Science is not selective nmg

There will be a myriad of other examples that did NOT have the below things happen to them yet they will not be documented because they didn't give the result that the so called scientist doing the research wanted to see.

They also didn't look into the upbringing or the habits of the parents nor indeed is there any info on their habits which can and do get passed on to kids.

For the below twin separation to be valid then every single pair of twins known who were split up would all have to exhibit the exact same traits.

Also note that we are specifically looking at identical twins here and not standard siblings, yet siblings still share common DNA, so again this invalidates the whole genetic pre-dispositional concept.

Well, you know that genetics decide physical appearances, right? And our interiors too, most likely. Why would they also not effect our behaviors, likes, dislikes, etc.?

That would be the blueprint, of sorts, for a person. His mind, heart and intentions would make the adjustments and fill out what becomes the fully fleshed being.

Rather than asking oneself whether our nature (DNA) or our nurture (upbringing, enviroment etc) dertermine our behaviour, we could entertain the idea that they both do but one may encourage/aggravate the other.

I am wary of both arguments when each of them seem to be presented as the sole determing agency of one's actions. Especially when this removes a third factor: the individual's choice.

I think our environment and the nurture situation are things that we are able to control in how we will react to it. You can have an abused kid who grows up to be a killer, and someone who was abused even more severely who will not. Those are decisions and are not beyond our control. They shape us only how we decide they will.

noseymutegirl wrote:
But I interpret that as we all have the potential/blueprint/capability to do what any other human has done already, be that good or bad/evil, you seem to suggest otherwise.

Or as Super Hans would say....

Fuck sake, I'm starting to actually envisage oi as super hans...

oioioi wrote:
So i take it you don't believe in the "Evil Gene", we will find out soon enough...

DNA of Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza to be examined for 'evil' gene in first study of its kind ever conducted on a mass murderer

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253797...r.html#ixzz2GSSW4XMJ

.......... wrote:
Do I take it then you're gonna accept whatever this first of its kind experiment tells you?

That article is seriously disturbing RA

psketti wrote:
I don't think there is an "Evil Gene" no matter what the experiment tells us...

I have no idea what made that him do that...

diamondgeezer wrote:
dailymail...

.......... wrote:
Yes, but I think you selected it for posting yesterday because it fits in with your way of thinking. Remind me - where did you post that article yesterday, RA?

*Edit* Don't bother, RA, I remembered I read it on the aspergers / autism thread.

.......... wrote:
DNA of Daily Mail readers to be examined for 'evil' gene in first study of its kind on right wing bullshit

Scientists have been asked to conduct a study a study of Daily Mail readers to see if they have an 'evil' gene that causes them to blame all the world's ills on benefits claimants and immigrants.

The study, which will be conducted on a carefully selected group of volunteers who repeatedly post Daily Mail articles on the David Icke forum, will look at any abnormalities or mutations in their DNA to ascertain if there is a genetic predisposition to believing right wing bullshit.

Some guy in white coat said "We're looking to see if we can isolate either one or a selection of specific genes. For example we want to discover if there are separate genes for believing poor people are at fault for being poor except they're not because they scrounge a million pounds a week from the over generous benefits system and another for there being too many immigrants who don't speak proper English but we're not racist. By examining these abnormalities we should be able to learn more about the conditions where somebody is at risk of becoming a Daily Mail reader and what treatments we can develop."

This new line of investigation follows calls for stricter new controls on right wing tabloid bullshit following a decades long massacre of reason through repeated claims we're going to hell in a handcart because of foreigners and poor people. .

This follows previous cutting edge research that discovered Melanie Philips is 'an entirely new species in no way related to homo sapiens'

dogsmilk wrote:
Brilliant post and very amusing ofc
Just one prob, in another thread you say this type of person is 'intelligent'.
Is there a gene for that too?

Maybe theres nazi intelligence and notanazi intelligence and wtfbbq intelligence and theres DNA for each type.

noseymutegirl wrote:
Pretty obvious basically, if you grew up in an innuit community do you think you would prefer a brick house or an igloo?
Do you actually think DNA gives you those ideas?

.......... wrote:
Is there also a "Not very compliant" gene?

That'll need wiping out too.

dogsmilk wrote:
Quality dogsmilk.

Gilly wrote:
What I mean to say is that if you live your life not intentionally doing harm to others in any shape or form, verbally, physically, or be bearing false witness towards them, or taking or stealing from them, etc. then you have no reason for guilt.

I don't think it ever need to be more complicated than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". People like to get all fancy and intellectual, but it is really simple and the answers lie more in the heart than in the mind. Actually, I think we can make our own minds lie to ourselves if we want to. But the heart, it never lies. And if you remove all hatred from your heart the easier it will be to stay connected to it.

That is not to say that I or others will always make mistakes. A sociopath does not look within, they live in denial and do not do soul searching. If I find I did something hurtful to another, I will search my soul and take a note or two so it doesn't happen again, hopefully. I think this leads to a guilt-free state and a clear conscience is a powerful state of being. And the better you know yourself, i.e., keep up with the housecleaning, so to speak, then the easier and easier it gets to remain in that state.

In other words, the only time we should feel guilt is when we do something that did or would hurt someone, but we can always learn from that and not do it again.

i will absolve all your sins and give you new ones. come hither.