If free will was not real

[Gemini]

That gives me a form of evil sexy power.

The eviler the sexier. I'm quivering...literally quivering. Please...don't ban me!

*tears roll down my face*

In the mouth.

I'm not going to go into specifics here, cause...forum ban...but, I'm causally determined to do what I'm gonna do. With reference to the above statement. Completely constrained. Can't help it

It is indeed but is it really an argument? I prefer to think of it a "primary exchange of sexiness with an additional exchange of ideas being a mere paltry secondary epiphenomenon."

Hmm. I really enjoy being a pretentious cunt. It's fun helping cultivate one's own intellectual curiosity by pretending to be more incisive and erudite than one actually is until it becomes truly the actual case pragmatically and experientially within the phenomelogicality of all intellectually worthy actors on this stage we call "the world".

I disagree strenuously with the above statement. And it's a very important philosophical difference.

I'm the cunt. That's a very important distinction. For the phenomenology of intellectually worthy actors, and other smart stuff.

Yes. I call that: "The Argument By Phenomelogical Turtley Flirtyness."

It is incumbant on all rational persons to accept "The Argument By Phenomenological Turtley Flirtyness."

[Gemini]

Sure, go try to shread the fact that the universe, or at least our brains are deterministic and that it plays a role in if our will is free or not.

Except that's exactly what we aren't shredding. We're shredding the metaphysical theory of contra-causal free will.

[Edwardo Piet]

The eviler the sexier.

Then I'm pretty fucking sexy.

I'm quivering...literally quivering.

I know, I know.

Right in the redacted.

Please...don't ban me!

Don't worry I won't ban you. I won't ban you so hard. At all. Vigorously. A lot. In my turtle mind. Slow and deep.

*tears roll down my face*

You know I love that you cheeky flirty brat.

I'm not going to go into specifics here, cause...forum ban...but, I'm causally determined to do what I'm gonna do. With reference to the above statement. Completely constrained. Can't help it

Stop squirming.

I say that to make you squirm. I know it works.

I disagree strenuously with the above statement. And it's a very important philosophical difference.

I'm the cunt.

To be hit right in the.

That's a very important distinction. For the phenomenology of intellectually worthy actors, and other smart stuff.

Involving sweat and vodka.

It is incumbant on all rational persons to accept "The Argument By Phenomenological Turtley Flirtyness."

Stop telling me what I already know and get to work on doing something about that redacted of yours

[RozKek]

I think it's correct to recondition them/their brain in order to turn them into a good person that contributes to society in a positive way. And that's not what's happening at the moment.

I agree completely but only if it can be done.

I'm against the death penalthy. I'm not sure where I stand when it comes to lifetime imprisonment for murderers but I guess permanent detainment for people capable of murdering someone is a good idea if and only if attempting to rehabilitate is too risky.

I would expect rehabilitation for murderers to have a very very very high success rate if we are to allow them back into the community and consider them now to be fully reformed non-murderers.

I'd say it's wrong to imprison someone, lifetime, for doing something they're ultimately not responsible for. The correct thing to do would be imprisoning them until they've been rehabilitated, if possible, that is.

Me too. However, from the victim's loved ones point of view, I'd probably hate, and want to (not necessarily would) just beat the shit out of the murderer, even though I wouldn't think it's the correct thing to do. So I don't know how that would work out among other people in society. 

If rehabilitation isn't possible then I'd agree with a lifetime prison, because of the risk of the murderer, harming other people again, unless something better comes up. But I think in the future when genetic modification becomes a common thing and when people start becoming more science-y, education increases and becomes worldwide, in turn making society good, then I don't think we'll even have to worry about murderers, rapists etc.

[RozKek]

Sure, go try to shread the fact that the universe, or at least our brains are deterministic and that it plays a role in if our will is free or not.

Except that's exactly what we aren't shredding. We're shredding the metaphysical theory of contra-causal free will.

Contra-causal free will? Never heard of it before.

This is what I got from a source about what contra-causal free will is.

"Most people feel that if choices A and B are available, and nobody is forcing them to take one or the other, they can use their free will to pick one in a way that is reasoned and yet somehow floats above causality. This is what I called contra-causal free will in  to the last post, and this is the sort of free will I contend cannot exist:"

How, exactly are you shredding contra-causal free will? Isn't that what I'm arguing against? If you're shredding contra-causal free will, then I think we're on the same side?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not wrong to imprison someone for lifetime if it prevents them from murdering someone again when they're let out. Whether they are responsible or not it is important to mitigate harm.

[RozKek]

It's not wrong to imprison someone for lifetime if it prevents them from murdering someone again when they're let out. Whether they are responsible or not it is important to mitigate harm.

"If it prevents them from murdering someone again". Isn't that what I said? If rehabilitation isn't possible, then I'd agree with lifetime prison, that's what I said.

[Edwardo Piet]

The correct thing to do would be imprisoning them until they've been rehabilitated, if possible, that is.

Yes.

If rehabilitation isn't possible then I'd agree with a lifetime prison, because of the risk of the murderer, harming other people again, unless something better comes up.

Yes.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not wrong to imprison someone for lifetime if it prevents them from murdering someone again when they're let out. Whether they are responsible or not it is important to mitigate harm.

"If it prevents them from murdering someone again". Isn't that what I said? If rehabilitation isn't possible, then I'd agree with lifetime prison, that's what I said.

Yes so we're agreeing

[RozKek]

"If it prevents them from murdering someone again". Isn't that what I said? If rehabilitation isn't possible, then I'd agree with lifetime prison, that's what I said.

Yes so we're agreeing

We are. Want to freely go and buy our totally freely picked ice cream flavor?