Wait, what? Even if I called you silly goose jew silly goose silly goose chinkies with silly goose the size of a small flea before I made the argument it wouldn't damage my credibility. To claim otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy.

Well said, Del.

I would like your argument to be true, but as of right now we have no real reason to believe it is so, and lots of reasons to believe it is not so, as you and I have pointed out. In such a case it is certainly possible for free will, but at the moment it is not very logical to assume that the scenario you describe is the one that reflects reality. It relies on a number of assumptions, all of which are just as likely as their opposites.

And no, Gunz, that is not destroying half his credibility. That would, first of all, be an ad hominem fallacy. Second of all, while his choice of silly goose as an insult is possibly controversial, he's right to insult you two. You, Gunz, are acting like a child, and Bacon is being Bacon.

EDIT: "silly goose jew silly goose chinkies" man that kid has an interesting family tree.

Hey, I don't come into these things often, I'm trying to fit in with the top dogs by spouting what's on my mind D:
I would go back to drawing...but I'm bored. So I sit here and try to pretend to have a choice while I'm continually told I don't.
Childish...probably.

You are continually told that in technical and literal terms you have no choice, but that in practical terms you do. Much like the assumption of the rejection of solipsism, life is simpler and more livable if we assume free will. The lack of free will, for now, is only important or noteworthy as trivia and in an academic and philosophical sense.

Eh...so then if all of that is completely and literally true. Then this is over, the point has been proven and needs not be discussed further.
So on the original topic er...yea, I dunno. I think that's already been figured out too, as Kodos said there's basically nothing.

I think it'd be like if you had a near-death experience and died for a little, you wouldn't remember anything really...just being nowhere. And that my friends, is death.
I'd like it to be like "GAMEOVER YEAAAAAAAAA!!!"...I hope I'm wrong about the nothing thing.

So then why the fuck are we arguing?

As for Delph... Well, he's Delph. I would discredit anyone who starts an argument with an insult. Not because their information is bad, but because they are rude and don't deserve to be acredited.

Rudeness is just a term used to refer to socially unacceptable behaviour by those who care too much about what those around them think of them. Claiming that I don't 'deserve' to be credited because of my lack of conformity to the social norms of your society demonstrates your latent cultural imperialism and intolerance, especially as my claim has basically been confirmed by others as holding rational merit.

In other words, why do you want to make everyone like you, you intolerant fool?

Delph ... You lack Charisma. That's your problem. If anything, you're being intolerant for lack of self-control and not accepting normalcy. Which, while in general is acceptable is not in the case of manors. A debate is not a bar. It is a place to put forth composure. Something that is not accomplished by coming in and insulting them. Especially when the insult can be applied to the one throwing them around in the 1st place. You haven't changed your sexual prefrences in the last few hours have you?

In a way I agree and both disagree with you. For example lets say I were to punch you in the face because you owed me money or something, my brain may send the signals to the nerves in my hands to throw the punch but the decision was entirely my own. Now lets say I had alzheimers or under the influence and I punch you in the face because I believe you owe me money, my judgment may have been impaired but I'd still be the one calling the shots.

I thought it was fairly uncommon for people to have manors, manners on the other hand people usaully have them but the concept of what is and is not polite varies from person to person, also this isn't a formal debate I say insult away just remember it makes you like an ass.

First of all. Just because Del begins his argument with an insult does not discredit him. You are desperately reaching for anything that others possibly would agree with in order to discredit him. In this case, you are using the stigma of using the word silly goose to discredit him.

If you're going to enter an argument where you have little-to-no idea what about, prepare to have your asses thrashed. Do not resort to petty arguments of, "well I think this, therefore my argument is valid and yours is void" because that's really fucking stupid.

Also. Del, Kodos. Could either of you summise what this argument is about? I only just came in about 2 pages ago.


Wanna know what's even funnier? No one gives a shit.

It was about whether you have free will/choice. Del and Kodos took the side that everything is predetermined/something to do with how the brain functions. Me and Bacon took the side that well..there is free will/choice. That's all it was about.

So you and Bacon are on the metaphysical libertarianism side and Del and Kodos are on the determinism side.

I'm arguing determinism. Think about this for example.

In religion, an omnipotent divinity says that you all have free will and does not assert its power or authority over this. However, creates the ten commandments to deter you from doing anything it doesn't want you to do. Therefore creating a standpoint in your mind of "I have the choice to do what I please, so long as what I do does not conflict with the ten commandments and appeases my god."

Essentially, you have an illusion of free will.

Yep true. But I'd rather have that illusion than nothing lol. I'm pretty sure it'd suck if we didn't.

But we all still have this illusion. This is why we apologise when we do something wrong and we don't say, "my actions were predetermined and therefore this was all due to causality". We all have this illusion, it's still just an illusion. Kodos and Del are not arguing that we are all mindless robots programmed to do a) rather than b) in a certain situation. They're arguing that our "choice" is heavily influenced by causality. Something we have no control over and therefore, no real choice of what we do.