Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2023
- Messages
- 1,626
typical obfuscation and fallacious reasoning.
You know that you can't get away with outright saying that any of the specific claims I made are wrong, because I'm simply reporting well replicated findings from behavioural genetics research. So instead you resort to posturing and casting vague aspersions and responding to claims that I never made.
"it isn't hard to find extremely kind people who grew up in terrible environments"
This doesn't contradict anything I said . I never said that every single person with bad parents is also a bad person, I said that people with bad parents are more likely to inherit the genes which cause bad behaviour and so are more likely to be bad people than people with good parents.
This is just an obvious fact. a much higher rate of children of criminals become criminals themselves than the children of non-criminals . And this is true even when you compare adoptees. If you were adopted at birth and one of more of your parents are criminals then you're much more likely to grow up to be a criminal than someone who was adopted at birth but whom neither of the biological parents are criminals.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4009388/ " The risk for all CB was significantly elevated in the adopted-away offspring of biological parents of which at least one had CB [odds ratio (OR) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–1.6] "
and replicated many other times see meta-study https://www.researchgate.net/public..._A_meta-analysis_of_twin_and_adoption_studies "A meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies was conducted to estimate the magnitude of genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior. The best fitting model included moderate proportions of variance due to additive genetic influences (.32), nonadditive genetic influences (.09), shared environmental influences (.16), and nonshared environmental influences (.43)."
The only plausible explanation for why adoptees with criminal biological parents are much more likely to be criminals than adoptees with non-criminal biological parents even when they're all being raised by non-criminal adopted parents of on-average upper socio-economic status is that they inherited the genes that caused that behaviour.
If you and your husband work in fields relating to human nature then you should either learn the basics of behavioural genetics or if you're already aware then stop denying science because you don't like the conclusions.
e.g. https://www.aporiamagazine.com/cp/137699066
most of "muh environmental variables" e.g. growing up low income or in a high crime neighbourhood show insignificant effect when examining within families (and thus largely controlling for genes)
Now apologise to me , and admit you were wrong and never make me own you like this again aaaaahhhhhh
edit: also ,calling someone a "eugenics apologist" just because they're reporting the obvious, well-replicated scientific fact that genes significantly influence behaviour including antisocial behaviour is nothign but science-denying anti-intellectual thuggery. It's neo-lysenkoism, debunked blank-slatist mythology for leftoids.
Last edited:
