South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[FlashDangerpants]

…all are just a bunch of nazis to me.

Excellent! That is exactly what I hoped to make clear. Any idea that challenges or opposes the set of tenets anchored in you, is the same as Nazism.

Not really "any" though is it? Only the nazi ones stuff about race and jews, which happens to include yours.

[Alexis Jacobi]

False, Flash, and again calumnious.

There is no topic that I can think of with as much relevance for Occidental civilization as the influence of Jewry.

If you knew anything about Jewish culture — I assume you have zero background nor any contacts in that community — you would know that there is no topic as important to Jewry as Jewish history and Jewish influence in all categories of civilization. In this way Jews always place themselves at the forefront of Occidental cultural affairs. That will always open them up to different forms of scrutiny.

Had you ever bothered to inquire, you moron, by asking me directly and resisting engaging in calumnious innuendo, you would have learned that I believe it impossible and unwise to fall into those mental and psychological traps known as “antisemitism”. It is simply put not possible — not now and not ever — to sidestep the immense influence of Jewry on the Occident.

A Jewish critical position however (strongly affected by opposition to Israeli policies), which is definitely on the rise in our present is, as with many topics, labyrinthine and multi-faceted, not easy to sort through. I do not invalidate it in a blanket manner and unlike everyone now participating in this forum I have tangible background in the topic. As a reader of Jewish histories and contemporary Jewish essayists on the topic of Judaism, and because of my own cultural background and upbringing.

The calumny which comes so easily to you and to people with a similar background I find wretched and vicious. But you see you grant yourself special rights to engage underhandedly in this way, not only on this topic but in numerous other topics, too.

[Gary Childress]

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.

So it seems that you are saying that I could either catch the ball or dodge it and conservation laws might not be violated in either case, is that correct? So it is not the case that free will is impossible because it would violate conservation laws. Free will may not in fact violate conservation laws at all, is that correct?

But you posit that it's pre-determined that I will react the way I react. What evidence suggests that before someone threw the beach ball it was already determined that I would do what I did in response?

[accelafine]

So BigMike is 100 percent bot after all. He's (I'll call him 'he' for simplicity) been peddling his fake bot 'book' from his first post

''All compatibilists should read the "No Free Will: But So Much More" book by Domenic Halvah. It sure clears up a lot of things.''

[accelafine]

Intriguingly he 'outed' himself on that first post.

Now about that 'Viking cuisine' ...

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no topic that I can think of with as much relevance for Occidental civilization as the influence of Jewry.

No nazier words were ever written.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is something in you, Flash, that borders on the wicked.

There is no topic that I can think of with as much relevance for Occidental civilization as the influence of Jewry.

No nazier words were ever written.

And in your case no more ignorant words were ever spoken, you moron. You know nothing, and care nothing, for Jews, Jewry or Jewish history and culture.

From a Jewish educational site:

Judaism has had a profound influence on Western civilization. Much of this influence comes from Jewish ideas and values that were transmitted to Christianity, which developed from Jewish roots. Jesus of Nazareth, his disciples, and the first leaders of the Christian Church were all Jewish. The Jewish Bible was incorporated into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. Not surprisingly, many principles and teachings that are important in Judaism are also important in Christianity. These common ideas are known as the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Christianity spread, it popularized these important ideas. As a result, moral and ethical ideas developed by Judaism helped shape Western ideas about law, morality, and social justice.

An Orthodox Jew on Quora writes (re: Jewish influence):

Where to start? It’s almost impossible to answer this question briefly but I’ll try .

Jesus

Jesus was a Jew and what he taught, is based totally on Jewish thought and teachings. Later, non-Jewish or estranged Jews adapted his teachings and the two religions diverged but the origins of Jesus’s teachings are Judaism.

Mohammed

Much of the Quran pays allegiance to stories also told in the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible play an inordinate influence on the world to today. The idea of a seven day week with a day of rest comes from the book of Genesis. The Ten Commandments in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Many of the other commands e.g. Leviticus 19:18 which commands man to love one’s neighbour as oneself (also taken up by Jesus). The idea of financial compensation for injury comes from Judaism (although often misinterpreted — so eye-for-an-eye never meant literally to blind somebody but to pay compensation for the value of an eye, as can be seen from the context where the surrounding verses explicitly talk about monetary compensation for injuries).

Freud, Einstein, Bohr and many others have changed the world we live in from a psychological and scientific perspective.

Marx — much of the world pays allegiance to the ideas of Karl Marx who was born Jewish and was influenced by his Jewish background even if he rejected it (as did Freud above, and Trotsky who also had influence).

Judaism online

[Atla]

So BigMike is 100 percent bot after all. He's (I'll call him 'he' for simplicity) been peddling his fake bot 'book' from his first post

''All compatibilists should read the "No Free Will: But So Much More" book by Domenic Halvah. It sure clears up a lot of things.''

Imo Mike is a guy, but maybe he or his team learned to co-author books with AI. Shitty books that no one wants to buy, he came here to advertise the first book.

Humans and AI co-author a book by combining human creativity and judgment with AI's language generation and data processing capabilities. Typically, the human provides ideas, outlines, and edits, while the AI assists with drafting text, generating content variations, or suggesting improvements. This collaboration accelerates writing, enhances productivity, and can inspire new directions, with the human maintaining creative control and ensuring coherence and originality.

More importantly, is Mike a Viking?

[accelafine]

So BigMike is 100 percent bot after all. He's (I'll call him 'he' for simplicity) been peddling his fake bot 'book' from his first post

''All compatibilists should read the "No Free Will: But So Much More" book by Domenic Halvah. It sure clears up a lot of things.''

Imo Mike is a guy, but maybe he or his team learned to co-author books with AI. Shitty books that no one wants to buy, he came here to advertise the first book.

Humans and AI co-author a book by combining human creativity and judgment with AI's language generation and data processing capabilities. Typically, the human provides ideas, outlines, and edits, while the AI assists with drafting text, generating content variations, or suggesting improvements. This collaboration accelerates writing, enhances productivity, and can inspire new directions, with the human maintaining creative control and ensuring coherence and originality.

More importantly, is Mike a Viking?

I'm sure they aren't real books. There's no price on them. They are all mysteriously 'out of print'. I don't think he's a person. Bots are getting more and more sophisticated. You would think a human could come up with a name that isn't so obviously fake. Even 'Joe Citizen' would have been more believable than 'Domenic Halvah'

'Domenic' is an anagram of 'demonic', and 'halvah' is a Middle Eastern dessert. Make of that what you will

[accelafine]

False, Flash, and again calumnious.

There is no topic that I can think of with as much relevance for Occidental civilization as the influence of Jewry.

If you knew anything about Jewish culture — I assume you have zero background nor any contacts in that community — you would know that there is no topic as important to Jewry as Jewish history and Jewish influence in all categories of civilization. In this way Jews always place themselves at the forefront of Occidental cultural affairs. That will always open them up to different forms of scrutiny.

Had you ever bothered to inquire, you moron, by asking me directly and resisting engaging in calumnious innuendo, you would have learned that I believe it impossible and unwise to fall into those mental and psychological traps known as “antisemitism”. It is simply put not possible — not now and not ever — to sidestep the immense influence of Jewry on the Occident.

A Jewish critical position however (strongly affected by opposition to Israeli policies), which is definitely on the rise in our present is, as with many topics, labyrinthine and multi-faceted, not easy to sort through. I do not invalidate it in a blanket manner and unlike everyone now participating in this forum I have tangible background in the topic. As a reader of Jewish histories and contemporary Jewish essayists on the topic of Judaism, and because of my own cultural background and upbringing.

The calumny which comes so easily to you and to people with a similar background I find wretched and vicious. But you see you grant yourself special rights to engage underhandedly in this way, not only on this topic but in numerous other topics, too.

Ahh, the old 'Jews rule the world' tedious conspiracy bullshit. I wish they did. They seem to be more intelligent and rational than everyone else. I'm sure the world would be a lot better off it was ruled by Einsteins and Carl Sagans. Just look at England. It's only a decade or less away from Sharia law. Do you prefer that? If 'The Jews' ruled the world do you really think that would be happening right now? Idiot.

[Dubious]

Ahh, the old 'Jews rule the world' tedious conspiracy bullshit. I wish they did. They seem to be more intelligent and rational than everyone else. I'm sure the world would be a lot better off it was ruled by Einsteins and Carl Sagans.

That's interesting. I often wondered if a Jew is still a Jew if he negates that which made him a Jew. The question of one's Jewishness begins most famously with Spinoza. Freud too was negator of the very thing which caused Jews to be or become Jews. This is no-longer unusual among the more intelligent in the tribe.

[accelafine]

Ahh, the old 'Jews rule the world' tedious conspiracy bullshit. I wish they did. They seem to be more intelligent and rational than everyone else. I'm sure the world would be a lot better off it was ruled by Einsteins and Carl Sagans.

That's interesting. I often wondered if a Jew is still a Jew if he negates that which made him a Jew. The question of one's Jewishness begins most famously with Spinoza. Freud too was negator of the very thing which caused Jews to be or become Jews. This is no-longer unusual among the more intelligent in the tribe.

Well according to conspiracy theorists like AJ 'The Jews control everything'' so they seem to know exactly what 'Jews' are (when it suits them). When it's about criticising Israel they switch to 'They aren't Jews'. The Nazis seemed to know exactly what Jews were since they managed to murder 6 milliion of them. I don't think they cared about whether or not they were religious...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Flash, you did good work. I reckon you are pleased.

The way calumny operates in our present — especially as it is played by those tending toward your political side (though all sides engage in misrepresentation of their opponents) — is that once the lie or the misrepresentation is set in motion it goes forward on its own trajectory, empowered by psychological complexes (c.f. Accelafine) and cannot be stopped.

Denial of the misrepresentation seems only to feed it. And the trap has done its work.

I guess the only thing that can be done is to focus on that issue: why calumny and misrepresentation work so well.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, you did good work. I reckon you are pleased.

Quit whining you silly nazi.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's interesting. I often wondered if a Jew is still a Jew if he negates that which made him a Jew. The question of one's Jewishness begins most famously with Spinoza. Freud too was negator of the very thing which caused Jews to be or become Jews. This is no-longer unusual among the more intelligent in the tribe.

Reminds me of a story. A man walked along a road and came across a very cleverly designed trap. He was himself clever enough not to walk into it. However — mysteriously — instead of walking on he built a very similar trap, nearly identical but with certain notable differences, and concealed himself in a bush awaiting a victim. Then — here the story moves into absurd territory and meaning becomes unreliable — an old psychotic crone was attracted to both traps because of shiny features and textures. She sits next to each mumbling incoherently and every once in a while barking.

Huh? If you are confused by the story please understand that I don’t get it either.