```its used for this, but ex junkies are also breathing air. by your logic you breathing air makes you a ex junkie
```

False comparison. Air and kratom are not equivalent substances. The latter is a drug, the former is not. Unless, of course, you mean nitrous oxide and not the atmosphere that we breathe in regularly.

***This is American argumentative prowess. Truly mindblowing.***

```garbage whole spile is implying something then tirade vaguly on that strawmen
most of the time the strawmen doesnt even holds up
It is funny
i call garbage a liar
what does he do```

@Garbage check <#308995540782284817> thanks

I saw it.

And I'll be using it too soon.

Nice

Anyway, @Deleted User, there was no straw man. You used this abstract proposition that we'd never totally stop every part of ourselves from being biologically determined (which was the point of you saying 'it's still the genes that are doing this' - it's just not THE SAME biology) - and you put it in place of complete biological determinism, which you must use to argue that the same differences will always exist between people and that class society will never go away.

```>screenshot of me calling you a liar
an it isnt a lie nor wrong
```

You've lied on *multiple* fronts there, actually.

You said that you didn't say that governments are a subset of states.

***Selective screenshotting all over again.***

Even besides that: governments are not subsets of states, it is rather *the other way around*.

A state is far more weaponised than a government in Marxist terminology and as far as the Wikipedia articles gave a shit.

**inb4 he misses the word 'usually' *again***

```Look at him thinking again
>another screenshot
I did respond to him, yet garbage is thinking i didnt :smile: evidence to his state of mind```

Except multiple people were talking about kratom doses and the stats that were brought up.

```
>yet another screenshot
It doesnt even relates
splitting the subject has little to do with biological deteminism. as or your infinite studies. That ist argmnt to anything nor does it removes past results.
```

***He's done it again, holy shit.***

The point is that *the past results don't correspond with what people are now, and they never can*. ***By way of them actively thinking - and this alone - it is entirely possible for a subject to change. Absolutely no biological models can account for it. So to even talk about 'biology' being the CAUSE of human action is to misrepresent what it means to even be a human.***

Of course, you think that 'human' is a 'poetic term' - something reserved for the descriptions of rhetoric, subjectivity and reasoning. **But that's just it! How do you deal with this dimension of subjectivity and reasoning itself *which you also have to use in order to put two and two together*?**

__***You want to build a model of society based on natural science - i.e. biology, chemistry, physics and so on. Sorry, but you can't even do a good job at keeping up with YOURSELF, let alone society as a whole.***__ **(THINK for a second about this. If human society can be modelled in that way, then to ensure its survival and reproduction, there's always a certain configuration of society (including - crucially - the economy) which must work best. Hence there are roles which should never go away, and there is a justification for some kind of maintained class society - what's more, given this, it would not be unreasonable to advocate CLASS-COLLABORATION to try and mitigate conflicts to an inherently limited degree.)**

***It doesn't mean that the phenomena of inheritance and biology disappear because we want them to - I never said this at all! My point is that there are no limitations which aren't either temporary and owed to human incompetence or physically-impossible to the extent that they're unimaginable.***

```I replied to him because he actaul made an efford. Why would i be butthurt ? Again you are implying and slandering
```

And yet by your qualifications, your points are untouchable to the point that they're offensive - you have that name for a reason, don't you?

**So why would you need to respond to this guy besides for the goal of either trolling or defending your argument against a dispute which might just injure your point if you can't clarify it?**

```you are repeating his fallacy that some one using kratom is a ex opiate addict
```

I didn't say that at all. My focus was you getting high off the kratom itself. **Yet another straw man.**

```Also yeah he just keeps getting roped back in. and keeps sayying more and more nonsensical stuff that is just snippits of wikipedia
```

Oh the irony. It was you who started with this Wikipedia shit, and when it doesn't agree with you, you sperg.

```I dont even know what he is trying to argue anymore as i debunked pretty much any point he brought up that actaully related to something i said
He keeps forgeting past points on which he was defeated and the next day he claims victory.```

You lied, you switched the context, you fucked about with terminologies. Your argumentative strategy is to deploy a load of bait-and-switch manoeuvres with a Trojan horse of an argument to try and justify your politics.

So no, past points haven't been forgotten. You kept on moving the goalposts. And I suspect that you'll do it again if I ask you what you mean by 'class'.

```This trigger of his started because i mentiond the jews```

Why stop *that* far back and not go further back to when I pinged you the first time? It didn't start because you mentioned Jews, but because you had no understanding of Communism and were arguing in favour of third-positionist politics.

**So you're lying again.**

```>BURGER lemme post hiTNER SCREENSHOT AGAYN```

Like a broken fucking record.

***But let's play another one of your own games.***