That's what it is to be a compatibilist. They are determinists who believe that there is still a meaningful use of the phrase free will, despite the apparent determinism of the universe. They would redefine free will to not mean I have the ability to supervene on the natural laws, but that when you make a decision absent certain forces compelling a particular choice, that's what we mean by free will.
hotdaniel
joined 1 year ago
For people arguing they have free will, they typically mean they have the ability to do other than what they did do. That is, whenever they make a choice, they do so under the belief that they could have, in principle, made a different choice. As far as science is concerned, such a free will does not exist, because the behaviors you exhibit appear to be completely explainable in terms of the environment impressing upon you, and the effects that impression has on your neural activity. There is no "you" making free decisions in this picture. There's just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?
Regarding a general consensus of free will, that's just not even an argument anyone should care about. Plenty of people are flatly told they have free will because, "they don't have a choice, God made them with free will". Others/most are simply uneducated or under-read on the subject. That's fine, but it doesn't mean their opinion should weigh on our conclusions. If you show most people an optical illusion and ask them if it appears to be moving, they'd say yes, even though science will tell you there's nothing moving.
I personally am a hard deterministic regarding free will. I think we have a will but nothing about it is free. It is subject to natural laws just as a rock rolling down a cliff. That's fine. There's a related philosophical position of compatibilism, which believes that we have a determined will, but that the truth of the determination does not undercut our ability to talk as if and use the phrase free will as if we really do have such a thing. In this sense, compatibilists would say we don't have the ability to do other than what we are determined to do, but since we might not yet know what we are determined to do, then that ignorance captures what is meant by free will. So compatibilists are determinists, they just think free will as a concept is compatible with that determinism.
You're absolutely insane. Terrorists invaded Israel and brutally killed 1500 people, and your response is, eh maybe it's not that bad. It's not about the volume of people killed, it's about the way they were killed and the sworn mission from Hamas to never stop. A mission they affirmed just a couple days ago when they announced they were not apologetic for their actions and they'd do it again. So, this is the response they'll get from Israel. In order for there to be peace, Hamas must be completely destroyed. You pretend that you don't support Hamas, but your eagerness to avoid any discussion of why Israel is doing what they're doing speaks to an irrational fixation. I doubt you're Palestinian or Israeli. You don't know what it's like living under hundreds of rockets launched at you every day, but you demand Israel return to that, and return to the threat of more terrorism on their civilians. They will not, and I don't see why I should prefer innocent Israelis dying over innocent Palestinians. If someone innocent is going to die, at least use their death in service of destroying terrorism so that one day there might be peace.
You emphasize this "which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" as if you cannot describe Israel's entire offensive so far in exactly these terms. Gains minimal, civilian deaths enormous.
That's your opinion. I don't think Israel agrees.
Ignoring the West Bank?
I don't know what agreements have been made about the west bank, so I can't say. It seems you're talking about events that have been happening before Oct 7. But, the original purpose was trying to show that Israel has been committing war crimes in Gaza. To that end, it doesn't seem that they meet the criteria.
This is the weakest bullshit I've ever heard in my life. If you can't find it in your heart to call out the intentional starvation of innocent citizens I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror.
It's not clear, but keep crying. Hamas takes food and supplies from the civilians. It's not clear that Israel must supply Palestinians of food while their own government denies them the same. And, given how willful you were to misinterpret the previous accusations, I'm not inclined to believe that you're correctly interpreting the convention. The latest I've heard is that 100 trucks of humanitarian aid are allowed in each day. How much food and supplies does an attacking country have to supply to the civilians of the country they're attacking? Is Russia supposed to be supplying Ukrainians or can we add that to their war crimes?
Right, terrorists invade Israel and brutally murder 1500, and Israel's response should be to give all Palestinians citizenship and land. I guess terrorism works?
Now you're excusing terrorism. It's all Israel's fault, isn't it? Israel made Gaza, Israel made the Gazans hate them, because Israel's master plan was to create terrorists, finance that terrorist group, knowing the terrorists would eventually attack, and then Israel could finally kill all Palestinians, by warning them to evacuate, even though Israel is controlling Hamas to counter-propagandize the Palestinian populace and tell them to shelter in place, because that's how Israel maximizes civilian deaths. Not even the terrorists putting Israeli babies in ovens are responsible for their actions. Israel was behind that too!
If Palestinians laid down their weapons, there could be peace. If Israel laid down their weapons, there would be no Israel.
You've just described a war. People die, yes. But it's not Israel stuffing babies in ovens, cutting unborn out of their mother's, torturing and raping families in front of each other, and on. Sorry you're upset about Palestinians dying. It's a sad thing. But it's not going to stop Israel from defending themselves against a threat sworn to destroy them and all Jews.
By your assertion, Hamas is an Israel puppet and this is their masterpiece coup de gras? I'm not sure why any of that would excuse literal terrorism? People are responsible for their own actions. The ones who invaded Israel and brutalized their citizens, are responsible. If Israel was supporting terrorism, it sure seems like that would have been the time to do something about it. But even if they were, the terrorists are still responsible for their actions. They could have chosen not to attack, but they didn't. This is the consequence. Gaza is still standing, despite how eager you and others are to see Israel raze it to dust.
What do frigging cooked babies atrocities matter in this context?
It means everything when the purpose of the conversation is to demonize Israel and ignore the motivation for their actions. It speaks to a level of barbarism far beyond what Israel would ever do, and again, despite how people on this forum want Israel to appear.
Imagine that instead of Arabs, Israel army bombed, say, the German city of Dresden, killing thousands of civillians because it's a neonazi hotspot where international refugee centers are attacked. Well all white people are the same. Fuck them, right?
Is Dresden harboring terrorists?? It makes a pretty big fucking difference.
Your version of the analogy implies equal damage on both sides. That is not the case, already Israel has killed way more than Hamas did. If you insist on making the first offense killing your family, it would be like killing my whole neighbourhood in response.
An eye for an eye retribution is all you understand? This isn't about equality. This is about removing the ability for a terrorist group to bring harm against a sovereign nation. If your neighborhood wants to harbor terrorists, then they're going to get blown the fuck up.
And then bombed both the routes to the "safe" place and the "safe" place itself, yes.
This is contested information. I've heard that Hamas was doing the bombings. Between the two sides, why would Israel warn civilians to evacuate, then bomb them and face international condemnation? Meanwhile, Hamas needs civilians as human shields so if the populace evacuates, Hamas loses their defense. Bombing their own citizens (which they're known to do) and blaming it on Israel benefits them. So between the two, one side majorly benefits and the other side not at all.
Since you misquoted the Geneva convention, let's fix that.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
Israel has justification and are not wantonly destroying property. They are attacking military targets. If it was wanton, they would destroy all of Gaza instead of evacuating the north.
ICRC (Geneva IV and revisions) Rule 129 The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
Shocking how you always leave out the part that justifies what Israel is doing.
Attacks against civilian population?
Nope, Israel is attacking military targets. The civilians need to gtfo of the way. If they don't, that doesn't mean Israel is committing war crimes. They're justified to destroy military targets regardless. That's how war works. Here's another war crime: Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
Oops, you left that part out again.
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
And again, you leave out the part that justifies Israel. You're intentionally lying to defame Israel. Sorry your feelings are hurt, but that doesn't mean Israel has to roll over and die.
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
Israel isn't occupying Gaza, nor do they intend to. They're there to destroy Hamas and leave.
Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
Not sure about this one, but since you've lied about all the others, I'm not inclined to take your word for it. In fact, I'm more likely to believe you're wrong since you've been wrong about the others.
There was a ceasefire as of 2021
view more: next ›
I would call this determinism as much as anything else. Whatever you discover by reflecting on memories, you make your decision based on those memories, ergo there was a reason that determined your choice.
I would just agree that we have a "will". It's the "free" qualifier that's disputed.
Sorry, I can't agree. We have ignorance about the future, but that doesn't mean my decisions are undetermined. As far as I can tell, everything is either determined or not determined. If it's determined, then I was not free to choose it. If it's not determined, then it's random, in which case I again could not have freely chosen it. You seem to be moving towards compatibilism, which accepts determinism but believes determinism can still be compatible with a notion of free will, e.g. our ignorance of the future is what we mean by free will.
Personally, I think life is very interesting bring a wet robot! However, I understand why most reject the concept out of hand.