I'll let this photo do the explaining~

Your face when this technology already exists and functions. F-35 is the Harrier's modern replacement, which is funded primarily by the US but also receives funding from the UK and other US allies. It's a multi-nation project to attain a tactical advantage during war time. I would also like to point out that the F-35 made its maiden flight (fully operational on its own power) in 2006.

Also, it's kinda bullshit to compare two technologies that are researched for completely different purposes. The F-35 is a military technology. The Human Genome Project is largely a medical resource, not a military technology.

So, a few notes for you OP:

1) OP is a faggot.
2) OP did not check his facts. At all.
3) OP tried to compare two unlike things to make a point, which is a logical fallacy and is pretty much a douche move.

Please use your head before posting.

/thread

>>2
You sir, have made me laugh. I have not done this in a while, Thankyou for that.
/sage

>>3
Not to but in, but:
I'm pretty sure you didn't sage, considering your post just bumped this thread up.
You did actually use the checkbox labeled 'sage', didn't you?

>>2 We don't need more and more war shit; we don't need to spend a whole shit ton of money on a plane. Let's throw our money at the Genome project and not the F-35.

/sage

>>4
I thought I checked the sage box.... sorry if I never did.
/sage
(made shure this time)

>>2 Both of the examples shown are "complete." The human genome project was declared complete in 2003. But you're still right - it is an unfair comparison to say we should have spent money on one thing instead of something completely unrelated.

The same logic would be saying "we should use all the revenue McDonalds makes to fund cancer research. Fuck fast food!" It only makes sense if you don't take a few seconds to think about it. Such an argument is usually used to appeal to sympathy when one of the two parties can be pegged as the "evil" of society.

We don't get anywhere by making baseless claims based on faulty statistical analysis.

>>1
You know how extremely biased this even is, kid?

Even if we need money spent more on medical advances and whatnot, this image was made just to make the other look bad, rather than trying to prove a legit point.

Never try to prove a point and be factual with it, when you're biased on it.

>>8 This.