**And as it happens, this is precisely what the term is used to mean.**

```
Furter more the only counter argument of him against biological determinism which still stands was, plasticity. Which isnt a valid argument or even relative.```

__***Wrong again! This was not the only counterargument I had. You dodged the 'infinite studies' argument countless times and here you are doing it again.***__

```Yet you take the words he speaks as truth because you dislike me and have a bias agast the facts i drop :smile:```

Or maybe it's because you're lying about me and dragging shit that I never said out of my words.

**Maybe it's because you're making yourself look like a fool.**

__***Even your choice of memes is betraying your mentality regarding this. You strike me as a vulnerable teenager who doesn't know what sort of mess he's got himself into with regards to his life.***__

We have no shame in taking a position against you and your 'facts'.

We dispute that your claims are true, but we can't stop you from holding your position. We don't control you.

We can nudge you, sure, but you can similarly influence us and yourself too.

***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!'***

That is in fact the logic of *liberal identity politics*.

Of course most liberals stop short of this, picking and choosing what they talk about using political correctness as a decency-enforcement tool, but this is entirely in line with their 'scientific' reasoning.

This image may be made in the spirit of straw man comics, but it is in fact quite accurate regarding identity politics as a whole!

The data is taken as given, but the politics differs on *moral* and *philosophical* levels.

@Garbage small wall of response? lol, that wasnt a wall just a large paragrah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 😄

So yes, you got the idea to start talking about biological reductiobnsm becaus eyou read this on the wiki 😄 like i daid and predicted