• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

      In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, “the people,” or “a well balanced breakfast?”

      • blazera
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        It sounds like the balanced breakfast is the basis for everything that follows

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -11 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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              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
            link
            fedilink
            -11 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.