Message from @Agent Smith
Discord ID: 607449838925381684
I'd probably save my dog and then try and save the stranger, honestly.
I have a responsibility for my dog.
That's not one of the choices
If it was a kid I would save the kid first though.
Yes it is. "Which one would you save first?"
Not "which one would you save?"
The implications are the other drowns, but nice loophole abuse :)
Generally I believe I have a moral responsibility to the human no matter how much I love my dog, but an invader's an invader
Even if the invader doesn't understand he's an invader
@Nucleon they should have worded it better if they meant that the second one would definitely drown. As it's worded the implication is that there is a chance to save both.
Also Dennis Prager is neo-liberal scum
shouldn't that be neo-con?
They are interchangeable according to goose
They aren't interchangeable. They work in tandem
But yes he's also neo-con scum
I just say "Neo-Liberal" to obscure the fact that I'm anti-capitalist
_SIEG HONK!_
Are you also anti-sensical? Sometimes you make none
Ancap my b0rther.
ORANGE CAT BAD
😒
imagine believing that White Supremacy is a real concern....
also when has the narrative ever been mexican terrorists?
when the media saw a chance at exploitation when people were concerned about criminals crossing the border from Mexico to, get this... commit crimes, and they took it
You will outlive your heroes 😢
If you listen to good music, your favorite artists died long before you were born.
yeah, a lot of the music i listen to is by people who are long dead
<:grrr:531619820697944092>
The underrepresentation of conservatives who realize/care that conservatism never conserved shit is all the proof you need to defend the claim that conservatism has never been anything but the accomplice to liberalism.
"Last week, the lead editorial in The Economist, a magazine that once promoted free market capitalism and traditional British societal order, lamented the end of conservatism. Entitled “The global crisis in conservatism,” (6 July 2019). It was a piece dedicated to the conservative as determined by the political Left and Bush Republicans. Essentially, the editorial decried the end of the perpetual loser. That loser, whether he be the individual and or the political party who claimed to represent his interests (Republican, Tory, CDP, etc), never conserved anything and that, The Economist noted in its editorial, was the point. Conservatism was supposed to be the slower, steadier approach toward a Marxist conclusion. The establishment conservative was supposed to walk his reluctant constituency into Marxism as opposed to run them it.
This admission by one of the world’s premier political-economic magazines might shock some, but it was refreshingly honest. Not only did it validate the Dissident Right’s suspicions about the Establishment conservative class, it exonerated her adherents. The conservative voter was never supposed to know what they – the ruling classes – always knew: there never was a conservative political party."
hm
guess I'll save up thousands of dollars for when the economy collapses and I need to seek economic refuge <:peepoSmoke:591008992176898058>
Stock up on wine, beer, and cigarettes. That's the true post collapse currency.
and seeds