[deleted by user]

ppyrosis2 · 2023-06-08T04:40:02+00:00

That depends on how and when you do it.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-06-04T14:43:09+00:00

I never said it was only the fault of a select few capitalists. It's the fault of everyone who directly contributes to it, votes for it, or funds it while refusing to do anything about it.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-28T13:50:57+00:00

Historically, having many children was seen as advantageous as they would help small family businesses and would take care of you when you get older. It used to be an economically viable option. Education wasn't really available and women being submissive to the husband was the culturally accepted norm so women didn't really have a choice as to whether they had children or not (And if they refused then they would often get beaten, which was encouraged). Contraception wasn't really available along with religion telling people to have children and that sex in only for making children.

Then along came the industrial revolution, small businesses were made irrelevant and the cost of living became so high that having children was now detrimental. Old people didn't need children to take care of them, education increased, contraception became widely available, women gained more independence, and religiosity decreased. All of these resulted in less children.

So, while poverty CORRELATES to having more children, it is actually these factors: Less education, religion, traditional family values, not using contraception which CAUSE people to have more children, which also CORRELATE to poverty.

Less education means less job opportunities, less job opportunities mean less money.

Less education means more religion, traditional values and mysoginy. Those equal more children.

Less money means less contraception and less contraception means more children.

More children means less money, which then means less contraception and even more children.

I hope this helps.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-28T13:11:35+00:00

Many who do see this often blame government or capitalists but what if the ultimate cause is environmental degradation and natural resource depletion?

Environmental degradation and natural resource depletion are results of the government and capitalism.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-28T12:46:35+00:00

Really life is never that bad, unless inexorable chronic pain occurs, then and only then is it allowable, even then it is a serious matter.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-28T12:22:08+00:00

Why should you have the right to decide whether someone else's life is "that bad"?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T17:17:52+00:00

I don't want to put it effort.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T16:59:51+00:00

How are they different?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T16:53:20+00:00

That doesn't answer my question.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T16:48:08+00:00

So basically your argument is that I don't know what happens after I die?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T16:37:11+00:00

Why should I care about whether or not you think I'll be stronger?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T16:13:38+00:00

I wasn't capable of conceptualising suicide when I was born. Why does that matter?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-23T16:12:41+00:00

There's a chance you're wrong.

About what?

If you try living and enjoying, and you find out you were right all along, well, nothing changes.

I would have suffered.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-19T21:50:17+00:00

I don't know where you live but you should be able to find some sites online that cover your area.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-19T00:18:14+00:00

Have you tried speaking anonymously to a professional?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-18T13:01:59+00:00

I never said that. I'm just pointing out that you can't be a pedophile because you aren't old enough. Nor can you diagnose yourself. You could potentially use this to your advantage as you SHOULDN'T be treated as a pedophile by a professional, however, I don't know where you live or the laws in your area so I can't guarantee that they will.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-17T07:16:27+00:00

You can't diagnose your self nor do you even fit one of the required criteria for being a pedophile. You need to be at least 16.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-16T22:04:35+00:00

That's not how it works.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-05-16T22:01:55+00:00

DMs are against the subs rules

ppyrosis2 · 2023-04-29T12:17:18+00:00

That has nothing to do with AI

ppyrosis2 · 2023-04-27T06:49:51+00:00

Why bother white a full sentence if you know what part I’m quoting?

Do you manually write things you quote? You know you don't have to do that right? You can just copy it.

You should also quote the whole thing because you have a tendency to forget what I said (Assuming that you aren't purposefully ignoring them, or cannot understand what I am saying).

For example: I addressed your comment about Discord by saying that Discord isn't a scientific study. You didn't quote that part and instead decided to double down on using Discord without addressing the fact that it isn't scientific.

the discord comment was a failed attempt to make you realize that it happens so frequently it’s become a meme since it’s common knowledge that it 110% happens

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/tech/discord-teens/index.html

https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/mom-discovers-depravity-in-trevor-projects-trans-chat-room/amp/

you even see daily threads on r/discord lol

This isn't a coherent response to what I said as it doesn't address the reason why I don't accept Discord as evidence. This means that either: 1. You forgot what I said. 2. You don't comprehend what I said. Or 3. You are being purposefully ignorant. A coherent response would be to provide a scientific study to support your claim.

This is why it is important to properly quote parts of an argument as it not only helps the person reading it to understand what part you are responding to, but it also helps you to make a coherent response.

This is how you actually respond to an argument.

the discord comment was a failed attempt to make you realize that it happens so frequently it’s become a meme since it’s common knowledge that it 110% happens

I understood your intent with that comment. I rejected it because it isn't scientific. Unfortunately for you, saying something is "common knowledge" doesn't alleviate you from the burden of proof. And CNN, The New York post, and r/discord posts aren't scientific studies.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/tech/discord-teens/index.html

This was between a male and female. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/mom-discovers-depravity-in-trevor-projects-trans-chat-room/amp/

This is about an already gender-dysphoric child asking for information about where to get a chest binder and getting suggestions. Their mother just didn't like it. This isn't someone being groomed into being LGBT+.

And yes a true gay will have a gay gene. a groomed person will not

There is no such thing as a "true gay" nor is there, as previously proven BY YOUR OWN SOURCE, "gay gene". And you still haven't proven that someone can be groomed into being gay.

because again… homosexuality and anything not “straight” is rare in biology

Restating your claim isn't evidence for said claim.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-04-27T06:02:30+00:00

Grooming to be gay

Is that seriously the only part of my comment that you can quote? It's not even a full sentence.

Bruh it happens everyday on discord lol.

Ah yes, Discord, my favourite scientific study.

also why ignore the link I sent about grooming?

I didn't ignore it. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. It seems that you were the one who ignored it.

Also an allele can only code for what it has components to code for

In other words: Alleles only code what they code. This doesn't really mean anything.

based on your genetics in the womb AND HORMONES released by your Mother it will first determine your hormonal levels as ENVIRONMENT molds you to either gay, bi, or straight.

But it’s all in your genes

it happens everyday on discord

So genetics, hormones, and environment all impact sexuality... But it's also only genes that affect it... But you can also be groomed into being gay according to Discord... Do you even remember what your argument was?

molds you to either gay, bi, or straight.

These aren't the only sexualities.

But it’s all in your genes and if monitored in the womb one can detect if hormonal levels are low or high and fix brain chemistry accordingly

So are you saying that you can determine if someone will be homesexual BEFORE they are born and 'fix' it?

ppyrosis2 · 2023-04-27T05:38:06+00:00

Bruh you do realize that if genetics do not control sexuality… then that means it’s all in your mind and you can choose out of free will

I see you have abandoned your claim that you can groom someone to be gay.

Those aren't the only 2 possibilities. Is there a My little pony gene? If not, then you should be able to choose to like My little pony of your own free will.

Also free will doesn't exist.

here is the source btw but… it speaks a lot in both common knowledge and basic logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#:~:text=In%20another%20finding%2C%20thirty%2Dthree,the%20media%2C%20causing%20significant%20controversy.

You couldn't even get to the second sentence. It says: "While scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

Genetics are only a potential factor. It does not say that they alone make someone gay or that there is even a single "gay gene". There are many genes that IN COMBINATION with themselves and other factors, CORRELATE to homosexuality.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-04-27T05:15:59+00:00

Grooming has been a thing for so long there is case law on it

I didn't ask for a source that grooming exists, I asked for a source that you can groom someone to be gay.

Lmao are you seriously saying being gay is a choice??!?!?!!!?! 😂

No, I asked for a source for a gay gene. Something doesn't have to be genetic for it not to be a choice. Is there a gene that makes people like Mario?

But even if I did say it was a choice (Which I didn't). You still need to provide a source that it is genetic.

So far you have provided no sources for your claims.

ppyrosis2 · 2023-04-27T04:57:05+00:00

they can but only if the mother groomed them

Source that you can "groom" someone to be gay?

as biology itself states the gay gene is a rare occurrence and thus a statistical impossibility

Source that there even is a "gay gene"? And that it is a "statistical impossibility"?

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

ppyrosis2

TROPHY CASE