Eather you are lying or not capable of studying Kant and his philosophy without knowing that fact.
So you admit to not have read Kant. I thought so.
So there is something wrong with you.
Wrong again. I have justified where you are wrong in almost every post. If you are not capable of reading them, then you obviously do not know English either.
I do not have to repeat my words again and again.
DNA was not known when Kant wrote his books. So Kant did not say anything about “DNA”. Your deductions are completely false. Morality is something that must be learned. There is no morality gene. Any statement that there might be a morality gene has been falsified.
What you are saying is false. And it is dangerous too
Prismatic 567 is not capable of showing any tiny hint that his silly “statements” could be true. You have not read Kant’, you know nothing about morality, nothing about genetics, nothing about children, nothing about education, … and so on and so forth. Your posts have shown this fact very clearly, regardless whether you admit it or not.
Absolutely wrong.
And you forgot to say: “don’t bring up to use words against me”.
Sorry, but you are just too dumb.
Yes. Probably he is even more than that.
Okay, to round this up.
Prism is not a sociopath, he is a modern, moderns cannot be sociopaths since they are not as conscious as sociopaths. Sociopaths are fully conscious, almost superconscious. His thoughts and plans are not well thought through, they are basically not fully planned, and thus not fully conscious, but more derived from a trance like state. Unless of course, he is a sociopath, and using reverse psychology.
moderns like to believe that Nurture is everything and gene’s don’t matter. It is 50/50. I am sure there are many genes that contribute to morality, so the statement “there is no gene for morality” is true in a sense, you will not find one isolated gene that causes morality, but a collection of genes that over the complexities and accidental interactions do.
I am fully aware that my DnA machine can be used to make supersoldiers, or make citizens stupider than they are already. Given how stupid they are how stupid they are becoming it’s a risk I’m willing to take. We don’t avoid technology because of the potential risk, we don’t avoid medicine because evil doctors could potentially make a virus with it, we don’t shutdown the internet because it can potentially be used to spy on people. That is cowardice, accepting sickness for fear of the cure. And at this point, we don’t have an option, humanity is doomed without it.
It is true that “you will not find one isolated gene that causes morality”. And it is also true that even several genes that could cause morality are not findable. His stupid “statements” collapse in any case. The main issue is that his “statements” are not only stupid but also evil, thus dangerous.
He would have to prove that “all humans are born with a potential to be evil”, because that is his stupid, false, evil, dangerous “statement”. It is not possible to prove that. He is WRONG. His “statement” is FALSE.
It is possible to falsify his “statement”, because there is no single genetic finding, no result. no experiment that can prove his “statement”.
No, that’s such a wrong headed way of looking at it.
That’s like a blueprint of a house, and you say the house doesn’t exist, because you look at individual pages of the blueprints and don’t see a house.
If you remove the ability to choose between doing good vs evil, you remove life, because making that choice moment by moment is what life is.
And life sux, for the majority of us.
Furthermore, most of us don’t even get the opportunity to choose anymore, whatever is deemed “evil” is part of some artificially constructed penal code. And half the time it’s not even evil.
Choosing evil is choosing a path that reduces anentropy. It doesn’t matter what is declared or dictated as “Evil”.
No. You are wrong. What he is (and you are) saying is like saying “everything I say is true because it is possible to be true”. That is not how science works and how science should work, because, if it does, then it is no science anymore. Moreover: He is misusing a philosopher of the 18th century as his witness for his 21st century “statements”. There is no morality gene. Period. 
No.
People have to learn what “good” and “evil” mean. That is a fact. And this fact is the reason why morality is almost always misused in education, regardless whether in kindergartens, schools, universities, or by the mass media, the political system.
Yep.
How many infants comprehend Anentropy (not counting the ones on this forum)?
Wow, you have a child’s view.
It is about intent,thought, not object.
To worship:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship
What most do not understand is that the opposite of all the positive is still worship. To truly worship good you must also hold devotion to its opposite. Instead of knee jerk reply . Give it time and truly think about it.
Infants learn and want to learn (they are very much interested in learning), whereas many ILP members seem to have stopped learning.
Evil requires intent.
As does good
I’ve already thought about it in one second. I firmly believe that you are talking out of your bottom.
So do you believe morality is not influenced by genetics at all.
Mice are as moral as humans, preying mantis are as moral as mice correct?
Is anentropy local or non-local? In other words, is personal good the same as universal good?