2
lolfail9001 2 points ago +2 / -0

Honestly: I don't know.

Even more honestly: of what little I know, I would not go there to live if you paid me.

7
lolfail9001 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sadly we are too incompetent to conquer anything. We're lucky we don't end up with rest of Siberia being bought up under the table.

2
lolfail9001 2 points ago +2 / -0

Let's be clear: this Russian text has a whole paragraph dedicated to defending Russia's great illegal immigrant population on the sole ground they are men.

14
lolfail9001 14 points ago +14 / -0

Exactly, they exploited a weakness in liberal/democratic systems

Weakness of liberal systems has less to do with "everyone gets a voice" (because that's a blatant lie when we get to scale of mass communication) and more with "most impactful decisions are still made by handful of actors who shall bear no direct consequences of them". As such, it will inevitably get rotten. I won't even bother addressing democracy.

-5
lolfail9001 -5 points ago +1 / -6

Your example falls apart at a simple issue: where will you pick those "best people available" if they are all the same?

1
lolfail9001 1 point ago +1 / -0

Temporal chauvinism is always there, simply because it's the best tool we have when it comes to judging significance of historical event.

11
lolfail9001 11 points ago +12 / -1

Democracies cannot function

bad journalism makes issue worse, but Arrow's theorem never went anywhere.

12
lolfail9001 12 points ago +12 / -0

Socrates did not bear witness to societies of no writing if he had gal to state this.

18
lolfail9001 18 points ago +18 / -0

HR gotta HR, this is a common problem in the industry in general, woke bullshit just makes it more obvious.

And in case of DDG, significantly more obvious.

1
lolfail9001 1 point ago +2 / -1

Nothing is safe from self-destructive instinct of human beings.

1
lolfail9001 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree, but the thing about humans is that coherent arguments are not what gets us going, appeal to either straight chemistry or more complex process in emotion does.

14
lolfail9001 14 points ago +14 / -0

I'm really struggling to see why someone like Nicki Minaj is standing up for this.

She's a vain being with fragile ego and little mind, it is perfectly obvious why she does that. Sometimes truth of the world is that simple.

1
lolfail9001 1 point ago +1 / -0

Most of the moral problems are not problems if you don't think abortion is bad.

Sure, if it will actually be similar to abortion in the sense of getting embryos... errr, donated.

A society that allows abortion will have a harder time keeping the lid on this.

Are you trying to sell me even more on abortion? No need to, my position on it is already pretty utilitarian.

1
lolfail9001 1 point ago +1 / -0

If the technology is there

Given the sheer scale of moral problems with just developing this... will it ever be there in public eye?

5
lolfail9001 5 points ago +5 / -0

One can make an argument that this is the best case scenario in any government.

2
lolfail9001 2 points ago +2 / -0

I feel like I did break spirit of rule 16 so deletion is fair, but formally is not my comment more of implying some identity group is superior (the same way blacks make better NBA stars, fight me), rather than attacking them as inferior or implying their conspiracy?

11
lolfail9001 11 points ago +11 / -0

Complains about Racism

Well, it does take a whole lot of anti-white racism to award this with title of 'Miss Ireland'.

2
lolfail9001 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, if you are going to claim every living being with brain cells is conscious...

Congratulations, you just made late term abortions look better than any abortion enthusiast ever did.

2
lolfail9001 2 points ago +3 / -1

If you don't, why should anyone take your opinion seriously on matters of the soul such as this?

I am glad to know we are not allowed to criticise jihad anymore, because nobody should take our opinion on having post-mortem reward for blowing yourself up seriously.

2
lolfail9001 2 points ago +2 / -0

What is functional social order? Proto socialism that used to collapse on itself with little external help?

0
lolfail9001 0 points ago +1 / -1

Again by this argument we should kill all ugly people, all poor people, and anyone with a lifelong health condition as their “quality of life” is going to be lesser than the average person.

You made a mistake with your rebuttal: not their, mine quality of life will be lower if they are born and become another welfare queen at best and straight thug at worst, so the most humane thing i can do is to not obstruct them if they want to reduce my troubles. Maybe someone pretends to care, they lie. And from this point of view you can indeed extend this argument all the way to literal fedposting. As for whether it is a valid rebuttal... probably.

P. S. Besides, people who abort kids remove competition for your own, why do you want to obstruct their self destruction? You are not controlling their education after all, so every aborted child is one less brainwashed teenager 15 years later.

1
lolfail9001 1 point ago +1 / -0

Using your own definition if someone believes in god without proof that is not Rational even if you define it as agnostic.

Yes, it is exactly not rational. Humans in general are not very friendly with this whole "rational thought" thing, so i settle for "non-contradictory".

There isn't a single well known atheist that makes that claim. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitches, Harris, Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Maher all take the stance of not believing because of lack of evidence.

Stance of "not believing because of lack of evidence" is exactly "there is no god for there is no evidence there is a god". Compare with "there is no need to assume god exists, for there is no evidence he affects anything" of a perfectly 'rational' being. Though i admit, the difference between these two is very subtle.

OP's dumb post is it's own separate story, frankly, given Christianity's rise was not exactly any peaceful or pretty.

view more: Next ›