i think yesYou are capable...
Were you actually capable?
So if I went my whole life without ever eating a hamburger, I never had the potential to eat a hamburger?I'm inclined to think that if the action was never achieved before death, then you never had the potential to do it.
But if you are a child you must know what potential you have in order to nurture you strengths. What happens does not just "happen". You need to make it "happen". Determinism isn't an excuse to be lazy. You are more describing Fatalism, which doesn't take any antecedent causes such as genes and environment into account at all. Man is a part of the deterministic chain, therefore he is perfectly "capable" in creating his own outcomes as long as he believes he has the "potential" to.The environment and genes you are born into / with are already set from birth, so everything is going to play out a certain way. There really isn't "potential", what happens happens.
It's cool that people like you can put a dead-wrong label on an argument and use that label to justify their correctness. I don't care about determinism either way, but if you're going to argue it, try to make a point that is not based around your ignoranceYou are arguing that potential does not exist and you are arguing that it does exist as a counterargument to my argument that it does exist. You are arguing a contradictory circular argument.
It's cool that people like you can put a dead-wrong label on an argument and use that label to justify their correctness. I don't care about determinism either way, but if you're going to argue it, try to make a point that is not based around your ignorance
He's arguing that the statement that you made: "Everyone has the potential to be great at anything" is false, and that choice based off of potential, not potential itself, does not exist. Pretty simple stuff, if you would bother to read what the person your arguing with is writing. It helps your credibility greatly if you actually understand your opponent's argument, and aren't in such a hurry to suck your own dick that you gloss over his words, create "his" argument in your mind, and argue against that, instead of what the actual topic is.He is arguing that potential does not exist, yet he is, at the same time, saying that outcomes are completely based on their genes and brains (in other words: their potential ). His argument is a contradictory circular argument because his argument assumes the truth of that which he is trying to refute in an attempt to refute. So yeah you should probably stfu and try to stop putting dead wrong labels on arguments and try to make a point that is not based on your own ignorance.
I'm not arguing that Determinism isn't a plausible theory. I am arguing that potential exists...