So you are a determinist, then?
Did you just learn that word? Don't label me motherfucker.
I didn't label you. I asked you a question. Your reaction was irrational and juvenile. That's telling, as well as amusing.
I said I don't fucking know and neither do you. I sure as hell am not going to have a discussion about race and genetics that requires we take a human soul as a given. Then we're not talking about What IS but What IF.
Of course we don't know. It's a matter of belief. Nor does this discussion require that we take such a thing as a given - but you have to take either one side or the other. Either take a monist position on the human mind, in which case there is no such thing as free choice (which is the only position that can consistently be taken by someone arguing for biological causality), or take a dualist position, which makes biology subordinate to the mind, and opens biological causality to question.
You've effectively already taken the former position. I'm just asking you to admit it.
More likely.... More fucking likely? How can you use language like that but not admit, you don't know. And if you don't know than why would you take any firm position other than "I don't know" cuz motherfucker.... You don't know.
Wow, you're really desperate to keep your strawman erect here, aren't you? I NEVER said I knew. I only said that environment was a
more likely cause than biology. But of course it's
so hard to address my actual argument, isn't it?
So can biochemical reactions be subject to genetics?
Edited out your stuttering.
I already said they could, and if you were even the slightest bit interested in addressing my points you would have maybe quoted one of the times that I did so and addressed the argument I am actually making instead of deliberately misunderstanding me. But the latter is far more convenient, and race does seem to be a theory for the intellectually lazy, so I'm not surprised.
So.... you admit here that biological tendencies towards certain behaviors might exist. You mean you don't know? Why... If you think biological tendencies might exist and agree that biological tendencies would be, if they exist, caused by genetics, would you EVER some around here talking about RACE DOES NOT EXIST and I'm so fucking sure of it I'm gonna run around telling people to stop using that word for any purpose whatsoever when you know that you don't fucking know.
Trying to parse your childishly emotional tirade here... and I THINK you're saying that admitting that biological tendencies towards certain behaviors exist is an admission that race exists.
It's not. As I have been saying all along, the theory of race asserts biological tendencies towards certain behaviors as the cause of cultural differences between peoples, whereas I have been maintaining that physical and cultural differences between peoples are parallel effects of environmental causes. And if you weren't so busy clinging to your misrepresentation of my argument, you might have noticed the fact.
I suspect you are deliberately misunderstanding my position at this point. The fact that you keep quoting me out of context and not addressing some rather important points I am making certainly doesn't indicate otherwise.
Can genetics affect behavior? That's the ultimate disagreement here.
No it isn't. I have never claimed it hasn't. I have only claimed that (1) genetic causes for individual behavior do not, by themselves, constitute a theory of race, and (2) that genetic causes for behavior are less likely to effect things like evident intelligence and culture than environmental causes.
You don't answer my important questions either.
Which one? You mean the one that you're asking for the first time here about genetics affecting behavior, which after re-reading all of my posts I can definitively say I have never claimed to be false?