@Dave i dont see how that has to do with race.
what you've got is a legal structure that empowers and advocates single mothers as wonderful things. and completely screws the men. it used to be that single mothers were shunned as the social destructives they are.
when the state makes it very difficult to keep a marriage, the rest of the problems inevitably flow from that. and the state of course glorifies race mixing in every possible way. "what you subsidize you get more of."
reproduction happens through sex
when daddy is fucking bastard daughter he doesnt want the kid popping out looking like him
so he instructs (grooms) her into fucking niggers
and she accepts because her self esteem is already low
cuz shes fukkin her dad (not biological since she a bastard)
do i make it very clear? its not like uncommon like u think it is. happened in my own family. would have happened to me if i was a girl.
@Dave that's a very particular situation. what's common is the single mom with a daughter and procession of boyfriends, and when the girl gets big enough, the men prefer her to the mom.
yeah it's a gigantic mess. i think your situation is pretty specific and not quite so common.
the basic problem is the wrong incentives are institutionalized - and in place for decades. and now they are bearing final fruit - a completely messed up society that has been told black is white its entire life.
ur talking about sex only
im talking about reproduction
why u think woman has so many sexual partners? cuz shes a bastard duh
@Dave that doesnt make sense. when sexual liberation started, nearly all the liberated ones came from married parents. what changed was the technology (30 kinds of birth control), the law (incentivizing women to have sex, have sex with non-whites, to have children without a man). bad incentives were set up legally and then promoted in schools and media. most people people follow what they're told to do by authority, that's how we got where we are now.
you think bastard kids are new? the government sanctions it now with 99.9% legally assured DNA tests
that part I do agree with you on, but I think very little has changed with reproduction except girls can now fuck their father while on birth control which does have a fail rate btw then she'll need an abortionfatherhood is not 1:1 sperm:egg
telegony is real, so it's possible bastard kids have a little bit of daddy's influence.
think about sex in terms of reproduction it makes it easier to fully materialize these concepts. you are discussing law. i am discussing the reasons the law are in place.
@Dave i think my explanation is simpler and yours is not even coherent. yet. women initiate vast majority of divorces because they have financial incentive to. and the more 'education' (propaganda) a woman has, the more likely she is to initiate one. supposedly when college-educated women divorce, 90% of the time they initiate it. that is a seriously fucked up legal situation -- and by jewish design -- since men and women are no better than each other, divorce should be 50/50 and very uncommon.
okay but why are these people getting married for reasons other than love? you are discussing the problem AFTER its occurred. like no shit bro everyone knows no fault divorce, child support, alimony, life ruined, yada yada.
im saying WHY it happens.
>women marrying guys they dont love/wouldnt reproduce with
>1/3 paternity test fails
we are living the handmaids tale and women are the cause, but lets not pretend its about money. im talking reproduction. after u get married ur fucked, like thats not my problem.
@Dave i literally dont understand your argument. i'll be back later to reargue. imo, youre taking your specific instance and imaging it is the general rule rather than comparatively rare. sure, some women marry one man and reproduce with another but not most of them. any report about "up to" is stroke material.
@Dave prove that 1/3 i dont believe it. what they will say is "up to." which is bs.
sure: who decides who the father is? the testing company. instructed by the state. guaranteed by a 99.9% assurance that their chosen marker of alleles matches enough to get away with saying someone is the father even if they are only partially or even not at all.
no testing company since the early 2000s has compared the full human genome. this is proven through people who send fruits and vege and lizards and get back full historical DNA results as if it were a person.
you know things are corrupt in family court. why not the DNA testing too? thats the lynchpin.
💀
@Dave @Alex_Linder
Not sure what the thread is about, and don't think I want to know, but I feel compelled to point out something in particular: you do realize you don't actually need to sequence the entire human genome to establish who the parents of an individual are? Only a few critical parts of the DNA are ever tested for this, that have a more predictable behavior in how they get passed down. To make an analogy, if the DNA would be a book, and you wanted to make a test to identify in what year the book was published, you wouldn't need to read the entire book to find that out. You'd find that information in the first few pages.
As for the historical heritage DNA testing, that a number of companies provide, it's a similar thing. They mapped a handful of key gene sequences that they know are specific to certain geographical regions and test only for the presence or absence of those genes. There's really no point in testing the entire DNA, because 99% of the other genes they aren't testing for don't provide them with any useful data for their analysis. Sure, this can give rise to hilarious results when you send fruit DNA and actually get back something, but that's to be expected considering: a) we share most genes with other life forms on the planet; and b) even the absence of these key genes they test for is correlated to human populations in one geographical region or another.
@Dave @Alex_Linder
That's not a full genome result dude. That's not what 98.7% means.
Explain it then. The test was deemed inadmissible, now they rig them to make them 99.9% every time for the court of law look into it.
@Dave @Alex_Linder
>now they rig them to make them 99.9% every time
That sounds like a drug fueled conspiracy theory. I will not look into it. I have better things to do.
As for explanations, the percentage represents the probability of someone being the parent or not. But because of how those particular bits of DNA they test work, you'll still get high results if you test a close relative of the father for example. Your screenshot mentions this too. If the actual father happens to be a brother, then you'll probably get something like that 97.8%.
There's also a possibility of course that a lower result in the past was due to imperfections in the testing itself or other errors that appear for whatever reason, that have been ironed out over the decades, so now it's more common to see either a 99.9% result or a clear cut "you're not the father" than something inconclusive.
Yeah that's not true the 99.9% number is for legal reasons only it has nothing to do with the full human genome and you have zero evidence that genetic testing includes the full human genome because it doesn't the company gets to pick and choose and it alters the number by how many "markers" or "locii" they call them to compare to determine genetic lineage.
@Dave @Alex_Linder
I don't know what you're on, I already said that these tests don't use full genome testing because there's no point in it, as it doesn't help with the analysis. If anything, it probably makes it harder to figure out who the father is if you compare all the genes.
Why do some tests include 8 "markers" (chosen by company) instead of the full 32 every single time that they offer? why cut the test short? unless its to fudge the test to make it easier to say anyone is the father.
@Dave @Alex_Linder
I started this in good faith, but honestly, I'm not sure it's worth bothering anymore. I don't think you're able to comprehend that these things aren't as simple as comparing a couple of lines of text.
That's not an argument. Why not compare the entire genome if it's not needed? Why let the company pick for you?
@Dave @Alex_Linder
>Why not compare the entire genome if it's not needed?
Your question makes no sense and it betrays your stupidity. Why do something if it's not needed? Of course no company will compare the entire genome if it's not needed, because comparing the entire genome costs time, money, and requires equipment a lot more complex than what they'll be using to test only specific genes.
>why let the company pick for you?
Each company likely has slightly different methods of both testing and the statistical analysis that is done afterwards, that can give different degrees of accuracy. Depending on that they choose what are the optimal things to test for to both get accurate results while also saving time, money, resources. If you don't like it how one company does things, you are a free customer, able to pick another company.
>Each company likely has slightly different methods of both testing and the statistical analysis that is done afterwards, that can give different degrees of accuracy.
right and they pick those degrees of accuracy based on how much of a father's DNA went into their partially or fully bastard kid. i rest my case you are letting the company decide the father for legal reasons such as child support.
@Dave @Alex_Linder
You're a moron. Goodbye.
You are implying that 1egg:1sperm = reproduction when that is not the case. Back in the 90's fathers used to get full-genome results like 98.7% match which is inadmissible in the court of law.
Most of his genes match, but not enough for the jew lawyers to be able to take child support from this man.