Yes, and God would be considered to have broken the genocide convention.

It's not that the puppet would possess free will, it's that the puppet is an extension of the puppeteer who possesses free will, and thus that free will would be relayed to the puppet; so the puppet by itself isn't autonomous, but autonomous in regard that it is being autonomously operated. — Shamshir

So my left foot is autonomous? No, I still think that that's just wordplay. And there's no case for free will, anyway, if it's just a feeling.

I found out recently that Herodotus is known as the father of history, but also the father of bias. I guess that would make you something like his less talented descendant.

What does "wife of 64 years mean"? — TheMadFool

A woman of questionable sanity.

That’s not true at all. — NOS4A2

What's not true at all?

Whether free will is a misnomer, I'm not sure — Shamshir

I am, because it isn't free, only partly so. Why not call it "determined will", on that same basis?

It is difficult to describe as anything but an innate understanding — Shamshir

So it's as I suspected: just a feeling. Nothing substantial to go by.

So if we trust our awareness, flux is indubitable and thus this would allow someone to know that there is free will, with its lack of necessity. — Shamshir

Flux? What on earth are you talking about, and how on earth does that allow someone to know that there is free will?

Even if the person in question was puppeteered, he would share in the free will of his autonomous operator. — Shamshir

No he wouldn't, that's just wordplay. The puppet would have no free will over his actions at all.

What's not true at all? — creativesoul

That.

The president has every right, and I would even argue the duty, to classify what he wants. — NOS4A2

According to what, or who? Either way, that's a recipe for disaster. A healthy democracy requires checks and balances, not a dictator who can do what he likes.

Poor creativesoul. He's always inviting people to a formal debate, but no one ever wants to debate him. :snicker:

It’s a great picture. Of course, the president can declassify whatever he pleases. — NOS4A2

Reminds me of Nixon's, "But when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".

Scary.

I wasn't at all talking about hate speech there. — Terrapin Station

I know, you were talking about plaid shirts... in a discussion that's supposed to be about hate speech.

So "free will" is a misnomer, then. How do know you that there's a lack of necessity? Is it anything more than a feeling that you have freedom of choosing between doing this or doing that? How could anyone possibly know whether that's actually the case?

And you still haven't specified which part of the example scenerio you think wouldn't be determined, or would lack necessity.

It was determined - but partly, not fully. — Shamshir

Which part are you claiming wasn't determined, and how do you know this? And besides, it wouldn't then be free will, but partly-free-and-partly-determined will, or partially free will.

Well, and I'm glad your reading abilities are such that you saw that I was saying that they're just the same. — Terrapin Station

It was an out of place and inappropriate example, given the topic of hate speech. I'm glad that your ability to read between the lines is on top form today.

The reason I said something about arbitrariness earlier was because people were forwarding arbitrary stuff as if it was a fact, as if it could be correct/true, etc. (Usually S does this, with an implication either/or that something is correct for him thinking it, or it's correct for it being common.) — Terrapin Station

More like I point out something obvious, like that people often get basic and widely known things right, like the shape of the earth, or what the word "chair" means in English, and you respond with unreasonable denials or you jump to the erroneous conclusion that I'm fallaciously appealing to the masses.

I didn't see S saying this, but okay, he can be that (playing along that he'd be serious). Obviously different people would institute different laws if they were king. We're not all going to have the same preferences. That should be pretty obvious to anyone by the time they're in kindergarten at least. — Terrapin Station

Fortunately absolute monarchy has all but disappeared, and these kind of views are far too unpopular to gain the required support in democracies.

No matter how much you flip out about someone wearing a plaid shirt, we're not banning plaid shirts. — Terrapin Station

I'm glad that someone else here sees how someone wearing a plaid shirt is just like someone publicly calling for the extermination of Jews.

But you don't have to turn on the light; you can, but it isn't necessary. — Shamshir

Regardless of whether that's true or not, I did so, and that was determined. So whence the supposed freedom? Isn't that just an assumption, and an assumption contradicted by the acknowledgement that my course of action was determined?

That your decision may and is influenced does not negate the freedom of the act, but capitalises on it.
The freedom in free will is what allows it to be influenced; if it was absolutely free, it would be no different from absolutey determined and equally unyielding to influence.

I feel we see the same thing, but you're focusing moreso on how the two clash, whereas I, and perhaps Janus, focus on how freedom and determinability compliment each other. — Shamshir

But you haven't explained how that's even possible. You're just saying things without proper explanation.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Let's say that I turn the light on because it's dark. That it's dark is an influence which determines my act of turning on the light. If it was determined, then it wasn't free. It couldn't have been free. That would be a contradiction.

I thought the British political establishment was a bit more serious about respecting its own institutions. I thought wrong. — Benkei

The British political establishment is not the Tory party. The rest of it, with the exception of the DUP, is up in arms. And of course, there are some even within the Tory party who are up in arms, too, like the former Chancellor, Phillip Hammond.

I don't think many would say that free will involves making "choices without determining influences". — Janus

How would it be free, then?

This being the same Donald Trump who called for Hillary Clinton to be locked up over the email controversy.

Yes of course, censorship exists. If the boss believed in free speech, on the other hand, she might not be fired. — NOS4A2

But the boss does believe in free speech, and yet he would still fire her. That is because he doesn't believe in absolute free speech, which is not the same as free speech. All across the world, free speech is understood in non-absolute terms, and it has numerous supporters, myself included. You are the exception here. I am a supporter of free speech, whereas you are a supporter of taking free speech to absurd and objectionable lengths.

Some people really like loud repetitive noises late at night, so what is it that makes playing the drums for sixteen hours a day something that its reasonable to legislate against? — Isaac

Well, I'm a free musical instrument playing absolutist, so I don't believe that there should be any laws restricting the freedom to play drums really loudly all night, every night, when your neighbours are trying to sleep.

The entire point of this argument is saying that morality can be understood, measured, formalized, and calculated scientifically. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes, I suppose morality, as in people's judgements about right and wrong and that sort of thing, can to some extent be understood, measured, formalized, and calculated scientifically. But somehow I doubt that that's what you meant to say, and even if it was, so what? That seems fairly trivial unless you use it as part of a normative ethical argument.

Of course I'm going to use arguments rooted in known science to validate my point... — Marzipanmaddox

In what way do you think that the mechanism of natural selection "validates" your point?

This reply of yours is once again far too verbose, and fails to show that one can derive an "ought" from an "is". Empty words, and far too many of them.

Why don't you just say something along the lines that you value collectives and cooperation, that you think they're a good thing, and that you think that an ideal society could be founded on that basis?

That would be fine. It would just be your opinion, and it would be up for debate. But you keep overstepping your bounds by saying things like that's morality itself. No, it's just your opinion.
— S

Because it's not a fucking opinion. It's an impartial, objective, measurable quality of cooperation within a society. It's not up for debate whether or not ten people can pull a cart with greater speed and efficiency than an individual. The only way the individual can pull the cart farther is when those 10 people all kill each other. Hence, this is why I argue that morality is the system of rules/equations that allows these 10 people to not kill each other. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes, it is an opinion. It is just an opinion which you are calling impartial, objective, etc., etc., when it isn't.

And raising merely descriptive facts which in themselves have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics, i.e. about what is moral or immoral, or what we should or shouldn't do, is to raise points which miss the point. You would have to draw a valid and logically relevant conclusion from them, which you cannot do. You do not seem to understand that it doesn't matter, in itself, in the context of ethics, that ten people can pull a cart faster than one person, or that people in those sorts of situations can cooperate with each other. That doesn't validly support any normative ethical conclusion, about what is good or bad, right or wrong, about what should or should not be done, regardless of whether or not I happen to have any view about the merits of cooperation, or about the fundamental role that it has in societies.

I don't value anything personally. I loathe the human race. I'd rather not see them exist. I'm just arguing an entirely objective point for entertainment sake. — Marzipanmaddox

But the only objective points you've made are ethically irrelevant. It is an objective point that ten people can pull a cart faster than one person. It is an objective point that there exist societies full of individuals who cooperate in many respects, and who by and large follow a set of rules. So. Bloody. What?

It almost seems futile to get through to you. You just keep responding with lengthy blether and more insistences that you are being objective, impartial, scientific, blah blah.

At this point it is a matter of semantics. Is an organ an individual? I can divide the organ out of a person's body. — Marzipanmaddox

An organ is obviously not an individual in the sense that I was using that word, but yes, an organ is an individual organ.

My point is that the organ does not exist or survive without the human body that it is contained within, thus the organ does not function as an individual. It cannot be divided without losing the inherent justification and purpose of its own existence. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes, I already know your point. I am simply criticising it on the basis that it clashes with how we ordinarily talk. The problem stems from your idiosyncratic definition of an "individual", which should be rejected because it leads to absurd conclusions.

A non-functional kidney lying in the street is not a kidney. — Marzipanmaddox

Yes it is. See? This is your problem.

thought/believed — creativesoul

Stop doing that.

But that is a criterion that can be adapted to many purposes. No doubt the Chinese Communist Party could claim that the Hong Kong protestors are encouraging ‘hatred against the Motherland’. And in China, you can be jailed indefinitely on that basis. — Wayfarer

But China's a different kettle of fish.

Sure I do. Surprisingly it has nothing to do with popular opinion or your brain. So how do we know that people are often right, then? That's what I had asked you. — Terrapin Station

It definitely does have something to do with your brain. And I'm not sure you should be saying "we", if you mean to include yourself in that. I'm fine speaking for myself or people in general, but it's possible that you're an exception, in that you seem to be convinced of some things which are quite obviously totally wrong.

And now you appear to expect me to believe that you hadn't noticed that people are often right about basic and obvious things, or that this is some big mystery to you. :brow:

That’s the line of thinking for blasphemy laws for instance, that evil words beget evil deeds and laws against it must be enforced in order to protect the greater public good. It turns out it wasn’t so sensible.
— NOS4A2

Yes. Banning blasphemy turns out not to be conducive to a healthy society. Banning homosexuality turned out not to be necessary either, so should we now repeal the law against all sexual activity including rape and child molestation? — Isaac

Owned. :lol:

And the question is how we know this. Just asserting it doesn't tell us how we know it. — Terrapin Station

You don't know how you know that the world isn't flat?

People are often right, at least on a basic level. Most people aren't whacky enough to believe that the world is flat or that there'd be no cost if we were to abolish all of the laws that you're in favour of abolishing. That's the link.

It was a question. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and it was worded like a conclusion, given that it begin with "So".

So what's right is what's statistically normal? — Terrapin Station

That doesn't follow from what I said.

In other words, how do we know you have the right answer? — Terrapin Station

Who is "we"? Those of us with working brains can know that I have the right answer through reason. Those of us who don't can't.

My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views. — Terrapin Station

That's why you're often wrong.

How do we figure out whether it's my brain or yours that has something wrong with it? — Terrapin Station

My brain leads me to the right answer. Yours does not. Therefore you have a faulty brain.

My brain is telling me that relevance/irrelevance is not a(n objective) fact. — Terrapin Station

Then there's something wrong with your brain.

Where on the Internet do we look up information about relevance as a fact? — Terrapin Station

You use your brain. Do you have one?

You're not suggesting that whether something is relevant is a fact, are you? — Terrapin Station

Of course it is.

Yeah, I'm aware that in your view it's irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

It's my view that it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant.