Message from @Danacrag
Discord ID: 665674294461988875
Mixed people are more likely to have a variety of medical issues.
Sources:
- White-Asian children are twice as likely as Asians to have mental illness. http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8732
- White/Black babies are less healthy than monoracial babies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
- Mixed race couples are more likely to have stillborn babies than same-race couples. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994621
- Black-White children are more likely than both Black and Whites to make poor decisions. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14192
- Mixed race kids suffer from low self-esteem, social isolation, and poor family dynamics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
- Mixed race children are more likely to have health problems, high stress, smoke, and drink. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
- Interracial people cannot receive certain organ donations. http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
Also I know you haven't read these studies
Because they don't actually demonstrate the claims you'd need to be true for you central claim to be true.
For posterity
This would be a pretty interesting debate
Adolescents who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race. Nevertheless, most mixed-race adolescents are at low risk. Most of the risk items we assessed may be interpreted as related to stress, so we may therefore choose to interpret mixed race as a source of stress. We cannot identify further the source of the stress. Subsequent research can start with the assumption of greater risk for the mixed-race-identified adolescent and try to identify the sources of stress. Only then can we recommend programmatic attention to mixed-race youths. Our comparison of mixed-race-identified adolescents on family structure, parent education, GPA, and PVT shows that on these culture-related nonrisk characteristics, mixed race youths have values in-between the constituent races, confirming a mixed-race cultural experience.
5th study
@Deleting User it isn't
They just lie and don't read
It would be fun to see you debate him though
They refused to get in vc
And text chat debates are just time wasters
Is he actually text cucking? Sad
Low energy
@Neuron Cortex sadly
Doomers are the enlightened centrists
you can bulli me in dm if you want tho
Yes
Do you have a problem with it?
hewwo :3
Lmfao
@LustrousMandrill not to ban this guy ^
<@&644177706367451163> accounting for lifetime costs, wind and solar are cheapest: <https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/barriers-to-renewable-energy#.W-s1fN-YVuR> <https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/642020024625922088/chart-1-finally.png However, if costs over the lifespan of energy projects are taken into account, wind and utility-scale solar can be the least expensive energy generating sources, according to asset management company Lazard. As of 2017, the cost (before tax credits that would further drop the costs) of wind power was $30-60 per megawatt-hour (a measure of energy), and large-scale solar cost $43-53/MWh. For comparison: energy from the most efficient type of natural gas plants cost $42-78/MWh; coal power cost at least $60/MWh.
climate change abatement that would cost just 0.4% of global GDP (less than USD350bn of about USD87trn) could reduce yearly gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions (GtCO2e) from 70 to 38 (54%) by 2030: <https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-will-it-cost-to-mitigate-climate-change> <https://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/Pathwaystoalowcarboneconomy.pdf> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/418850379518705675/631555533752631296/Global-Potential-Abatement.png
<@&644177706367451163> debunk this!!!
<@&644177706367451163> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgL_9jEZ6IE
@LustrousMandrill rate my meme
@goboblin debunk this ^
@goboblin debunk this ^
@goboblin debunk this ^




