South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

I have to say that, after everything, I agree with Alexis! There seems to be no other explanation that fits.

[Atla]

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue.

Ah screw it. You know what, if VA taught us anything, it's that an AI-user should be countered with more AI. Because that's the only thing they'll listen to. Stuff like this doesn't belong on a philosophy forum but whatever.

According to the compatibilist version of determinism, does the following claim throw out the baby with the bathwater by completely eliminating moral blame, moral punishment? Here is the claim:

"But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue."

Yes, from a compatibilist perspective, the claim you're referencing does risk “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” by dismissing all moral blame and punishment—something that compatibilists specifically aim to preserve within a deterministic framework.

Let's break it down:
Compatibilists believe that:

Determinism is true: Every action is caused by prior states of the world.

But free will is still possible, so long as a person's actions flow from their internal states—like beliefs, desires, and values—even if those are themselves determined.

Therefore, people can be held morally responsible because their actions reflect who they are.

The quote takes a hard determinist or incompatibilist stance:

Since all actions stem from factors beyond our control (genetics, trauma, etc.), no one deserves blame or punishment.

Moral judgment and justice are socially constructed illusions, tied to feelings we've been conditioned to have, not objective truths.

It equates punishment with cruelty, suggesting retribution is inherently unjust under determinism.

Compatibilists argue that:

Moral responsibility isn’t about metaphysical freedom from causation; it’s about whether the person acted voluntarily and rationally, based on their own character.

Punishment isn’t necessarily vengeful or cruel—it can be:
Protective (preventing harm to others),
Rehabilitative (helping offenders change),
Expressive (affirming social norms and values),
Or even deserved, if we define "desert" compatibly with determinism.

In Sum
So yes—the quote overreaches by assuming that determinism nullifies all justification for moral blame and punishment. Compatibilism was developed precisely to avoid that conclusion. In the compatibilist view:

Determinism doesn’t negate moral judgment; it reframes it.

It’s still meaningful and justifiable to say someone is responsible for their actions, even if those actions had causal precursors.

So the “baby” is moral responsibility. The “bathwater” is perhaps retributive excess. The quote throws out both. Compatibilism tries to keep the baby and just clean up the water.

(The fact that the compatibilist determinists completely redefine free will and then continue to use the expession, gives me a stroke, but otherwise I agree with them.)

[BigMike]

I don't think it's accurate to call us "determined" if we are able to choose. Determinism generally means that one could not do anything other than what one did. I can choose not to rape or murder or I can choose to give away all my money if I want. I think you're going to have to bite the bullet and say that there are some crimes so atrocious that the punishment is deserved, and there are some good deeds so wonderful that they deserve reward. Otherwise, you're not speaking English (or you are, except the words have no content or meaning).

I think what you are confusing with "determinism" is that there are incentives that might attract people to do immoral things if they think they can. That doesn't subtract responsibility for doing those things. I wish I could subtract responsibility for lots of things I've done; however, if I did, then I'd probably do them again and again (since I did them the first time before I realized they were harmful and felt shame).

Gary, I’m not the one confused here—you’re just refusing to let go of the language of free will even while trying to debate determinism. You say “I can choose not to rape or murder,” but determinism by definition says that what you “choose” is the result of prior causes—biological, psychological, environmental—not some uncaused inner chooser floating above causality.

Yes, you can imagine doing otherwise. Yes, you experience deliberation. But when the moment arrives, you do exactly one thing, and that thing is fully determined by everything that led up to it. That’s not speculation—that’s the deterministic model you keep trying to argue while clinging to its opposite.

Now, you say if we drop moral responsibility, people will do harmful things over and over again. That’s fear, not logic. It’s also empirically false. Norway, Portugal, and other nations that treat people as products of causes—rather than as morally autonomous agents—get better outcomes. Lower recidivism. Healthier societies. Safer streets. They reduce harm not by threatening eternal blame, but by addressing the conditions that lead to harm.

You say without blame or shame, you’d repeat harmful actions. No—you wouldn’t. You’d still be shaped by everything: your memories, your reflection, your capacity for empathy. Shame is a feeling caused by experience, not a moral currency that buys redemption. It’s just another input. And like any input, it can change behavior—but that doesn’t make you morally responsible in the old-school “you could’ve done otherwise” sense.

As for your last jab—“if you don’t say some punishments are deserved, you’re not speaking English”—I am speaking English. I’m just not speaking theology. Words have meaning, but sometimes the meaning is outdated and misleading. "Deserve" is one of those words. It’s built on a lie: that people author their actions independently of cause.

Determinism doesn’t erase consequences. It replaces mythology with reality. You don’t stop addressing harm—you just stop lying to yourself about why it happened.

I don't think anything is happening other than you are trying to shift the goal posts from harsher punishment to more lenient. What you are trying to say is that prisons should try to prevent recidivism. We can both agree to that and still believe in free will.

I think your primary proof for determinism is "conservation laws", however, you haven't provided any proof yet that conservation laws would be violated if I chose one alternative over another.

Someone throws a beach ball at me. I can either choose to catch it or dodge it (among other things). Do you have evidence that conservation laws would be violated by one of those reactions? Is it possible that either reaction could be performed without violating conservation laws? So far all I see for an argument is "conservation laws", therefore "determinism". Where's the evidence that conservation laws would be violated if I did one thing but not the other?

Gary, this isn’t about shifting the goalposts. It’s about refusing to build justice systems on fantasies. You’re still treating “more lenient” as if it means “less responsible,” but determinism doesn’t remove responsibility—it reframes it. We’re still responsible in the sense that our actions have consequences, and we can be expected to respond to those consequences. What determinism rejects is the idea that anyone could have done otherwise in the exact same moment, with the exact same conditions. That’s not soft—it’s accurate.

Now let’s deal with your physics question.

You ask if catching or dodging a beach ball violates conservation laws. Of course not. Both outcomes are physically possible—but only one of them will actually happen. And that outcome is determined by the total state of the system: your body position, your reflexes, your attention, your habits, your mood, your history. Every microsecond of that moment has prior causes. You can imagine catching or dodging, but when the moment comes, you do one—not because you freely willed it, but because that’s what the causal chain led to.

Conservation laws don’t mean only one outcome is possible in theory—they mean that whatever happens, it must conform to those laws. What determinism asserts is that given everything leading up to a moment, only one outcome is actually realized. You don’t violate conservation by choosing A over B—but you don’t choose in the metaphysical sense. You manifest the outcome that causality dictated.

So no, “conservation laws, therefore determinism” is not a non sequitur. It’s a grounding principle: nothing happens without a cause, nothing appears from nowhere, and no decision is immune to the laws of energy, matter, and motion. The burden is on you to explain how any human action escapes this web—how your “choice” somehow floats free of causality and physical law. You can’t. That’s why determinism holds.

This isn’t about punishment vs. leniency. It’s about truth vs. comforting illusion.

[BigMike]

I haven't misinterpreted anything. You've written the same thing often enough for crying out loud. You just know I'm right. Simple.

Perfect then. Since you haven’t misinterpreted anything, you should be able to clearly explain how I’ve said that memory, learning, and prior experiences can influence future behavior—without implying free will.

Because yes, people change over time. The brain encodes experience, and future responses are shaped by those changes. But in the moment, given every variable—genes, environment, mood, history—a person can do only one thing. And they do. That’s determinism. No contradictions—just cause and effect.

So if you’re “right,” go ahead and lay out how that’s wrong. Not with snark—with logic.

The onus is on you to explain yourself. I've simply pointed out that your 'determinism with choice' stance is an absurd contradiction in terms. That's self explanatory.

No, accelafine—you haven’t “simply pointed out” anything. You’ve declared my position a contradiction without actually explaining why it’s a contradiction. That’s not an argument. That’s just assertion.

What is self-explanatory is that you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed “determinism with free choice.” I’ve explained—repeatedly—that what we call “choice” is just the brain weighing inputs, shaped by causes, and outputting one inevitable result. That’s compatibility between experience and determinism—not a contradiction.

If you think that’s “absurd,” then explain which part defies logic or evidence. Otherwise, all you’ve proven is that snark is easier than substance.

[BigMike]

A question for the general PN reader:

Is this forum just another social media space for reflexive bickering and personal jabs?
Or is it supposed to be a place for honest, intellectually serious debate?

Because if we’re aiming for the latter, then dismissing arguments with snide one-liners, declaring positions “absurd” without explanation, or resorting to mockery instead of logic shouldn’t be the norm. If someone disagrees, fine—but show your reasoning. Engage the ideas. Otherwise, what are we even doing here?

[accelafine]

Perfect then. Since you haven’t misinterpreted anything, you should be able to clearly explain how I’ve said that memory, learning, and prior experiences can influence future behavior—without implying free will.

Because yes, people change over time. The brain encodes experience, and future responses are shaped by those changes. But in the moment, given every variable—genes, environment, mood, history—a person can do only one thing. And they do. That’s determinism. No contradictions—just cause and effect.

So if you’re “right,” go ahead and lay out how that’s wrong. Not with snark—with logic.

The onus is on you to explain yourself. I've simply pointed out that your 'determinism with choice' stance is an absurd contradiction in terms. That's self explanatory.

No, accelafine—you haven’t “simply pointed out” anything. You’ve declared my position a contradiction without actually explaining why it’s a contradiction. That’s not an argument. That’s just assertion.

What is self-explanatory is that you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed “determinism with free choice.” I’ve explained—repeatedly—that what we call “choice” is just the brain weighing inputs, shaped by causes, and outputting one inevitable result. That’s compatibility between experience and determinism—not a contradiction.

If you think that’s “absurd,” then explain which part defies logic or evidence. Otherwise, all you’ve proven is that snark is easier than substance.

And you have shown yourself to be a dishonest player who constantly puts words in others' mouths and then creates an 'argument' around his own words

[BigMike]

The onus is on you to explain yourself. I've simply pointed out that your 'determinism with choice' stance is an absurd contradiction in terms. That's self explanatory.

No, accelafine—you haven’t “simply pointed out” anything. You’ve declared my position a contradiction without actually explaining why it’s a contradiction. That’s not an argument. That’s just assertion.

What is self-explanatory is that you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed “determinism with free choice.” I’ve explained—repeatedly—that what we call “choice” is just the brain weighing inputs, shaped by causes, and outputting one inevitable result. That’s compatibility between experience and determinism—not a contradiction.

If you think that’s “absurd,” then explain which part defies logic or evidence. Otherwise, all you’ve proven is that snark is easier than substance.

And you have shown yourself to be a dishonest player who constantly puts words in others' mouths and then creates an 'argument' around his own words TWAT.

Ah, right. When pressed to actually explain your position, you abandon all pretense of debate and just hurl insults. Classic move when you’ve got nothing left but attitude.

Calling me a “twat” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s a confession. A confession that you can’t engage with the argument, so you lash out instead. You’re not here to discuss ideas. You’re here to take cheap shots and hope no one notices you’ve got no substance behind them.

I haven’t put words in anyone’s mouth—I’ve asked you, repeatedly, to explain your own. You still haven’t. You call it a contradiction but refuse to show how. You label it absurd but can’t touch the logic. That’s not debate. That’s just noise.

If this forum’s about intellectual discussion, prove it. If not, congratulations—you’re doing a great job turning it into Twitter with bigger words.

[Atla]

More AI stuff

Does the following speech confuse determinism with hard determinism? Summary only. Here is the speech:

"No one "deserves" a Nobel Prize any more than they “deserve” a prison cell. Not if by "deserve" you mean they freely chose their intelligence, drive, health, upbringing, education, or opportunities. They didn’t. No one did. That's what determinism makes clear: outcomes—good or bad—emerge from causes, not from some magical internal chooser floating above causality.

So when you say, “maybe we ought to just pay CEOs a basic wage like everyone else”—I don’t hear sarcasm. I hear you touching the core of what a just, deterministic society would look like: one that stops confusing luck for virtue and misfortune for guilt. One that stops rewarding people for “winning” a race they didn’t choose to enter, with conditions they didn’t control.

And no, that doesn’t mean incentives have no effect. Of course they do. Incentives, like every other environmental input, influence behavior. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking those who respond well to incentives are “better people.” They’re just the products of causes that made them responsive to that input. That insight doesn’t make incentives useless—it just removes the self-congratulatory mythology around them.

What you’re resisting is actually the next logical step in your own thinking. If we accept that no one “deserves” to be tortured, then we also have to accept that no one “deserves” to be idolized. It’s the same mistake in both directions: assigning moral weight to outcomes that were causally inevitable.

So yes, let’s start rethinking incentives and disincentives. Let’s stop propping up myths of merit and blame. And let’s start designing systems that are based not on fantasy—but on facts. Because that’s the only way to stop punishing the unlucky and worshiping the fortunate."

Summary:
Yes, the speech does conflate determinism with hard determinism.

Explanation:
The speaker articulates a view where all human traits and choices are entirely determined by prior causes—biological, social, and environmental—with no room for free will. This aligns with hard determinism, which holds that free will is incompatible with determinism and that, since determinism is true, free will doesn't exist.

However, determinism itself is a broader metaphysical claim that events (including human actions) are caused by prior states of the world. It does not necessarily reject free will; some forms of determinism (like compatibilism) argue that free will and determinism can coexist.

By claiming that no one "deserves" praise or blame because no one "freely chose" their attributes or actions, the speech assumes that determinism rules out moral responsibility, a hallmark of hard determinism, not determinism per se.

[BigMike]

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue.

Ah screw it. You know what, if VA taught us anything, it's that an AI-user should be countered with more AI. Because that's the only thing they'll listen to. Stuff like this doesn't belong on a philosophy forum but whatever.

According to the compatibilist version of determinism, does the following claim throw out the baby with the bathwater by completely eliminating moral blame, moral punishment? Here is the claim:

"But here’s the uncomfortable truth: just because something feels right doesn’t make it right. The impulse to punish feels righteous because you’ve been conditioned to see it that way. We all have. Western justice systems don’t just punish—they wrap punishment in moral theater. “They deserved it.” “Justice was served.” But under determinism, that entire framework falls apart. If people are products of causes they didn’t choose—genetics, trauma, propaganda, desperation—then punishment, as vengeance, becomes cruelty pretending to be virtue."

Yes, from a compatibilist perspective, the claim you're referencing does risk “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” by dismissing all moral blame and punishment—something that compatibilists specifically aim to preserve within a deterministic framework.

Let's break it down:
Compatibilists believe that:

Determinism is true: Every action is caused by prior states of the world.

But free will is still possible, so long as a person's actions flow from their internal states—like beliefs, desires, and values—even if those are themselves determined.

Therefore, people can be held morally responsible because their actions reflect who they are.

The quote takes a hard determinist or incompatibilist stance:

Since all actions stem from factors beyond our control (genetics, trauma, etc.), no one deserves blame or punishment.

Moral judgment and justice are socially constructed illusions, tied to feelings we've been conditioned to have, not objective truths.

It equates punishment with cruelty, suggesting retribution is inherently unjust under determinism.

Compatibilists argue that:

Moral responsibility isn’t about metaphysical freedom from causation; it’s about whether the person acted voluntarily and rationally, based on their own character.

Punishment isn’t necessarily vengeful or cruel—it can be:
Protective (preventing harm to others),
Rehabilitative (helping offenders change),
Expressive (affirming social norms and values),
Or even deserved, if we define "desert" compatibly with determinism.

In Sum
So yes—the quote overreaches by assuming that determinism nullifies all justification for moral blame and punishment. Compatibilism was developed precisely to avoid that conclusion. In the compatibilist view:

Determinism doesn’t negate moral judgment; it reframes it.

It’s still meaningful and justifiable to say someone is responsible for their actions, even if those actions had causal precursors.

So the “baby” is moral responsibility. The “bathwater” is perhaps retributive excess. The quote throws out both. Compatibilism tries to keep the baby and just clean up the water.

(The fact that the compatibilist determinists completely redefine free will and then continue to use the expession, gives me a stroke, but otherwise I agree with them.)

Compatibilism is the philosophical equivalent of patching a sinking ship with duct tape and calling it seaworthy. It’s not a solution—it’s a rhetorical illusion. Redefine free will so it doesn’t mean freedom from causality, then pretend you’ve saved moral responsibility. That’s not clarity—that’s desperation dressed up as compromise.

Let’s be blunt: if everything about you—your values, your impulses, your reasoning—was shaped by forces you didn’t choose, then saying your actions “flow from your internal states” doesn’t preserve free will. It proves determinism. You're not free because you acted from your desires—you’re determined to act from those desires, which are themselves products of prior causes.

Compatibilism’s version of “responsibility” boils down to: you did it, and it came from your brain, so we can blame you. But if your brain was wired by causes outside your control, then what are we actually blaming? At best, compatibilism keeps the language of free will while gutting it of substance—because it can’t stomach the ethical consequences of determinism.

And yes, I reject moral blame. That’s not “throwing out the baby”—it’s recognizing that the “baby” was never real. Just a cultural hallucination built on centuries of ignorance about cause and effect. We can protect, rehabilitate, and reinforce social norms without pretending people could have done otherwise.

The bathwater is toxic. And the baby? It’s a doll someone’s been telling us is alive. I’m not holding onto either.

[Atla]

More AI stuff

How valid is the following rejection of compatibilism according to determinists in general? Summary only. Here is the rejection:

"Compatibilism is the philosophical equivalent of patching a sinking ship with duct tape and calling it seaworthy. It’s not a solution—it’s a rhetorical illusion. Redefine free will so it doesn’t mean freedom from causality, then pretend you’ve saved moral responsibility. That’s not clarity—that’s desperation dressed up as compromise.

Let’s be blunt: if everything about you—your values, your impulses, your reasoning—was shaped by forces you didn’t choose, then saying your actions “flow from your internal states” doesn’t preserve free will. It proves determinism. You're not free because you acted from your desires—you’re determined to act from those desires, which are themselves products of prior causes.

Compatibilism’s version of “responsibility” boils down to: you did it, and it came from your brain, so we can blame you. But if your brain was wired by causes outside your control, then what are we actually blaming? At best, compatibilism keeps the language of free will while gutting it of substance—because it can’t stomach the ethical consequences of determinism.

And yes, I reject moral blame. That’s not “throwing out the baby”—it’s recognizing that the “baby” was never real. Just a cultural hallucination built on centuries of ignorance about cause and effect. We can protect, rehabilitate, and reinforce social norms without pretending people could have done otherwise.

The bathwater is toxic. And the baby? It’s a doll someone’s been telling us is alive. I’m not holding onto either."

Summary of the Rejection from a Determinist Perspective:

This rejection of compatibilism argues that redefining free will to fit within a deterministic framework is intellectually dishonest. It criticizes compatibilism as a rhetorical strategy that avoids confronting the full implications of determinism—namely, that all human thoughts, desires, and choices are causally determined by prior events. The author claims that compatibilist notions of responsibility are empty because they rely on internal states that were themselves unchosen. Ultimately, the argument calls for abandoning both free will and moral blame, suggesting we can maintain social order without clinging to outdated and illusory concepts of responsibility.

How Valid This Is According to Determinists (in general):

Among hard determinists and incompatibilists, this critique is often seen as valid and compelling. They typically agree that compatibilism changes the definition of free will to avoid uncomfortable conclusions, and they argue that true freedom requires the ability to have acted otherwise—something determinism precludes.

However, not all determinists reject compatibilism. Many compatibilist determinists (like Daniel Dennett or Harry Frankfurt) believe that free will, properly understood, is compatible with determinism. They argue that what matters is whether actions stem from internal states like reasoning and values, not whether those states were ultimately uncaused.

In short: The rejection is persuasive among hard determinists and incompatibilists, but is firmly rejected by compatibilist determinists, who consider it a mischaracterization of what free will means in practical and ethical terms.

[accelafine]

No, accelafine—you haven’t “simply pointed out” anything. You’ve declared my position a contradiction without actually explaining why it’s a contradiction. That’s not an argument. That’s just assertion.

What is self-explanatory is that you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’ve never claimed “determinism with free choice.” I’ve explained—repeatedly—that what we call “choice” is just the brain weighing inputs, shaped by causes, and outputting one inevitable result. That’s compatibility between experience and determinism—not a contradiction.

If you think that’s “absurd,” then explain which part defies logic or evidence. Otherwise, all you’ve proven is that snark is easier than substance.

And you have shown yourself to be a dishonest player who constantly puts words in others' mouths and then creates an 'argument' around his own words TWAT.

Ah, right. When pressed to actually explain your position, you abandon all pretense of debate and just hurl insults. Classic move when you’ve got nothing left but attitude.

Calling me a “twat” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s a confession. A confession that you can’t engage with the argument, so you lash out instead. You’re not here to discuss ideas. You’re here to take cheap shots and hope no one notices you’ve got no substance behind them.

I haven’t put words in anyone’s mouth—I’ve asked you, repeatedly, to explain your own. You still haven’t. You call it a contradiction but refuse to show how. You label it absurd but can’t touch the logic. That’s not debate. That’s just noise.

If this forum’s about intellectual discussion, prove it. If not, congratulations—you’re doing a great job turning it into Twitter with bigger words.

Hmm. AI editing (or whatever it is you do with it) took a while then? Where did I call you a twat? Well if the cap fits

For crying out loud. You only just earlier said I was a 'strong believer in free will', when in fact I've been saying the exact OPPOSITE since you first started posting about this. So either you have the worst reading comprehension skills in the world, or you are being severely short-changed by your AI buddy.
What exactly do you expect me to post 'evidence' for? I'm hardly the first to notice your contradictory stance. Go back and look over your AI generated posts. It's all there. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes of your time.

[accelafine]

Is 'Domenic Halvah' (obvious fake name) an AI author? He has a whole bunch of 'books' but they are all mysteriously 'out of print'. The plot thickens...hmmm...

[Atla]

Is 'Domenic Halvah' (obvious fake name) an AI author? He has a whole bunch of 'books' but they are all mysteriously 'out of print'. The plot thickens...hmmm...

Books on Amazon written by Domenic Halvah. Like, there's no way someone is an expert on all these topics. All of them published between April 2023 and June 2023. AI generated books? This is so dumb.

The Grand Illusion: A Scientific Journey into Free Will
Fearless Living: Conquering Your Fears with Confidence
Small Actions, Great Impact: Unleashing Your Potential through Micro-Actions
From Screen to Reality: Unlocking the Power of a Balanced Life
Dismantling Hate: The Battle Against White Supremacy
Unleashing Your Creative Genius: Reimagining the Boundaries of...
Style Your Home Like a Pro: Expert Tips for Interior Styling Success
The Viking Kitchen: A Journey Through Time and Taste
Unlocking Democracy: A Comprehensive Guide to Voting and Civic Engagement
The Habit Genome: Decoding the Secrets of Powerful Change
Happy Now: The Essential Guide to Finding Happiness in Today's World
How to Be an Anti-Racist: A Guide to Dismantling Racism
Wealth Warfare: How Laws and Policies Benefit the Ultra-Wealthy
Migration: Chaos in Australia
Migration: Chaos in the US
Migration: Chaos in Europe
Think Again: Overcoming Biases and Preconceptions in Critical Thinking
The Truth Prevails: How to Combat False Narratives and Fake News in a...
BREAKING THE CHAINS OF FAITH: How Religion Can Enslave and Harm People
Vladimir Putin's Web of Lies: Deception and the Invasion of Ukraine
Divided We Stand: Unraveling the Intricate Dance of White Supremacy...
A Nation Healed: Comprehensive Solutions to End Gun Violence in the...
The Art of the Lie: The Deceptive Genius of Donald Trump
The Abundant Future: Life Unleashed
The Emergence of Mind: How Nonliving Matter Transformed into Consciousness

[FlashDangerpants]

A question for the general PN reader:

Is this forum just another social media space for reflexive bickering and personal jabs?
Or is it supposed to be a place for honest, intellectually serious debate?

Because if we’re aiming for the latter, then dismissing arguments with snide one-liners, declaring positions “absurd” without explanation, or resorting to mockery instead of logic shouldn’t be the norm. If someone disagrees, fine—but show your reasoning. Engage the ideas. Otherwise, what are we even doing here?

You are guilty as any of the offenses you complain about. When faced with doubts that your take on determinism is necessary or adequate, you demand things like: "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." which has nothing to do with ideas you are addressing. You've dismissed me with irrelevant nonsense multiple times. I'm sure you've done it to others too, I just can't be expected to keep up with all this spam.

I tend to allow you to dismiss me that way because I don't rate you very highly and because I don't want to just do the same conversation over and over the way some others like to. But don't expect me not to notice.

The format of your formulaic posts is surely designed for that purpose. The way you quote us in a big block and then you write a little essay afterwards that starts with you always saying our names and then you summarise what you are going to be countering, which tends not to really be what we wrote. But it's ok because you drop a little praise in there with the instant dismissal when you do the "let's oil up and grapple Graeco-Roman style with this one because you've raised an important question about naval artillery technology in medieval Genoa and I would like to put my face next to its testicles" bait and switch technique you so love.

[accelafine]

Is 'Domenic Halvah' (obvious fake name) an AI author? He has a whole bunch of 'books' but they are all mysteriously 'out of print'. The plot thickens...hmmm...

Books on Amazon written by Domenic Halvah. Like, there's no way someone is an expert on all these topics. All of them published between April 2023 and June 2023. AI generated books? This is so dumb.

The Grand Illusion: A Scientific Journey into Free Will
Fearless Living: Conquering Your Fears with Confidence
Small Actions, Great Impact: Unleashing Your Potential through Micro-Actions
From Screen to Reality: Unlocking the Power of a Balanced Life
Dismantling Hate: The Battle Against White Supremacy
Unleashing Your Creative Genius: Reimagining the Boundaries of...
Style Your Home Like a Pro: Expert Tips for Interior Styling Success
The Viking Kitchen: A Journey Through Time and Taste
Unlocking Democracy: A Comprehensive Guide to Voting and Civic Engagement
The Habit Genome: Decoding the Secrets of Powerful Change
Happy Now: The Essential Guide to Finding Happiness in Today's World
How to Be an Anti-Racist: A Guide to Dismantling Racism
Wealth Warfare: How Laws and Policies Benefit the Ultra-Wealthy
Migration: Chaos in Australia
Migration: Chaos in the US
Migration: Chaos in Europe
Think Again: Overcoming Biases and Preconceptions in Critical Thinking
The Truth Prevails: How to Combat False Narratives and Fake News in a...
BREAKING THE CHAINS OF FAITH: How Religion Can Enslave and Harm People
Vladimir Putin's Web of Lies: Deception and the Invasion of Ukraine
Divided We Stand: Unraveling the Intricate Dance of White Supremacy...
A Nation Healed: Comprehensive Solutions to End Gun Violence in the...
The Art of the Lie: The Deceptive Genius of Donald Trump
The Abundant Future: Life Unleashed
The Emergence of Mind: How Nonliving Matter Transformed into Consciousness

And all 'out of print' Who (what) TF IS this guy???