UK RAPE GANGS - predominantly Pakistani Muslims

[Immanuel Can]

And I agree, we ALL act as though we have free will. It's a necessary given. So it is entirely possible that BigMike's argument is missing some aspect that would save us from determinism.

More than that, Gary...it's literally impossible. It can't be done. To "live" is, by its very nature, to have to act as if free will is true. No other hypothesis permits any decisions at all.

However, I do think BigMike is correct in his assessment that most of the scientific evidence thus far points us toward determinism as a conclusion.

What Mikey's talking about has zero to do with "science." Determinism is a completely speculative and untestable theory, and, as we were just noting, completely and utterly incapable of being practiced. No part of that has even a smattering of "science" in it.

He's asking you to deduce Determinism from the mere fact that there are regularities in the universe. But of course, were there no regularities at all, decision-making and such exercises of will would be impossible; so far from being the negation of free will, they're its precondition. If decisions are to count, they can only be made on the basis of known regularities.

For example, if I "decide" I want to eat, I have to know that certain foods are edible. If things that look to me like food suddenly turned into rat poison, I couldn't decide how to nourish myself. But that doesn't imply my choice was pre-made for me by the chemicals found in the last meal I had before that, or that there's some magical "law" that determines whether or not I am going to choose to eat. And I have the capability to decide I want to lose weigh instead, and to choose that, rather than to eat. What's going to be chosen is in my power of decision -- it's not something made-for-me by some mysterious prior force.

Anyway, Mike's not listening to any counter arguments. He's just repeating his stock Deterministic tripe.

[Gary Childress]

And I agree, we ALL act as though we have free will. It's a necessary given. So it is entirely possible that BigMike's argument is missing some aspect that would save us from determinism.

More than that, Gary...it's literally impossible. It can't be done. To "live" is, by its very nature, to have to act as if free will is true. No other hypothesis permits any decisions at all.

However, I do think BigMike is correct in his assessment that most of the scientific evidence thus far points us toward determinism as a conclusion.

What Mikey's talking about has zero to do with "science." Determinism is a completely speculative and untestable theory, and, as we were just noting, completely and utterly incapable of being practiced. No part of that has even a smattering of "science" in it.

He's asking you to deduce Determinism from the mere fact that there are regularities in the universe. But of course, were there no regularities at all, decision-making and such exercises of will would be impossible; so far from being the negation of free will, they're its precondition. If decisions are to count, they can only be made on the basis of known regularities.

For example, if I "decide" I want to eat, I have to know that certain foods are edible. If things that look to me like food suddenly turned into rat poison, I couldn't decide how to nourish myself. But that doesn't imply my choice was pre-made for me by the chemicals found in the last meal I had before that, or that there's some magical "law" that determines whether or not I am going to choose to eat. And I have the capability to decide I want to lose weigh instead, and to choose that, rather than to eat. What's going to be chosen is in my power of decision -- it's not something made-for-me by some mysterious prior force.

Anyway, Mike's not listening to any counter arguments. He's just repeating his stock Deterministic tripe.

OK. That sounds fair enough. It mirrors Noam Chomsky's response to the free will vs. determinism debate according to the Youtube interview I posted of him talking about the subject. Chomsky seems to maintain that the jury is still out on whether our actions are ultimately determined or else freely chosen.

[Belinda]

And I agree, we ALL act as though we have free will. It's a necessary given. So it is entirely possible that BigMike's argument is missing some aspect that would save us from determinism.

More than that, Gary...it's literally impossible. It can't be done. To "live" is, by its very nature, to have to act as if free will is true. No other hypothesis permits any decisions at all.

However, I do think BigMike is correct in his assessment that most of the scientific evidence thus far points us toward determinism as a conclusion.

What Mikey's talking about has zero to do with "science." Determinism is a completely speculative and untestable theory, and, as we were just noting, completely and utterly incapable of being practiced. No part of that has even a smattering of "science" in it.

He's asking you to deduce Determinism from the mere fact that there are regularities in the universe. But of course, were there no regularities at all, decision-making and such exercises of will would be impossible; so far from being the negation of free will, they're its precondition. If decisions are to count, they can only be made on the basis of known regularities.

For example, if I "decide" I want to eat, I have to know that certain foods are edible. If things that look to me like food suddenly turned into rat poison, I couldn't decide how to nourish myself. But that doesn't imply my choice was pre-made for me by the chemicals found in the last meal I had before that, or that there's some magical "law" that determines whether or not I am going to choose to eat. And I have the capability to decide I want to lose weigh instead, and to choose that, rather than to eat. What's going to be chosen is in my power of decision -- it's not something made-for-me by some mysterious prior force.

Anyway, Mike's not listening to any counter arguments. He's just repeating his stock Deterministic tripe.

OK. That sounds fair enough. It mirrors Noam Chomsky's response to the free will vs. determinism debate according to the Youtube interview I posted of him talking about the subject. Chomsky seems to maintain that the jury is still out on whether our actions are ultimately determined or else freely chosen.

Rubbish!
It's obvious that generative grammar (Chomsky) is the only possible explanation of how a young and preliterate child learns her native language. Generative grammar is most probably 'wired in' to our biology. Wired into our biology implies that we have no choice but to learn our native language given the social conditions that cultivate the learning of language.
No infant chooses to learn or not to learn, so one must agree that infants at least have no 'Free Will'. This fact begs the question at what age does the growing child acquire Free Will, if such a thing does in fact exist?

True, Chomsky would agree that with surprising speed and accuracy the infant acquires a vastly complex native language. However this inherent cause of human language acquisition is useless without the social input of native speakers .With the requisite social background a healthy infant will learn her native language as a matter of causes and effects. There is no further need for so called 'Free Will'.

There being no argument from Chomsky for Free Will, we need to look to causes of criminality. Only by establishing causes, such as lack of adequate policing , bad education , and bad socialisation can we stop criminal gangs. Elimination of the causes of crime is left wing policy. Left wing politicians seek to eliminate the causes of crime: right wing politicians seek to eliminate criminal behaviour by blaming individuals ' free wills and punishing them.

[Immanuel Can]

And I agree, we ALL act as though we have free will. It's a necessary given. So it is entirely possible that BigMike's argument is missing some aspect that would save us from determinism.

More than that, Gary...it's literally impossible. It can't be done. To "live" is, by its very nature, to have to act as if free will is true. No other hypothesis permits any decisions at all.

However, I do think BigMike is correct in his assessment that most of the scientific evidence thus far points us toward determinism as a conclusion.

What Mikey's talking about has zero to do with "science." Determinism is a completely speculative and untestable theory, and, as we were just noting, completely and utterly incapable of being practiced. No part of that has even a smattering of "science" in it.

He's asking you to deduce Determinism from the mere fact that there are regularities in the universe. But of course, were there no regularities at all, decision-making and such exercises of will would be impossible; so far from being the negation of free will, they're its precondition. If decisions are to count, they can only be made on the basis of known regularities.

For example, if I "decide" I want to eat, I have to know that certain foods are edible. If things that look to me like food suddenly turned into rat poison, I couldn't decide how to nourish myself. But that doesn't imply my choice was pre-made for me by the chemicals found in the last meal I had before that, or that there's some magical "law" that determines whether or not I am going to choose to eat. And I have the capability to decide I want to lose weigh instead, and to choose that, rather than to eat. What's going to be chosen is in my power of decision -- it's not something made-for-me by some mysterious prior force.

Anyway, Mike's not listening to any counter arguments. He's just repeating his stock Deterministic tripe.

OK. That sounds fair enough. It mirrors Noam Chomsky's response to the free will vs. determinism debate according to the Youtube interview I posted of him talking about the subject. Chomsky seems to maintain that the jury is still out on whether our actions are ultimately determined or else freely chosen.

I don't think Determinism has a case. Nobody can live as if it's true. Therefore, it's highly unlikely to be true, unless somebody has a much better explanation for our natural intuitions and natural pattern of life than I've ever heard from a Determinist.

[MagsJ]

.
Grooming gangs scandal timeline: What happened, what inquiries there were and how Starmer was involved - after Elon Musk's accusations

https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gan ... s-13285021