Well you know, they own the facts, because "science", the facts are anything they want them to be.

Mail ballots would lead to idiot socialists coercing their family members to vote socialist, checking the ballot. It would lead to votes getting sold. The postal system already exists for hundreds of years. Do you really think everybody was stupid not to come up with the idea of voting by mail, for hundreds of years? It is because it leads to coercion and fraud, OBVIOUSLY.

So now it's undeniable fact that the arrest was wrong?

A certain arrogance is associated with having factual certitude about what is good. And as facts and opinions blend into one, the facts of the situation are also what they like the facts to be.

Yeah, anyone can make some pass saying they are a journalist. It requires a color printer, and a laminating machine, and a piece of string.

Means you don't understand. Learning the difference between fact and opinion is basic like learning abc and basic arithmetic. It is not a choice what you want to believe what a fact is and what an opinion is.

Anyone can pretend to be a journalist.

Nazism pretends to know the content of character of people as scientific fact of natural selection theory. Communism, also called scientific socialism, pretends to know what is good as a fact of societal evolution. Incidentally, eugenics is now part of life in China. And that Chiliean socialist of the past Aiiende, was also a eugenicist.

The common denominator is always the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This kind of feeling of factual certitude about what is good, is leading them to cancel freedom of opinion.

I guess now we can all see that leftism = socialism = nazism = fascism = communism.

It's all the same materialism, professing to know what is good and beautiful to be a matter of scientific fact, instead of a matter of chosen opinion on the SPIRIT in which decisions are made.

You just don't do any logic. I gave examples already, then you proceeded to ignore and change the logic. You must pay more attention to logic.

Trump has alternative futures available, like closing travel from China, or not closing it. That is called anticipation of alternative futures. Then he chose to ban travel from China, meaning he made the alternative future of closing travel from China the present.

Then there is the question what emotions in his heart made the decision turn out the way it did. Some might say it is a xenophobic hate for China, others might choose the opinion it is a care for the people he is responsible for.

These chosen opinions are all equally logically valid. Some opinions may be said to be generous, mean, or unfair, but being generous, mean or unfair is not logically invalid.

What is a wrong answer is to say that there would be a fact of what emotions were in his heart, which made the decision turn out the way it did.

You are trying to describe the hyper complicated decisionmaking processes of people, and failing at that. You should instead formulate the basic logic of choosing, as it is presented in common discourse.

Defining any choice as by definition being for the "best", that is mixing your opinion of optimism with the facts of how things work.

It is very obvious that people are going to sell their mail in ballots, and otherwise trade it for favors. Maybe 20 to 100 dollars per ballot.

But "experts" in the media say that this does not happen, because science. . Which is to say that academics is corrupt, and the media are liars.

No the spiritual does not equate to subconscious, because the subconscious is not defined in terms of that it makes choices, and that it is a matter of chosen opinion what is in it.

You just make a conceptual mess, where now you have obliterated the idea of emotions and subjective opinion. You have also undermined the concept of choosing and free will, because the concept of choosing does not function, when the question of what the agency of a choice is, is regarded as a factual issue.

All the definitions of the words must be consistent with each other, without contradictions. Locking into each other to make a functional conceptual scheme.

There are alternative futures A and B available, and A is made the present, meaning A is chosen,

Then there is the question "what was it that made the choice turn out A?"

Then the answer is a choice between X and Y.

Where either answer X or Y is equally valid.

But a forced answer X or Y is invalid.

Where X and Y are subjective words like beautiful, fear, God.

An opinion that a painting is beautiful is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. To choose the opinion that the painting is ugly, would be equally logically valid. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion.

In nazism you have biological determinism, in communism you have societal determinism. Certainly the most comprehensive practical applications of determinist philosophy.

Yes they try to cram subjectivity in some arbitrary place, after first establishing objectivity, fact, science, material.

I don't know. Communists have emotions? Ninotschka (from that movie about communism)? It seems to be based on systematically replacing emotions with the scientific socialist formula.

Because you require 2 fundamental categories to validate both concepts of fact and opinion, each in their own right. You have 1 "category" of material, then you only have validated fact.

Then you will want to cram opinion into the material and fact category. Then facts=opinions.

"Non-fact"? It's fact and opinion.

Guesses, theories, are forms of fact. Intuition, will, seem to be forms of opinion, or otherwise would be split up in either category once you get to the detail of it.

I should be making an animation video on the difference between fact and opinion, on one of those free animation websites. And fact and opinion covers everything. Got anything else besides facts and opinions?

So you can't connect to other people's feelings.

The real question determinists or compatibilists should ask themselves is, what they are going to do with emotion, and subjective opinion (like subjective opinion that something is beautiful)

Because as I see it. in determinism everything is factual. All the causes, all the effects, they are all factual matters.

While with incompatibilist free will, then you have the agency of the choice as inherently subjective, validating the idea of emotions, and the concept of subjective opinion.

And just saying you support emotions and subjective opinion is not sufficient. You must show that the logic of determinism supports the idea of emotions, and the concept of subjective opinion.

There is that kind of boredom with the facts attitude of experts, that is very prejudical. When that attitude is presented, then I know they are impervious to reason. You cannot change your position, from an emotion of boredom.

Totally gay, putting a factcheck on something debatable as that. Philosphically, the free will denying evolutionists, throw out free speech. There is no trusting evolutionists with human rights, because it actually does matter if you accept freedom as a hard fact of physics, or as a cultural fantasy.

The key to being a hard determinist is to think of choosing as like a chesscomputer calculating a move in a forced way. And to avoid spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, subjective issues should be explained in terms of uniqueness, or complexity.

But experimenting with your life is a bad idea, causing problems for you and other people. You should investigate the knowledge / logic inherent in common discourse, to find out what your actual practical position is. And then from there you can bargain towards a slightly different position. And basically it is impossible to develop a discourse based on hard determinism. You can only hope to cheat and lie your way to an idea where the role of emotions in people's lives is strongly reduced.

You can think up reasons for both eating a hotdog and eating a hamburger, and reasons for why one would be better to have than the other. That reasoning would involve many decisions, like expression of appreciation for the pure meat of a burger.

So then you have many subdecisions to the decision which to eat. And then you are choosing it in your imagination or mind first, and then choosing it physically.

The spirit in this case are the emotions, the appreciation for eating the hotdog and burger.

When you are talking about people's decisionmaking, then from a physics point of view, those are hypercomplex decisionmaking processes. But the fundamental logic of choosing still holds true.

You are exploiting the complexity of people's decisionmaking processes to argue for ignorance on how decisionmaking works. I mean you don't offer a competing understanding, instead you just set out to make a conceptual mess. Probably in order to avoid dealing with emotions, because that is a common theme.

The alternative futures available in a choice, should be considered as physical properties of an object. The object has a present state, and then it anticipates alternative futures on some parameter, for instance velocity . So anticipation in this sense is not as that the object has a mind in which mind is a picture of the future results of having made a choice, but instead anticipation is the relation of the present state of the object to it's alternative future states.

Basically I imagine this as like the objects has 2 lines stetched out into the future. So then mathematics crap describes the present state, and mathematics crap also describes these possibilities coming out of the object. It is just physics with alternative values for time now + 1, for a parameter like for instance velocity.

Conservative is to leave things as they are, and progressive is to change things.

Yes.

But maybe it should be understood in terms of having a pepsi, or not having a pepsi.

That is to say, that basically any choice is either conservative or progressive, to keep things as they are, or to actualize a possibility. I have not made up my mind what the proper basic understanding is.

Ging left or right, electing Trump or Harris, etc.

lol I already defined that 5 times here. Having alternative futures available, making of them the present, and then what the agency of the choice is, is a matter of chosen opinion.

If generally everyone would accept free will, properly defined, then that would enormously promote freedom of opinion, emotional maturity, religion, democratic government, marriage, friendship, groupfeeling.

Because emotions, as being agency of choices, are validated, together with free will.

And the reverse is also true, that denial of the proper concept of free will, leads to all these things going down.

You pretend to be common sensical about free will, but actually with all other things you just have a critical understanding of how it works, but with free will you have a bizarre attitude of studied ignorance.

And then you have the compatibilists, as pfhorrest pointed out, who use a totally different and wrong understanding of free will. An understanding of free will which obliterates the idea of emotions, subjective opinion.

It is important to have the correct understanding of free will.

I exhaustively defined what the spiritual is, with the example of choosing A.

The spiritual is defined as what did this job of making the choice turn out A. It can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is, choose an opinion that a choice was made out of fear, joy, etc.

You should focus on the logic of it. While what you do is, you have an associative understanding of the word spirit, and then you proceed to use all the different understandings associated to the word spirit.

It doesn't fucking matter what to call it, it's about the logic. You want to give the words supernatural and subconscious the logic that it is agency of choices, and it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, go ahead. You are merely playing with words, and not constructing a logical conceptual scheme.

Rejecting the logic of how it works is much the same thing as denying it..

Also, more of your bizarre attitude where you have no critical understanding of free will whatsoever. And obviously you don't want to understand how it works. This is the most insane attitude about the issue I have ever come across.

Because emotions, care, is agency of choices. The idea of caring is not validated without free will and it's associate subjectivity.

Again with your bizarre attitude. Just like with EVERYTHING else, the logic of how it works must be explained. And the dictionary definitions are corrupt for catering to free will deniers. Or dictionary definitions are talkative, and not really strictly logical.

The logic of free will does not function, when agency is asserted to be a factual issue. That is why it is essential for comprehension of free will to know that what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion.

No, the correct explanation of free will is, having alternative futures available, one is made the present, what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion.

That's correct.

Why can't anybody be normal about free will?

Things falling to the earth is an explanation of how it works. You cannot just say it is real, without saying what it is.

Another totally bizarre argument of someone about free will.

Alternative futures, one is made the present. What the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. That's how it works.

What does that mean? You have to explain how it works, just like with everything else. Are you just asserting it is real, without explanation of how it works?

Sorry, you should just actually read my post.

Well, here it talks about not being in control. Other times the objection against randomness is that without a preceding cause forcing the result, the choice is meaningless.

Standard argument against free will.
"Second, if indeterminism and real chance exist, our will would not be in our control, we could not be responsible for random actions. we call this the Randomness Objection."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/standard_argument.html