TBH I haven't been here that long but your recent messages remind me of the wojack meme.

Lol

```tl dr.
i am guessing its mostly asumtion, with a sprinkle of slander with out a actaul arguement
```

>types out a small wall in response anyway

***Hypocrisy much?***

```Guessing is better then assuming wrong, which is what happens a lot here```

No, it's on you to prove that you're right when your opponent is dead set upon showing over and over again that you're wrong. *There's a name for this: **the burden of proof**.*

Do not confuse this with having to research about whether someone else's claims are true or not.

And no, this is not strictly a choice between guessing and assuming that someone else is wrong. You can read my walls of text if you want and at least try to find some things that we can both understand. You can let me explain this shit to you as I have done repeatedly.

***But you're not interested in that. You want graphs and soundbites. You want books to argue for you.***

I could've just said 'read Zizek' but I did not stop at that or even *start* with it, I went and explained the paradoxes and methodological leaps that you had to make to prove your claims.

***The choice that you've set up assumes that you must and will be LAZY.***

```I mean, i could jhust talk about his attampts of slander . me drinking kratom. lol/ At first he was talking about enhancing ppl ny use of biochemestry. But than has this fit of slander if some one actaully uses stimulants :smile: its called flip flopping and being a hypocrite```

But kratom does not necessarily do that. **One must use the right chemicals in the right doses for the right things.** At low doses, kratom is a stimulant. Anything higher, its opioid properties show up a lot more and normally-unpleasant side effects begin to bite. ***That's why I asked you about how much you took.***

So you're making a giant straw man yet again, assuming what I meant and then screaming about how I'm wrong from your faulty extrapolations of my reasoning.

```fruter more it it stil not proving that you can push beyond biological potential :smile:```

We've been over this, amnesiac.

***We have techniques which, separately or together, change genes, biochemistry and brain structure.***

***Even if we did not have those techniques, it would not be ultimately impossible, it would simply be something which we could not yet achieve.***

__***Furthermore, the fact that biological structures change themselves and each other is proof that there is a new kind of movement between biological structures, and this movement in the case of humans is human subjectivity and thought.***__

***__'Biological potential' therefore becomes nothing but a temporary limitation with regards to technological prowess.__***

```Btw, the hatred against substance use is further more proving that he doesnt understands communism and freedom or having a evolution and revolution of thought even further supported by the dogmas he holds . He is represive and facist whilst not being able to make a concise argument that isnt riddled with slander and assumtion that doesnt even holds up as strawmen```

I did not even say that I hate substance use, this is yet another straw man.

***You're grasping at straws again, because you're implying that I said shit that I never actually said.***

```It is fuynny tho that garbage needs da commie jew and @me for support :smile:
```

For sake of humiliating you, they're helpful. For the sake of exposing you as a coward who handicaps himself through substance __ab__use, selective dyslexia and a very convenient amnesia, no, I don't need them at all!

***And again, this is funny coming from the coward who ran into another server entirely to screech about how I was committing 'Jewery'.***

```That is just your opinion.
I dont see any valid non assumtion argument to anything i have said
let allone argument
its a bit of termonolgy name dropping that is mostlt of the time out of place
and a lot of dodges
```

Your lack of self-awareness is showing again.

***Even just now you assumed that I hate the use of psychoactive substances when I never said such a thing.***

__***What's more, your remark about 'terminology name dropping' reeks of irony given that you resorted to bringing up Wikipedia in an attempt to support your use of terminology (which was itself dodging the point of why I made very particular demarcations between different terms).***__

```like the whole, genetic heritage isnt a thing because they look at the data in the past , and you have a things such a neuroplasticity
```

***Straightaway he's done it again.***

__***My argument is not that genetic heritage doesn't exist, but that the casual connections which you make between biological processes including genes - in addition to the 'environment' which you allege is caused by those processes too - and behaviour can only be shown to exist in hindsight.***__

It's simple. You have to prove that your own actions right now can be attributed to changes in your biology. But when you make a biological model of yourself, you have already changed by way of making this biological model since you are an active subject.

So you cannot possibly give data alone which says that you can completely be described through biological models.

Those models cannot encompass what you have just done now - you have to add in extra clauses to your model to isolate the specific character and content of your thoughts as well as the reasons why you've thought those thoughts.

```which is just silly as the bounds of the plasticity is just set by gentics .
```

You took this point in isolation. Those genes can themselves be changed. But then you say 'oh, it won't change the brain structure'.

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.