so your argument is false and you are lying

the beaver study did look at the enviromental effects

I didn't say otherwise.

and why if you did agree with weaver dio you use the works of the study ? 😄

I said that it was looking at *racial* effects.

and im the one grasping at straws:D

'the works of the study'?

it looked at genetics

and the maoa gemarker

It didn't *just* look at genetics.

not at race as the cause lmao

they just found that there was a higher rate among negroids

How does this link to your assertion that biological determinism is true?

My focus was not on *race* as a biological taxonomisation.

"I explained how what it shows can be attributed to social factors which are independent of 'muh biology'." lol you first say they did not look at enviormental factors, yet you say this

you are flip flopping so hard

I never said 'they did not look at environmental factors'.

This was the screenshot you brought up to say that I said that.

niter is enviormental

lol

nurture *

And yet we can change the environment too.

So no, biological determinism is not proven.

You dont even know what you are talking about , you are out of your depth and just bs

lol

the straw and misconclussion

threre is a large correlation found 😄

You kept dodging my claim about it not being a matter of other kinds of prejudice.

And of course, socially-enforced *enabling factors*.

And after that i showed you 2 sets of statistics that show that enviorment and social factors dont correlate

You did not, you said that it correlates with race.

which you keep ignoring completly as it doesnt fits "your argument"

But not that it is owed to haplotypes, genes, alleles or any of that.

And it does

No, you haven't proven that link.

beaver 2003 found that it does

you read this

and still are in denail

Beaver 2003 said that there were social factors *and* genetic factors.