, then liberals probably will glorify things about this time and just ignore some things getting in the way of an image of "utopia". It's a common expression of human nature to look at some past period. Sadly, even present-ism is common - regardless of the millennia we're looking at.

[Хahar 🤔]

Joe, why are you doing this?

[Joe Republic]

Joe, why are you doing this?

Why am I doing this?  What do you mean? 

[DaleCooper]

I don't see anything wrong with what they said.

And he asserted 17-24 is when women are most fertile, he didn't advocate for anyone of any age to be impregnated.

I don't understand why liberals try to mislead people about these guys. Conservative pundits are the most disgusting people on the planet, you don't need dishonesty to make them look horrible.

[Хahar 🤔]

Joe, why are you doing this?

Why am I doing this?  What do you mean? 

You're banging your head against a brick wall. It's a waste of your time.

[Joe Republic]

Joe, why are you doing this?

Why am I doing this?  What do you mean? 

You're banging your head against a brick wall. It's a waste of your time.

Ah, fair point.  I don't know.  I can't always keep up with which posters are worth interacting with, especially as so many of them have essentially set up shop on their own planets.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Joe, why are you doing this?

Why am I doing this?  What do you mean?  

You're banging your head against a brick wall. It's a waste of your time.

Ah, fair point.  I don't know.  I can't always keep up with which posters are worth interacting with, especially as so many of them have essentially set up shop on their own planets.

Looking back, I think I've been overly high-and-mighty here and I apologize.
This thread was not worth my time and I am sorry for inadvertently wasting your time. Frankly, between the twitter poster, and Walsh (who also seems like an outrage trafficker), I am thinking "plague on both your houses".
EDIT: I have followed up with this by deleting three posts in this thread.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

You need to use more of your imaginative capacity if all you can visualize is, conveniently, the argument that makes him look the worst in your eyes, when a wide range of possibilities exists and they've not taken the step of giving us the source of the clip. Say we take your reading of his conclusion at face value; that still fails to make him look very bad. Teen pregnancy is a significantly less common thing in America than it was 40 years ago. Unwed pregnancies are on the other hand more common now than the start of the same time frame.

In any case, I think it's healthy to have skepticism and demand a higher burden of proof than "someone on Twitter decided to summarize it in X and Y terms". If they were so confident in this being the way they say it is (and also intellectually honest), they would have posted a link to something longer than a 139-second-long clip and allowed us to judge it for ourselves.

Minor anecdote here: back in 2014 Democratic senate candidate Mark Pryor was attacked by Republicans on the issue of Social Security. What they did was cherry-pick statements from him talking about potential social security reforms and then sold it as his unaltered opinions (essentially bending the truth to at least try to make him look bad). That's basically the same thing as what these Twitter users likely did here. I'm willing to consider both to be dishonest, I hope you can do the same.

I'll try again:

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

(IFstudies)
Here's more info on the topic

(Pew Research)
(more info)
The ball is now in your court. Hysteria or reason. Which road will you go down?
Remember that it's never too late to enlighten yourself.

It's always funny how conservatives think teen pregnancy didn't exist back then. It's like how nobody cares to mention that the poverty rate in the 'prosperous' 50s was over 25%.

Up to 10% of females suffered through a teen pregnancy, while today less than 2% do. Shouldn't that be considered a good thing?

Conservatives see a huge difference between an unmarried 15 year old and a married 19 year old, but both get counted the same way as "teen pregnancy."

[Del Tachi]

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

You need to use more of your imaginative capacity if all you can visualize is, conveniently, the argument that makes him look the worst in your eyes, when a wide range of possibilities exists and they've not taken the step of giving us the source of the clip. Say we take your reading of his conclusion at face value; that still fails to make him look very bad. Teen pregnancy is a significantly less common thing in America than it was 40 years ago. Unwed pregnancies are on the other hand more common now than the start of the same time frame.

In any case, I think it's healthy to have skepticism and demand a higher burden of proof than "someone on Twitter decided to summarize it in X and Y terms". If they were so confident in this being the way they say it is (and also intellectually honest), they would have posted a link to something longer than a 139-second-long clip and allowed us to judge it for ourselves.

Minor anecdote here: back in 2014 Democratic senate candidate Mark Pryor was attacked by Republicans on the issue of Social Security. What they did was cherry-pick statements from him talking about potential social security reforms and then sold it as his unaltered opinions (essentially bending the truth to at least try to make him look bad). That's basically the same thing as what these Twitter users likely did here. I'm willing to consider both to be dishonest, I hope you can do the same.

I'll try again:

Kindly explain what somebody could possibly be arguing when they explain at length that teenage girls getting married and pregnant used to be the norm (which is true; we all know that), and then concludes that "so the problem (today) is not teenage pregnancy; the problem is unwed pregnancy."

He means rates of teenage pregnancy are down and rates of unwed pregnancy are up. 

If you're concerned about the number of American children being born into precarious or unsupported situations, then births to unwed mothers (in their 20s or 30s) are a way bigger problem than births to teen mothers. 

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I'm suspicious of this.
Of course, it's easy to cut the context and make something out of nothing.

Around here it is commonplace. 

Idk man I... am not sure what not-weird context this dude could be in where he is likely to say this!

[free my dawg]

https://twitter.com/DreamLeaf5/status/1577842605466955782/photo

[Ferguson97]