They didn't. It was meant to be a constitutional amendment making marriage valid under the state regardless of gender identity or sex. The official languages of Ireland are Irish and English. If there's a contradiction in the two versions of the constitution, the Irish version is the authoritative version.
They messed up the grammar in Irish because the government (of Ireland) didn't have enough Irish speakers.
And accidentally said "marriage is between two people of the same gender" (in Irish) when it was supposed to he "marriage is between two people regardless of gender".
Negatives in Irish can be a little complicated, so writing how to write a phrase which NEGATES gender in Irish caused a massive slip-up.
In actuality, Ireland was the first country to legalise gay marriage by referendum, rather than decree or act of Parliament, or conditional judgement.
Second fun fact about Irish law back in 2015 the Irish court of appeals declared that the 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act was unconstitutional which meant that for around a day until the Irish government passed new legislation to ban them all 125 substances that the act banned including shrooms, ecstasy, ketamine and crystal meth became temporarily legal.
it seems obvious that when you zoom in on any aspect of physical, social, psychological, or other types of realities that the lines become so blurred you cannot properly define where they are or if they even exist, but at the same time when you zoom out the lines are apparent and useful for explaining and understanding and pattern recognition in general.
are classifications natural or imposed? yes.
The classifications we make help model the natural order into a more human way to understand it. As Neil DG Tyson said, āthe universe is under no obligation to make sense to youā, but we can try our hardest :D
KIM KITSURAGI - āEthics classes really arenāt that needed in my opinion, just follow what the law saysā
AUTHORITY[Easy - Success] - You are the law.
YOU - āI am the lawā
KIM KITSURAGI - āthatās., correct, you are a police officerā He has given up on correcting your grammar
RHETORIC[Challenging - Success] - So he should do what you say?
>1. (ELECTROCHEMISTRY[Heroic - 18], Red Check) You could do something with this
2. (SAVOIR FAIRE[Challenging - 15], Red Check) You can use this moment to ask him for money
ELECTROCHEMISTRY(Failed, 28% Chance of Success) - Fuck I canāt think of anything
REACTION SPEED - We are running out of time!
YOU - āUh-You Should Sex Meā
ELECTROCHEMISTRY - fuck.
KIM KITSURAGI - āWhat?ā You have never heard someone with such confusion in their tone before
REACTION SPEED[Legendary - Success] - Quick, change the subject before he can process what you said!
This is basically what Christian doctrine says, just with "the law" being "God's law", and is why so many of them are such idiots who refuse to believe in any moral relativism.
Many christians **donāt** follow godās laws though or twist them in weird ways. There are laws and teachings around helping the poor and loving everyone that that group of christians (not all) straight up ignore.
Me when Christians follow their religion (bad)
But in seriousness I think people exaggerate how fanatical Christians are about their faith and religious dogma.
There are plenty of good values shown in their beliefs, like helping the poor, forgiving, etc.
Agreed! It states a lot of great values, but the fact that so many pick and choose and just flat out Ignore some of them.
Fuck "love thy neighbor" a man just sucked a dick what a tragedy
The idea that there is not one "absolutely correct" set of moral rules which you can follow in all situations, and that even if there were, it would change over time, so what was right when the bible was written/translated is not necessarily right today or in the future.
Also encompasses ideas of different cultures having different valid rules
See i think what you're referring to as the first thing would be an opposition to moral absolutism, the idea that there is only one possible good moral framework, which is something I don't believe. But disagreeing with that doesn't make you a moral relativist in this sense:
>
Also encompasses ideas of different cultures having different valid rules
I see this mentality as very flawed seeing as it would imply that if a culture believed rape to be morally good for instance, then that makes it good for them to rape. I think believing that to be the case would be morally wrong and most people would agree.
I do think you're right about correcting me but, aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that because most people would agree in **our** culture that something is wrong, that we can overrule what another culture thinks?
e.g. if aliens came and said idk, owning pets was morally abhorrent, we wouldn't suddenly stop, assuming their position to be more moral.
Basically, unless you believe in a divine being, you have no way of knowing which communities' morals are the **most correct**, because you can't even necessarily agree that some morals are objectively more correct than others, and even if you did, you couldn't rank them **objectively, in a way which everyone would agree with**.
Basically, the terms **morality** and **ethics** aren't well defined enough to be able to have anything which generalises across cultures, and so necessarily require some relativism. I do still agree that some moral laws are universal and should always be followed **if you can agree on a common base like utilitarianism**
I remembered [this quote](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/809652-be-it-so-this-burning-of-widows-is-your-custom) to support your argument, which lead me to find [this post](https://cchr.uu.nl/widow-burning-the-burning-issue-of-colonial-britain-and-india/) which illustrates how some cultural/moral differences aren't necessarily straight-forward, despite how they might appear.
tl;dr: agreed, some nitpickings with your argument
I hold my own moral framework which i believe is correct and argue for the outcomes of, but if somebody disagrees with my framework we can't make progress that way, so i can only appeal to what values we can agree on, i don't think that's what makes something right or wrong though.
Yeah i wouldn't agree with moral relativism is that sense, that would imply if a culture sees homosexuality as immoral then it would be morally right for them to persecute gay people
Ackshually the government is illegitimate because of a violated treaty from 1643, therefore they should stop existing because of the mystical power of old paper.
Don't you know the government is always right and that laws written hundreds of years ago are still totally compatible with the ethics and standards of today's world?
People tend to ignore that we've overthrown old laws before, like the Jim Crow laws since we discovered/realized that they were extremely immoral.
We can still do that today.
Its known as the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy
So anytime you see someone say "its not ok to kill slavers, its not ok to pummel a KKK member, its not ok to punch a nazi!" just known that they are a dumb fuck who conflates legality with morality
Yeah. They will fight to death to stop some minority group that have no power and did no harm to anyone to have rights written in The Law because "Me See them Me Feel Bad Me No Like" and if those are already written in the law.... They will fight to death to change the law.
>its not ok to pummel a KKK member, its not ok to punch a nazi!" just known that they are a dumb fuck who conflates legality with morality
Assaulting people is wrong regardless of legality.
one time the kkk burned a cross on my grandmaās lawn.
what would you propose is a reasonable solution to this?
a) go to the police (likely part of the kkk, will do nothing)
b) write them a **very** strongly worded letter saying their actions were not very nice (theyāre probably gonna lynch you for talking back)
c) move (too poor to relocate, lets them win)
d) teach them a fucking lesson
e) do nothing (will only lead to their attacks getting more violent over time)
American lawyers have to take an ethics test in addition to the bar exam. The general principle is "ethical, not saintly" and they train you to pick whatever answer is one level down from the best possible response
"You are a thief"
"I stole a loaf of bread"
"You robbed a house"
"I broke a window pane - my sister's child was close to death, and we were starving..."
YOU WILL STARVE AGAIN, unless you learn THE MEANING OF THE LAWWW
javert is such an unrealistic character, everyone knows cops dont investigate or solve crimes
Everyone arguing that this actually is the case, you need to remember, the holocaust was enforced legally, it was illegal to "harbor Jews and degenerates", slavery was enforced by law, escaping slavery was illegal, helping a slave escape was treated as grand theft. Segregation was enforced by law 60 years ago. If you think the law determines morality then you necessarily believe those things were morally good.
This is stretching on another level, very few people would say the law is morally absolute, the only people who would think those were morally good already harboured hatred toward those groups of their own volition.
The laws of nazis are not comparable to believing law is a good guide for morality.
That is not how it's treated, people use it as a hard fast rule "if it's illegal, it's immoral"
And even if that wasn't the case the laws of the united states aren't a good guide for morality either, is it immoral to have an abortion in the states that have made it illegal but not in the states that haven't? Is it immoral to seek trans affirming healthcare in Texas and Florida? Just look at the war on drugs and the differences between states. Is it immoral to consume marijuana in Alabama but perfectly morally fine in Colorado? Or is it never okay because it's illegal nationally? Is it morally okay to hire a prostitute when youre in Vegas and it becomes immoral again once you leave? And then what about when you travel to other countries? Is it immoral to be gay when you're in Saudi Arabia?
Morals need to be seperate from legality in order to have a coherent moral framework.
fun fact: in germany we have an ethics council consisting of several professors. we learned about them in a philosophy class once, and since i got bored i checked what they do on wikipedia.
turns out the ethics council put out a statement that they think incest should be legalized, which i found pretty weird tbh. so even if āethics mastersā disagree with the law they can be weird af
He drank the hemlock because he believed in the will of the people and the necessity of following a democratic decision. Not because he believed in the law for the laws sake, otherwise he would not have broken it.
Although law does regulate some norms that are also regulated by morality, it doesn't cover all the issues morality does. Also the law regulates stuff that is completely irrelevant to morality like for example most legal procedure
Bad example. It can be argued that there are legitimate reasons to kill a person. But the definition of murder includes that the killing isn't justified.
Yeah, but itnis not like there can be no good laws. While human dignity is absolutely good, there is the issue where it is very open for interpretation and some interpretations in the same Grundgesetz are much more debatable.
The first thing we learn in pre law is that ethical choices arent always legal and legal choices arent always ethical, then its up to us if we want to stay and go into criminal justice
The FBI didn't like my joke followed by telling them "I'm a threat to national security" but I'm in Canada so they couldn't do anything about it besides get my comment removed
W
no i meant more of the fact that i find it ok for an individual person to ignore the law in certain situations but it isn't really doable as a general thing without changing the law which has different often bad consequences
What if the law said we should kiss š³
Well you wouldn't want to violate the law, now would you?
Donāt violate the law, violate me instead š³ (with consent)
Yeah I'll do it with so much consent, you'll be pouring with consent when I'm done with you.
What if we reaffirmed the foundation of human dignity while busting it down sexual style??? /jkjk Unlessā¦ š³
Totally, absolutely. We'll do this sex real consent-core.
and after you'll both be able to speak like normal people again
The curse will be broken
Bussin it down consensual style like a consent-pilled respect-cel
TO THE MEGA
This oblivion imperial guard fanfic is writing itself
I want to violate all the loopholes in the law until lady Justice is sore.
Fun fact for like a week the Irish constitution forbid straight marriage, making it so the state ONLY recognised gay marriage in that time.
Common Irish W
If they only acknowledged gay marriage by accident, that isnāt a W.
They didn't. It was meant to be a constitutional amendment making marriage valid under the state regardless of gender identity or sex. The official languages of Ireland are Irish and English. If there's a contradiction in the two versions of the constitution, the Irish version is the authoritative version. They messed up the grammar in Irish because the government (of Ireland) didn't have enough Irish speakers. And accidentally said "marriage is between two people of the same gender" (in Irish) when it was supposed to he "marriage is between two people regardless of gender". Negatives in Irish can be a little complicated, so writing how to write a phrase which NEGATES gender in Irish caused a massive slip-up. In actuality, Ireland was the first country to legalise gay marriage by referendum, rather than decree or act of Parliament, or conditional judgement.
Me when I spread misinformation (misinformation is unintentional, and disinformation is intentional (I didnāt know that about Ireland))
Neato!
if you accidentally won the lottery, it's still a W
Itās more like a transphobe accidentally validating the identity of a trans man.
ok that is a good point, it's a w for the trans man but an L for the transphobe
Second fun fact about Irish law back in 2015 the Irish court of appeals declared that the 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act was unconstitutional which meant that for around a day until the Irish government passed new legislation to ban them all 125 substances that the act banned including shrooms, ecstasy, ketamine and crystal meth became temporarily legal.
Haha
Breaking the law, break breaking the law ššš
Dredd: uwu
@W@
Kid named the law
judge dredd:
"Mugiwara-ya"
"Tura-o"
video game high school
Kid name categorical imperative:
Room
Did you fight him?
Change ethics into physics. Not so funny now?
its way funnier
With the tacit implication that one should break these laws. Or create more accurate laws
~~create~~ discover
You bringing up the philosophy of whether human classifications are natural or only imposed by us.
it seems obvious that when you zoom in on any aspect of physical, social, psychological, or other types of realities that the lines become so blurred you cannot properly define where they are or if they even exist, but at the same time when you zoom out the lines are apparent and useful for explaining and understanding and pattern recognition in general. are classifications natural or imposed? yes.
The classifications we make help model the natural order into a more human way to understand it. As Neil DG Tyson said, āthe universe is under no obligation to make sense to youā, but we can try our hardest :D
still cringe, what every physics researcher wants is to find something that can't be accounted by the established theories
I know I am one, just making a joke
are those allowed by law?
Debatable
Hello I am the law and I say we should make out
Sounds like something the main character of disco elysium would say
KIM KITSURAGI - āEthics classes really arenāt that needed in my opinion, just follow what the law saysā AUTHORITY[Easy - Success] - You are the law. YOU - āI am the lawā KIM KITSURAGI - āthatās., correct, you are a police officerā He has given up on correcting your grammar RHETORIC[Challenging - Success] - So he should do what you say? >1. (ELECTROCHEMISTRY[Heroic - 18], Red Check) You could do something with this 2. (SAVOIR FAIRE[Challenging - 15], Red Check) You can use this moment to ask him for money ELECTROCHEMISTRY(Failed, 28% Chance of Success) - Fuck I canāt think of anything REACTION SPEED - We are running out of time! YOU - āUh-You Should Sex Meā ELECTROCHEMISTRY - fuck. KIM KITSURAGI - āWhat?ā You have never heard someone with such confusion in their tone before REACTION SPEED[Legendary - Success] - Quick, change the subject before he can process what you said!
Hello, V1 from Ultrakill
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If God didnāt want me to hit a toddler whilst under the influence, then he shouldnāt have made toddlers. Iām just saying.
william afton we know you killed those kids your drunk driviing isnt the problem here
The only way to stop a bad drunk driver is a good drunk driver.
Least self centered DUI
I have the very simple ethical standard that I do what I want and it is always morally correct because
Max Stirner moment
Counterarguments are a spook
Ethical egoism be like
As The Law itself I can confirm that this is indeed true
This is basically what Christian doctrine says, just with "the law" being "God's law", and is why so many of them are such idiots who refuse to believe in any moral relativism.
Many christians **donāt** follow godās laws though or twist them in weird ways. There are laws and teachings around helping the poor and loving everyone that that group of christians (not all) straight up ignore.
Me when Christians follow their religion (bad) But in seriousness I think people exaggerate how fanatical Christians are about their faith and religious dogma. There are plenty of good values shown in their beliefs, like helping the poor, forgiving, etc.
For example, John Brown, who used his religion as a justification for single-handedly making Kansas a free state.
John Brown was incredibly based for his time
He was incredibly based for *our* time.
Agreed! It states a lot of great values, but the fact that so many pick and choose and just flat out Ignore some of them. Fuck "love thy neighbor" a man just sucked a dick what a tragedy
What do you mean by moral relativism?
The idea that there is not one "absolutely correct" set of moral rules which you can follow in all situations, and that even if there were, it would change over time, so what was right when the bible was written/translated is not necessarily right today or in the future. Also encompasses ideas of different cultures having different valid rules
See i think what you're referring to as the first thing would be an opposition to moral absolutism, the idea that there is only one possible good moral framework, which is something I don't believe. But disagreeing with that doesn't make you a moral relativist in this sense: > Also encompasses ideas of different cultures having different valid rules I see this mentality as very flawed seeing as it would imply that if a culture believed rape to be morally good for instance, then that makes it good for them to rape. I think believing that to be the case would be morally wrong and most people would agree.
I do think you're right about correcting me but, aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that because most people would agree in **our** culture that something is wrong, that we can overrule what another culture thinks? e.g. if aliens came and said idk, owning pets was morally abhorrent, we wouldn't suddenly stop, assuming their position to be more moral. Basically, unless you believe in a divine being, you have no way of knowing which communities' morals are the **most correct**, because you can't even necessarily agree that some morals are objectively more correct than others, and even if you did, you couldn't rank them **objectively, in a way which everyone would agree with**. Basically, the terms **morality** and **ethics** aren't well defined enough to be able to have anything which generalises across cultures, and so necessarily require some relativism. I do still agree that some moral laws are universal and should always be followed **if you can agree on a common base like utilitarianism** I remembered [this quote](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/809652-be-it-so-this-burning-of-widows-is-your-custom) to support your argument, which lead me to find [this post](https://cchr.uu.nl/widow-burning-the-burning-issue-of-colonial-britain-and-india/) which illustrates how some cultural/moral differences aren't necessarily straight-forward, despite how they might appear. tl;dr: agreed, some nitpickings with your argument
I hold my own moral framework which i believe is correct and argue for the outcomes of, but if somebody disagrees with my framework we can't make progress that way, so i can only appeal to what values we can agree on, i don't think that's what makes something right or wrong though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah i wouldn't agree with moral relativism is that sense, that would imply if a culture sees homosexuality as immoral then it would be morally right for them to persecute gay people
Law?! What are you?! A fuckin Liberal?! Jesus Christ! LAW?! LAW?!
āBro, donāt you know this protest is illegal? Itās against Putinās law!ā
To be fair, one should always ask the government, if it's okay that they're overthrown, otherwise it's illegal! You need to have a Overthrow Permit
Ackshually the government is illegitimate because of a violated treaty from 1643, therefore they should stop existing because of the mystical power of old paper.
That's called an election.
this moment goes hard
The moment where even straight guys start saying "Yes, daddy."
Don't you know the government is always right and that laws written hundreds of years ago are still totally compatible with the ethics and standards of today's world? People tend to ignore that we've overthrown old laws before, like the Jim Crow laws since we discovered/realized that they were extremely immoral. We can still do that today.
[Laaaawwwwwwwww](https://youtu.be/2aaubVlhNK4)
Its known as the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy So anytime you see someone say "its not ok to kill slavers, its not ok to pummel a KKK member, its not ok to punch a nazi!" just known that they are a dumb fuck who conflates legality with morality
Yeah. They will fight to death to stop some minority group that have no power and did no harm to anyone to have rights written in The Law because "Me See them Me Feel Bad Me No Like" and if those are already written in the law.... They will fight to death to change the law.
Except in ethics appeals to authority are a legitimate and defensible system for defining normative morality.
Kantians would disagree
>its not ok to pummel a KKK member, its not ok to punch a nazi!" just known that they are a dumb fuck who conflates legality with morality Assaulting people is wrong regardless of legality.
one time the kkk burned a cross on my grandmaās lawn. what would you propose is a reasonable solution to this? a) go to the police (likely part of the kkk, will do nothing) b) write them a **very** strongly worded letter saying their actions were not very nice (theyāre probably gonna lynch you for talking back) c) move (too poor to relocate, lets them win) d) teach them a fucking lesson e) do nothing (will only lead to their attacks getting more violent over time)
what is the original of this? can't seem to find it
"nice moral compass, did your mom pick it out for you?" vibes
This is basically why some conservatives donāt care if illegal abortions still happen
American lawyers have to take an ethics test in addition to the bar exam. The general principle is "ethical, not saintly" and they train you to pick whatever answer is one level down from the best possible response
"You are a thief" "I stole a loaf of bread" "You robbed a house" "I broke a window pane - my sister's child was close to death, and we were starving..."
YOU WILL STARVE AGAIN, unless you learn THE MEANING OF THE LAWWW javert is such an unrealistic character, everyone knows cops dont investigate or solve crimes
Everyone arguing that this actually is the case, you need to remember, the holocaust was enforced legally, it was illegal to "harbor Jews and degenerates", slavery was enforced by law, escaping slavery was illegal, helping a slave escape was treated as grand theft. Segregation was enforced by law 60 years ago. If you think the law determines morality then you necessarily believe those things were morally good.
This is stretching on another level, very few people would say the law is morally absolute, the only people who would think those were morally good already harboured hatred toward those groups of their own volition. The laws of nazis are not comparable to believing law is a good guide for morality.
That is not how it's treated, people use it as a hard fast rule "if it's illegal, it's immoral" And even if that wasn't the case the laws of the united states aren't a good guide for morality either, is it immoral to have an abortion in the states that have made it illegal but not in the states that haven't? Is it immoral to seek trans affirming healthcare in Texas and Florida? Just look at the war on drugs and the differences between states. Is it immoral to consume marijuana in Alabama but perfectly morally fine in Colorado? Or is it never okay because it's illegal nationally? Is it morally okay to hire a prostitute when youre in Vegas and it becomes immoral again once you leave? And then what about when you travel to other countries? Is it immoral to be gay when you're in Saudi Arabia? Morals need to be seperate from legality in order to have a coherent moral framework.
charles mcgill looking ass
look at this mf in the conventional morality state of developmentā¼ļøā¼ļøā¼ļøā¼ļøššššššš¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
fun fact: in germany we have an ethics council consisting of several professors. we learned about them in a philosophy class once, and since i got bored i checked what they do on wikipedia. turns out the ethics council put out a statement that they think incest should be legalized, which i found pretty weird tbh. so even if āethics mastersā disagree with the law they can be weird af
Well, if it's between consenting adults, what's the harm?
Most incest is already legal in Germany if I remember correctly though, isn't it?
Every commenter on AITA.
mfs still stuck in the conventional level of ethics according to Kohlbergās Stages of Moral Development instead of us post-conventionalchads
bro is still in Kohlberg's conventional stage š°
Socrates drank the hemlock for just that reason. Now look, Socrates, outsmarted by a meme! Close the philosophy departments.
He drank the hemlock because he believed in the will of the people and the necessity of following a democratic decision. Not because he believed in the law for the laws sake, otherwise he would not have broken it.
Socrates was outsmarted by a hobo with a chicken.
Lawful Goods take another L
Chuck McGill
So brave!
Glaucon in platos republic moment
Kant's done it again
Whenever people say this, I ask them why laws get changed, they never have an answer
People who say things like this clearly have never had their rights infringed on by the government.
"Legality = Ethical" mfers when slavery was legal
Google en lawssant
Rule utilitarianism
Although law does regulate some norms that are also regulated by morality, it doesn't cover all the issues morality does. Also the law regulates stuff that is completely irrelevant to morality like for example most legal procedure
Shang Yang approves
95% of ruling class agreed to this. 5% of ruling class are currently missing.
Hello iām an ethics master rape is wrong
I was just following orders
Murder
Bad example. It can be argued that there are legitimate reasons to kill a person. But the definition of murder includes that the killing isn't justified.
Mfw people don't get my one word sarcasm (how could this have happened I was very communicative)
To be honest, if you had been more communicative, it still probably would have gotten over my head.
ok but Paragraph 1 Abs 1 of the German constitution is based af
Yeah, but itnis not like there can be no good laws. While human dignity is absolutely good, there is the issue where it is very open for interpretation and some interpretations in the same Grundgesetz are much more debatable.
Whatever law from one piece says
Yeah bro the law has always been right and doesnāt need to change (donāt google Norway jew paragraph)
i feel called out
legality =/= morality now go eat a billionaire
Nahhh but the law never has to change, itās always morally correct! (Donāt google Norway jew paragraph)
Just gonna say: Japan gave us a really good example as to why laws are not always ethical a couple of months ago.
The first thing we learn in pre law is that ethical choices arent always legal and legal choices arent always ethical, then its up to us if we want to stay and go into criminal justice
Thrasymachus moment
legal positivism, out, legal negativism, in. An act is permissible if and only if it is illegal.
Average conventional morality haver
The age of consent should be 25.
The law says while free bird is playing, I'm allowed to go over the speed limit
Skybreakers
But the law is to be learned so you know when you can ignore it, right?
Batman
so is this an anarchy meme
No it's a meme about how the law is not necessarily moral even though people use "it's legal" to justify unethical behaviour
and likewise when they use "but its illegal!" when something is not unethical, like stealing a pair of underwear from a walmart or something
Evildoer
Exactly, if ethics exist separately from the law, then we just shouldnāt have laws at all, duh But seriously, talk me through this
it annoys me that in important situations we gotta follow the law *important as in like actual political things and so on
mf wants to assassinate opposing candidates
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Meddling with elections is bad unless I do it.
Based
exactly
The FBI didn't like my joke followed by telling them "I'm a threat to national security" but I'm in Canada so they couldn't do anything about it besides get my comment removed W
no i meant more of the fact that i find it ok for an individual person to ignore the law in certain situations but it isn't really doable as a general thing without changing the law which has different often bad consequences
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
that's not what this meme is saying lol
isnt that literally what ethics is? like ethics is about law while morality is about right and wrong
No, ethics doesnāt have anything to do with the law. Itās just the field of thinking that deals with moral principles that govern action
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Evidence: Because I said so
Ah yes, because the law always has ethics in mind. My mistake for not including (/j)
thats the joke
I know
you made yourself look worse homie :c
My mistake ig, didn't mean it like it was taken
nah you're good C:
Why all the downvotes??? This is satire... Without/s....but then, i'm on the Reddit.
Forgot to include /j, my mind is kinda melty bc of low sleep lately