```which diproves his "philisopucal tclaim. There isnt much philisophical to it it is pure statistics, and it shows that heritability is a thing. Which he claims its not because of my philisopical arguments```

**Data does not speak for itself. We do not craft political actions based on data alone. 'Pure statistics' are not even meaningless with regards to politics, but they don't actually exist. There is always some kind of interpretation and meaning that's bolted onto those statistics and it is up to us to make sure that it's a practical one.**

This is why I mentioned epicycles and heliocentrism. No amount statistics confirms one or the other out of them - the heliocentric model simply requires less variables and is far more extensible. What makes a theory scientific is that it is most *practical*.

It is the same with biological determinism. No amount of statistics justifies biological determinism, because one can easily say 'we could modify that in some way'. The point that must be deployed to counter such an assertion would be that we could and should never even motion do so, which rests on a *philosophical* argument which would draw upon moral philosophy (though not exclusively).

**Furthermore, I did not deny that heritability is a real metric related to a real phenomenon. I said that *biological determinism* is kaput - not because of the philosophical arguments you make, but the fact that it is impossible for one to completely understand themselves because they would have to understand the fact that they have understood themselves and so on.**

***It just so happens that the same goes for you, and I can always include you into the picture even as far as saying that the stray photons that reflected off the clothing that you chose to wear contributed to the development of an Atlantic hurricane (an example of the 'butterfly effect').***

@Garbage

to which i have the simple explanation that you dodged. The parrents would have had the same genetics, so they created the bad enviorment .

You said that i had the stance that there was no enviormental effect. This is a false assumtion.
You said that my sources which ever you mean as i posted very little, did not included the enviormental factor. This is plain wrong and slander

```The parrents would have had the same genetics, so they created the bad enviorment .```

i ask you ones more, which sources nigger

And that would've been enabled by social factors.

What

if the parrents have the same impuls controll issues they would be bad parrents

pretty plain to me

But that would be enabled and exacerbated by social factors, would it not?

Impulses require triggers.

here let me debunk this ones more as you didnt get it when i did it the first time

And violence requires justifications in people's minds - even if it's just a 'feeling'.

Notice how you dodged the claim about biological determinism.

Again, pulling up any number of studies doesn't prove the claim. How is this not related to *social factors which are based upon things like systemic racism*?

", I was very clearly talking about Beaver 2003 " did you even mention this. lmao

did beaver ever even came up here lol

I did, I was talking about that study and quoting from it the whole time.

that study

lolo it is you who brought beaver up and not me as you say

you are so delusional

You quoted it.

This was the study that *you* brought up to try and prove biological determinism.

Look at the name leading it: *K.M. Beaver*.

'here is one example', you said.

Youou yourself was queting from the abstarck saying they did account for enviormental effects as they looked at the parrents right

I explained how what it shows can be attributed to *social* factors which are independent of 'muh biology'.

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.