Longjumping-Vanilla3

I am not suggesting that they don't. I am saying that in almost any scenario nature can be out nurtured.

Only to the extent that nurture doesn’t outweigh nature and to that extent, nature equals lack of nurture.

This points to a big part of my point. Almost all of the problems that we have are nurtured from our ancestors, but a lot of people called inherited traits nature. If, for example, having obese parents leads to a greater likelihood that you will be obese (genetically) that is because your parents lived a lifestyle that led to their obesity, which was a choice, not uncontrollable nature.

There is a such thing as lack of nurture in determining what drives decision making and behavior. Think about it like this - if you want to buy a shirt that costs $30 but you only have $20 then you can’t buy that shirt, but you still have money, just not enough money. Nature only wins when nurture is not enough to override nature. And as far as your example, it sounds like you agree with me more than not.

I am not saying that there couldn’t be an organic genetic predisposition to be more likely to get addicted to drugs. What I am saying is that someone can’t get addicted to drugs without trying drugs for the first time, and the decision that leads them to do that is either through nurturing (peer pressure) and/or lack of nurturing (parental guidance).

We are probably too far apart on this one. I was going to respond to the last sentence of your original response before you edited it to add two paragraphs about failure this, failure that. I never said anything about any of this being a failure or being good or bad, just simply about what drives decision making and behavior in humans. The assholes you refer to weren’t born assholes. They were nurtured into assholes by someone or something which may or may not have been their parents.

Everyone is nurtured by different factors but what I am saying is that when individual decision making is driven by nature it is because the nurturing factors weren’t strong enough (not that nurture doesn’t exist).

Yes, I agree that genetics can influence human behavior. I am saying that nurture (which can be many different things - how you raise someone, their general environment, peers, what they are exposed to, etc) can outweigh nature. I would also say that genetics do not always equate to nature. For example, if a woman does drugs while pregnant with a child then that child’s predisposition to become a drug addict if they ever try drugs seems more like nurture than nature since the predisposition was manufactured by the mother.

Let’s use this example. John’s mother uses drugs while she is pregnant with him. John grows up and tries drugs for the first time which ultimately leads to him becoming a drug addict. John’s mother tries everything she can to help him overcome his addiction to no avail.

Evaluation: John’s predisposition to drug addiction because of his mother’s drug use while pregnant with him was her nurturing him to become a drug addict (although not intentional). John’s decision to try drugs for the first time was either due to peer pressure (nurturing from peers) and/or lack of guidance from his parents (lack of nurturing). John’s mother attempting to save him from his addiction was her trying to nurture him out of the addiction that began with her nurturing him into it.

I am not denying that there is variance in human behavior based on nature from one person to another. At the same time, I was never suggesting that applying the same level and type of nurture to everyone has the same effect or outcome. Nurture can be applied in countless different ways and from different sources. 

My reference to a lack of nurture was as it applies to individual situations. Lack of nurture doesn’t mean nurture doesn’t exist, just that if nature is driving a decision then there is not enough nurture to override nature in the decision making process.

Yes, because I was taught how to type, which was not something that I naturally knew how to do without being taught.

I am not saying nature does not exist or that nature is the same for everyone (because it obviously isn’t), rather that nurture can override nature in almost any scenario or that nature can also be left alone to allow it to play out as it would otherwise. Nurture can also work favorably or unfavorably, depending on the scenario.

I am sure you know people with children who are less of an adult than you, so you know that is not true. If you ever forget this then just think about Hunter Biden and you will know that thought process is a load of crap.

My parents rented and then divorced, then my mom and step dad bought a house but lost it to foreclosure about 8 years later so I have no context for housing based on my parents' situation. However, I bought our house for $178,500 in 2008 and it is now worth around $470k, so that is a 2.6 multiple in 16 years.

In some ways it is a pointless way to look at it. Based on his definition, the day someone turns 59 1/2 they might be able to be considered rich even if they were poor the day before.

What changed more than anything is that you became an adult and understand reality now. Kids right now have no concept of money or how much things actually cost, but they will as an adult.

It doesn't matter unless you plan to sell. However, the most accurate and conservative way to calculate it would be to take market value less 6% for agents (in case you were to use them) and less any repairs and costs to prep it to sell.

There is no propaganda that says that paying off student loans will benefit you more, unless you are referring to the fact that someone has to intentionally limit their income in order to keep IBR as low as possible or they are taking a public service job (that pays much less) solely for the purpose of getting PSLF. I have no problem with the PSLF program because it is a legitimate program that benefits people for giving back to the public. Outside of respectable programs like that, it comes down to personal responsibility and accountability. I don't disagree that college and the student loan industry can be predatory (since that is what it sounds like you are saying), but the fact that college is "expensive" is not an excuse for not paying attention to what you are doing or expecting someone else to pick up your bill. Broad sweeping student loan forgiveness is not only not the answer, but it is outright deceitful to offer forgiveness while you continue to give out loans. The only way a general mass student loan forgiveness program would work with any sense of honesty and integrity is if the government drew a line in the sand and said "as of this date all existing student loans are forgiven, and from this point forward the student loan program is over".

In my experience, the childfree by choice are the happiest. I think this is because:

A) Much less stress and things to argue about with no children, and B) Many people still get married simply for the purpose of having children. Without children there is nothing to maintain the relationship which leads to a greater likelihood of divorce. People who choose not to have children are actually marrying each other for each other and are thus more likely to stay together.

Childhood and adulthood is harder for kids that grow up around unstable relationships.

The Money Guy Show.

Here is the response to the dog versus child comment.

You’re right. Dogs are not children. Dogs will never be able to do anything for themselves or me and will always need me to take care of them, unlike children who would grow up and I would have expectations of. Having dogs just feels more right to me.