His position is basically “Leopards should be allowed to run rampant among people, even if some people get eaten.” Then he gets eaten.
Comment on Charlie Kirk says gun deaths "unfortunately" worth it to keep 2nd amendment
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 month agoNot LAMF unless he was explicitly advocating for others to be shot.
Hence ‘voted for leopards eating faces party, didn’t expect them to eat my face’.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Other people’s deaths.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That is not advocating for people to be shot, and I have a feeling you know that and are just being obtuse.
An actual equivalent analogy to what you quoted would be saying that we shouldn’t ban a sport just because some people get hurt playing it. If someone said that, would you claim they’re advocating for players of that sport to get hurt?
Of course not. Use your brain.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Sure whatever man.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You thought it was important enough to say in the first place (and also double down once after your error was already made crystal clear).
Is it really that hard to just genuinely accept being wrong about something without the asinine passive-aggression? Grow up.