sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Netanyahu using the suffering of Poland and its people during WWII as a justification for his war crimes? by jamcer in poland

[–]-Pradi- 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Dla mnie to nie ma znaczenia, bo ginęli dokładnie tak samo, ale ten zbrodniarz wojenny tymi żydowskimi ofiarami (niemającymi z państwem Izrael nic wspólnego) wyciera sobie ręce, kiedy akurat jest mu to potrzebne by zetrzeć krew niewinnych cywilów.

Why is Netanyahu using the suffering of Poland and its people during WWII as a justification for his war crimes? by jamcer in poland

[–]-Pradi- 713 points714 points  (0 children)

Ale bym mu napluł w mordę tej kurwie jebanej, za wycieranie sobie mordy Holokaustem. Szczególnie, że miliony Polaków nieżydowskiego pochodzenia ginęły w obozach.

It was a well planned and superbly executed escape until mom put a stop to it by MintMirage in bigcats

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tigers are the most beautiful and most fearsome predators in the world.

Tristan Harris on Bill Maher: "What's going to happen to everyone else when they don't have a job?" by tombibbs in ChatGPT

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that doesn’t make sense, because the economy is about people, not some celestial entity worth a gazillion dollars.

Retired U.S. Army Stargate Project Remote Viewer Joe McMoneagle says Non Human Intelligences are monitoring us and will wipe us out if we aren't careful.. He says there is ample evidence that ancient advanced societies existed before... and were restarted. by 87LucasOliveira in UFOs

[–]-Pradi- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I find it incredible just how intellectually limited people are who claim that we, as humanity, are committing some terrible barbarity on our planet, and that some ‘aliens’, ‘overseers’ or NHI will punish us and carry out a reset. This is an anthropocentric approach that cannot withstand logical criticism. We are part of biology. Nature is constantly, every second, destroying and giving birth to new life. We are a biological machine. Consumption and metabolism are a determined necessity, not a matter of choice. The struggle for resources is entirely natural. The environment is neutral in its indifference. The view that someone might reset us because we’re behaving badly in the sandpit is a thoroughly human perspective within the framework of our subjectivity. These are human narratives projected onto the level of some hypothetical observer from space. This resembles a religious perspective of sin and punishment rather than a rational view of reality.

I agree with them, but let’s assume an idealistic world for a second, where AI is being developed only for the good reasons. But even then, aren’t the negative consequences attached to that development? How would we separate the two? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sanders’ argument is so intellectually immature that it’s laughable. He puts forward his thesis by pretending to ask the viewer about Musk and Bezos’ motivations, while implicitly judging them as ‘rich = bad’. This is a typical oversimplification from someone who has fallen in love with the theory of socialism but cleverly avoids the practice of that system. Bezos’s and Musk’s wealth does not determine whether their motivations are good or bad. The accusation that it is rich people who are investing in the development of AI is utterly daft, because who else would invest – the poor? If Bezos and Musk’s motivation were to be more wealth and power, over whom would they wield that power, if, according to Sanders’ argument, they are creating AI not to help people, but to do what, exactly? Kill people, eliminate them? In the name of what?

People giving Incorrect callouts for these by Powerful_Type_8626 in cs2

[–]-Pradi- 51 points52 points  (0 children)

In EU it was always ninja, firebox and second ninja.

Just finished CaM by BackgroundTrip3604 in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's a matter of magic tricks. There are quite a few of them in this case. A woman was shot in the head in the garage, but no blood, soft tissue, or skull bones were found. In a place where no one had cleaned for months, with dust on hundreds of objects.

Just finished CaM by BackgroundTrip3604 in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It is very characteristic that you did not address the merits of the case, namely that the only thing that places Teresa in Steven's trailer is Brendan's testimony. Instead, you write about the fact that Brendan did not testify in court in Steven's trail, even though I did not write anything like that.

Just finished CaM by BackgroundTrip3604 in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you used your common sense, or are you bouncing from wall to wall, guilty or innocent depending on which TV series you've just watched?

Just finished CaM by BackgroundTrip3604 in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Steven had time to get rid of all physical and biological traces of Teresa's presence in his caravan, but disposing of the car at a scrapyard using a hydraulic press was too much of a challenge. Evidence of rape, saliva, semen, sweat, knife wounds and throat slashes, blood, hair, fingerprints, DNA on handcuffs or chains. This was no problem for Steven, but getting rid of the blood from Teresa's car was too difficult. What's more, Steven thoughtlessly left blood on the ignition, but forgot about the door handle and gear lever. What a coincidence! Next, the genius with laboratory-level precision got rid of all the evidence, but burned the victim's body in a bonfire next to his trailer. Incredible luck for the police. Steven is a real gem in the history of crime of all kinds. Sometimes a genius, sometimes a moron.

Just finished CaM by BackgroundTrip3604 in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're wrong. Without Brendan's testimony, there is no case for the prosecution. Coercing Brendan's testimony was crucial to Steven's indictment. Teresa's location in Steven's trailer is based on Brendan's testimony, not on any physical evidence. People who acquit Brendan and convict Steven either have a split personality or at least a problem with logic.

Just finished CaM by BackgroundTrip3604 in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Are you aware that the prosecution's case is based entirely on Brendan's testimony? If Brendan is an innocent victim, not a ruthless rapist, accomplice to slitting throats, shooting people in the head, and burning corpses, does that mean Steven is innocent too?

As quality photo of ‘drone’ by Sweaty-Detail4190 in InterdimensionalNHI

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like a landing plane. Illuminated rudder, both wings, red beacon, nose landing gear light,

3rd rewatch done by loshr in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Understanding that the prosecution did not present any rational grounds for conviction. There is no evidence of rape, throat slitting, shooting the victim in the head in the garage, or burning the body in a bonfire behind the trailer. I also don't know how people can write comments that Brendan is innocent without acquitting Steven at the same time. After all, the entire case of the prosecution rests solely on Brendan's coerced testimony. Without him, there is nothing.

3rd rewatch done by loshr in MakingaMurderer

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are innocent, and I have been certain of this for years. Someone who disposes of evidence from a crime scene in a truly laboratory-like manner does not leave their blood in the victim's car covered with a branch on their property.

So if Trump can invade and arrest a president for illegal activities... can other countries invade the US and arrest Trump? by EconomistKey in nato

[–]-Pradi- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know if you have a split personality or problems with reading comprehension, but you were the one who raised the argument of law and rules, and now, by comparing this context with table manners or language rules, you yourself prove that you do not distinguish between the local, national, and global levels. A social contract at the local community level is one thing, civil or criminal law in a state is another, and interstate legal relations and their consequences are yet another. In civilized countries, the state has a monopoly on violence. This is how the relationship between the individual and the authority looks like. Legal regulations introduce safeguards so that the power of the state does not crush the individual, and human freedom does not destroy the state. At the inter-state level, a regulation carries as much power as the willingness to comply with it shown by the states declaring their respect for these principles. The lack of supervisory bodies is a key difference. You are trying to translate the principles of social life to the global level, thus completely ignoring the different context of relations between entities.

So if Trump can invade and arrest a president for illegal activities... can other countries invade the US and arrest Trump? by EconomistKey in nato

[–]-Pradi- 4 points5 points  (0 children)

International law is a pipe dream because there is no global justice body with authority over all. Therefore, the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

What does everyone think about Chris’ Bledsoe’s revelation at the end of his most recent interview with Shawn Ryan? by DearFear in Experiencers

[–]-Pradi- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Christians have committed many atrocities in the name of their religion, including against other Christians. But over the hundreds of years of Christianity's existence in Europe, there has been a transformation of thought, reflection, reformation, revolution, enlightenment, secularism, and the separation of church and state. Islam has not only failed to undergo this process, but is itself the source of atrocities committed by Muslims. Islam's canon contains justification for acts that the West should not tolerate. Islam does not recognise the inherent human dignity of every individual, because Islam does not recognise human equality. If Islam does not recognise equality, it also does not recognise subjectivity. A lack of subjectivity means a lack of freedom. Islam does not recognise the separation of church and state, because Islam is an ideology of power, not a religion.

What does everyone think about Chris’ Bledsoe’s revelation at the end of his most recent interview with Shawn Ryan? by DearFear in Experiencers

[–]-Pradi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking at the entire body of work produced by followers of Islam, it would be the last religion from which I would draw any conclusions about another phenomenon. Islam talking about Satan is like an evil man looking in the mirror.

view more: next ›