This is to do with the act of one reflecting upon what one is producing a change within oneself which means that they are not identical to what they were before. This is causally attributed not to biological processes but to thought itself - *their own subjectivity*. Biological processes themselves can't keep up.

**You talk about how human society hasn't changed for millennia. Yet human societies have been around for hundreds of millennia and religions as we know them today have not existed for that length of time.**

Christianity is 2,000 years old, for example.

Capitalism - the dominance of generalised commodity production - has only existed for less than *500* years.

You're telling me that humans haven't changed when there has been so much concrete change around us which also happens to be accelerating with reference to multiple metrics?

Can you attribute capitalism, Christian theology (you've had a chance to look up Aquinas's thought, but I bet you haven't taken it) and so on to biological factors and nothing more? If not, you admit that biology cannot account for everything we do as humans and that there is something else that has a controlling factor.

***You can try to isolate a particular trait which has remained constant over human history, but it's on you to explain why it cannot be changed and why it's not just a mere truism.*** If we don't have to live with our present biologies, then why even bother bringing up past and present trends as if they're just truisms and then build a future political vision out of servicing and reinforcing those truisms?

Your only way out is to say 'you're trampling on people and their gods', because the excuses of immutable biology and so on simply do not work even in the face of modern technologies and the sheer investments that are getting thrown in their direction.

***In other words: that's just, like, your opinion man.***

***__And you have to be a 'fascist' by your definitions to uphold and enforce your opinions. Welcome to the real world, where there is no god or force of 'Nature' to guarantee anything, not even the supremacy of your politics.__***

You always avoid talking about *this* for some reason, and it's the crucial part of the leap from biological truisms to political action that I've spent the most time focussing on.

@Garbage lol wikipedia, the media that any one can edit

Your definition is wrong

This would be racial supremacy 😄

Did you know that racial supremacy is a conjoined term?, it means something else then racism

First thing i read, and easyly refuted, your arguments are so weak

>your definition is wrong

>anyone can edit wikipedia

>but when I use it, it's fine

Besides that, you're now just bolting on your own definition. And it dodges the fact that you support racial segregation at a highly organised and city-state level.

You only ping me when you think you've cornered me. In reality, you're at your weakest when you ping me for some reason!

You are not refutting your wrongness, you are dodging , and you start to slander the person. You are doing this because you have been corerd. When you are cornered you start to project. @Garbage

@Deleted User if your Ego got any bigger Neil Degrasse Tyson would make a documentary about it

i'm aussie

👏

Well done, you are part of a country.

I was worried you were going to be from Mars.

So you ran out of arguments.

No counters. Nothing.

***I see everything!***

**I know everything!**

***__Welcome to the Dominatening!__***

@Garbage you are projecting again, its a constant with you. you ran out of arguments, lmfoa you dont even know what racism means, ou think it means racial supremacy 😄

all you do is disagree on the definition of a word

you literally retreat to semantics when you cant win an argument

And then he pulls the 'semantics' card when I put my own definitions on the table.