And what *is* a 'human' by your qualifications? 'Poetic term' by itself means nothing. Yes, I am a member of the species *Homo sapiens sapiens*. I am an animal insofar as I have parts of me which fit the criteria of behaving as 'animals' do as defined in biological sciences.

My point is that *so are you*, and hence you should be able to say that you are biologically determined too.

I never argued that humans or even *Homo sapiens sapiens* are not animals. Instead, we are not *just* that, and our subjectivities escape such a taxonomisation.

***Again, if you call yourself an animal, then you must be able to prove this. But at the moment that you say that all of your past and present actions can be accounted for by specific biological processes - regardless of whether or not you've proved this - you have already done something that you haven't done before which does not fit within the biological model that you've built.***

Of course I'm driven by rage and spite, but that's not just it. Why am I so angry? Why does my anger manifest itself in this way?

***But even if everything I did __was__ owed to biological factors, then biological factors are influencing themselves and changing themselves in ways which cannot be explained by looking at what they were once before. It follows that there is a new kind of movement which requires a different sort of model to fully understand.***

***__So even if 100% of my actions were owed to biological factors, the very fact that I am changing my own biology (even insofar as it means that I wind up having to gorge on drugs because some Big Pharma -sponsored doctor will put me in a hospital if I don't), then it means that there is something which cannot be explained by looking at my past biology which is going on.__***

```Like this line, in which you admit that your previous claims on biological reductism not being true are true , but false . Because it looks at the past and not at the current "neuroplastic " state
"Such quantifications can be warranted, but only insofar as they analyse the past, and in hindsight."
So if you look at the "plastic" state of it all it is not true what i say (your opinion) but in the past looking in hindsight it is true what i say .```

Notice the 'can be'. Not to say that *they are* of course, which is the stupid 'nuance' that you've driven out of the point.

You dodged the points on why you're wrong to even bring up IQ in the first place, of course.

***So I did not say that the quantifications in the studies and all the conclusions which you drew from those studies were definitely warranted. I could easily scream 'correlation is not causation', for starters. But I went much further than that, saying that only in hindsight can your just-so stories of how some biological processes made the environment this way ever make sense, and that this will always be the case no matter how many studies will bring up.***

__***In fact, there are many factors which haven't been controlled for. Did the researchers in those studies include political movements, specific situations, any of that? Did they account for their own involvement in the social world which, through the 'Butterfly effect', also contributed to that? Did they account for you, me, anyone else? THEY COULD NOT.***__

So no, you're committing yet another straw man genocide. You isolate quotes out of what I say while ignoring the walls of text around them - a classic case of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

```An intelegence is in deed set and determinated by genetics
To which i already proved the statistical evidence
of the "past "
This is the pinicale. You are arguing against me whilst taking the same stance.
" I never said that because I never neglected the environment!'"```

As I have just explained, no, your evidence showed nothing of the sort, and it cannot possibly show anything of the sort given the infinite paradox which results when you try to reduce human subjectivity and thought to biological processes.

***You can keep dodging it, and I'll bring it up all over again.***

And no, neither of us neglected the 'environment' as a factor. My point is that you consider the fundamental factor to be *biological processes*, since they are what 'create the environment'.

**Lastly: what drives *you* to be here? What makes you want to give me 'carpal tunnel'?**

***Is that owed to your biology? Can you prove it?***

***What about the thought of you being here, continuing on and also including your description of yourself in your next response? Is that also owed to your biology?***

"You are the one saying that the environmental changes are entirely owed "

It is just never ending with you. You imply. Creat strawmen and go on till the end of times

I didnt adress any of that but because i did not read it 😄 , but lets point out the belcurve. and totally debunk that whole paragraph of yours.

This is just to fucking much

You dodge

then accuse me of dodging

you are classed as 100% jew

https://www.google.com/search?q=sara+jay+sexy&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix49-a0LTjAhUHfxoKHeX3DBQQ_AUIECgB&biw=1536&bih=754&dpr=1.25

@Garbage

***If there was any iota of truth in what you're saying, then you would have said that biological factors are not the only cause of environmental factors.***

***But then if that's true, not only does biological reductionism die but so does biological determinism as an organising principle to actually stick to since human subjectivity and choice crawls into the picture.***

***And so the world becomes something which __we can do something about__.***

It means that we are not *just* biological, hence we do not have to continue to live this way.

```I didnt adress any of that but because i did not read it :smile: , but lets point out the belcurve. and totally debunk that whole paragraph of yours.
```

*Any study of IQ*, let alone the whole bell curve drama, cannot causally approach the actual domain of human thought and action. The fact remains that if you say that humans *conform* to something which is forever locked outside of their will and their knowledge of it, then you have to prove this since we can't know about it.

The fact that you *and a bunch of other researchers* know about this alleged determining factor is not enough. ***You have to prove that we're determined by biology and that __all human actions__ can be explained through looking at biological processes. You have to come up with the gay gene, the dumbness gene, the engineer gene, the allele which codes for people being nice mothers, and __the evolutionary mechanism which gave rise to your particular thoughts RIGHT NOW__.***

***__Which biological processes led to you coming here, saying this, thinking in this way and refusing to read what I've typed?__***

__***Which biological processes made you post that overused '>implying' GIF? You will need to bring an infinite number of studies with you, and even then, you will still fail because you will have changed.***__

Also I see you shittalking.