Message from @ETBrooD

Discord ID: 621306227254886440

2019-09-11 10:31:37 UTC  

And I ain't unironically calling farmers terrorists, but from vegan point of view, they are. So why pay the terrorist? Why would **a vegan** purchase the animal to be free'd?

2019-09-11 10:33:58 UTC  

The fact that Hindus may purchase cows and set up sanctuaries for them is only an example of lack of principle Hindus have. And it's not limited to cow sanctuaries, they buy leather products and meat from Muslims, etc. they just refuse to kill animals themselves. It's the ultimate NIMBY hypocrisy. They refuse to kill an animal, they pay other people to do it for them, pretending they weren't the financial motivation behind the murder of the cow.

2019-09-11 10:34:52 UTC  

Vegans more principled than Hindus.

2019-09-11 10:44:28 UTC  

@whiic i like how you turned commentary on paying terrorists into anti-hindu nonsense

2019-09-11 10:45:23 UTC  

@whiic are you that faggot from the city slickers movie who took the cow home as his wife in the end?

2019-09-11 10:52:06 UTC  

Well, Hindus, these cow-protecting good people, they pay other people to kill the animals the "protect" because they don't want to get punished for killing the holy holy animal. They pay others to kill, then then eat and wear their skin on their shoes. To me, that's a fucking hypocrisy.

2019-09-11 10:53:21 UTC  

It's like saying USA did nothing wrong, they paid Private Military Companies to fight in Middle-East.

2019-09-11 10:53:22 UTC  

Can I buy a terrorist to torture?

2019-09-11 11:21:12 UTC  

> ``[11:04] Weez: Don’t forget the BBC do not write opinion pieces, they only post fact.``
<:GWchadMEGATHINK:366999806343774218> boi

2019-09-11 11:22:21 UTC  

fucking volcano take

2019-09-11 11:26:19 UTC  

right after dank's video on their obvious-as-fuck hit-docu on him, too

2019-09-11 11:26:41 UTC  

If that was a hit piece they succeeded

2019-09-11 11:26:45 UTC  

In hitting their own reputation

2019-09-11 11:26:54 UTC  


2019-09-11 11:27:00 UTC  

the bbc have no reputation here to begin with

2019-09-11 11:27:18 UTC  

but it's plainly obvious as to why they did it

2019-09-11 11:28:09 UTC  

I mean

2019-09-11 11:28:26 UTC  

They found the absolute worst comedian to represent their side of the argument then

2019-09-11 11:28:36 UTC  

How stupid must they be if they don't get that right

2019-09-11 11:28:51 UTC  

extremely. again, this is known

2019-09-11 11:29:07 UTC  

I know it's usually best to assume incompetence over malice, but that's so many levels of fail

2019-09-11 11:29:38 UTC  

like the only thing these people are actually competent at are being the mafia

2019-09-11 11:29:42 UTC  

that's it

2019-09-11 11:29:52 UTC  

TR also exposed them good a while back

2019-09-11 11:30:45 UTC  

I guess it's a classic example of don't stop your enemy from making a mistake

2019-09-11 11:38:56 UTC  

BBC is 140 % objective what are you talking about <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

2019-09-11 12:38:41 UTC  

I mean, the BBC is fine <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

2019-09-11 12:38:55 UTC  

OFC when they start talking about things you don't like, then BBC MAN BAD!

2019-09-11 12:40:17 UTC  

How is any of this incorrect?

2019-09-11 12:40:21 UTC  

Or opinion pieces?

2019-09-11 12:40:25 UTC  

It's objective fact.

2019-09-11 12:40:43 UTC  

Even this, isn't written in a negative way

2019-09-11 12:40:52 UTC  

"No-deal Brexit: 10 ways it **could** affect you"

2019-09-11 12:41:01 UTC  

"The contents of your shopping basket **may** change"

2019-09-11 12:41:17 UTC  

"And Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said that, in a worst-case scenario, our shopping bills **could** increase by 10%. "

2019-09-11 12:41:29 UTC  

Nowhere do they say they WILL. They say they COULD.

2019-09-11 12:41:59 UTC  
2019-09-11 12:43:26 UTC  


2019-09-11 12:43:39 UTC  

Can you show me where the BBC isn't objective?