The events on earth suggest a negligible commitment to the welfare and happiness of creatures. — Tom Storm

As noted earlier though, if any personal God is 'true', we are wrong to think this way. We are simply not listening.

:up: :up: Perfectly summed up imo.

What is "bad faith" is having liars claim they know what they're talking about without having studied Marx and then having an idiot weigh in with a judgment out of the blue that nobody really cares about. — Benkei

What a bizarre level of irony. That said, it's clear you have an axe to grind. I'm sure you'll continue through several more failed states.

One baked-in element of God is His moral correctness and the source of ethical and moral truths. We would have to be wrong on (in fairness..) almost every conception of a personal God, and most others too. The entire point of God is to provide an ethically-inarguable framework. The subsequent discussion/revision/updating of those frameworks speaks to the nonsenseness of religion, imo.

Is something good because the gods will it or the gods will it because it’s good? — schopenhauer1

In my view, this discussion (Euthyphro, Liebniz) is fundamentally erroneous. We have the texts. Either see to the texts (which in Judeo-Christiandom are extremely clear - God dictates ethical truth, not recognises it) or accept that they are not foundational texts. I don't really understand why one would ask the question, unless you're seriously considering a supernatural God and want to square your discomfort with that position. In that case, navigating one's discomfort might be required to live a fulfilling life, but it clearly flies in the face of the texts.

You deem 'suffering' as 'bad' (or rather "Boo!") knowing it is your subjective emotions talking. — I like sushi

It's hard to commit to a formulation of this part, but I think this is a bullet to bite, in terms of its vagueness. Yes.

How then can you state, in any serious way, that something is 'right' or 'wrong' — I like sushi

I don't see a problem. I'm an Emotivist. That's what 'right' and 'wrong' mean.

But you seem to be saying "it is 'wrong' (boo!) for me" not that it is out and out wrong (Boo!) for everyone or that there is anything dictating what is objectively viewed as 'right; or 'wrong' other than commonality of emotional expressions. — I like sushi

A lot here.
It is wrong for anyone(currently, anyhow) as far as I am concerned. Enforcement of that policy can only apply to me based on my ethical views.
(my view is that..)There is nothing that could even begin to dictate what is objectively right or wrong (in the meta-ethical sense of the term "objective"). Those words don't have objective bases.
The basis is necessarily one's emotional disposition (maybe predisposition? This could in a very weird and unsatisfying way open the door to a more-objective ethic) as there is nothing else which could inform us.
The commonality of emotional expression is probably hte best way (:optimal) to work toward policy. I don't take this to indicate anything truly ethical. But it does indicate the overall moral vibe of a society/culture.

It is interesting how this, in part, appears similar to moral naturalism rather than moral scepticism. — I like sushi

Could you expand? My understanding of Moral Naturalism is that it more or less indicates that morals are evolutionarily-required aspects of human development, which I don't agree with.

...what I previously expressed as harbouring a 'Moral' stance of AN rather than an 'Ethical' stance of AN...I think we could argue back and forth a bit more but it may be mostly a semantic issue given that emotivism is hard to articulate (a serious flaw of emotivism). — I like sushi

Hmm. Pretty hard disagree. I think in these exchanges I have navigated through that suggestion pretty well. The fact that I don't think I should be forcing other people to adopt my view doesn't make it less ethically-driven. Not doing much about it is a dispositional fact of my mind or, to be a bit more sanguine, a practical necessity to not hating my life and hte world I live in.

I disagree that Emotivism is either hard to articulate, or flawed in any meaningful way (beyond causing discomfort, that is - but that's baked into the position so LOL). But that would make sense if it's my position, so just noting this for thoroughness.

IF that's how you see yourself mate, be my guest. I just think you're dull and self-obsessed.

There was an opinion piece published in Scientific American, by physicist Sean Carroll — Wayfarer

Let's say these two sources are not ones I would go to for discussions on anything remotely philosophically interesting.

How does it interact with ordinary matter?

This is his only question that doesn't carry all his suppositions. And it's been a live one for a long, long time.

But that is not what 'most people have in mind'. — Wayfarer

Agreed.

So, I myself don’t much like the terminology of ‘consciousness surviving death’ — Wayfarer

Thanks for explaining. I guess i Ignore stupid self-restricting positions like Carroll's. Obviously, he's an authority on what he does know - which is physics after the free miracle :P

Looks like @Hanover has covered it, but on any conception of Bad Faith i'm aware, you coming here to say this instead of talking to your wife about hte underlying tension you're feeling is bad faith, in regard to the marriage. If that's how you feel, don't shirk it to a forum of intellectual ner-do-wells.

The "formatting" helps you illiterati read and maybe even comprehend the post. Btw, you're welcome. — 180 Proof

It doesn't. It both makes it distinctly harder to grasp what you mean by all the random, nonsensical formatting - and It makes you look like more of a narcissist than does your content. Which is wild, particularly given the tone of this response I've quote LOL.
Your lack of self-awareness is absolutely astounding.

Absolute banger. Good to see some eclectic tastes showing up here..

If "Higher Morality" (God's morality) is so sadistically bad for its creatures, what does this say? — schopenhauer1

That we're wrong. That's baked into the description, really. If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong.

I was right. As usual. — Mikie

I cannot be overstated how utterly bereft of reality this is. You had to eat crow about Biden the same f'ing week this took place (i.e the ass. attempt and ensuing up-tick for T-Ump. ).

And that's maybe because the whole model, which again is foundational to the modern world, has radical deficiencies. — Wayfarer

I'm unsure it matters what came before this suggestion. It is clearly true, and leaves us with quite a bit to catch up on.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement as to what "freedom" is — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is a red herring on your part. We are clearly talking within a context. We are not randomly picking out versions of 'freedom'. We're talking about hte 'freedom to choose'. If a choice is literally not metaphysically possible, how could you apply a metric like 'freedom' to whether or not one chooses it? This seems to be practically nonsensical.

freedom means unrestricted — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely not. We have both made extremely clear why this is erroneous way to approach this issue. It makes it look (pretty heavily) as if you're wanting to define-out any version on which Dan and I are relying for our positions, instead of simply noting that they don't cohere and so we're probably talking at cross-purposes. I tried to solve this in my previous reply.. No matter.

You are defining "freedom" as already restricted, and that is incoherent in relation to how we actually understand "freedom". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it isn't. This is such a bizarre claim.

Because of this fundamental disagreement about "freedom", I think the point is highly relevant to freedom, and you think it is not at all relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I have noted, even on your conception of Freedom (or, from my POV, your restricted version) this doesn't hold any water whatsoever. If your version of 'Freedom' is 'unrestricted' then you are frollicking in the AI world. We are, in fact, metaphysically bound to accept the 'restrictions' of time on our ability to make choices. This removes possibility. It does not restrict freedom. It removes, entirely the possibility to chose anything at all. This last pair of sentences holds in both of our accounts. I have no idea how you think you're getting around this by simply saying "Freedom is unrestricted". Then again, you did agree that my not having gills "restricts my freedom" to breath underwater, so I may just need to walk away from this.

The problem here... — Metaphysician Undercover

This isn't a problem and the quote you've used to respond to aptly dispatches this objection.

Have you never found yourself in the middle of doing something? — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't quite understand what you're asking, based on the other content of the responses to this point. It seems you're wanting me to agree that a moment in time can be, in fact, a free-floating 'something' in pursuit of another free floating 'something' ad infinitum such that no act is ever complete because you're always acting (the other possibility, below my response to this).
Again, I have answered the objection within the quote you've used. An act is noted in totality. Either you made a cut (let's say into an apple) or you didn't. You didn't "halfway" cut through the apple. You either didn't get to it, or you cut exactly how deep you cut. You are never 'part way through' the act.
The other version you might be asking is "Doesn't your psychology pick out the timespans of acts as you carry them out?". The answer to this is "sometimes" and yet the previous objection holds. Just wanted to make sure I didn't ignore this.

But this is contrary to experience, which demonstrates to us that acts take place at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is actually direct, on-point support for what I've just responded with. Acts happen "in the present" and are not divided into "past" and "present" parts. That is correct, experience tells us this quite directly.

Haha, you reject 'empirical fact' when I bring it up, with reference to Hume, now you employ it — Metaphysician Undercover

I have a fairly big hunch you're making this part up.

Freedom does not mean 'one could have done otherwise', it means 'one can do whatever one wants'. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good grief. Okay, this will be my last reply because this is out the gate wrong.

You say "I simply do not have freedom in that pursuit", and you pretend that this does not mean that your freedom is restrict in that respect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because they are not coherent points to have made together. If Freedom does not obtain, it cannot be restricted. This is plain language now, come on.

then what does it mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

I means exactly what I've pointed out several times (beginning to think you're skimming these posts on your phone maybe?). Freedom does not obtain in that scenario. There is no freedom. It cannot be restricted. But, you seem to think that Freedom applies to things like "I want to be one of several Water Gods of a Triverse that doesn't exist". Hehe.

Wouldn't you think that simply not having freedom in all those other pursuits constitutes a restriction to your freedom? The way you are using "freedom", like Dan, is simply incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't. If you do not understand it, so be it. I really don't mean to sound rude in these posts, but its becoming obviously I do/will come across that way. I think you're being a bit obtuse.

I find that a joke, considering that the way you use "freedom" is simply incoherent. And, the fact that you refuse to recognize that acts are occurring at the present, instead of insisting that all acts are in the past. . — Metaphysician Undercover

This is both an incredibly bad reading of all that's been said, and a pretty good indicator you're not looking to understand.

So be it. Take care my friend :) I shall not engage this one further, I don't think.

Largely, the suffering the AN refers to is a result of hte higher consciousness of humans. Though, some ANs absolutely go as far as to insist we should look at reducing wild populations of most animals. I think that's a bit of an 'unofficial' position some take though. It's not one for me for two reasons:

1. My current understanding of (most) animal psychology is either not good enough to assume, or leads me to believe that hte relevant animals do not 'suffer' the way humans do, but experience an aversion; and
2. I don't think we will ever have a very clear understanding of the above issue outside of some higher animals and fish.

If I could clearly understand 1. above to indicate that animals, on the whole, suffer the same way humans do, I would probably assent to your point.

You do this actively or only when questioned about your AN beliefs? — I like sushi

Not always directly on-point to AN stuff, but whereever it seems applicable to the discussion (several versions of a vague 'ethical' discussion would do this and hten, yes) and whenever I'm specifically prodded on the issue.

I am assuming you are a moral realist? If not how does this fit into your views on AN? — I like sushi

I am a pretty staunch moral antirealist (hence noting I am an Emotivist, to the degree that I will commit to an existing label). I don't think this has any affect or effect on my AN positions beyond noting that they are 'my' ethical beliefs. My meta-ethical position doesn't really give me any room to pretend i'm the arbiter of truth, no matter how sure I am that I have the 'right' idea.

This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. — I like sushi

Not quite, no. I do think it would be better if people were ANs to the point that I believe people should not have children. This is proscriptive, and is an ethical position.
Perhaps I need to be clearer: I have ethical positions I never intend to enforce on others. If you look at all the arguments and conclude "Not good enough", fine, but I'll think you're wrong and would try to persuade you otherwise. I do not have to commit myself to arguing with everyone who has kids to hold an ethical position such as AN. Practically speaking, what is the point in that? Just Stop Oil are a joke for a reason.

Impose antinatalism — schopenhauer1

Wrong. Enforce. I would impose the reasoning on anyone who would listen. Enforcement is a step too far to my mind.

) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism — schopenhauer1

Impugn "intellectually". Very different to impugning their ethics in my view. I think other people should not have children. Would I purposefully insinuate this to people? No. I'd prefer to suffer in silence on this issue unless asked. I wouldn't assert someone's mind was wrong (in terms of some kind of retardation(in the strict sense)) for not agreeing with my ethical position. Please keep in mind, though, I am an emotivist to the degree that i have an actual Ethical view.
I don't believe my ethical framework can be enforced. It should should be followed by me. No, this is not morality, but it is a bit of a get-out-of-jail card because it basically is a meta-ethical theory that asserts there is no objective morality. Moral theories in general don't make any sense in this light.

umber 2 seems a non-sequitur or self-refuting. — schopenhauer1

Not at all. Possibly the exact way you worded it, it would be, but not once you've read the above paragraph.

However, being on a philosophy forum, and defending the position, would in a minor way be "impugning" those who are objecting — schopenhauer1

Not intellectually. I think you are morally deficient if you're intent on having children, though.

LMAO that may be a good move

Right right, yes you've adequately cleared up the confusion there.

If your premises are true, you can only have a valid argument be sound, that's right.

If a discussion revolves around a piece of information that is easily understandable and available online, both sides lost the debate before it even started. — Lionino

Tell that to the Lounge.

As one, I can say confidently this is not the case. It is a clear entailment of AN thinking that the eventual non-existence of humans is preferable and an ethically correct outcome. They do believe people should not procreate. This is as prescriptive as one can be conceptually speaking.

My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually.

Hell, I have two kids. That doesn't mean I don't feel guilt every moment of my life for that.

Sorry *Trump voters

Yeah I think there's one problem with that: — Mr Bee

This wont have much effect on voters if the see the former issue in stark lighting.

Trump has always been hypocritical - including calling Republicans the dumbest people in the world three decades ago (roughly) and that this is why he'd run as one. No one cares, it seems.

Yeah; but, why give the sound-byte? Concepts like these really ruin reputations if not elections.. — Shawn

Agree - even supporters might think.. hmm, not under my banner.

Someone needs to tell Kamala not to promote equal outcomes — Shawn

This shouldn't be on anyone's list of anything worth promoting.

Yes, that's entirely fair.

which is not really what AN is about. — I like sushi

Agreed.

This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society). — I like sushi

ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop.

This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive.

It seems you're claiming that you cannot have a valid argument without true premises. That's is untrue. If i've got that wrong, apologies.

where one has false premises validly leading to a "supported" conclusion. — Hallucinogen

I have explained this one. To reiterate:

If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound, but can be considered valid(in the case that the premises, however false, would support the conclusion as written/formulated). — AmadeusD

So, an example could be:

P1: Hitler was German
P2: Hitler carried out his acts in service of Germany
C: Hitler was a German dictator.

This is false. He was an Austrian dictator of Germany.

But the above is a valid argument. In the world where Hitler was German, it holds. However, P1 is untrue, therefore it is not a Sound argument.

Another example:

P1: It is raining today where i am
P2: I am outside, unshaded
C: I am wet with rain.

Logically consistent, and valid. However, it is not raining where i am. So this is unsound.

Each of these disagreements has an affect on how we individually understand freedom and its restrictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

The former seems certain, but I am unsure it will turn out we disagree about hte latter. The passing of time is absolute. There can be no disagreement if we're both accepting that it is a unidirectional 'force' and cannot be adjusted in any way whatsoever (particularly as regards changing it)

and I've explained how it is logically impossible to choose another option if the other option is not present to the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not think you have done this. I think you've explained the *empirical state in which it is highly unlikely one would consider 'other' options. Perhaps were seeing through a lot of daylight there.

You deny the necessity of the cause/effect relationship within a habit, which I assert. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmm..I deny this necessity in most scenarios - much more strongly here, and I think it is empirically incorrect to assert. Not philosophically. There is no such thing as a closed loop of thought which cannot be altered - something your position seems to suggest. The fact that habit obtains doesn't prevent it from being interrupted. It does not make any other course 'impossible', but improbable. Again, i see this to be an empirical wrong, not a philosophical one (*relates to the first response I've made above)

you dismiss — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not.

Your conception of freedom is, in my view, plainly wrong. Impossibility has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom only obtains when choices are available ("could have done otherwise"). The passing of time negates this, as it is a metaphysical barrier to choice at all. Time does not restrict freedom. It prevents choice. If you do not have gills, the 'choice' to breathe underwater is not open to you. Freedom doesn't enter the discussion on my view.

the self-evident is of the utmost importance, because it is used to form the base — Metaphysician Undercover

While I understand what you're saying here entirely, I don't think is a good point. If it's self-evident, stop labouring it. We're already in agreement. There's is no reason to invoke something we already agree with to support further assertions as they plainly cannot do so. This is my point. The passage of time is not an interesting factor in the assessment of Freedom. It is something in light of which we must consider Freedom. We have no choice. There is no discussion. It's not to do with with any denial - it is inapt.

It is therefore the most interesting to "us". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to me, no. If this is the practical basis on which your argument relies (i.e, you posit the passage of time as a support for a lack of freedom to choose) we're at cross purposes and I wouldn't be able to understand what you're trying to say.

earlier part of the act, and a later part. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't really get on board with this. Technically I acknowledge it - there is a moment of time at the 'initiation' of an act, and then it;s 'completion' let's say. Noted. But, this does not, imo, make present anything knew. An act occurs in totality. You can't be half-way through an act and leave an act half-done. The entire act is carried out, regardless of the content and consequence. An act is whatever is done in a single action. And I would be extremely clear (at the very least for discussion purposes) that mental acts and physical acts need to be treated separately.

and subject to "possibility"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we agree.

but the future part exists as possibilities — Metaphysician Undercover

As above, I cannot understand what you're trying to describe here.

They claim a necessity here — Metaphysician Undercover

I also agree this is roughly my understanding of how determinism treats choice - but its even dryer than your charitable account lol.

appear to have — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't do anything for me. It leads to no mental changes in my processing these ideas. "appear" to be means almost nothing without further investigation, and on further investigation, that "appearance" to me, is clearly heuristic and not 'actual'.

We call this causation, and this necessity allows us to make accurate predictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

While I note you're trying to teach egg-sucking here (lol, i'm not offended) constant conjunction does. Not necessity. There is not a logical relationship between the two, just a very, very close speculative expectation. Hume rears his head.

is a restriction of some sort — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not.

I see it as being the most important. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, understood. My first exposition of our difference in approach above should explain this discrepancy.

restriction but not a restriction on one's freedom? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand the question. It isn't a restriction. It's a fact of hte matter which prevents any choice being made in respect of it. Freedom requires available choices. Preclusion isn't a restriction on Freedom, it's a lack of ability to choose. Not a restriction on one's freedom to choose. This is a stark and incredibly important distinction that I think is lost here... (though, If i'm argued out of the position, perhaps not).

in the middle of an act occurring — Metaphysician Undercover

No idea what this could refer to. An act is a total action. You can't be in the middle of it other than retrospection (because you can denote the exact time the act took to carry out - in the act, there is no such distinction of time - but this supports my view) is my view.

Further, the past part, since it cannot be changed, serves as a restriction on what is possible in the future part. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, what (the heck) are you saying here? This makes no sense to me unless in retrospective speculation. It's uninteresting and does nothing for the conversation imo. There is no "past part" of an act while it is occurring (why is noted above - we're treading the same ground several times in all of these replies to one another).

If something is impossible for a person to do, then the person's "freedom" is restricted accordingly. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. The Freedom doesn't obtain. There is no Freedom to be restricted. Freedom requires that one could (in the case of restriction) otherwise have done so/done otherwise. When the option is empirically, metaphysically not open to you, invoking freedom is empty and meaningless.
I do not have my choice to breathe through gills restricted. I simply do not have freedom in that pursuit. It is not open to me. I could not possibly choose that option. Freedom (to do so) does not obtain, and cannot be restricted.

To choose is to do something — Metaphysician Undercover

No it plainly is not. To Choose is to adopt a mental disposition. To act pursuant to a choice is to 'do something' (though, this exact formulation of the distinction assumes the delineation between mental and physical acts mentioned above - if you reject that, fair enough).

Of course I would say that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, this explains a lot but I have to simply say I cannot grasp what you could possibly be thinking to get there. There is no freedom to act. Therefore, it cannot be restricted. It doesn't exist.

So, I believe there is significant disagreement between you and I on what is meant by "freedom of choice". — Metaphysician Undercover

For sure :P

You seem to think that even though the past is fixed and cannot be changed, and it poses significant restrictions on us, these restrictions are simply impossibilities, and these impossibilities have no relevance to our freedom of choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not what has been discussed. Restrictions on freedom can only obtain where a choice could be made. In the scenarios you've asked to address (ones where a choice in the past causes a current state of affairs - which you call a restriction to choose for no reason, as far as I can tell) one is unable to choose the thing you are using as an example of a restriction on freedom. But, given that you said you would call my not having a gills a restriction on my freedom to breathe underwater I can only conclude by saying;

I think it is pretty clear your version of Freedom is inapt, and unable to describe how humans actually choose and act in the real world. You cannot deliberate between choices you cannot obtain. Your position denies this, and I'm not willing to do so.

In other words, all the arguments which determinists make about the past having causal influence over us, you dismiss as irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what i'm saying. What I have said is 100% concordant with determinist thinking. It is just an oddity of that position.

those assumptions may no longer be applicable. — Wayfarer

And we couldn't know if they were :up:

You have entirely missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe?

there seem to be situations where otherwise intelligent people are incapable of seeing flaws in certain political positions. And that is of course assuming the positions are held in good faith and not the result of entirely different motivations. — Echarmion

I will always assume good faith, until shown otherwise. Unfortunately, across threads as long as these two have been (Trump/Election threads) It's hard to continue that assumption. Otherwise, the above is bang-the-heck-on.

The problem with saying the 'bias' is doing the talking is that it dispenses with other peoples' views a priori. — Paine

This is certainly true - I think all we can do to counteract is point out inconsistencies in approach. LIke trusting the media one way, but not hte other.

Because it isn't valid. — Hallucinogen

False.
Your premises can be entirely false - as long as, in the world in which they are true, the conclusion is supported, the argument is valid but unsound. The addition of the premises being true creates soundness. Validity is purely formal.

That's all that is needed to defeat this point. — schopenhauer1

I have seen discussions where I've leant toward this not being the case. I.e not being sufficient to support the position entirely. The non-identity problem does get its day, essentially. But I think it can be defeated, regardless. I would have to revisit those discussions (i believe one was on an Antinatalist podcast with a very irking woman presenting, tbh, but Benatar as guest) to get to it, though, so feel free to disregard that.

I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer.

But this actually gives us an even clearer formulation - "Inducing suffering is wrong".

Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. — I like sushi

(to be clear, I personally don't really think these restrictions are apt responses to the AN position, but other ethical considerations to be discussed elsewhere). One possible route would be licensing for parentage. Another would be restrictions on how many children can be part of any given (defined) genetic circle.

Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure). — I like sushi

I'm unsure contempt would be my response, as opposed to incredulity.

All of your points have to do with individuals already living, and so are irrelevant.

to be brief: no. What I said was correct. Soundness is a relationship between true premises and a valid conclusion. A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound as this applies to the whole argument, not the premise. It is relational.
Onward…

Validity is the relationship a true premise has with a true conclusion — Hallucinogen

That's soundness. Validity is mere formal agreement between premises and conclusion. If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound, but can be considered valid(in the case that the premises, however false, would support the conclusion as written/formulated).

:halo:

Banno is about to have a field day.

It seems like a lack of context produced a misunderstanding of what I was talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a bit of both. Your wording clearly leaves me open to give the response I did, but subsequently I definitely veered away from what you were getting at. The distinctions between action and choice are pretty directly on point there, so my last response should be pretty apt.

that act of making the choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all the case, and I can't see how you don't see your conflation - The Choice and The Act are clearly different things, and inserting the speculative, and indefinite 'habit' aspect again, reduces likelihood only. Nothing beyond having already carried out the act prevents you from making what would, in the moment, be considered 'other' choices.
Habits aren't in-stone, repetitive neural connections that cannot be altered. A gust of wind could do it, to go back to my original line of thought. Only hte act precludes anything from possibility here. That's clear cut. I'm unsure how you're getting to the choice (i.e internal delineation between options) or habit (a vague, not-well-defined series of neurological actions that usually follow each other to an end) could be doing the same job. They aren't metaphysical obstacles so possibility shouldn't be being spoken about there imo.

When I act — Metaphysician Undercover

You can delete the rest of this sentence, and your mode of description works perfectly. Why you acted isn't relevant to possibility (i am likely to have to back down from whether I consider threats a curtailing of freedom here). In your description of the case the "habit" is doing precisely zero for possibility. It is making it less likely you would consider other options - nothing to do with whether you could. Again, these aren't facts about anything, other than that time proceeds unidirectionally and we cannot change an act that already occurred.

because this actually contradicts what is meant by "acting by habit". — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you're simply using a phrase which has your conclusion baked-in. Not philosophy. This is just pointing out that once someone acts, you can't change the act. This remains in the position of being entirely self-evident, and uninteresting. It isn't a discussion.
However, it seems you're trying to imply that from the post-choice position of "It was habit that caused me to act in X way" this somehow retroactively places the now-extant impossibility of considering other options at the time of decision/choice. It doesn't, though. So, again, you're 100% correct in what you're literally saying but It seems you're trying to get much more out of it than is actually there. Time moves in one direction. Big whoop.

making a choice restricts one's freedom to choose — Metaphysician Undercover

This is incoherent to me. Making a choice doesn't restrict one's freedom to choose in any sense other than that time moves in one direction. Freedom isn't in play. You already chose. There's no 'restriction'. It's plainly not open to you to make that same decision again. Restricting is both inadequate and inapt. The general fact that time moves in one direction restricts your choices to one's that operate in the same direction. But this isn't at all what you've tried to say.
I'm truly not understanding what lifting you think these ideas are doing?

When the habit kicks in there is no time prior to the act of choice — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is. The rest of this sentence is an empirical speculation that is required to support your claim but I think is plainly wrong. You are, again, speaking from the post-action world to the pre-action world to try to impugn the obvious freedom to break out of one's habit prior to acting.

cannot say that the person's act is habitual, it is deliberate. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct, and this, I think, ironically, is what most of the rest of your comments are not sufficiently parsing out from one another. If your position is simply that if (Habit)->(Act) actually occurs then, retrospectively, that person was restricted in their choices. But that is wrong, and incoherent. What actually occurred doesn't inform what could have been.

this idea of a shred of time prior to the choice, is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because you have necessarily removed the important part of the process from your claim's supporting struts. Whcih is fine, if the point you're making literally boils down to "Time moves in one direction" but it feels, at least, as if you're trying to wring more from it.

You ask me "what's 2+2?", and I say "4". There's no deliberation on my part. Through some sort of reflex I apply the process I know will produce the answer. Then I state the answer. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is one possible sequence of events and is not at all bounded logically or even empirically. This is retroactive claim couched in present-tense words.

Because the habit is generally quite reliable, we often do not doubt it. — Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to wipe away from debris. These are, then, heuristic claims and not at all claims about the possibility of deliberation. That's fine, and insofaras (that goes) I agree.

We often do doubt it. This is how most specialised areas of thought develop. Habits are as you describe them, but they don't get close to preventing anything from happening in the metaphysical sense. Habits are loosely held sequences of thought in response to common stimulus. Not pre-recordings.

It is a freedom related issue. At the time when the person is making the choice, the person has freedom to consider more options. At the time when the choice is made, the person does not have that freedom. — Metaphysician Undercover

The choice is no longer extant to be made. It is in the past. There is no consideration of Freedom. You would not say that my not having gills restricts my freedom to breathe underwater. I am simply unable to do so. Freedom isn't relevant. The present case is the same, as far as I see it.

herefore we can conclude that the act of judgement is an act which limits one's freedom. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly the opposite - it is one's freedom to choose made manifest (unless we're back at "time passing restricts freedom" type of inanity).

exists as a duration of time, but the habit limits that amount of time to the very minimum — Metaphysician Undercover

This is certainly true, and acknowledged. I wouldn't say 'very minimum' though, I think you're speculating far too much in some of these claims. But, overall, vibe is on point imo.

Great! When? Evidence - how do you know? — tim wood

Have you been paying attention to his campaign (previously), his continually declining abilities and acknowledgement of such all and sundry?
His inability to even form coherent chunks of speech is a pretty prime indicator. Continual mis-steps in recollection is another. HIs absence from his actual job, almost continually, also contributes to this view.

either you're right or you're remark is toxic — tim wood

Yeah, you're definitely not being an adult about any of this, if these are you only two options to land on. That is absurd.

The media hasn't presented him as shallow and biased. — frank

That is literally all i have read about the guy - he's hypocritical and incredibly biased in (essentially) bigoted ways; that he is incapable of carrying the mantle of VP or P as a result of his political leanings and inability to reach/speak to/engage with Women, POC and other Minorities. Every article that has come across any of my SM or non-social media has been either a comedic attack or a "He's going to be the end of America" type of nonsense.
And definitely some of those earlier claims are true - his PR skills are terrible. But to take all of this serious to judge him as a human being, based on this source of information, is bizarre. The film, btw, has been universally panned by all non-right-wing media for roughly these reasons (you can tell, because Close and at times Adams are praised as "despite" the film lol which might be fitting).

This is the hill he's willing to die on: Democrats don't have children. In other words, he's no where near as bright as we expected him to be when he was chosen. — frank

Well no, this is the unchartiable, childish and ultimately misleading version of things the media likes to put out. His claim isn't "democrats don't have children" anymore than "deplorables" was an actual claim to be applied to every Republican or MAGA-adjacent person. It clearly wasn't, and Hilary unfairly suffered for her lack of precision imo. I wouldn't call the current situation 'unfair' because you're right, he's had several chances to even back out of that thing - but the same mechanisms are at play. They want you angry and incredulous. I'm not really defending him, to be clear. I don't know him. I'm aware he's an awful politician and it's a shame he's running with Trump, amongst all else to deplore there. But it truly is bizarre to see the exact same industry being treated completely differently when they spin different sides of the same coin (i,e two-party politics/politicians) - particularly when I know most of the posters here are far, far more intelligent than to allow what is clearly, and inarguably an industry which does not thrive on accuracy, truth or verdicality but clicks and views.

If Vance actually graduated, what's curious to me is how the hell did his dumbass get out of Yale? — 180 Proof

You have to be a special kind of stupid to think you'd have a clue, and that your opinion is anything more than your bias writ large. Perhaps it just hurts that you did not?

The Jojo Siwa of TPF.

((A) does not imply B) is quite different to (A implies (not B)) I would think.