all we're doing is confirming the kill here

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

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

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

but then only dodges.

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 .

take this for example

I never even spoke abour reductionism.

that

that's not even my post

That is just something he read on the wiki of the biological determinism

Which i btw mentiond on the other dicord.

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

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

@DA GOMMIE JOO I just heard a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8kbsjkftKE comming from you

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.__***