hehe

Okay, I think you’re confused. Read the thread again.

Alright, I've gone through and read the thread in its entirety again.

The person I replied to thinks that parents should be blamed in all cases if their child is a bad person (except if they’re an actual psychopath).

So this seems to be your overarching thesis. There's something /u/Md-99 said from which you've deduced this claim, erroneously or not. What did they say that led you to believe this? Because I'm not sure what led you to think that. I'll give you my best guesses though.

/u/Md-99 said,

If you are a good parent your child will be a good child.

To be fair, they did make an absolute statement which is not completely credible. There are exceptions to this obviously. However, still being fair, you rebuked this with another absolute statement that is also flawed,

1 thing your 100% wrong about though...that’s not how it works.

Although that isn't necessarily how it works, there are a plethora of studies which show that a person's quality as a parent and two parents' ability to work together as a functional unit are two factors which drastically improve the likelihood of children becoming well-rounded adults who can become functioning and contributing members of society. Though they've made their belief clear that being a good parent helps if your goal is to have good children, they've not said anything yet from which one can derive the opinion that "parents should be blamed in all cases if their child is a bad person".

I’m sure there’s a million more examples showing that’s not how it works.

How sure are you? How many such cases can you share where the child doesn't exhibit sociopathic/anti-social tendencies? In the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, there were at least a few factors separate from his parents which are purported as having severely impacted him as a child, such as being vulnerable and exposed during an operation having to do with a double hernia he'd developed. 2 years later, after his younger brother was born, they moved to Ohio where at the age of 6 Jeffrey was molested. Though I won't discount there were probably some faults in his neural anatomy and physiology that may have predisposed him to anti-social behavior, there was a lot of "nurture" that went into bringing out the badness in Jeffrey.

All I did was disagree with that and explain why they’re wrong.

You used an obviously extravagant outlier case to counter the point they were trying to make. Again, they made that point as an absolute, which it is not, but you seem to have a bone to pick with the notion, no matter how it applies to probabilistic outcomes. Furthermore, except in the sense that it's not an absolute, their claim is not wrong. Again, there is a general consensus among social and psychological scientists that this is indeed the case.

Nature and nurture definitely come into play here.

Absolutely right, as those both comprise the entire world of causal factors which can have effects on human development. However, you were using anomalies of the "nature" side to counter the point /u/Md-99 was making for the "nurture" side, of which there is a general scientific consensus.

Here is /u/Md-99's response,

Dahmer was a psychopath, don’t know if you know this but psychopaths lack empathy. He didn’t care what his parents thought, he wasn’t capable. I’m talking about kids who join gangs or people who disrespect their parents as a result of poor parenting or loose boundaries. Not psychopaths.

Perhaps this is where you began forming your thesis? Although it's unclear what in their first comment /u/Md-99 is referring to when they say "I'm talking about...", evidently they are making the point that sometimes a children do turn out bad, but that is likely to be due to a lack of proper parenting skills, such as "loose boundaries". Again, yes that is how humans work. Just as good parenting makes it more likely that your children will be "good", bad parenting will increase the likelihood that your kids will be "bad".

You go on to counter with a purely anecdotal story, again with some deleterious claims at the end.

Another example this girl Melissa I grew up with, great parents, upper to middle class. She got married and had 2 sons , successful happy life, started hanging out with a co-worker partying a little on weekends, just drinking, that lead to trying heroin. This was in 2013, flash forward to present day. She’s divorced, hasn’t seen her kids in years, and sucks and fucks to support her habit. This is real life, happens to people with good parents as much as to people with bad parents. This does not conform to your thesis, though.

Wew. Alright. I'm sorry that happened to your friend. Life is unfair sometimes, but ultimately it's what you make of it. So, let's dissect this. /u/Md-99 posits that being a good parent means that you will have good children. You counter this with the bold claim that this is "100% wrong" (remember, that's a direct quote from you). You also hold that /u/Md-99 "thinks that parents should be blamed in all cases if their child is a bad person". No where yet have we observed any statements to attribute this to.

Then here comes this next part of dialogue. First, /u/Md-99 admits their confusion,

What the hell does that have to do with her parents. She was an adult at the time thats her own damn fault.

to which you reply,

You said if your a good parent you’ll have a good child, your words not mine. And if your specifically talking about people under 18. I’ve seen some straight terrors, who swear and tell there parents off. And there parents are very good people, just zero discipline.

Alright, so yes that is exactly what /u/Md-99 said. Good parent? Good child. Child. "if you're specifically talking about people under 18..." How was this not immediately clear? You even quoted them. That demographic is exactly what the word "child" describes. In fact, I'll look up a definition for you.

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

There it is. You then go on to provide another story about the people you've known, " I’ve seen some straight terrors, who swear and tell there parents off. And there parents are very good people, just zero discipline."

More anecdotes. I'm sure you were there for every parent-child reaction to judge the quality of their parenting? Good people can be bad parents. I would be a bad parent. My fiancee would be as well. But she's a damn good human being. If a child lacks discipline, it is because they've not received the proper behavioral motivations and lessons to build discipline, or outside sources are leading them astray. So yes, the parents probably were at fault to some degree, but neither you nor I can prove that one way or another. That is why anecdotes are useless for coming to objective conclusions.

Not sure why you’re lecturing me

I know. Being lectured isn't inherently bad though.

but I just want to let you know that comes off as condescending because nothing I said suggested that I need a lecture

You've proven this to be false. In fact, it is why I'm responding to you further.

My entire conversation with you began because of an unnecessary comment from you.

The conversation began because I found that, in addition to the logical flaws and hypocritical statements you were making, your arrogantly uncouth manner of discourse was giving me second-hand embarrassment.

Once again, I think you need to read the thread again.

Perhaps you should read what you say before armchair-attacking people on the internet during this nice summer weather we're having. I've spent enough time on the internet today, so I'm going to go outside and practice identifying psychoactive shrooms in the woods (seems we've forgotten which sub we're in).

At various points in this comment, I stated that there is scientific consensus surrounding various claims.If you'd like me to provide you with those studies, I will find them again and share them with you so that we can have an educated conversation and perhaps we'll learn some things.

/r/shrooms Thread Parent Link - i.redd.it