In fact, your argument was that governments are examples of states - which was a terminological quirk which didn't capture the essence of what I was saying and the Marxist take on how 'states' are actually more specific things than 'governments'. ***That was my focus all along and you went and used your own to dodge that.***

__***You brought in that page to say that I was using the terms wrong when not only did the Wikipedia pages fail to back up your assertion there, but the whole exercise ignored the actual distinctions that I was making between the terms which I was using to argue that your understanding of Communism is not only false but is an expression of third-positionist politics.***__

```Lol, the observer effect ? you are claiming that your biologic nature chages in a substancial way because of the observer effect?
we are not talking quantum mechanics here you know :smile:```

Straw man. I didn't say that the biological model changed.

Nor did I say that *the biology itself* changed. I said that not only would the old biological model be unfit for the purpose of wholly describing human action, but that no biological model could account for this change. What's more, one is always ahead of one's understandings of oneself, so there is no way that one can describe themselves to be wholly determined by anything besides themselves at a present moment.

***It's about one's inability to escape the picture of the world that they're talking about, not about any quantum observer effect.***

(Ignore the line of hyphens, they're not disappearing on my end.) It's nothing to do with an external thing towards which we have no relation changing with our observation. It's about trying to keep up with ourselves. As subjects, we think, therefore we change. *This includes you.*

```What makes you think that kratom is bad ? Are you aware your body has natural receptors for alkaloids ?
```

Your guess is terrible. I didn't say that it was 'bad', I said that messing around and taking excessive doses is going to lead to unwanted side effects.

```Data on 27,338 overdose deaths that occurred during July 2016–December 2017 were entered into SUDORS, and 152 (0.56%) of these decedents tested positive for kratom on postmortem toxicology (kratom-positive). Postmortem toxicology testing protocols were not documented and varied among and within states. Kratom was determined to be a cause of death (i.e., kratom-involved) by a medical examiner or coroner for 91 (59.9%) of the 152 kratom-positive decedents, including seven for whom kratom was the only substance to test positive on postmortem toxicology, although the presence of additional substances cannot be ruled out (4).
And these deaths came from the slowing of breathing if i reambere
you see , you seem to imply that i dont source or that i only look at wikipedia of which i know that any one can fill in their biased bullshit
which is why the argument used by garbage relating to biological determinism opposition was easily refuted
7 out of 27.338 deaths
i like those ods
besides this is from overdosing :smile:```

Notice how you focussed only on *the deaths*, which is just ONE side effect.

Nice dodge of the second article too.

***But both of these are irrelevant because neither talk about your specific case. Again: __how much did you take__?***

Penultimately, have a present from @/me since you blocked the guy.

"I tend to talk about whatever you brought up last. But this time...
first off, I never use just one source. wiki is ok; people like me do our best to make sure it's accurate by doing this thing called "citing sources". In spite of that, even people like @/Offender can edit it. I did start there, however; that's where I copied the spelling of Mitragynine from. I also used places like the FDA's website, erowid's vault, a comparison check across Johns-Hopkins, web-md, and one other site. I rarely use the same 3rd site, a random 3rd opinion. I avoid sites that are selling things, because they may simply want to sell kratom, and since a business can lie, I usually assume they do, at least in part. see, this process is called "research". now, I know that's a long word for you; but it's important, because doing research is what keeps me from making a tea out of the more poisonous members of the nightshade family and offering them for sale to idiots like you as some tonic to help your mind. and no; I'm not leaving any time soon. You are free to kill yourself as you see fit. I can't stop you, and I'm not sure I would if I could. But you are lying to people and endangering them. no, I'm not some "self-appointed guardian of the system"; I'm just some one who has noticed you are a selfish prick. I love, as Garbage has said, beating on such as you with words."

***But lastly:***

***__Look at the little Offender, trying to keep up, spewing out another wall of text (except it's not, it's magically a large paragraph!) while he says that he hasn't read half of what I've typed. So maybe I can assume that most of what he says is bulllshit since he doesn't even know how to understand my arguments.__***

***And yet his politics can't be justified by the escapes that he's made. At the moment that human subjectivity and control seeps into his worldview, his politics begins to look shaky because none of it is justified with regards to this (which is why his focus is on biological constructs and processes).***

***__'Why do you want to kill people and their gods?' he asks when I talk about murdering gods rather than about murdering people in order to establish a politicisation of the commons of reasoning which exists between us. He doesn't want this commons at all, he thinks it's impossible enough for him to actively deny that it should exist.__***

***Oh, how he weaponises reasoning and language to try and excuse himself and his fellow crypto-third-positionists from building the politicisation of this commons.***

***__He focusses on things which are frozen in time, so they are eternal truisms or falsehoods, and using that he pretends that there will always be the same kinds of violence, coercion and normalcy because in their most general and abstract forms, they'll never go away.__***

***However, such general forms come with a god's eye view - he pretends that we can even concretely imagine and conceive of such things like freedom and submission independently of our history and our present positions.***

***__His choice of god is none other than CAPITAL ITSELF - the thing of our making which determines the very contours of what we regard to be freedom if we don't consciously build a replacement theory. For him, 'freedom' is the static bourgeois freedom to pursue exclusive aims on ultimate, arbitrary whims; doing what one wants can never be part of a common struggle according to him, so there will always be a need for the abstract and general form of 'government' and hence 'statism' too.__***

In fact, about 'biological determinism', I think I've spotted what he's doing. A familiar trick, in fact.

He's switched to an abstract variant of that term which is about being at least partially determined and controlled by biological forces and structures!

But to focus on something which is so abstract that it's tautological (since robotics makes use of biological models too) is a fallacy because it ignores that the same kinds of 'biology' do not always have to exist, and there is nothing to say that it too can be brought under conscious human control.

For his politics to be the best possible politics, he must prove that the abstract form imposes concrete limitations which cannot be bypassed, for his politics constitutes the avoidance of trying to overcome such limitations.

"In fact, your argument was that governments are examples of states " No i never said this. you should really stop ;lying and making all this sshit up you know.

i read one patagrah and you are lying and implying :D\

He’s not lying per se

he is being willingly ignorant

Like at first hes saying that he switched terms.

but now in the paragh above he states and blames me for doing it

When in reality

They are the same thing

And he is lying as he states that it is my argument, when it isnt and i never even said it

Hes pretty stupid too

as he says this "Penultimately, have a present from @/me since you blocked the guy."

when i actaully replied on that very comment