South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take.

If you stared into the deterministic abys and it told you that you should begin a program of eugenics to purge humanity of all low IQ breeders so that your predestinarian vision can come to pass, would you change your mind and become a eugenicist? Trick question of course; the abys will never tell you anything you don't already believe.

It sure tells you how brave you are often, but never tells you that you are actually wrong. Same as the Bible never tells a Christian he's wrong. You just take your existing opinions, sprinkle them with some personal opinions about what determinism tells you, and then you are done. Other people can have determinism tell them anything they want as well, and that can include eugenics because it will agree with whatever they already believe, just as it does for you.

Flash, this is bordering on intentional stupidity.

Don't be so harsh, I am sure you are doing your level best.

You’re not arguing against determinism—you’re arguing against your own cartoon of it. If someone looks at causal reality and concludes “eugenics is the answer,” that’s not determinism at work—that’s their prior bias wearing a lab coat.

You almost got it. No I am not arguing against determinism at all, I am only arguing that you are trying to use it as a tool to do jobs it cannot perform.

Determinism doesn’t “tell” anyone what to do. It reveals that everything—beliefs, values, cruelty, compassion—has a cause. That’s not a moral compass; it’s a lens. What you do with that lens shows who you are. If someone uses it to justify atrocity, that’s on them, not the lens.

My point is that it tells you what you want to be told, and it tells other people what they want to be told. This is a simple point and if you cannot address it you need to stop accusing others of evasion.

So no, the abyss doesn’t whisper anything. But it forces a choice: either ignore causality and keep pretending people “deserve” their place—or acknowledge that outcomes flow from conditions, and build policy, justice, and ethics accordingly.

If you think that’s just “sprinkling opinions,” then you’re not engaging with the argument—you’re just waving it away because you can’t be bothered to answer it.

There is no argument to engage with. You have only offered your intuitions about the lessons that are learned via commitment to determinism. You haven't described any limits, any methods, and reason at all why any particular interpretation would be right and any competing one wrong.

Over and over and over again, you never have any details, you only ever have sales patter. This is true of every one of your discussions and this issue has been raised before. You provide no information about how to correctly gather the "true" lessons from your secular scripture.

[BigMike]

Nobody gave you determinism to be used the way you do. You just have a magic mirror that gives you back your own ideas with no criticism and it turns out that's all you want. Determinism doesn't do anything. Believing in it doesn't make people racist or non-racist, and it doesn't make racism true or false either. You just fabulise a self-serving deterministic myth for each situation as it arises, and whenever you investigate, mysteriously it turns out that the magic of determinism agrees with you.

We've seen this before with Christians. Every Christian can look into their magic book and find out that God agrees with everything they personally happen to believe even common sense says that they hold deeply unchristian beliefs about not clothing the naked and not being kind to immigrants. You are just doing the same sycophantic self-pleasuring with your secular religion.

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take. If I argue against racial essentialism, punitive justice, or inequality rooted in inheritance, it’s not because determinism agrees with me—it’s because determinism doesn’t let me look away from the causes behind those outcomes.

You say “determinism doesn’t do anything.” But that’s not true. It reorients how responsibility is assigned, how justice is framed, how history is understood. If someone’s life trajectory was shaped by causes outside their control—family, geography, nutrition, trauma—then punishment without understanding is not just cruel; it’s irrational. That shift from blame to causation isn’t a moral sleight of hand—it’s a radical epistemic correction.

And no, it’s not like religion. Religion asks for faith. Determinism demands evidence. It leaves no room for myths of moral desert or “just deserts.” If I defend marginalized people, it’s not because I think I’m morally superior—it’s because determinism tells me nobody starts from scratch, and we owe it to truth—not virtue—to factor that in.

If you’ve got a better framework—one that explains human cruelty, inequality, and systemic inertia without resorting to fiction like free will or merit—show me. But calling my worldview “sycophantic self-pleasuring” doesn’t challenge the logic. It just avoids it.

He's correct though. All you have ever done is twist your own version of 'determinism' to peddle your ideological beliefs. That's very much a religious tactic and has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. A determinisitc world is the one we've got. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it. We just have to get carried on the wave--because we are part of the wave. Your assertion that we must 'accept determinism' to 'create a kinder, more just' world is absurd and even you must see that. A 'kinder, more just' world is going to happen or it isn't.

Accelafine, you're missing the point entirely. Saying “a deterministic world is just the one we’ve got” and “there’s nothing we can do about it” is like saying gravity exists, so building bridges is pointless. Determinism isn’t an excuse for fatalism—it’s the framework that explains why people do what they do, and why systems produce the outcomes they produce.

You’re right that we’re part of the wave. But what follows from that isn’t passivity—it’s clarity. If we understand the forces shaping human behavior, we can alter the conditions that shape better outcomes. That’s not magic. It’s causality.

I’m not claiming we can step outside the system. I’m saying we can become aware of the system—and once we do, we become the part of the wave that can redirect the current. Not perfectly. Not freely. But informed by cause and effect instead of blind reaction or moral myth.

If that awareness leads some people to demand a fairer system—not because they’re “good,” but because they’ve recognized the structure—then yes, that’s determinism doing something. Not religion. Not virtue-signaling. Just honest follow-through.

You can call it absurd, but your fatalism is just another cop-out—an excuse to do nothing while pretending you understand everything.

[BigMike]

If you stared into the deterministic abys and it told you that you should begin a program of eugenics to purge humanity of all low IQ breeders so that your predestinarian vision can come to pass, would you change your mind and become a eugenicist? Trick question of course; the abys will never tell you anything you don't already believe.

It sure tells you how brave you are often, but never tells you that you are actually wrong. Same as the Bible never tells a Christian he's wrong. You just take your existing opinions, sprinkle them with some personal opinions about what determinism tells you, and then you are done. Other people can have determinism tell them anything they want as well, and that can include eugenics because it will agree with whatever they already believe, just as it does for you.

Flash, this is bordering on intentional stupidity.

Don't be so harsh, I am sure you are doing your level best.

You’re not arguing against determinism—you’re arguing against your own cartoon of it. If someone looks at causal reality and concludes “eugenics is the answer,” that’s not determinism at work—that’s their prior bias wearing a lab coat.

You almost got it. No I am not arguing against determinism at all, I am only arguing that you are trying to use it as a tool to do jobs it cannot perform.

Determinism doesn’t “tell” anyone what to do. It reveals that everything—beliefs, values, cruelty, compassion—has a cause. That’s not a moral compass; it’s a lens. What you do with that lens shows who you are. If someone uses it to justify atrocity, that’s on them, not the lens.

My point is that it tells you what you want to be told, and it tells other people what they want to be told. This is a simple point and if you cannot address it you need to stop accusing others of evasion.

So no, the abyss doesn’t whisper anything. But it forces a choice: either ignore causality and keep pretending people “deserve” their place—or acknowledge that outcomes flow from conditions, and build policy, justice, and ethics accordingly.

If you think that’s just “sprinkling opinions,” then you’re not engaging with the argument—you’re just waving it away because you can’t be bothered to answer it.

There is no argument to engage with. You have only offered your intuitions about the lessons that are learned via commitment to determinism. You haven't described any limits, any methods, and reason at all why any particular interpretation would be right and any competing one wrong.

Over and over and over again, you never have any details, you only ever have sales patter. This is true of every one of your discussions and this issue has been raised before. You provide no information about how to correctly gather the "true" lessons from your secular scripture.

Flash, you're doing that thing again—pretending that your inability to grasp the argument means no argument exists.

You’re attacking a strawman version of determinism as if I’ve claimed it hands down moral commands or universal truths. It doesn’t. It doesn’t “tell” anyone anything. That’s your projection. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains that every belief—including yours—emerges from prior causes. That includes bigotry. That includes compassion. That includes this tedious caricature you keep dragging out and calling a rebuttal.

You complain I haven’t laid out “methods” or “limits,” but that’s either willful ignorance or lazy reading. The whole point of invoking determinism is to strip away the magical thinking baked into moralism, blame, and meritocracy—systems you seem to defend by default, without ever admitting it. I’ve made clear: determinism is a lens, not a sermon. If someone uses that lens to justify eugenics, that doesn’t mean determinism is faulty—it means they are. Just like someone using a hammer to kill doesn't mean the hammer is evil.

You demand “how to gather the true lessons,” as if I'm selling scripture. I’m not. I’m describing causal reality. You either engage with it seriously, or you don’t. But spare us the smug snark about “sales patter” when all you’ve offered in return is rhetorical sleight-of-hand and zero substance.

You’re not dismantling anything here. You’re just flailing at a mirror and hoping no one notices.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, this is bordering on intentional stupidity.

Don't be so harsh, I am sure you are doing your level best.

You’re not arguing against determinism—you’re arguing against your own cartoon of it. If someone looks at causal reality and concludes “eugenics is the answer,” that’s not determinism at work—that’s their prior bias wearing a lab coat.

You almost got it. No I am not arguing against determinism at all, I am only arguing that you are trying to use it as a tool to do jobs it cannot perform.

Determinism doesn’t “tell” anyone what to do. It reveals that everything—beliefs, values, cruelty, compassion—has a cause. That’s not a moral compass; it’s a lens. What you do with that lens shows who you are. If someone uses it to justify atrocity, that’s on them, not the lens.

My point is that it tells you what you want to be told, and it tells other people what they want to be told. This is a simple point and if you cannot address it you need to stop accusing others of evasion.

So no, the abyss doesn’t whisper anything. But it forces a choice: either ignore causality and keep pretending people “deserve” their place—or acknowledge that outcomes flow from conditions, and build policy, justice, and ethics accordingly.

If you think that’s just “sprinkling opinions,” then you’re not engaging with the argument—you’re just waving it away because you can’t be bothered to answer it.

There is no argument to engage with. You have only offered your intuitions about the lessons that are learned via commitment to determinism. You haven't described any limits, any methods, and reason at all why any particular interpretation would be right and any competing one wrong.

Over and over and over again, you never have any details, you only ever have sales patter. This is true of every one of your discussions and this issue has been raised before. You provide no information about how to correctly gather the "true" lessons from your secular scripture.

Flash, you're doing that thing again—pretending that your inability to grasp the argument means no argument exists.

You’re attacking a strawman version of determinism as if I’ve claimed it hands down moral commands or universal truths. It doesn’t. It doesn’t “tell” anyone anything. That’s your projection. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains that every belief—including yours—emerges from prior causes. That includes bigotry. That includes compassion. That includes this tedious caricature you keep dragging out and calling a rebuttal.

Only you could lay claim to revolutionary descriptivism. You are eating the cake and having it again. Either determinism is as important and world changing as you say, in which case it must be prescriptive for obvious reasons, or it doesn't really do anything except purport to describe how the world is as it is, which would be descriptive and would be in line with what I and others say it is actually any good for.

Furthermore you have written absolutely loads of stuff like this: And calling for fairness isn’t “woke.” It’s the only sane response to a world still reeling from centuries of cause and effect.. You are absolutely claiming to take away lessons from this thing. Don't gaslight us you cheeky little man.

You complain I haven’t laid out “methods” or “limits,” but that’s either willful ignorance or lazy reading. The whole point of invoking determinism is to strip away the magical thinking baked into moralism, blame, and meritocracy—systems you seem to defend by default, without ever admitting it. I’ve made clear: determinism is a lens, not a sermon. If someone uses that lens to justify eugenics, that doesn’t mean determinism is faulty—it means they are. Just like someone using a hammer to kill doesn't mean the hammer is evil.

Still all sales patter and no detail. I am asking how you know what is the correct lesson to take from this thing? You only offer a bunch of your personal intuitions. That's just an observation, and I am not the only person to have noticed. You appear to be the only one who hasn't.

You demand “how to gather the true lessons,” as if I'm selling scripture. I’m not. I’m describing causal reality. You either engage with it seriously, or you don’t. But spare us the smug snark about “sales patter” when all you’ve offered in return is rhetorical sleight-of-hand and zero substance.

Again, other people can look at the same evidentiary basis that you have and infer entirely dissimilar lessons from it. Why are you evading this problem?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You say I’ve “chosen” to privilege kindness and justice—as if I stepped outside causality for a moment, surveyed the moral buffet, and picked the feel-good option. That’s not how determinism works.

It is how you work however.

I surmise that you have been in-formed by people who, for numerous reasons, subscribe to your general ideology. Through books, talks and conversations with friends.

I would not ever say. and I do not believe, that the older school leftism is bad nor wrong in many facets of their general analysis. It is unfortunate that (genuine) left postures are conflated with “wokism”. (For example just a generation back leftists supported the classic family, the idea of a decent workingman’s wage, and limiting excessive immigration because it hurt the family of the working man, among various things).

You say, more or less, that you have exposed yourself to a detailed and sensitive analysis of cause and effect, and it became necessary to choose both kindness and justice. But you have a bizarre way of describing how you came to give assent to the values that move you.

Unfortunately, we have lost sight of the topic: South Africa. All this BS you have emitted (I do regard it as ‘paja’) sheds no light on what is actually happening and any sort of solution or a way toward progress.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Video

Last night's meeting between Trump and Ramaphosa marked the biggest turning point in South African history, when Donald Trump put Cyril Ramaphosa on the spot about farm murders, in front of a world stage, and Ramaphosa and his delegation showed the world exactly who they are. Ramaphosa went from laughing about calls of violence to outright denial of any knowledge to trying to gaslight his American hosts. Ultimately this exchange led to the most profound shift in South African history over the past 31 years. Today marks the day the pendulum finally starts to swing in the direction of truth in this country.

There is also Mody with fair analysis (from a chipper personality).

[accelafine]

Flash, if determinism were just a “magic mirror,” I’d expect it to reflect personal comfort, excuses, or moral neutrality. But what it’s forced me to do—again and again—is the exact opposite: to confront deeply uncomfortable truths about how little credit or blame any of us can honestly take. If I argue against racial essentialism, punitive justice, or inequality rooted in inheritance, it’s not because determinism agrees with me—it’s because determinism doesn’t let me look away from the causes behind those outcomes.

You say “determinism doesn’t do anything.” But that’s not true. It reorients how responsibility is assigned, how justice is framed, how history is understood. If someone’s life trajectory was shaped by causes outside their control—family, geography, nutrition, trauma—then punishment without understanding is not just cruel; it’s irrational. That shift from blame to causation isn’t a moral sleight of hand—it’s a radical epistemic correction.

And no, it’s not like religion. Religion asks for faith. Determinism demands evidence. It leaves no room for myths of moral desert or “just deserts.” If I defend marginalized people, it’s not because I think I’m morally superior—it’s because determinism tells me nobody starts from scratch, and we owe it to truth—not virtue—to factor that in.

If you’ve got a better framework—one that explains human cruelty, inequality, and systemic inertia without resorting to fiction like free will or merit—show me. But calling my worldview “sycophantic self-pleasuring” doesn’t challenge the logic. It just avoids it.

He's correct though. All you have ever done is twist your own version of 'determinism' to peddle your ideological beliefs. That's very much a religious tactic and has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. A determinisitc world is the one we've got. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it. We just have to get carried on the wave--because we are part of the wave. Your assertion that we must 'accept determinism' to 'create a kinder, more just' world is absurd and even you must see that. A 'kinder, more just' world is going to happen or it isn't.

Accelafine, you're missing the point entirely. Saying “a deterministic world is just the one we’ve got” and “there’s nothing we can do about it” is like saying gravity exists, so building bridges is pointless.

You silly little man. It's clear now that you don't have a clue what 'determinism' is. I'm afraid that perfect AI grammar is no substitute for human intelligence.

[Atla]

Looks like he keeps flip-flopping between saying that determinism compels us to become better people and between saying that determinism doesn't morally compel us. Those are two mutually exclusive positions. I'd suggest not overusing AIs to help with our comments, we should know it in our head what our consistent position is.

[Skepdick]

Looks like he keeps flip-flopping between saying that determinism compels us to become better people and between saying that determinism doesn't morally compel us. Those are two mutually exclusive positions. I'd suggest not overusing AIs to help with our comments, we should know it in our head what our consistent position is.

His consistent position is the same as everyone.

He consistently lacks a consistent position.

[Skepdick]

Only you could lay claim to revolutionary descriptivism. You are eating the cake and having it again. Either determinism is as important and world changing as you say, in which case it must be prescriptive for obvious reasons, or it doesn't really do anything except purport to describe how the world is as it is, which would be descriptive and would be in line with what I and others say it is actually any good for.

Que? Description is impossible; except in a prescriptive/normative setting; or contra-positively: description is only possible when embedded in a prescriptive framework.

If it's good for description then it's necessarily prescriptive upon thought.

Some descriptions (and by proxy - the prescriptions they commit you to) are better for some purposes than others.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Looks like he keeps flip-flopping between saying that determinism compels us to become better people and between saying that determinism doesn't morally compel us. Those are two mutually exclusive positions. I'd suggest not overusing AIs to help with our comments, we should know it in our head what our consistent position is.

:::sigh:::

I guess this particular conversation will go on until our sun super-novas …

His position is that the backward glance at “cause and effect” leads us to the realization that we should act in specific moral ways (defined as kindness and justice). No man has this realization in the sense normally understood because of 4 pesky physics laws.

Effectively, if determined cause and effect do anything, they only cause determined humanity to look in the mirror of what had come about by previous sets of cause and effect. The glance is always backward though since visualizing toward the future — planning and choosing — are somehow impossible.

He denies that a man, in the present, can make a moral choice as if it is conscious and spontaneous, and he says that if a choice seems to have been made this is actually a false-perception, because when a choice appears to be made it was past cause and effect doing it. (It is this knot of weirdthought that I cannot wrap my head around).

In his way of seeing things, eventually the World will face ‘reality’ as presented by determined processes and, somehow, modify the systems to accord with a general left-progressive program. But no one will actually make a choice since, by definition, no choice can ever be made by a man.

My thoughts about all this? It is deeply neurotic, circular pseudo-philosophy. It is a loop of afflicted reasoning that one falls into by only seeing and validating certain “facts” described in absolute physical terms. Once the mind is captured in this trap, it spins its wheels endlessly in one puddle since, by definition, no other alternative exists.

[Gary Childress]

Flash, this is bordering on intentional stupidity.

Don't be so harsh, I am sure you are doing your level best.

You’re not arguing against determinism—you’re arguing against your own cartoon of it. If someone looks at causal reality and concludes “eugenics is the answer,” that’s not determinism at work—that’s their prior bias wearing a lab coat.

You almost got it. No I am not arguing against determinism at all, I am only arguing that you are trying to use it as a tool to do jobs it cannot perform.

Determinism doesn’t “tell” anyone what to do. It reveals that everything—beliefs, values, cruelty, compassion—has a cause. That’s not a moral compass; it’s a lens. What you do with that lens shows who you are. If someone uses it to justify atrocity, that’s on them, not the lens.

My point is that it tells you what you want to be told, and it tells other people what they want to be told. This is a simple point and if you cannot address it you need to stop accusing others of evasion.

So no, the abyss doesn’t whisper anything. But it forces a choice: either ignore causality and keep pretending people “deserve” their place—or acknowledge that outcomes flow from conditions, and build policy, justice, and ethics accordingly.

If you think that’s just “sprinkling opinions,” then you’re not engaging with the argument—you’re just waving it away because you can’t be bothered to answer it.

There is no argument to engage with. You have only offered your intuitions about the lessons that are learned via commitment to determinism. You haven't described any limits, any methods, and reason at all why any particular interpretation would be right and any competing one wrong.

Over and over and over again, you never have any details, you only ever have sales patter. This is true of every one of your discussions and this issue has been raised before. You provide no information about how to correctly gather the "true" lessons from your secular scripture.

Flash, you're doing that thing again—pretending that your inability to grasp the argument means no argument exists.

You’re attacking a strawman version of determinism as if I’ve claimed it hands down moral commands or universal truths. It doesn’t. It doesn’t “tell” anyone anything. That’s your projection. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains that every belief—including yours—emerges from prior causes. That includes bigotry. That includes compassion. That includes this tedious caricature you keep dragging out and calling a rebuttal.

You complain I haven’t laid out “methods” or “limits,” but that’s either willful ignorance or lazy reading. The whole point of invoking determinism is to strip away the magical thinking baked into moralism, blame, and meritocracy—systems you seem to defend by default, without ever admitting it. I’ve made clear: determinism is a lens, not a sermon. If someone uses that lens to justify eugenics, that doesn’t mean determinism is faulty—it means they are. Just like someone using a hammer to kill doesn't mean the hammer is evil.

You demand “how to gather the true lessons,” as if I'm selling scripture. I’m not. I’m describing causal reality. You either engage with it seriously, or you don’t. But spare us the smug snark about “sales patter” when all you’ve offered in return is rhetorical sleight-of-hand and zero substance.

You’re not dismantling anything here. You’re just flailing at a mirror and hoping no one notices.

If determinism tells us nothing prescriptive (a call for some action to be taken in accord with it) then what is wrong with morality as practiced now where people who commit crimes face some kind of penalty for it? Should someone who does a great wrong be "reformed" for it? So, if a terrorist blows up a pharmaceutical factory resulting in depriving people of badly needed, life saving, medicine, who then die, should the terrorist be "reformed" instead of imprisoned? Or what should the moral repercussions be for something like that? What counts as "reform" of someone who does something horrible out of hate or indifference?

[BigMike]

Don't be so harsh, I am sure you are doing your level best.


You almost got it. No I am not arguing against determinism at all, I am only arguing that you are trying to use it as a tool to do jobs it cannot perform.


My point is that it tells you what you want to be told, and it tells other people what they want to be told. This is a simple point and if you cannot address it you need to stop accusing others of evasion.


There is no argument to engage with. You have only offered your intuitions about the lessons that are learned via commitment to determinism. You haven't described any limits, any methods, and reason at all why any particular interpretation would be right and any competing one wrong.

Over and over and over again, you never have any details, you only ever have sales patter. This is true of every one of your discussions and this issue has been raised before. You provide no information about how to correctly gather the "true" lessons from your secular scripture.

Flash, you're doing that thing again—pretending that your inability to grasp the argument means no argument exists.

You’re attacking a strawman version of determinism as if I’ve claimed it hands down moral commands or universal truths. It doesn’t. It doesn’t “tell” anyone anything. That’s your projection. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains that every belief—including yours—emerges from prior causes. That includes bigotry. That includes compassion. That includes this tedious caricature you keep dragging out and calling a rebuttal.

You complain I haven’t laid out “methods” or “limits,” but that’s either willful ignorance or lazy reading. The whole point of invoking determinism is to strip away the magical thinking baked into moralism, blame, and meritocracy—systems you seem to defend by default, without ever admitting it. I’ve made clear: determinism is a lens, not a sermon. If someone uses that lens to justify eugenics, that doesn’t mean determinism is faulty—it means they are. Just like someone using a hammer to kill doesn't mean the hammer is evil.

You demand “how to gather the true lessons,” as if I'm selling scripture. I’m not. I’m describing causal reality. You either engage with it seriously, or you don’t. But spare us the smug snark about “sales patter” when all you’ve offered in return is rhetorical sleight-of-hand and zero substance.

You’re not dismantling anything here. You’re just flailing at a mirror and hoping no one notices.

If determinism tells us nothing prescriptive (a call for some action to be taken in accord with it) then what is wrong with morality as practiced now where people who commit crimes face some kind of penalty for it? Should someone who does a great wrong be "reformed" for it? So, if a terrorist blows up a pharmaceutical factory resulting in depriving people of badly needed, life saving, medicine, who then die, should the terrorist be "reformed" instead of imprisoned? Or what should the moral repercussions be for something like that? What counts as "reform" of someone who does something horrible out of hate or indifference?

Gary, you’re still trying to sneak free will back in through the side door.

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

That doesn’t mean we do nothing. It means we stop pretending that retribution is justice. We can protect society, prevent harm, and promote change—without clinging to the outdated fantasy that people “deserve” to suffer. That’s why reform makes more sense than revenge.

Look at Norway’s prison system. It treats inmates as human beings shaped by causes, not as monsters to be punished. The result? One of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Not because they’re “soft,” but because they’re rational. They’ve accepted the reality that lasting safety comes from understanding and rehabilitation—not moral theatrics.

You asked what the “moral repercussions” should be. That question only makes sense if you assume people could have done otherwise. Under determinism, they couldn’t. So the question becomes: What outcomes do we want? Less harm? Less crime? Then stop worshipping punishment and start addressing causes.

[accelafine]

Or perhaps Norwegians are just more civilised
Japanese prisons aren't exactly 'soft' and it already has a low crime rate. People don't even drop litter They simply know how to behave.

Clueless, virtue-signalling wet-sops do more harm than good. Of course they were determined to be that way but it doesn't make them any more palatable.

[Gary Childress]

Flash, you're doing that thing again—pretending that your inability to grasp the argument means no argument exists.

You’re attacking a strawman version of determinism as if I’ve claimed it hands down moral commands or universal truths. It doesn’t. It doesn’t “tell” anyone anything. That’s your projection. Determinism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains that every belief—including yours—emerges from prior causes. That includes bigotry. That includes compassion. That includes this tedious caricature you keep dragging out and calling a rebuttal.

You complain I haven’t laid out “methods” or “limits,” but that’s either willful ignorance or lazy reading. The whole point of invoking determinism is to strip away the magical thinking baked into moralism, blame, and meritocracy—systems you seem to defend by default, without ever admitting it. I’ve made clear: determinism is a lens, not a sermon. If someone uses that lens to justify eugenics, that doesn’t mean determinism is faulty—it means they are. Just like someone using a hammer to kill doesn't mean the hammer is evil.

You demand “how to gather the true lessons,” as if I'm selling scripture. I’m not. I’m describing causal reality. You either engage with it seriously, or you don’t. But spare us the smug snark about “sales patter” when all you’ve offered in return is rhetorical sleight-of-hand and zero substance.

You’re not dismantling anything here. You’re just flailing at a mirror and hoping no one notices.

If determinism tells us nothing prescriptive (a call for some action to be taken in accord with it) then what is wrong with morality as practiced now where people who commit crimes face some kind of penalty for it? Should someone who does a great wrong be "reformed" for it? So, if a terrorist blows up a pharmaceutical factory resulting in depriving people of badly needed, life saving, medicine, who then die, should the terrorist be "reformed" instead of imprisoned? Or what should the moral repercussions be for something like that? What counts as "reform" of someone who does something horrible out of hate or indifference?

Gary, you’re still trying to sneak free will back in through the side door.

Determinism means no one could have acted differently in the moment. That’s not a philosophical garnish—it’s the core. No freedom to choose means no moral justification for blame-based punishment. Period. You can’t logically hold someone “accountable” in the traditional sense if their actions were the inevitable result of prior causes.

That doesn’t mean we do nothing. It means we stop pretending that retribution is justice. We can protect society, prevent harm, and promote change—without clinging to the outdated fantasy that people “deserve” to suffer. That’s why reform makes more sense than revenge.

Look at Norway’s prison system. It treats inmates as human beings shaped by causes, not as monsters to be punished. The result? One of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Not because they’re “soft,” but because they’re rational. They’ve accepted the reality that lasting safety comes from understanding and rehabilitation—not moral theatrics.

You asked what the “moral repercussions” should be. That question only makes sense if you assume people could have done otherwise. Under determinism, they couldn’t. So the question becomes: What outcomes do we want? Less harm? Less crime? Then stop worshipping punishment and start addressing causes.

If our actions are truly "determined" then maybe some of us can't stop "worshiping punishment"? Determinism implies that we only do what has been determined that we do. If we have free will, then we could stop what we're doing. If we are "determined" then what is determined will happen. If we have free will then we could stop "worshiping punishment". If I am "sneaking free will through the side door" then it seems you are also.