Jesus and free will

Jesus and free will Sept 13, 2017 1:31:51 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Sept 13, 2017 1:31:51 GMT

^tpfkar

Sept 13, 2017 0:54:38 GMT @miccee said:

Sept 12, 2017 22:30:37 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfka

Sure, but since "everything has causes", your line is just more of your nonsensical arse-pulling.

If "everything has causes", there's no need for the adjective "free", since the adjective can only be meaningfully used in relation to causality.

Sure it's 'free" in that we choose according to our traits and preferences, and we (attempt to) do. At that point "we" are the cause. All that normal people have ever meant by "free will". Certainly not your partisan amorphous fantasy vapidities.

Sure you've repeat-chanted, but you're an admitted partisan fed by patent inanity who puts his morbid goals ahead of truth. People often get into temporary and/or treatable states where they say and do things that they subsequently highly regret. I know, I know, if in their manias they kill themselves, they can't regret. If a physically sound patient can't get the trivially accomplished once actually decided deed done without involving other people, then nobody has any business sending them to their doom.

The Christian God is worthy of criticism for purposely causing harm. If he's giving a shot at this blast and it's the best he can manage, and he's actually a sweetheart without all of the malice in the Bible, I'll personally buy him all the beer he can knock back. And nobody who is not deranged or making narcissistic scenes is "forced", regardless if you personally don't have the gonads.

I have already laid out a solution which would help to prevent suicide in those experiencing short-term crises, whilst respecting the wishes of those who have exhaustively tried all of the treatments that are available. You don't want to do anything about the very treatment resistant cases, and making people afraid to come forward about suicidal ideation causes them to be deprived of the treatment that could help them break out of that rut.

Your "solution" brings about orders of magnitude more suicides then it would prevent. But once they're dead, they can't care, so, eh, we're ahead in the no sentient game.
You're interested in all people having access, so "treatment resistant" is bs, and regardless, any such cases should spur more research and more aggressive palliation treatments, not morbid extermination goals. In any case the government cannot sanction the highly immoral act of purposeful harm to the mentally incompetent.

An individual cannot know whether they have made the wrong choice unless they regret it. Regret is the only way to assess that a bad decision has been made. When someone is born, they have no way of resisting or refusing, and therefore they are forced. And if they are suffering as a young child, they do not have a way of ending the suffering. If they are severely disabled, they must endure a lifetime sentence of suffering and indignity because medievalists such as yourself still get to codify their own existential fears into the laws that have to be obeyed.

Sure, booby hatch stuff. Don't make the world better, snuff it out like any good psychopath. I'm pretty sure you'd make a fine "medievalist" burning all of the witches in the asylums.

And yet you keep citing it as your argument. And it is possible to hold deranged contradictory views, or at least you're able to post them as your own. Do you go debate with waterfalls? You supposedly can't even recognize that by your own beliefs you are fated by the Billiard Revelation (wait, who broke?) to feel urgency over things you have absolutely no ability to personally effect. If you found you an opium den, or if you lay down in front of a train, or if you managed to get control of a chemical weapons plant you'd still make absolutely no alteration to your god of preset Fate. Sad broken stuff.

I don't hold any contradictory views on the subject. Determinism is not the same thing as fatalism. Since I don't know what the future holds or what role my actions will play in the unfolding of that, then I cannot behave in any other way but that which is conducive to the eventual outcome. And of course whatever eventually happens must happen, could not have been avoided, and will be one link in a causal chain of events.

You hold pure bonkers views on the subject. Of course you don't know what will happen - irrelevant to the derangement; of course you supposedly believe you can't behave differently - irrelevant to the derangement. The relevant insanity is "knowing" this and believing that you acting one way or the other could possibly have any effect on any direction of anything.

You might as well argue with your toaster as with people. You believe the (unknown) outcome is preordained and people have no ability to really choose anything. If I came to believe such a thing I'd just chuckle and marvel at the rest of the talking toasters. Not that different than how this conversation's been, I suppose.

And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.