cm0002@europe.pub to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 3 days agoIt's just a questioneurope.pubimagemessage-square127linkfedilinkarrow-up1978arrow-down115
arrow-up1963arrow-down1imageIt's just a questioneurope.pubcm0002@europe.pub to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 3 days agomessage-square127linkfedilink
minus-squareGrandwolf319@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up145arrow-down2·3 days agoThat’s factually false. He can save a lot of humans every day by doing something humanitarian and does not. The only logical inference is that his motivation is not saving humans but killing apes.
minus-squareOwOarchist@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up67·3 days agoYep, lol. Would you kill all apes to save one human? “Sure!” Would you donate $500 to save one human? “Fuck no!”
minus-squaretomi000@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up17·3 days agoLogical conclusion: “rather kill all apes than donate 500$”. Anyone with this mindset is a trash human being.
minus-squareMinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days ago Your browser does not support playing HTML5 video. You can download the file instead.
minus-squaretomi000@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 days agoKilling all humans probably does more good overall than saving one.
minus-squareViking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21·3 days agoBesides, if he DID kill all apes, the damage to complex ecosystems across the world that rely on interdependent species including apes would DEFINITELY lead to the deaths of more than one human. Probably at least two.
minus-squareTheRealKuni@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·3 days agoTechnically if he killed all apes killing all humans would be part of that process.
minus-squareViking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 days agoThat’s technically still within the “at least two” range 😉
minus-squareTheRealKuni@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 days agoThe best kind of correct.
minus-squareFedizen@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 days agoThe best kind of correct is where somebody sees the error of their ways and becomes a better person and its because you were goddamn right. ‘Technically correct’ is , at best, the 3rd best kind of correct.
minus-squareMinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days agono, the best kind of correct is when you find four stamps.
minus-squaremonotremata@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18·3 days ago“I hate every ape I see, from Chimpan-A to chimpanzee…” 🎶
minus-squareBlueFootedPetey@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·3 days agoWhich fact? The post is just two dickheads mouthing off at each other…
That’s factually false.
He can save a lot of humans every day by doing something humanitarian and does not.
The only logical inference is that his motivation is not saving humans but killing apes.
Yep, lol.
Would you kill all apes to save one human? “Sure!”
Would you donate $500 to save one human? “Fuck no!”
Logical conclusion: “rather kill all apes than donate 500$”. Anyone with this mindset is a trash human being.
Maybe he just loves killing?
My assessment stands
Killing all humans probably does more good overall than saving one.
Besides, if he DID kill all apes, the damage to complex ecosystems across the world that rely on interdependent species including apes would DEFINITELY lead to the deaths of more than one human.
Probably at least two.
Technically if he killed all apes killing all humans would be part of that process.
That’s technically still within the “at least two” range 😉
The best kind of correct.
The best kind of correct is where somebody sees the error of their ways and becomes a better person and its because you were goddamn right.
‘Technically correct’ is , at best, the 3rd best kind of correct.
no, the best kind of correct is when you find four stamps.
Hermes Correct, lol
Even 3!
Likely! Possibly 5!
“I hate every ape I see, from Chimpan-A to chimpanzee…” 🎶
Which fact? The post is just two dickheads mouthing off at each other…