He would simply say 'no u'. I might be trying to argue in good faith - even with all my ad-homs, since I've still made points - but that doesn't mean that anything necessitates him doing that.

There is nothing to stop him from repeating himself with a few changes to his words as if none of what I've said has damaged his case - yes, this is regardless of whether or not his case is kaput.

I hope you're not his doctor:))

Why to care about offender?

He is but an example.

I see

Is like zoology

or zoopshychology

Sort of. People seem to want to reduce themselves to being animals because they cannot put up with the fact that they're not. It means that they have responsibility, of course!

Is funny you're doing it on leftypol

It's funny that I'm doing it on Discord too. This platform is not made for shit like this.

Just few want to have it, surprisingly.

It was made with sophomoric gamers in mind as a target audience.

If I was not limited to 2,000 characters per message and the instant messaging format, my attack would be even more devastating.

What do you know about Anatoly SHarij?

I don't know of that person.

Anatoly Sharij is a Ukrainian investigative journalist, videoblogger and politician. In June 2019 his own political party, "Party of Shariy" was registered in Ukraine. The party intends to take part in the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary

https://vk.com/id26867380

Fire fly, did you even check what he claimed

It doesnt says this

He shows the discussion not the abstrack

and even if these ppl were maltreated , this is because the parrents have a gentic disposition

Just because he randomly poast "sources" doesnt means that they substanciate what he says, which it doesnt

He is litterly denying heritability

Then he posts thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability

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

Did i ever rule out nature? No i did not. 100% implication. This is what he does and you are just not smart enough to see it . 0/10 comprehension skills.

Firefly and garbage both got schooled.

And i can do it in little under 2 paragraps

let me riitterate

"my study" Which study would that be?? i dont recall posting a study, and if i did it would not exclude the enviormental effects. This is nearly a biased assumtion, Yet another one on which you waste so much time typing all that non argumental text

@Garbage

```He shows the discussion not the abstrack
```

Ugh. The abstract won't tell you every little detail about the study, but even in the abstract itself, it says this:

**So even though it says that 'some parts of it aren't attributed to the 'environment'', it also says that previous studies have shown that it's environmentally-affected too.**

***Moreover, that abstract says: "The limitations of the study are discussed and suggestions
for future research are offered."***

```and even if these ppl were maltreated , this is because the parrents have a gentic disposition
```

A 'genetic predisposition' does not lead to a phenotype necessarily developing towards a given trait.