The allies were the one that declared war on hitler and refused hitler's white peace

I believed hitler only declared war on russia, poland, and the us

They elected a guy that spoke what the majority is thinking and someone that revived germany from a decadent nation to a powerhouse in just a few years

Hiltler was set up

germany was set up

and they got murdered

As for the poland war it was provoked

germany should not have fell for this

But borzo, it isnt about him being a painter, it isnt about hitler. It is about the description.
Why are you dodging changing the subject in this silly way ?

hitler was never elected

hindenburg appointed him

```"My argument was that you switched total biological determinism and biological reductionism" i never did this so your argument is wrong
```

But then your entire claim that we can never do anything about our biology dies. Also, you missed out half of that sentence: ***"My argument was that you switched total biological determinism and biological reductionism with a notion that there will always be some kind of biologically-determined substance which itself has an influence on human action."***

```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?**