FACT KINDNESS IS TRAANFERED BY GENETICS

[rpglol101]

George Price a profound Mathematica came up with a formula to track the chromosome which holds kindness. To The day he died George could not disprove his own formula and neither can the scientists to this day. Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

[Nityananda-rama dasa]

rpglol101

Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

Genie would disagree...

[rpglol101]

Nityananda-rama dasa

rpglol101

George Price a profound Mathematica came up with a formula to track the chromosome which holds kindness. To The day he died George could not disprove his own formula and neither can the scientists to this day. Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

Genie would disagree...

That's not how genetics works just ask a biology teacher.

[Nityananda-rama dasa]

rpglol101

That's not how genetics works just ask a biology teacher.

There is very strong indication that Genie's environment effected her behavior.

[Nityananda-rama dasa]

It is also worth noting that you are somewhat misrepresenting what Price proposed, as it simply states that the more closely related two individuals are, the more likely that they are to be altruistic to each other. So far as I can tell, there is no mention in his equation of tracking chromosomes for kindness, though, if you have a link that claims otherwise, please share it.

[Interitum]

Maybe to a certain degree, but people mostly act as they were raised.

[Xiam]

rpglol101

George Price a profound Mathematica came up with a formula to track the chromosome which holds kindness. To The day he died George could not disprove his own formula and neither can the scientists to this day. Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

rpglol101

Nityananda-rama dasa

Genie would disagree...

That's not how genetics works just ask a biology teacher.

I notice you don't cite your sources and rather than address the actual citation someone else made, you make an appeal to a vague authority.

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am" And then the person does read up on the subject and it turns out the person who performed the fallacy was full of s**t.

Anybody know what that is? Because he totally just did that. "Just ask a biology teacher," instead of "Oh, well, that was proven wrong, here's X article, and here's a further study by Y."

I'm just saying, guys. It's Extended Discussion, not "I'm going to make an argument, now do my work for me" discussion.

Not that I ever keep to that principle myself.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am"

Ipse dixit?

[rpglol101]

Xiam

rpglol101

George Price a profound Mathematica came up with a formula to track the chromosome which holds kindness. To The day he died George could not disprove his own formula and neither can the scientists to this day. Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

rpglol101

Nityananda-rama dasa

Genie would disagree...

That's not how genetics works just ask a biology teacher.

I notice you don't cite your sources and rather than address the actual citation someone else made, you make an appeal to a vague authority.

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am" And then the person does read up on the subject and it turns out the person who performed the fallacy was full of s**t.

Anybody know what that is? Because he totally just did that. "Just ask a biology teacher," instead of "Oh, well, that was proven wrong, here's X article, and here's a further study by Y."

I'm just saying, guys. It's Extended Discussion, not "I'm going to make an argument, now do my work for me" discussion.

Not that I ever keep to that principle myself.

Where am I high school?

[rpglol101]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am"

Ipse dixit?

Hey I have a math formula that has been proven for decades. It's math people not some crazy a** bible.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

rpglol101

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am"

Ipse dixit?

Hey I have a math formula that has been proven for decades.

That's what Pythagoras, himself, said.
- ninja

[rpglol101]

Lucky~9~Lives

rpglol101

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am"

Ipse dixit?

Hey I have a math formula that has been proven for decades.

That's what Pythagoras, himself, said.
- ninja

Well disprove the formula then.

[Xiam]

rpglol101

Xiam

rpglol101

George Price a profound Mathematica came up with a formula to track the chromosome which holds kindness. To The day he died George could not disprove his own formula and neither can the scientists to this day. Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

rpglol101

Nityananda-rama dasa

Genie would disagree...

That's not how genetics works just ask a biology teacher.

I notice you don't cite your sources and rather than address the actual citation someone else made, you make an appeal to a vague authority.

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am" And then the person does read up on the subject and it turns out the person who performed the fallacy was full of s**t.

Anybody know what that is? Because he totally just did that. "Just ask a biology teacher," instead of "Oh, well, that was proven wrong, here's X article, and here's a further study by Y."

I'm just saying, guys. It's Extended Discussion, not "I'm going to make an argument, now do my work for me" discussion.

Not that I ever keep to that principle myself.

Where am I high school?

No. You're in Morality & Religion, which is a subforum of Extended Discussion. So you had better be damn ready to show evidence for your case before you start posting. Especially if you try touting around words like "fact" and "could not disprove."

[rpglol101]

Xiam

rpglol101

Xiam

rpglol101

George Price a profound Mathematica came up with a formula to track the chromosome which holds kindness. To The day he died George could not disprove his own formula and neither can the scientists to this day. Everything you do is because of your genetic make up.

rpglol101

Nityananda-rama dasa

Genie would disagree...

That's not how genetics works just ask a biology teacher.

I notice you don't cite your sources and rather than address the actual citation someone else made, you make an appeal to a vague authority.

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am" And then the person does read up on the subject and it turns out the person who performed the fallacy was full of s**t.

Anybody know what that is? Because he totally just did that. "Just ask a biology teacher," instead of "Oh, well, that was proven wrong, here's X article, and here's a further study by Y."

I'm just saying, guys. It's Extended Discussion, not "I'm going to make an argument, now do my work for me" discussion.

Not that I ever keep to that principle myself.

Where am I high school?

No. You're in Morality & Religion, which is a subforum of Extended Discussion. So you had better be damn ready to show evidence for your case before you start posting. Especially if you try touting around words like "fact" and "could not disprove."

math correspond to math. That's evidence by itself.

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am"

Ipse dixit?

Oh, maybe... I saw that, but I wasn't entirely certain what I was reading. I think I was really damn tired at the time.

rpglol101

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Guys? Is there a proper term for that kind of fallacy? A sort of "look it up" fallacy? I've been wondering that for a while. Where someone can't actually prove what they're saying is true, so they request the opponent to look it up instead, as if to prove their argument correct purely because "Oh, you don't know? How sad. Read up and then come back later when you're as well-learned as I am"

Ipse dixit?

Hey I have a math formula that has been proven for decades. It's math people not some crazy a** bible.

I notice you didn't post the mathematical formula.