what even is your point of view, from the human point of view, saying Environment means everything they're surrounded by

The dichotomy between the two terms is probably harmful for the most part, in fact there exists an inter-relation between the two, both constitute two aspects of one totality. It probably should be considered more of a dialectic than a dichotomy.

you have to redefine words in a way that don't even match what people who wrote your ideology meant

but, ultimately, the racialists do consider the subject to be primary in a way it never has been and never will be

also, that entire thing was in response to *you* considering individual's genes "innate" - which they aren't and never have been

@Xinyue your snownog argument didn't make sense for what you were trying to argue; taking two ridiculously divergent groups and placing them in an environment clearly more suited to one group, and having the other group die out as a result isn't evidence of rapid adaptation.

"if get some salmon, and I tie some rocks around these parrots, then throw them both into the ocean, the parrots die"

@ecojuche it did, but it apparently flew above your head. Both of those groups were moulded by two very different environments over long time spans; one African and Middle Eastern, other group was Arctic circle based.

Not only were these groups *moulded* by their respective historic environments to be what they now are, they'd also be selected and trimmed by environment once again if placed in new environment - Antarctica - and hence again environmentally adjusted and formed into a new group.

```considering they are not innate, they change even within a person's own lifetime, mutations do and will continue to happen; and further, they aren't something that is innate to you only, they harken generations back in time, carried by people other than yourselves. in no way can genes be considered "innate" to any person X```

they don't change in ways that are Radical within ones own life time or within a few generations to produce widely different results between the generations. The results are predictable.
This is a stupid discussion mate.

```@ecojuche it did, but it apparently flew above your head. Both of those groups were moulded by two very different environments over long time spans; one African and Middle Eastern, other group was Arctic circle based.

Not only were these groups moulded by their respective historic environments to be what they now are, they'd also be selected and trimmed by environment once again if placed in new environment - Antarctica - and hence again environmentally adjusted and formed into a new group.```


YES, over *Long Time Spans*

Nevertheless they are not *innate*

These 3 words have meaning

which was a wrong term to use

they aren't innate to me in any meaningful way

they are innate

my genes are innate to me

this is basic

😂

@Xinyue
>and hence again environmentally adjusted and formed into a new group.

No it's not you doofus, it's one group adapting to a new environment

and another, random arbitrary group that you included for apparently no reason, dying

The group on arrival was formed into a new one, yes, because large sections of it would perish

yeah, one group was formed into corpses because nogs die in snow

It's just interesting the lengths people will go to to make a stupid point in the most intellectually sophisticated way possible.

and a bunch of snow nibbas from greenland live in snow

This is the entire Humanities Department in a nutshell

@ecojuche a dumb point that entirely misses the point - the environment selects what becomes the People

its not the People themselves who do

and never has been

there is a continuity

so people don't choose which environment they travel into and live in?

the "new people" aren't detatched from the "old ones"

Well, not really. If they have to settle somewhere, that is probably itself driven by pressures - there's not enough food where they used to live in, etc.

meanwhile in Scotland..

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48355000_332810067553816_7907933470893015040_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=8e9fb770775960f9512b9d783c90a8e9&oe=5CD80231

the whole point is that the materialist worldview accepts that the objective world of matter exists and is primary, as we all implicitly here seem to agree - whether you like to admit it or not - so you can just as well stop shitting on it

I used to

agree with that

material isn't the primary and marxism is the big gay

Idealism is wholly untenable imo

idk your ideological mumbo jumbo

its not ideological

if u can speak in simple language