If free will was not real

[Gemini]

All well and good, but how is that a response to what -I- said rather than a vague and poorly formed appeal to perceived authority?  

I think you know that referencing experts to support one's claims isn't an appeal to authority. And this was direct response to the skepticism you expressed in post #479 as to whether frontal lobes grant the property of human will.

You definition of freedom doesn't require that it be free...so yes, naturally, I prefer my own which does.  Aren't you supposed to be the pedantic one between us?

Pendantic enough to distinguish between the stipulative freedom of compatibilism and the contra-causal freedom of libertarianism. All you're saying is that our way of defining "free will" is different than the way libertarians define it. True, that. So what?

So would I...hell, I'll stomp on things that do have a "free will".  Diod you know that you can;t legally shoot at a wounded enemy that's behind your line of control?  They're pows.  So, the way to deal with that, is a swift rear-and-downward kick to to the skull..which levarages all of your weight and muscle, to crush their heads and reduce the strain on rear echelon motherfuckers.  

That's what legalism gets us. Kicking people to death instead of shooting them. Hooray for rules of engagement. War is hell, there's no denying it and no avoiding it, as long as someone out there is itching to wage one.

I know, which is why the compatibilist position is a semantic game of hide and seek, rather than a description of some ability or quality that human beings have.

Being free from duress/coercion is a real property that human beings can have. To define language in such way as to permit distinctions that obtain on a regular basis (having legal autonomy vs. not having legal autonomy) rather than defining freedom of the will in terms of something that is at best a speculative plausibility and at worst incoherent is hardly a semantic game of hide and seek. It's just good linguistics.