>>324944
Wait, there's no fucking mouse and keyboard support on the PC releases?!
>>324947
>You can't appeal to the taxonomical system after calling it unreliable.
Become fucking literate.
>Then they shouldn't be classified as such.
You're just retarded. You're trying to put the cart before the horse. You're purposely ignoring everything we know about taxonomy, genetics, behavior, and culture. You're appealing to the taxonomic system as something immutable and unquestionable and then demanding that nature obey your rules.
>Which is?
The question has already been answered repeatedly.
>And what is this based on?
And that one, too.
>Which is, faggot?
Which is what, illiterate.
>You're saying that it's 50% or whatever
You're literally not fucking reading what I'm saying. You don't understand it. Is English genuinely not your first language? If so, please let me know. These are extremely simple sentences you're failing to read. Perhaps on purpose.
>You know putting walls of text doesn't prove you right, don't you?
Translation: I can't disprove a word you said or even begin to address even a small part of it, therefore I will claim that the act of you HAVING knowledge of this subject means that you're wrong and I am right.
>They're still following their instinct to make dams
Oh, so… some behaviors are genetic. Just like I said. So what's the problem here?
>But even if niggers are programmed to chimp out, it makes no difference.
Ah, yes. The classic "Yes, there are immutable physiological differences between these populations over which they have no control, but they're totally not different populations despite their innumerable physiological differences" argument. I remember when literally no one sane has ever used that!
>Because you're just saying "these genetic differences that result in different behaviors are what defines species because I say so."
<species aren't determined by genetic differences
<species aren't determined by behavioral differences
<species aren't determined by anything at all
<you're wrong because I am personally incapable of comprehending the existence of objective truth and intrinsically assume that all "opinions" are of identical value, therefore your "opinion" is just as real as mine, which has absolutely no evidence to substantiate it
I'm leaning hard toward "you are trolling" at this point. It's either that or "you know fucking nothing about this subject and are trying to opine without requisite knowledge."
>the animals think they're a different species so they are
Um… do you have any idea what neurochemistry is.
>If I rewired your genes
You literally just admitted to creating a separate species. >The correct answer is of course no.
You don't fucking know what genes even are.
>Even animals of different "species" have interbreed in the wild on occasion.
<my NAXALT fallacy means that species don't exist as a concept in the first place!
<yay my fee fees are spared the pain of having to accept something I find hurtful about humanity!
Amazing mental gymnastics.
> Again I could decide
No. You couldn't. Because sophistry is a hoax. Because truth is not a matter of personal opinion. Because objective reality contradicts your personal feelings. Because you are mentally defective and fundamentally do not comprehend the concepts underpinning this discussion. Your opinions don't matter. You have no power over these biological concepts.
>it would be no different from what you're doing.
<you say there are immutable measurable differences between populations that every scientific study ever conducted show exist, regardless of external factors or the conditions in which they are measured
<i say there aren't, and I refuse to prove it
<WE ARE THE SAME
Yeah… trolling.
>The whole point of your argument is that genes being able to mix is not proof of two organisms being the same species.
Okay. And?
>Did you even read this quote before posting it
Yes. And I also know for a fact that you didn't.