```> innate

you do mean the genes which

a) are literally material environment, that is, they came from the primordial soup of matter
b) were evolved in times due to changes in the environment
c) were further adjusted by interactions between the subject and foreign microbiological elements from the environment

@AdorableStormtrooper ?```


what even is your contention?

that environment is primary

you've just proven that it isn't with your previous example

what a boring conversation, it's just more materialism

dump nogs in snowland, they die

of course its materialism, its the only sensible doctrine

no

ok so you're playing with the definition of Environment to include Humans and make the term completely useless just to save your Ideology 😂

i didn't realize the game we were playing

I mean if you want to deny the reality of abiogenesis and evolution from that point onwards, that's your call man

your ontology is useless because it is literally myopic

<:facepalm:508484035274735665>

"if you don't adopt marxist weaseling you hate evolution"

this is not even Marxian exclusively

many doctrines hold this viewpoint

mostly because its sensible

Lol

We talk about Humans in Relation to the Environment, if you make Humans part of the Environment, either of the two terms is useless.. because you're not even taking a Human point of view

What r u guys arguing about today

This is a retarded discussion to save the integrity of a stupid ideology

of course in absolute terms the "human" and the "environment" never were and never will be an absolute dichotomy

namely Materialism

its more of a dialectic between them

that plays out

but nevertheless,

to posit genes as "innate" is very asinine

he's playing word games

you just made a biological deterministic argument with the snow nogs

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

>placing nogs in antartica will make them white

my <:brainlet:508484031625691156>

hot take

perhaps blue

If you're saying Genes are physical material and hence part of the Environment, u got it. But i doubt that's what pretty much anyone who uses the word "Environment" in this context means

@ecojuche I made an environmental argument for how it is the environment which determines the composition and characteristics of a given group, one which went entirely unopposed and unchallenged because it can't be challenged

purple

because you're using "Environment" in a way that no one does

lol

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