• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if you skip breakfast you don’t deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?

    It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you’re wrong.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.

      You made a bad example and declared it victory lol

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not a bad example, it’s gramatically the exact same, and instead of admitting you’re wrong you’re choosing to stamp your feet like an obtuse child. You’re free to do so, but everyone else is free to read your shame.

        Edit: wait, different person. You’re choosing to stamp your feet on behalf of another* like an obtuse child, 'scuse me.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.