```eitehr way you say you type with 300 keystrokes a min , yet when i looked over at discord i seen you typing your wall o text. Then went to do stuff. looked at the chat some more, you were stil typing. talked to some ppl , looked again and theer you were stil typing
```

And my walls are quite big, so that should not be a surprise. I'm not slow about it.

```You dispute that my claims, but they are not my cliams, tehy are facts.
```

Big dodge.

***And before you claim that you're unbiased, your use of 'neutral' facts is not neutral and 'unbiased' in the slightest! Your politics is not sufficiently-justified (meaning: it's not just the stats that you give a shit about) from the statistics that you give but rather your use of those statistics. This is evidenced by the fact that someone could accept those stats and say 'we need to pity those poor, passive and low IQ PoC!'***

It's not just that your 'facts' are wrong (the stats you give don't mean what you think they mean, and again, I can bring up the 'correlation is not causation'), but that even if they were correct, your politics is not necessitated by it.

```You say we ? who is this we? i notised some one else assuming your gender. And the general butthurt from a couple ppl sounds very simular.
Are you talking about me with your we?
How flattering```

It depends on the context. When I was talking about 'us disputing your claims', I was talking about Communists. You can squeal about how I'm assuming that I'm a Communist when according to you I am a 'fascist' (but using your definition of 'fascism', *so is everyone else*), but the fact remains that I have infinitely more reasons to say that I am a Communist than you do.

***So nice try at speculating, but again, you failed.***

```Again, you dispute my facts, because you assume neuoplasticity
but then dont rebut me saying that the limit of plasticity depends on a person set of genetics.
```

```Again, you dispute my facts, because you assume neuoplasticity
but then dont rebut me saying that the limit of plasticity depends on a person set of genetics.
"When I respond that we can do that, you then say that we cannot change genetic potential despite the fact that we can change the genes so that the cells won't try to emulate past behaviours and shit like that"
You used the example of changing the ability of the immune system, thinking and using this as a argument that you can change the brainstructure so it increases the potential ist the same, and feesebility is yet to be proven
And i reitterated, even if you are able to patch in genetic material it wont change existing structures as they have already grown. And if you patch it you patch it with another set of genetics, so it is still genetic determinism```

I didn't say anything about the immune system, nor was the focus of my argument neuroplasticity (this was only to show that even if your claims were correct about muh genes, the brain structure itself can still dramatically change).

Regarding the 'immune system', *here's what I actually said*:

*Viral vectors are used to insert the protein into cellular nuclei. Talking about 'changing the immune system' is thus irrelevant with regards to the possible purposes of the genetic modification.*

***It means that you don't know what you're talking about.***

```And i reitterated, even if you are able to patch in genetic material it wont change existing structures as they have already grown. And if you patch it you patch it with another set of genetics, so it is still genetic determinism```

***Again, round and round in circles.***

__The point is that we can change BOTH genes and brain structure, so running around in circles about how one limits the other.__

But then if you say 'it's still genetic determinism because it's still genes in the driving seat', then what determined the decision to change those genes?

And what determined the decision to decide that? And what social structures determined and influenced this?

**Remember, I can always make you a part of this: something that you did influenced such decisions. It changed the economy in a certain way, even if it was a miniscule way. It changes the superstructure, it changes culture too. I brought up the 'Butterfly effect' for this reason.**

It's the 'infinite studies' argument again. You need to prove that YOU are also biologically-determined.

'Biology changes biology into new biology' is not a valid argument because now there is a new kind of motion involved. That new biology cannot be described using the same models that would work for the old biology, and nor can the process of transformation between those biologies.

__We already have tools in the biological sciences to deal with this, but there is something which cannot be dealt with using biological models: *human thought and memory*, i.e. HISTORY.__

**This dimension is something which you completely fail to mention anything about because it's just not part of your fixation.**

```I never talked about reductism other then the times you brought it up , You are creating strawmen.
```

Another big dodge.

**That you didn't talk about it doesn't matter because it is precisely your position.**

```If i am the punching bag, then why are you getting baited so much, also this puching bag keeps giving you knock downs that cause massive amnesia in you
```

***Backpedal!***

Wtf is happening

An American junkie is screeching and I'm here to laugh at him.

***>you fall for non-bait
>you're getting baited
>OH BY THE WAY LEMME PING YOU HAHA PLS GIB ATTENTION***

```Where did i take such a postion ? i would ask if you imply much, but i already know that awnser :smile:
```

Your very selective screenshot implies that you dodged the bits underneath that.

```You used me taking kratom as a means of slander, clearly the paragraps of ad hominem assaults on charcter indicates your hypocitism. One side you slander me for taking some alkaloids that have a enhancing effect, the other side you claim you dont hate the use of pscycoactive substances.```

They don't have an enhancing effect at high doses, *which is why I asked you how much you took*. Yet another dodge.

```i never dodged this, I proclaimed that you were silly in the head to think that past facts are not relevant because of the chenging future. Your argument here is, you dont know what happens in the futuire, so you cant look at the past its facts.
You dodge whole decades long studies with this notion. And again igoring the gathered results of them, because theer are potential infinite studies. In which you "assume" that they would say something completly differnt
Saying theer are infinite studies in the future doesnt disputes facts of to day bud :smile:
```