People should be judged by who they are regardless of not having originated, and therefore been responsible, for themselves.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

[read text] People should be treated based on their future behavior regardless if they were originally responsible for who they are. (which is similar to being treated for having been responsible for something)

 

For example, the worse lineages of multi-generation chronic bad parenting as adjusted to the environment (in other words that are bad compared to others in the same environment) should not have their children subsidized.

 

Now you can donate all you want, but if you force me to pay for other's shortcomings because ''they were born that way and therefore it's not their fault'', I will object.

 

I find it incredibly careless to subsidize genetic lines that cause bad outcomes. Once you alleviate that one person's situation, you enable those bad genes to spread in future persons which will suffer from it and, by your actions, you are partially responsible for that future suffering.

 

Take it as an argument against affirmative action .i.e. discrimination in favor of the weak.

 

I have values and I'm utilitarian about them. I love, hate people based on their alignment with them. I find any significant departure from this, self-defeating (quite literally).

 

Regarding the poll, I did not add discriminating on not fully known individuals based on statistics of the group their in. Whatever you think, I will continue to treat wolves and others (including objects) based on their group statistical average insofar as I lack better individual data. Same with humans, at-least I should (which I visibly do not practice as much as others). I will also advocate for the strategic alternatives that best serve my values. I refuse to be paralyzed by lack of knowledge of every individual discriminated against. Stop Syrian immigration into Europe. I believe that given the lack of perfect knowledge, the most moral system of behavior results in imperfect courses of action because the agent lacks knowledge. I think people should get over their abstract perfections and develop a real solution as to how one should behave based on what one knows.

 

This means stop screeching when an individual gets mistakenly tossed in the wrong end due to group prejudice. Virtue that is suicidal is no virtue at all. If you and others are virtuous, it follows that you want you and others to live instead of being dead. It follows that survival is logically part of your ethical system. As a source of value, virtuous things (as related to your values) in the future are important to how close the future will be to your ideals/values.

 

You can go back to ignoring future consequences, but I will not respect that.

 

 

Bonus issue: people who know little about certain subjects shouldn't engage and leave room and power to those who know more on the issue. Except the intelligentsia has betrayed people by siding with the rulers. There would be no grassroots movement such as FDR if people didn't have the arrogance to act on their lesser competence unless they listen this show by mere curiosity with no intent to ever act on it.

[D.D.]

A pattern I've noticed on this forum, never mind the internet, is a lack of a revision process required when providing an argument.

A revision process is a process that takes you through multiple drafts before reaching that finished paper, or in this case, thread / post.

 

I find that posts are written as if outsiders are assumed to already understand and perhaps share the posters arguments and meanings - kind of like jumping into the middle of a conversation or the middle of someone's life experiences.  I'm guilty of this too.

 

The above post for example, may benefit from being concise.

Reading someone else's post consumes the readers time and energy, like right now.

 

A few early flags of confusion in the above post for myself was:

• chronic bad parenting
• bad compared to others in the same environment
• subsidize
• bad genes

I have no idea what the OP is texting about...but it comes with a poll that you can vote on without providing an argument.

 

What does the OP consider as "bad parenting" and "bad genes"?

Who is the OP referring to with "compared to others"?

Describe "environment" and "subsidize".

[NotDarkYet]

Why am I not allowed to differentiate between 50% and 100%?

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Why am I not allowed to differentiate between 50% and 100%?

Because the question only asks you if it is or not between 50 and 100

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

A pattern I've noticed on this forum, never mind the internet, is a lack of a revision process required when providing an argument.

A revision process is a process that takes you through multiple drafts before reaching that finished paper, or in this case, thread / post.

 

I find that posts are written as if outsiders are assumed to already understand and perhaps share the posters arguments and meanings - kind of like jumping into the middle of a conversation or the middle of someone's life experiences.  I'm guilty of this too.

 

The above post for example, may benefit from being concise.

Reading someone else's post consumes the readers time and energy, like right now.

 

A few early flags of confusion in the above post for myself was:

• chronic bad parenting
• bad compared to others in the same environment
• subsidize
• bad genes

I have no idea what the OP is texting about...but it comes with a poll that you can vote on without providing an argument.

 

What does the OP consider as "bad parenting" and "bad genes"?

Who is the OP referring to with "compared to others"?

Describe "environment" and "subsidize".

bad parenting is parenting that lacks in provisions to the child where other's bear the cost of the child.

 

For example if you watch Stefan's video ''how to make a monster'' that is an example of bad parenting, and the people who died at the hands of this child have beared the cost'' but it could simply be parenting that causes crippling psychological handicap in later life that stop the person from generating more tax revenue than it expends, meaning it is leeching of of others.

 

The tax expenditures on him are subsidies.

 

subsidize as simply giving someone ressources that they did not produce or exchange (in a competitive market) for.

 

environement, environement is everything besides scientific laws and besides the subject environement is said to be in relation to.

Often, the subject is individuals. So everything outside the individual.

 

chronic bad parenting is simply the degree to which genetic differences cause bad parenting when bad parenting is repeated each generation.

So for example, in the case of chronic breast cancer  it would be the degree to which genetic differences cause breast cancer when breast cancer is repeated each generation.

 

bad genes are genes that promote bad outcomes.

[D.D.]

bad parenting is parenting that lacks in provisions to the child where other's bear the cost of the child.

 

For example if you watch Stefan's video ''how to make a monster'' that is an example of bad parenting, and the people who died at the hands of this child have beared the cost'' but it could simply be parenting that causes crippling psychological handicap in later life that stop the person from generating more tax revenue than it expends, meaning it is leeching of of others.

 

The tax expenditures on him are subsidies.

 

subsidize as simply giving someone ressources that they did not produce or exchange (in a competitive market) for.

 

environement, environement is everything besides scientific laws and besides the subject environement is said to be in relation to.

Often, the subject is individuals. So everything outside the individual.

 

chronic bad parenting is simply the degree to which genetic differences cause bad parenting when bad parenting is repeated each generation.

So for example, in the case of chronic breast cancer  it would be the degree to which genetic differences cause breast cancer when breast cancer is repeated each generation.

 

bad genes are genes that promote bad outcomes.

 

I'm so confused by your definitions, grammar, and spelling that I'm going to politely bow out.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I'm so confused by your definitions, grammar, and spelling that I'm going to politely bow out.

Can you highlight at-least one grammar issue? 

 

I read a pseudo-random sample of sentences and I detected no error.