Kaitlyn

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.

Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.

We must also consider what morals are. Morals are the collective agreement of what is permissible for a civil society. A clear example of this is if there was no society, we would need no morals. This is because no one would be affected. Therefore, morals are created to form a coherent and successful society. The moment we attempt to use morals to imply that existence of society is wrong, we are using the concept of morality to prove its purpose as wrong. This is an illogical flaw, as morals are ment to promote societal well being, and by using morals to destroy that is the opposite of their purpose. It's similar to using a tool for construction for destruction, it's not correct usage of the tool. Therefore if you create a reason society shouldn't exist, you aren't using morals, but something else.

Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence. 

Not everyone is worth responding to.

I agree, I typically only respond to coherent arguments. However, sometimes others truly don't understand what one is saying. Therfore, I often attempt in expressing myself better before assuming it is their incompetence.

At least he would be easily controlled like a trained Monkey. Just give him a banana marked MSNBC.

I never implied that the neutral state or the absence of something valuable was positive, but I am implying absence isn't necessarily negative. 

It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.

[responding to all your other analogies, too]

It's now easy to understand that without these obstacles many values in life would be lost. Therefore, I don't see obstacles as negative but rather the platform to becoming a champion.

You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.

You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.

Ultimately, obstacles are a necessary part of life, and I am grateful to have them. So many aspects of life would become valueless if obstacles ceased to exist. 

So in one breath you admit.

No I can't.

And in the next you're,

Focusing on what is substantially more likely.

If you cannot prove something, then you have no basis to suggest or indicate that something is substantially more likely or less likely.

Come sit on the fence with me Kaitlyn.

And purpose is simply  an alternative idea to purposelessness.

Whereas, I would suggest that "higher purpose" is perhaps an unnecessary over-dramatization of the idea of purpose.

Though interestingly, your reference to a higher purpose indicates to me that you do acknowledge the idea of a lower purpose.

Freudian slip perhaps.

5. I asked Kaitlyn for her number so I can send her pics of me with my shirt off and she never gave it to me. There is literally no point in being here if I have to see her and be constantly reminded of that rejection.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Zed, but I believe Zed used a poor choice of words in what they were trying to express, and I'm in agreement. It was not that morals don't exist or aren't real, but rather they aren't inherent or within the thing itself, rather they are based upon the individual.

In other words, acknowledging the necessity of a moral standard for a civil foundation, but at the same time recognizing they do not exist within the thing itself, but rather created by a group of individuals. Moreover, if no one values a diamond, it has no value. This is why in the desert one could trade money for water, but in the city, you could trade water for money. This implies that the things themselves have no value because it is subject to the individual's experiences and circumstances, which means that value is not an inherent thing but rather created by how much the people who value it do so.

And indication is a word that you introduced, but not a word that is particularly relative to the discussion.

The appropriate word is suggestion.

Basically suggesting an indefinite purpose, brought about by the very fact of existence.

Idea and purpose generated by intelligence and communicated through language, which is what we both do.

"Not objectively bestowed upon us via the author of existence" for example. ......Nice 

And magical beings......Although just as likely as unlikely, have not previously been suggestively bestowed upon you by this author.

So Kaitlyn, can you unequivocally prove that everything has no purpose at all?

I certainly cannot prove the opposite, and I'm also certain that you cannot unequivocally disprove the opposite.

And it's been 47 years since I attended High School, but I'm still sure that I don't know for sure.

And I'm also sure with equal certainty that you do not know for sure.

There are certainly no nth degrees relative to this particular topic.

Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.

No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.

Imagine the tree gains sentience during your climb (and also that you do the climb blindfolded -- much like we can't see who will be birthed before they are). Some big trees won't feel anything and will be fine, and perhaps they might even enjoy the climb as back-scratching or tickling. Some smaller trees may warp a bit under your weight, causing them a fair amount of suffering. Other smaller trees might snap in half and die horribly. 

Sorry for the delay, I congratulate you on being able to grasp and modify an analogy. Many can't seem to.

You don't know how much pain/suffering/discomfit you are going to cause the tree beforehand (because you are blindfolded). You don't know whether your climb is too heavy for the tree. You just do it blind with dire consequences at stake. 

Yet even here it is the pain and suffering that may have moral consequence. Not the lack of consent while no mind existed to consent.

Now if it was possible for the mind to look back on its life and send information to the past that consent could absolve people before the mind existed of responsibility in their role. That is not possible however.

So we can agree that those who choose to behave in such a way that may cause harm to a potential being cannot be absolved by means of consent. That does not mean that any risk of harm is unacceptable or that the predicted ratio of utility cannot be considered.

We can also take an extreme example of someone who is unconscious after a serious motorcycle accident and has no legal guardian/spokesperson to speak for his/her best interests. This person is unable to consent, both literally and legally. This person will simply die if nothing is done. If we apply your logic of "can't consent" and "no discerning will to contradict", we could justify bashing this person to death, or putting him/her atop a large waterslide just to see how he/she would ragdoll down? Does that seem reasonable to you?

Of course not. It's your theory (from what I can tell) that would claim that the person must be left to die. As you say, they can't consent to anything.

That is not my theory, my theory is that there was a discernible will as established by the previous actions of the person. So much so that even if they are dead on arrival their body is still their property and must be disposed of in accordance with their last wishes.

My theory is that there is an enormous difference in many contexts (such as this one) between "unable to consent due to temporary condition or language barrier" and "unable to consent due to not existing".

If you have to ban people for having an opinion you dont like and that you cant refute, that just makes you a bad debater.

Every opinion is ugly to someone.

Unless their opinion calls for violence, you have no right to call for violence against those users,  badger.

I'm not advocating violence against people I disagree with. I'm advocating violence against people trying to bring misery to others. That's quite sensible. 

Well you're bringing misery to me.

Are you now to commit violence against yourself?

You spend all day on here making transgenderism out a mental illness and black people savages. If I tolerate that, what does it mean for those groups?

You are the antagonist. 

To cry intolerance of intolerance is a farce. 

Badger, this doesn't at all answer the obvious question that your principle raises.

You've said you advocate for violence against people trying to bring misery to others.

You're bringing (and have brought) misery to me.

According to your principle, you should bring violence against yourself, if you were to be consistent. All you're doing is showing that you don't believe in your principle. Therefore, your violence is unpredictable and erratic.

Your failure to recognise the basic underpinnings of all law of order in my proposal is very stupid. 

Drumpf 

I apologize for coming to the conversation a bit late and thank you for addressing the initial post, I should have read over it before stating my opinion. Yes, I would like to address it.

1a) There is always a negative affect before a positive affect, in regards to all humans as a whole (not necessarily to individual humans -- one person's gain can come at the expense of others). Happiness, pleasure, joy etc. (positive affect) are the result of relieving oneself/people of sadness, pain, sorrow etc. (negative affect).

Positive effects can arise from various sources, including accomplishments, negative experiences, neutral states, or even in the absence of something they value becoming theirs. An example of this would be someone who does not have a 2023 Corvette, is this a negative emotion or merely not a positive one I would say this is not a positive or negative effect as people recognize this is a difficult wish to be fulfilled. However, being given the Corvette would have a substantial positive effect on your attitude and view of life, you would instantly be grateful and happy that someone would be willing to give you such a gift. Perhaps even you have accomplished tons of work in your new business and have finally worked up to the revenue provided by your business to finally purchase the car in which you would also have an incredible sense of accomplishment from overcoming such a large obstacle.

Obstacles are not necessarily bad

If you could beat a toddler at tic-tac-toe, you would not feel very accomplished and therefore there was not much of an obstacle to overcoming your goal of beating them. However, if your goal was to beat the world champion at chess and you were able to do so you would feel amazing accomplishment as you overcame such an enormous obstacle. This is also keeping in mind that your acknowledgement that if you did not beat the world champion does not necessarily imply a negative effect as you would have expected this.

1b) Per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect

What do you think of drinking water? If you could flip a coin to (heads) experience your quenched thirst or (tails) to experience dehydration, would you flip the coin? According to current loss aversion theories, people would prefer not to flip the coin because they don't like risking their status quo Higgins_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Consumer_Psychology.pdf (columbia.edu) . In fact, people would be far more willing to take risks to avoid dehydration, than they would to gain a more pleasant drinking experience (perhaps a sugary beverage instead of water). Hence, we have the backing of research to suggest that per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect.

I believe you're misinterpreting the research that was done here. Your argument is that because people would not be willing to gamble for a potentially positive or negative position from what they have, then they must be more afraid of negative. I could make the claim that a person in a overall positive position would not be willing to take the chance for a positive or negative place being that they've worked so hard to accomplish the positive in which they're at whereas a person who has a terribly negative life or perhaps has given up on life would be much more willing to gamble for a better one since they have practically nothing to lose. In other words, I see this research as an implication that people value what they have which demonstrates that they are grateful for their accomplishment and not willing to hastily waste or gamble them. Ultimately, I don't see this research as evidence that negative Things outweigh the positive ones but rather people value what they have and believe it should not be gambled, thus demonstrating their positive value towards it.

What happens if they child dies at age 4 from sickle cell anemia? Is that bad "parenting" or dependent on "upbringing?"

To directly answer the question, I would say it is dependent on the child's parenting. if the child's parenting would have provided the child a positive view of the world in which they would have been glad to take on the risk in order to experience life, then I believe the child would have been grateful for the opportunity but of course disappointed that it turned out they were unable to experience it. Ultimately, the morality of bringing a child into existence without their consent would be dependent on what the child would have said in their adulthood,

Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. 

Would you be okay with someone taking you money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?

[No response yet]

I find people who come together on a public debate platform in an attempt to solve problems are typically not trolls. Trolls are all on social media.

I appreciate your views, and willingness to share them reasonably.

 It's the same as we wouldn't appease someone who had a dream and now feels they can fly irl: the feelings in the dream were real, but that doesn't make it a good idea to appease feelings with gay abandon.

I see what you did there.

I'm not advocating violence against people I disagree with. I'm advocating violence against people trying to bring misery to others. That's quite sensible. 

Well you're bringing misery to me.

Are you now to commit violence against yourself?

You spend all day on here making transgenderism out a mental illness and black people savages. If I tolerate that, what does it mean for those groups?

You are the antagonist. 

To cry intolerance of intolerance is a farce. 

Of course I don't know.

I merely suggest that because I don't know, it is therefore impossible to rule anything out.

There's no higher purpose in biological function.

You don't know that.

It's just an idea that you run with.

Meta-physics....Abstract theory....Interesting philosophical concept.

Isn't all theory abstract to a degree?

To theorise requires imagination.

That is, the assessment and modification of acquired and stored data, some factual and some not......Output is wholly suppositional, and may or may not be proven to be correct.

A biological function and process that seeks to further understanding....Purposeful even if it serves no greater necessity.

You claimed that my argument was "bigotry".

No, I claimed your argument is apparently fueled by bigotry, because only a negative emotional reaction to these people can explain the absurdities you are engaging in.

[This is Kaitlyn speaking] Don't start with this virtue-signaling nonsense.

You're quite a toxic person for enabling mentally ill people to harm themselves with irreversible gender reassignment surgery and self-described gender identities that don't fit reality at all.

You're the type of person to hand a suicidal person a gun as you say, 'I respect your wish for you to kill yourself', without even considering if they're mentally ill, if they've thought it through, if they're having a panic attack etc.

This stance you have on enabling mental illness doesn't make you a good person at all.

[This is Double_R speaking] How amusing it is to watch someone repackage their bigotry as selfless virtue, while pretending everyone else is terrible.

Explain to us how preventing a suicidal person from getting hold a gun to blow themselves away is "bigotry".

You can't.

Nor would I try to because I've never said anything remotely resembling this. But it was a nice strawman.

Merely stating 'strawman' isn't an effective argument. You need to explain how it was a strawman (which you can't because it wasn't).

You claimed that my argument was "bigotry". That was in response to me arguing that enabling mentally unstable people to do harmful things (i.e. giving a suicidal person a gun) was bad. Thus, it follows that you thought me arguing that we should prevent a suicidal person from getting of a gun was "bigotry".

Should transgender teenagers, who often simply grow out of transgenderism, have the "freedom" to perform basically irreversible transgender reassignment surgery, drastically altering their puberty and making it super hard to ever somewhat resemble their biological sex ever again? 

Your answer to this is currently yes.

No, it's not, because your portrayal of what actually happens (which I broadly support) is cartoonishly silly.

Teenagers don't just walk into a medical clinic, ask for surgery, and walk out that afternoon with a new set of genitals. This decision involves the teenager and their parents consulting with a team of doctors who have to go through a barrage of beurocratic processes to determine what type of care is recommended and approved. I can in theory be swayed to still be against it, but honestly, I just don't care because no matter the result what you're advocating for is to remove the individual, their parents, and their doctors all from the equation so you can make that decision for them. I am just not deluded enough and narcissistic enough to think I'm going to sit here in Google and teach myself this issue so well that I will be able to decide what's best for the individual than the individual and the team around them.

BTW I'm curious, do you consider yourself a freedom loving conservative patriot?

The fact is that haven't provided the studies to make your points

Because my point is that you haven't met your burden of proof.

Whether you think I've failed to meet my BoP is totally irrelevant to your failure to provide studies for your arguments.

You're making arguments as well. You're saying things like 'the research on transgender reassignment surgery is mixed'. You NEED to provide studies to make the points you're making. If you can't/won't, then your arguments don't have the necessary premises to make any of the arguments you're making.

[Dropped by Double_R]

You're reframing your laziness and ineptitude as a virtue

You can call an unwillingness to sit here and go study by study, line by line with you for hours and hours on end laziness of that makes you feel better. Fact still remains that you haven't even connected the most basic dots your entire argument is sitting upon. This reminds me of arguing with theists trying to use the bible to prove that god exists and then calling me lazy because I'm unwilling to go passage by passage with them.

You need to provide studies for the points you make.

It's that simple.

Respect is the default position. Your position violates the default position, therefore the onus is on you to prove why everyone else should move from the default position. You've failed to do so.

I don't need a study to prove that. Your studies do not address the conclusion you're trying to prove. 100 invalid connections do not amount to one valid one.

There are about three different levels of carrying out this very basic, 3rd grade level principal. You can respect others wishes...

A) Because you know what they are since they have explicitly told you so

B) By looking at the evidence and applying Occam's razor

C) By assuming based on basic human nature

If choice A is not an option because the individual you are interacting with hasn't made their wishes explicitly clear, then you use clues to figure it out and apply until informed otherwise. Like for example when a trans women walks into a room with a wig and a dress on.If you have any common sense within you then you can very easily figure out their preferred pronoun is "she".

Choice C is the most basic and what all human beings do in any situation where we don't have specific clues... We assume. Based on our own life experiences it's not difficult to tell what people tend to want. If someone is struggling to carry a bunch on things and is walking up to a door you can use your common sense to tell you that person would like for you to get the door for them.

Therefore, (1) respect isn't solely about wishes (despite you previously arguing it), and thus (2) it's possible to respect someone without adhering to their wishes (as shown by the "or" for my definition of respect).

1) I never argued it was "solely" about respecting others wishes. I literally just broke down for you what "the most" means according to the English language.

2) Yes, as I already explained, it's possible to respect someone without adhering to their wishes, because respect can come in other forms. But it's not possible to respect someone while you're disrespecting them.

You don't get to pretend one aspect of respect wipes out disrespect. That's like saying a man who brought home flowers to his wife is "treating her good" while ignoring that he gave her a black eye the night before.

Rights? No, you don't believe they should have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies

Feelings? No, you're calling them mentally ill because of how they feel

Wishes? No, you think anyone who regards them is evil

Your position here couldn't be any more opposite of the position you claim to hold.

If a terrorist wished to blow up a shopping center, would it be disrespectful to call the police or bomb squad to thwart that wish of his/hers? 

Yes. But disrespect comes with a negative connotation that doesn't apply here. Disrespect is to act towards someone without regard for their wishes, feelings or rights. So if you are not regarding them, you are not respecting them.

Would you respect terrorist's plot to blow up a shopping center? No - Then you would disrespect them.

Therefore, it's probably not a good idea to perform irreversible, costly surgeries on people that don't help them.

It wasn't your idea, you didn't perform the diagnosis, and it's not your body. What's at issue here isn't the success rate of the surgery, it's about who has the right to make that decision. Not only are you injecting yourself into something that has absolutely nothing to do with you, but then you have the nerve to pretend you're respecting them by doing so.

It's a combination of me understanding those points that makes me more respectful of transgender people than you.

Transgender people don't have uniquely transgender brains (they're basically homosexual brains with mental disorders). Transgender people don't have their very high suicide rates lower *AFTER* transgender surgery. Most transgender teens simply grow out of their 'transgenderism' by the time they are adults Transgenderism: It's time to state the obvious - Washington Times Clearly, their body isn't the cause of their malaise.

It's objective that transgender people's feelings about being in the wrong body aren't based on reality, much like someone claiming to fly, because he/she did so in a dream, isn't based on reality either (even if he/she feels it was real, which he/she would have). Therefore, we should reject the wishes that extend from transgender people's feelings that are based on non-reality, and thereby label them as objectively wrong.

It's the false conception of reality that needs to be fixed; appeasing feelings, that are the product of a false reality, doesn't fix transgender people.

[Dropped by Double_R]

Again, I'm using the science as a premise to reach my conclusions.

Gender reassignment surgery doesn't lower the suicide rates to any meaningful degree. Therefore, it's probably not a good idea to perform irreversible, costly surgeries on people that don't help them.

The conclusions you are reaching have nothing to do with science, so your whole argument is invalid at the outset

Badger is a degenerate f*ckboy who still acts like he is in hit late teens, despite being well into his 30s (and far uglier as a result).

His posts are mostly rambling nonsense that isn't worth a second thought.

He's also attempted to flirt and hook up with me several times, hence his anger towards me.

At least he's not sexually harassing me anymore

How is he a fuck-boy if women don’t put out for him? Don’t you need charm and charisma? 

Why do you think he’s resorted to coaxing men into a relationship by sending them vids of himself? 

Also I think you zapped none of my posts, but it is creepy as shit when she uses my name. 

FYI-  I zapped a couple of obvious violations of our doxxing Code of Conduct.  I don't care how honestly you came across personal info about one another, don't relate that personal information on this site and definitely don't use that personal information as an argument under any circumstances.  Thanks, both of you, for refraining from such conduct in the future.

I'm not advocating violence against people I disagree with. I'm advocating violence against people trying to bring misery to others. That's quite sensible. 

I'd guess 70% of posts on this forum these days are made in that Lxam kid's transgender antagonisation threads or in TWS's and Kaitlyn's racial antagonisation threads. That and GP's inane spam. This is a forum held hostage by the obnoxious views of very few.

Lop off the heads of those 4 users and who knows the variety of what we're all talking about. 

It's pretty much giant walls of hate threads for any new user to get over. 

Anyway, my mom's calling. 

You seem ashamed to admit that you're adopted.

It's not frivolous sex.

I am building a happy home. 

I don't know if you two have tried to get along before,

Or tried many times,

And it just doesn't work, so one or both quit trying,

Why are you so interested in whether I'm adopted?

Just think you should have the good manners to go see a therapist rather than dragging your demented ass all across this website. 

Wouldn't it be better to have a polite conversation with badger,

Than one of insults?

You are adopted right?

Hang on, gonna phone my mom and tell her I love her. 

Ah, I did see that post,

But forgot about it,

As the thread looked to be going in more in a disagreement between people, than explanations by people of their views,

I passed it up a bit,

Though perhaps now I'll reread it.

What about freedom of speech?

Just wondering what people think here, seems a conversation that's never had. oro touched on it here some little bit: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9357-stay-away-from-black-people-scott-adams?page=1&post_number=3

It seems to me that this site is going the way of Stormfront or 4chan or whatever dumb as shit site and is gathering a userbase of fairly unpalatable people intent on racism and transphobia and whatever other weird uninteresting shit. That is regrettable. DDO was a vibrant place, fairly devoid of this stuff, and so kept lots of interesting people. Isn't that something we're interested in here? There are certain users here that bring down the mood, or flavour or outlook as oro writes, of the website and that's bad for us for what this website could be. There was a point in time on DDO where there was new and interesting and not at all antagonistic users arriving every single day. And some of them have crossed over to here. But would any of us have stayed or got caught if the mood of DDO then was what DART is today?

I'm glad to see oro become a mod. But I want a wartime mod. I have no interest in playing house with a bunch of degenerates. 

The jury is out on trees, they are certainly more social creatures than we gave them credit for.

Nope, theory is theory and correct is correct....In my opinion

If one is repeating theory, then it might be considered correct, but only if it was repeated correctly.

If you firebombed my house and bashed my children, then that is what you would do. The abstract concept of morality would be a tad irrelevant.

And I'm not sure where me inflicting wanton pain fits into the argument. It's you who's the wannabe firebomber and child basher.

Criminals are typically low I.Q. and impulsive, and so a lot of crime is little more than a rash, thoughtless act. 

And some would say the same for those in poverty. They pertain a low I.Q., impulsive, etc. 

What you are describing is a vanishingly small group of people -- it is nowhere near the mean.

I respectufly disagree. I came to a different conclusion years ago based on varied evidences from research done at universities and recorded/produced by public broadcast station(s) by contributions from viewers like you. There are several other articles and the such about the such as well.  Perchance it is a bias to overcome but for now I see no evidence to conclude otherwise. 

If a person is thoughtless, they woud not be able to forumalte a response.  Kids do it all the time. 

" Why did you kick Joe?"

"I dont know.".

This is a biological occurance because low brain development. We see it in kids, who would have a low IQ but more importantly low brain functionality. Kids cant always comprehend the whys and therefore can not explain them. 

Same for adults who for one reason or another are unable to convey why. 

What demographics are known to have low iq? 

"People of color" 

Im sure that is a legitament response for you

but lets try this. What monetary (money related) demographics is associated  with a low IQ?  

The poor. 

Why? 

Low to no schooling. Low to no intervention or assistence. Etc. Etc. 

An objective, statistical analysis doesn't require people to be totally honest and candid with you, hence why it is superior.

Statistical analysis doesnt go into why a person does x. 

Unless you believe that all racial groups are precisely the same genetically (wtf), different racial groups have different clusters of genetics. We should expect different outcomes in societal achievement partly due to these genetic differences. When we control for relevant environmental effects (something you can't do in surveys or interviews), we find that race is an excellent predictor of crime -- that's how genetic cause is demonstrated (no assumptions involved).

Again this points to social darwinism.  Thats been debunked already.  No biology or science accepts it. 

Also, the predictor in crime is based on stitics in who is being arrested. Blacks and hispanics are more likely to be wrongfully arrested and accused. Stats in one area will not determine or seperate errors in another. 

But I want to be super clear with your stance: do you believe that there is no genetic cause (even partial) for poverty at all?

I'd say partial because of disabilities like autism or cerebal palsey where our society has not adapted to include these individuals or they are not able to adapt to society. These mental and physical diseases occur among all "races" and are not restricted to a single race. However we do see more people suffer from these diseases while in poverty because they do not have resources for clean safe water, or food, or environment in some manner. 

Which again circles us to nurture over nature for my position. 

You can't because some of my studies are showing some degree of causation, either through variable control or genetic cluster analysis.

I havent seen it. 

What I'm suggesting is that some people's genetics don't allow them to function well in society. Some people's genetic make them stupid and impulsive, of which negatively predict financial success.

That seems to be sociopaths and psycopaths or some other minority group that is not affected by malatone. 

Are you saying that humans were not subjected to evolution?

Im saying social darwinism doesnt explain the factual presence and affect seen in evolution for humans. Our skin tone is a genetic resource for surviving in areas where there is more sun, compared to areas where there is less sun. This (our skin) has nothing to do with nor does it affect our behavior or thought patterns. 

the lack of vitamin D from the sun or in general does affect our behavior and mood. 

Got Poly vibes really. 

I'm just trying to have a conversation about degeneracy on this website.

What self-respecting persons wants to associate his or herself with this?

It's telling you try to spin every bit of negative attention you receive into some weird positive.

I just find you and your little family of degenerates here to be very ugly. You're the edge this site is about to fall off of.

As to my being ugly, I actually sent Wylted a video of myself about to deadlift a whole bunch of weight recently. I grew up damn handsome. 

Bootlicker Badger sidekicks whoever is popular at the time. 

DART’s personal Yes-Man. 

Theoretically correct is a contradiction.

A theory is an unproven proposition and therefore is neither correct nor incorrect.

Nonetheless, morals are just made up stuff

Whereas procreation is about as real as the species gets.

Do you think that trees worry about antinatalism after a good pollenating.

 An estimate, calculated in 2009, puts the true dollar amount for raising a child from birth through undergrad years at a whopping $1.1 million.

1. Comparing breathing to poverty is like comparing apples to oranges. There is more similarity in comparing breathing to skin tone because they are conditions we do not control. 

Our bodies develop to breath and develop to have malatone based on genetics. Although we can be born into poverty,  we can navigate/escape poverty.  

What else seems to be missed is that I am sayin poverty/being poor is a cause because a person decides they need to commit crimes to navigate/escape poverty. 

Studies that look at percentages does not determine a person's decision. Only their demographics. Im not basing my position on percentages but real interviews and surveys. 

In contrast, the evidence you provided comes to a brick wall because you use demograpics. Demographics that also indicate that "blacks" and "hispanics" have higher percentages in poverty. Some how we are to forget or ingore this but assume that the mere presence in demographics demonstrates genetics as a cause. 

I think your big issue is that you assume all people have good justification for their actions. 

I never said poverty is a justification for crime. I look at it like alcoholism. Treat alcoholism and then other issues can be addressed. Treat poverty and other issues can be addressed. If these things are not treated, then you will not prevent the abusive husband from being abusive and you won't prevent the poor kid from going to jail. 

Does everyone who drinks alcohol or is an alcoholic develop abusive behaviors? No. But for the person who is abusive needs to address the alcoholism. Same for poverty. The poor person stealing has a greater need to steal. Decrease the need first and that person will have an easier time navigating life, staying out of jail, etc. 

I dont have the survey because no one makes the survey. 

But, anyone can argue your evidence is doing same as you blame me.

White people owe us this', rather than extensive, valid, desperate reasons about their dire poverty requiring drastic measures.

You express a person's thought. Same as I do in point 1 above. 

You also highlight a people and "their dire poverty." Somehow these people are in poverty and are in your demographics but we again are to ignore their poverty? 

They can say it was x or y, but I doubt any of them will factor in their genetic makeup into their explanation

Thats because social darwinism has already been debunked. 

 This is a negative proof fallacy. It's not logically valid.

Thats ok.  This thread is not based on validity. That doesnt make a claim untrue though. Correct?