looks really dry, though the assortment of colors and variety speaks of a nice touch of dietary balance.

well, u were arguing witht the other dude about motives. he argued that havin kids was selfish. It was a surprisingly nuanced answer, because there are, afaik, two possible claims here. Either its A) the desire for conception is selfish (especially if its an instinctual desire), or B) the outcome is undesirable (e.g. an insecure future for the child). Ofc, you brought in a completely different argument that it props up an economy and failed to address the above two claims directly, but the curious thing is that selfishness and self-serving principles are very much part of the incentives of a free economy, so really there isnt a point of contention between you and him. thats why I wanted to clarify and see if you were aware that you had been arguing a strawman.

i do. im just clarifying if its explicit. That means im asking if ppl have children with the intent to prop up the economy.

wait, youre saying that people have kids explicitly to prop up the economy?

It's not rocket science, but claims must still be substantiated by science. And that means using scientific methodologies. Your article brings up interesting points, but ultimately fails cite anything more than conjecture. That is expected of a non-academic piece of writing, but it holds little persuasive power. Obviously there must be hard data pointing towards your claim, but until you and I both know it, claims of any sort are rather pointless. Surely you see the logic here?

Edit: violent crime is predominantly men because males exhibit more violent tendencies at the extreme percentiles than women. That is to say, if one witnesses a violent crime, it's more than likely perpetrated by a man. So if extreme violence tends to be committed by a male, then all the more so for mass shootings. What even is the argument here?

correlation is not causation. For example, even if majority of shooters are all the things you claimed, consider their representative significance: if for each loner/incel/whatever there is one shooter, then there is singificant correlation. I doubt anyone has data to support a claim like this. How does one measure and define an incel in a way that is statistically relevant anyway? yea i dont know. cuz if its 1 shooter/10000 loner/incel/whatever, then its a somewhat weak correlation. For example, US national homicide rate is 6.5/100,000 people.

This is also not necessarily causation, e.g. did they become shooters BECAUSE of those mentioned factors? Because if everyone somewhat fits those descriptions (and they do. sexual activity and marriage rates are generally on the decline. The US dept of Health and Human Services do track some of that data.) then there is weak reason to presuppose causation beyond a simple observation that both are on the increase and bears monitoring.

Edit: This is actually a good thread ill be sure to use in classroom instruction.

thats quite a shotgun blast of theories youve got there.