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

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