Message from @Xinyue
Discord ID: 523895691911888896
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
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
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