• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -18
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You see your honour, he was wearning a bulletproof vest, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was save all along!

    • @FooBarrington
      link
      8
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      More like “you see your honor, he was behind a 10-foot-thick wall of lead, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was safe all along!”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -9
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        “The painting itself was unharmed, but the 17th-century frame sustained some damage after the soup acted as paint stripper on the delicate surface.”

        So climate activists’ official position is to target the frames of these paintings, as they see them as important enough to piss people off but not important enough to preserve?

        Time to lock originals away from the public forever.

        • @mmcintyre
          link
          43 months ago

          Way to solve one of the most pressing issues of our day. Just great work, man. The planet really isn’t that important when compared to some 17th century art. That’s where we really need to focus our preservation and conservation efforts!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            03 months ago

            That’s where we’re going to focus the problem solving, when that’s how you choose to stir shit up. We’re going to focus on preventing climate activists from destroying shit, and we’re going to talk about how to punish them.

        • @FooBarrington
          link
          133 months ago

          Oh well, we all know that honourable judges always make morally good decisions, don’t we?

          • TheTechnician27
            link
            English
            83 months ago

            Yes exactly! The judiciary is infallible and so that’s exactly why the SCOTUS is the least fallible institution there is.