Avoid the relative privation fallacy.

Well that’s put me off cornflakes.

Sports Bras: Many a woman ponders if they need one, while many a man prefers not to think about it.

Yes, its (sic) not as bad a (sic) India

I surely sleep better than those who waste money on a space programme while their countrymen rely on foreign aid just to stop starving to death.

Only if you’re a developed country that doesn’t have tens of millions living in abject poverty.

Indian defensiveness masquerading as chauvinism.

In shock news, a study by India agreed with India and thought India had some great ideas.

India is built on one essential principle - not merely contempt for those below you on the social strata, but an utter callous acceptance of that inequality. Splurging money on space travel while others live in squalor makes sense in this context; the glory of space travel being far more worthwhile than concerning…

All of which is, in effect, simply internalised aggression, directed towards the victim and not the victimiser.

Reaches for basin and vomits profusely.

Your right, we all have problems and no one can be adored as a saint. But we all choose what we will excuse or at least live with.

I expected this to have been playing in the background, frankly:

That dress isn’t bad either. Mrs. Hellpigeon wants one now I’ve showed her the picture.

And Winston Churchill was a racist, and Teddy Roosevelt was pro-eugenics, and Emmeline Pankhurst was a Tory, and Martin Luther King was an adulterer, and Allen Ginsburg was a member of NAMBLA, and Richard Feynman had an issue with women, and Roald Dahl didn’t like Jews, and...

Thor: Ragnarok Has a Solid Explanation for Natalie Portman’s Absence

(Malcolm) Tucker’s Law is surely relevant in Space as in Politics.

Kamala’s teeth are impeccable. (Although Lockjaw is not technically a doggie, being a heavily modified human instead.)

Which not only does not take into account group psychology - never a bad thing - but also overlooks the effect corrupt individuals can have on an organisation.

But if you argue that people can’t be trusted to behave themselves, then by definition your argument contradicts itself. If you can’t trust an individual (flawed, human, etc.) to wield power, how do you know those in charge of the ‘oversight’ will be any better?