***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.

**So you're running around in circles.**

```you are just a bunch of pidgeons if you think there is a "confirmed kill"
Your bias lead to a blindness for actaul fact @DA GOMMIE JOO the tears you have from me existing makes you ignore things .```

Nobody is crying about you. You're a punching bag.

```I never even spoke abour reductionism.
```

That you didn't mention it by name is not proof that you weren't taking such a position.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507137

>__A theoretical approach that aims to explain all social or cultural phenomena in biological terms, denying them any causal autonomy.__ Twentieth-century incarnations of biological reductionism have relied to varying degrees on Darwin's theory of evolution and principles of natural selection. Within the human sciences, there have been attempts to explain observed differences in group behaviour—such as performance on intelligence tests, rates of mental illness, intergenerational poverty, male dominance or patriarchy, and propensity for crime—__as being biologically determined, by claiming that groups have different biological capacities or evolutionary trajectories__. The theories of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sociobiology often involve biological reductionism. A recognition of the importance of biological conditions and human nature need not involve biological reductionism.

***You kept saying that biology is the sole cause of human action, and that even appeals to the 'environment' wouldn't matter because that is also caused by biology.***

__***So this is no straw man. THIS IS PRECISELY YOUR POSITION.***__

```That is just something he read on the wiki of the biological determinism
Which i btw mentiond on the other dicord.
```

Actually, that page never even said anything about 'biological reductionism' in particular, it mentioned 'genetic reductionism' instead. However, I clearly said that if I switched to the style of terminology that the page used, then I could classify 'biological reductionism' as the notion that all human action is biologically-caused.

**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!