compatibilism

[phyllo]

you think that this is philosophy?

Are you biggy's and age's defender?

You're worse than Imabiguous.

You do no reasoning.

You just repeat your assertions. Even more than he does.

[Atla]

It's more of a form of free will, that's compatible with determinism. One can be a compatibilist and not be a determinist.

You have people who
1. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in free will (and not determinism)
2. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in determinism (and not free will)
3. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in neither
4. Think free will and determinism are compatible, and believe in both
5. Think free will and determinism are compatible, but believe in free will and not determinism

(and probably more options than that, but the majority of peoples positions are covered by that, apart from general agnosticism)

4 and 5 are compatibilism - you don't strictly have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist, you just have to think they're compatible.

Good, then at this point free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism mean whatever we want them to mean ie. they don't mean anything.

"Then at this point" what do you mean? What specifically was said that means they don't mean anything?

You aren't making any sense.

[phyllo]

There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

Who says that your version of free-will is some sort of official, final, ultimate, absolute, approved free-will?

I'm a determinist genius

Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind.

[Atla]

Who says that your version of free-will is some sort of official, final, ultimate, absolute, approved free-will?

I'm a determinist genius

Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind.

You aren't making any sense either.

[phyllo]

I'm not an arrogant fuck like you.

[Atla]

I'm not an arrogant fuck like you.

I agree - you're at least twice as arrogant.

[phyllo]

Sure. If you say so then it must be true.

[henry quirk]

I was trying to return to the topic

Okay. Here's where I stand on the topic...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

And even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

[phyllo]

You just repeat the same assertion over and over and over.

[henry quirk]

You're worse than Imabiguous.

Are you the forum's defender?

[Atla]

Sure. If you say so then it must be true.

I'm sorry btw that your definition went out of use like 1700 years ago, and they didn't notify you.

[phyllo]

You're worse than Imabiguous.

Are you the forum's defender?

I'm a defender of reasoning.

[phyllo]

Sure. If you say so then it must be true.

I'm sorry btw that your definition went out of use like 1700 years ago, and they didn't notify you.

Then 1700 years ago they had a brain fart and never recovered.

The Stoics understood this stuff and their reasoning is still sound.

[henry quirk]

I'm a defender of reasoning.

Well, from the look of things, here and elsewhere, you Defenders of Reason aren't doin' a very good job.

Anyway, I'm apparently unreasonable and definitely unruly so mebbe you oughta take yourself down the road and leave me be.

'nuff said.

[phyllo]

I'm a defender of reasoning.

Well, from the look of things, here and elsewhere, you Defenders of Reason aren't doin' a very good job.

Anyway, I'm apparently unreasonable and definitely unruly so mebbe you oughta take yourself down the road and leave me be.

'nuff said.

It's not that you are unreasonable. It's that you are not doing any reasoning at all.

You state your position. And when you are challenged, you restate your position.

That's not philosophy. That's not progress. That's not moving forward. That's not learning. That's not a discussion.