Free will is wholly deterministic

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, you're equivocating

[Wizard22]

Yes, you're equivocating

Sculptor can defend his own bad arguments; he doesn't require you stepping in with improper fallacies. Does he?

Which is it?

Countless restrictions on choice???

Or only "free unless gun to your head"???

[Age]

THANK YOU for 'this'.

Now 'this' is some 'thing' that I can REALLY LEARN and GROW FROM.

So, WHAT is 'it', EXACTLY, about the way I 'argue', which makes 'it' 'the worst'?

AND, HOW, EXACTLY, could I IMPROVE?

You should use less CAPITALIZATION and 'parentheses'.

WHY 'should' I?

OBVIOUSLY, the use of capitalized letters and parentheses do NOT ACTUALLY affect the ACTUAL 'argument'.

Save grammatic modifications for when they're really important, use it sparsely.

EVERY time I use 'them' 'they' ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. you are just NOT YET AWARE of 'this' NOR WHY.

And, if you had REAL 'literacy skills' you would ALREADY LEARNED and KNOW WHY, and thus ALREADY BE AWARE of just how IMPORTANT 'they' REALLY ARE.

Also, and AGAIN, capital letters NOR parentheses affect how sound and/or valid an argument is. 'They' may, however, DISTRACT SOME people, but there IS a VERY IMPORTANT LESSON to be LEARNED, from 'this'.

Furthermore I have written WITHOUT capital letters NOR parentheses, and you posters here still do NOT PICK UP on the ACTUAL 'argument' being made anyway, and doing 'that' CERTAINLY DOES NOT HELP in getting you people to ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOR TAKE UP and ACCEPT the CHALLENGES.

I would 'argue' otherwise, but I do have THE WORST 'argumentative style', right?

Also, could this then mean that 'this' is because I am NOT 'argumentative', and whereas people who have THE BEST 'argumentative style' are 'argumentative'? Or does it NOT work 'this way' when in relation to 'this'?

Everybody in philosophy is argumentative. You have points to make, beliefs, like everybody else. You should become aware of your own intentions.

How MANY TIMES do you NEED to be TOLD some 'thing' BEFORE you COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'it'?

It appears your 'literacy skills' are Truly LACKING here.

Contrary to YOUR BELIEF I do NOT have BELIEFS. Therefore, YOUR CLAIM here is just False AND Wrong, AGAIN.

By the way I KNOW MY INTENTIONS here VERY WELL, which you OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET AWARE OF.

[Wizard22]

WHY 'should' I?

OBVIOUSLY, the use of capitalized letters and parentheses do NOT ACTUALLY affect the ACTUAL 'argument'.

Yes it does.

People can't take you seriously typing like that.

[Age]

WHY 'should' I?

OBVIOUSLY, the use of capitalized letters and parentheses do NOT ACTUALLY affect the ACTUAL 'argument'.

Yes it does.

People can't take you seriously typing like that.

GREAT. MY POINT PROVED.

And 'this' IS WHY these human beings, back then, took SO LONG to come to UNDERSTANDING and COMPREHENSION.

If absolutely ANY one "else" speaks or talks in A WAY, which one does NOT 'like', then that "other one" could NOT be taken SERIOUSLY. 'This' as STRANGE as it might seem was REALLY HOW these people, back then, LOOKED AT and SAW "others".

See someone could be writing or telling a Truly sound AND valid argument, which obviously means that that argument could NOT be refuted by ANY one, but if the reader/listener PERCEIVE ANY, LOL, 'wrong doing' on the part of the writer/speaker, then the reader/listener will NOT take "the other" SERIOUSLY, and so could NOT COMPREHEND NOR UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL IMPORTANCE of the argument/message BEING EXPRESSED.

Which, by the way, was ONE of the MAIN POINTS I WANTED TO SHOW and GET ACROSS here, in this forum.

So THANK 'you' "wizard22" for HELPING me out TREMENDOUSLY here.

These people literally LOOKED AT 'the typing' or LISTENED TO 'the tone' INSTEAD of just LOOKING AT and LISTENING TO the ACTUAL 'words' ALONE.

And this was BECAUSE they would PREFER TO JUDGE "the other" instead of FOCUSING ON what was ACTUALLY being SAID, or WRITTEN.

[Sculptor]

As long as no one is holding a gun to your head the choice is "free",

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Your original argument was that people are restrained by countless factors. Now your argument is that "only a gun to your head" means you're not free.

So which is it?

You're equivocating. You think "restrained by factors" like preferences and such is equivalent to "not free", while he does not. So for him there's no "which is it", because he doesn't equivocate those things.

Indeed - I've made my answer perfectly clear.
I'm now wondering does the Wizzt wiz, think that a decision is still free even when someone is holding a gun to your head??

PS. I did not say we are "restrained". Determined is not restraint, it is the very factors that build the decision.
Wizzy Wiz is trying to put words in my mouth.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, you're equivocating

Sculptor can defend his own bad arguments; he doesn't require you stepping in with improper fallacies. Does he?

Well, there you have it. Equivocating.

[Skepdick]

What, like with the, "I'm a policeman", fiasco?

Right!

I am still waiting for you to prove that I am not a policeman.

I assumed you already knew.

You know what they say about ASSuming...

[Harbal]

Right!

I am still waiting for you to prove that I am not a policeman.

I assumed you already knew.

You know what they say about ASSuming...

In this instance, I can't see any major problems arrising from making a false assumption. Even so, I find it hard to believe that you don't know you aren't a policeman.

[Wizard22]

GREAT. MY POINT PROVED.

And 'this' IS WHY these human beings, back then, took SO LONG to come to UNDERSTANDING and COMPREHENSION.

If absolutely ANY one "else" speaks or talks in A WAY, which one does NOT 'like', then that "other one" could NOT be taken SERIOUSLY. 'This' as STRANGE as it might seem was REALLY HOW these people, back then, LOOKED AT and SAW "others".

See someone could be writing or telling a Truly sound AND valid argument, which obviously means that that argument could NOT be refuted by ANY one, but if the reader/listener PERCEIVE ANY, LOL, 'wrong doing' on the part of the writer/speaker, then the reader/listener will NOT take "the other" SERIOUSLY, and so could NOT COMPREHEND NOR UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL IMPORTANCE of the argument/message BEING EXPRESSED.

Which, by the way, was ONE of the MAIN POINTS I WANTED TO SHOW and GET ACROSS here, in this forum.

So THANK 'you' "wizard22" for HELPING me out TREMENDOUSLY here.

These people literally LOOKED AT 'the typing' or LISTENED TO 'the tone' INSTEAD of just LOOKING AT and LISTENING TO the ACTUAL 'words' ALONE.

And this was BECAUSE they would PREFER TO JUDGE "the other" instead of FOCUSING ON what was ACTUALLY being SAID, or WRITTEN.

You're welcome.

[Wizard22]

Indeed - I've made my answer perfectly clear.
I'm now wondering does the Wizzt wiz, think that a decision is still free even when someone is holding a gun to your head??

PS. I did not say we are "restrained". Determined is not restraint, it is the very factors that build the decision.
Wizzy Wiz is trying to put words in my mouth.

Of course it is.

Aren't decisions in the face of life and death, the most 'free' a person can be in life? At least that's how people describe near-death experiences.

You are acting with the fullest volition of your lifetime.

[Sculptor]

Indeed - I've made my answer perfectly clear.
I'm now wondering does the Wizzt wiz, think that a decision is still free even when someone is holding a gun to your head??

PS. I did not say we are "restrained". Determined is not restraint, it is the very factors that build the decision.
Wizzy Wiz is trying to put words in my mouth.

Of course it is.

Aren't decisions in the face of life and death, the most 'free' a person can be in life? At least that's how people describe near-death experiences.

You are acting with the fullest volition of your lifetime.

Yes, I am determined to live to the fullest of my volition.

[Wizard22]

Yes, I am determined to live to the fullest of my volition.

Determined...by yourself?

[Sculptor]

Yes, I am determined to live to the fullest of my volition.

Determined...by yourself?

Correct.

[Age]

GREAT. MY POINT PROVED.

And 'this' IS WHY these human beings, back then, took SO LONG to come to UNDERSTANDING and COMPREHENSION.

If absolutely ANY one "else" speaks or talks in A WAY, which one does NOT 'like', then that "other one" could NOT be taken SERIOUSLY. 'This' as STRANGE as it might seem was REALLY HOW these people, back then, LOOKED AT and SAW "others".

See someone could be writing or telling a Truly sound AND valid argument, which obviously means that that argument could NOT be refuted by ANY one, but if the reader/listener PERCEIVE ANY, LOL, 'wrong doing' on the part of the writer/speaker, then the reader/listener will NOT take "the other" SERIOUSLY, and so could NOT COMPREHEND NOR UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL IMPORTANCE of the argument/message BEING EXPRESSED.

Which, by the way, was ONE of the MAIN POINTS I WANTED TO SHOW and GET ACROSS here, in this forum.

So THANK 'you' "wizard22" for HELPING me out TREMENDOUSLY here.

These people literally LOOKED AT 'the typing' or LISTENED TO 'the tone' INSTEAD of just LOOKING AT and LISTENING TO the ACTUAL 'words' ALONE.

And this was BECAUSE they would PREFER TO JUDGE "the other" instead of FOCUSING ON what was ACTUALLY being SAID, or WRITTEN.

You're welcome.

Yes, THANK YOU, AGAIN, for SHOWING and PROVING HOW and WHY you could NOT COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'I', and "others", here.