1
almond_activator 1 point ago +1 / -0

He switched to Democrat because the DNC wouldn't let him on the primary ballots otherwise.

1
almond_activator 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are other citizenships they could (and have) actively pursued, and it is possible to repudiate the so-called "right of return".

3
almond_activator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Depending on the route you take, they can come off pretty awful.

3
almond_activator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Life imprisonment is the society recognizing that it is fallible and even its trials are subject to review.

That said, neck, millstones, sea.

2
almond_activator 2 points ago +2 / -0

You've clearly never played a game that was popular in Peru.

5
almond_activator 5 points ago +5 / -0

In war, you must fight the privates as well as the captains.

3
almond_activator 3 points ago +3 / -0

I believe "paganism" is primarily applied to polytheistic Gaia-centric belief systems. Buddhism is polytheistic, but does not have a god of the skies, a god of the seas, a god of lightning, a god of beasts, etc. as most of the Indo-European pagan systems had (have? I am assuming that there are no unironic pagans, and those who claim to be are just edgelord atheists with a bit of stubble below the jawline).

Islam is a sex cult built around a scaffolding of stolen Judeo-Christian myths, adapted to fit Mohammad's need to get his dick wet and keep it that way.

4
almond_activator 4 points ago +4 / -0

If this IS the work of a group rebelling against the government, you would expect that group to get a message out to the wider world about their activities and motives. That hasn't happened, so this is most likely a nothingburger.

If I was leading a violent insurgency against a regime with a reputation for cutting corners on basic safety, and had no qualms about the loss of innocent life, false-flag deadly "accidents" would be something I would consider.

To me, the idea is morally unconscionable, but I didn't grow up in Red China.

1
almond_activator 1 point ago +1 / -0

At this point, I can only assume you're intentionally conflating new traits that have never appeared in the species before with the inheritance of traits already present within the species.

The theory of evolution is predicated on the former, and the frequency of those occurences is the root of the dispute. The latter is not being questioned by anyone.

I do not believe someone sufficiently literate to write a response could be sufficiently illiterate as to miss the entire argument, so I am assuming bad faith on your part.

7
almond_activator 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'd be quite pleased with the development of a cure that doesn't revolve around primer, propellant, and projectile.

Unfortunately, these egghead types don't seem to be interested in searching for one.

22
almond_activator 22 points ago +23 / -1

They're never going to write the real article:

  1. This man's childhood was ruined by welfare policies and government schools created, designed, supported, and defended by us and our political allies.
  2. This man's mind was pumped full of anti-white and black supremacist poison written, edited, and published by us and our ideological fellow travelers.
  3. This man was radicalized by one of the most egregious acts of mass journalistic malpractice in history in the days leading up to the attack.
  4. SUVs had nothing to do with this; these were the actions of a human being with absolutely terrible judgement (due at least in part to points 1-3).
  5. These attacks will continue as long as we are permitted to continue peddling poison as news, calumny as truth, and hatred disguised as love.
0
almond_activator 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're being intentionally dense, and downvoting me is not going to help you win the argument, if anyone even scrolls down this far. The generation of new traits is random. The passing on of existing traits is not random, but determined by relative dominance of competing genes.

A finch in a seed-scarce environment isn't going to spontaneously evolve the ability to digest insects just because it would be evolutionarily advantageous to do so - spontaneous mutation resulting in greater fitness could, but again the odds against that are astronomical. The only framework in which that could happen is intelligent design, not evolution.

All of this is compounded by the problem of propagation. Even if an individual has a mutation that increases fitness, that new phenotype must diffuse through the species across many generations.

2
almond_activator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Assuming he didn't intend to buy heroin that was cut with filler and then boosted with fentanyl, he probably would have survived if his drug dealer's supplier was more ethical.

2
almond_activator 2 points ago +2 / -0

a thug who would still be alive if he had not committed a crime.

Specifically, the crime of buying a ton of sketchy drugs and then panic-gobbling them to avoid prosecution for possession.

1
almond_activator 1 point ago +1 / -0

They clearly speak some, because that's where the first half of the name comes from.

-1
almond_activator -1 points ago +1 / -2

The mutations also aren't random.

The mutations are random. Those that are selected for (or against) are not. The difference is important, and it invalidates the rest of your paragraph.

2
almond_activator 2 points ago +4 / -2

If a gene that makes your mom more likely to have 5 kids instead of 2

Is your father's name Gene? If not, then you've failed to account for a basic component of the equation.

1
almond_activator 1 point ago +3 / -2

Species change over time. There is mountains of evidence.

The number of individual genetic mutations required to change species is immense, and the timescale in which they were supposed to take place is so short that it would require multiple viable mutations per generation to accomplish - which we can observe in real time today is neither occurring nor possible.

For example, look at what a single protein is composed of, and the number of correctly-arranged amino acids required to produce that protein, and extrapolate from there the odds of such an event happening in nature - much less the dozens or hundreds of other mutations needed to actually capitalize on it.

13
almond_activator 13 points ago +13 / -0

I would, but I have come to the conclusion that I have only ever seen the ashes of the fire that once was.

2
almond_activator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Infogalactic was a wikipedia fork that had a more decidedly right-wing genesis. I don't know what it's been up to or if it even exists.

4
almond_activator 4 points ago +4 / -0

It started as Mohammed's sex cult, and in the absence of Mohammed evolved into a death cult. All sex cults that survive the death of their founder must evolve, but most simply turn into somebody else's sex cult (Mormons) or a financial scam (Scientology).

view more: Next ›