• tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    You see your honour, he was wearning a bulletproof vest, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was save all along!

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      More like “you see your honor, he was behind a 10-foot-thick wall of lead, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was safe all along!”

      • Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        “The painting itself was unharmed, but the 17th-century frame sustained some damage after the soup acted as paint stripper on the delicate surface.”

        So climate activists’ official position is to target the frames of these paintings, as they see them as important enough to piss people off but not important enough to preserve?

        Time to lock originals away from the public forever.

        • mmcintyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Way to solve one of the most pressing issues of our day. Just great work, man. The planet really isn’t that important when compared to some 17th century art. That’s where we really need to focus our preservation and conservation efforts!

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Yes exactly! The judiciary is infallible and so that’s exactly why the SCOTUS is the least fallible institution there is.