Quote from: Dietrich Six on December 19, 2016, 11:13:16 PM

Quote from: Jono on December 19, 2016, 11:11:05 PM

Quote from: Luciana on December 19, 2016, 10:28:16 PM

Last comment

I like how they made the AT-AT's more into the juggernauts they're supposed to be. Hoth didn't really do them the right amount of justice.

These AT-ATs were different types. They had more armor but less firepower than the ones on Hoth.

And how were the Hoth ones not doing any justice? They were shooting those super fast snowspeeders out of the sky and destroyed that Rebel base. I think only 2 AT-ATs were destroyed in that attack whereas in Rogue One they were getting destroyed left and right.

Yeah that post had to have been sarcasm.

An x wing took out an at-at by itself. Like zero effort too.

Oh yeah

I was thinking it ate the rocket and took it like nothing, but yeah then that immediately happened. Nvm.

I don't remember how the scene went exactly, but after it ate the rocket, did it not create a big gaping weak point to be shot at?

We let murderers out all the time.

Doesn't change that it's immoral. Taking someone's freedom away because the universe decided they were murderers is wrong.

What's more wrong--taking the role of "good guy" and incarcerating those who were given the role of "bad guy," or letting those who were given the role of "bad guy" go free so that they end up killing whoever they end up killing?

You are not making any sense and are grasping for straws.

I think if the universe decides that you're a good guy, you should be quite happy about that.

I found the fat muggle character completely insufferable and his love interest flat and annoying. It was a decent movie.

And how the fuck was that an oxymoron?

You said we can't do impossible things, yet proceeded to claim that we have the ability to choose.

We don't. That is impossible.

What the hell has taken so long?

School, life, etc.

Haven't you ever taken your sweet time playing through a game?

No, we cannot do things that are impossible, doesn't change the fact that we have a choice to try.

Oxymoron.

I fail to see the correlation between the laws of physics and free will.

When objects move, they move forever until they are stopped. When they stop, they cause other things to move, and then other things, and then other things, which causes this big chain reaction that never stops--it's ongoing right now. You can't control it.

At NO point during abiogenesis was manifest the ability to make our own choices. That never happened. Our actions are the result of brain chemistry. Complex little events happening in our mind that are nonetheless part of this chain reaction.

Can I get an example of Hard Determinism in comparison to Soft?

Hard determinism is something like the butterfly effect, where the effects of a hurricane at some point in the future could have been contributed to by the flap of a butterfly's wing months prior (this is just a rhetorical example to illustrate the point, not a real phenomenon being suggested). Hard determinism is the hypothesis that all events can be tied back to another event.

Under this system, we could theoretically predict the future, given that we know all the variables.

Soft determinism is stupid, and therefore harder to explain. Basically, events are predetermined on the macroscopic level, but little things such as a butterfly flapping its wings has virtually no effect on anything. We can still make our own decisions, but some larger events are inevitable.

Soft determinism is wrong, and simply a comfort blanket for those who find hard determinism hard to swallow.

Hard determinism is not belief in destiny. Just because everything is predetermined doesn't mean that all events are leading up to something special. Things lead up to bullshit and bullshit alone. They're not determined by a benevolent god--they're not determined by a god at all. They're determined by simple physics. Objects in motion tending to stay in motion until they're inevitably stopped by an outside force.

We're like a carton of milk being spilled. There's nothing random or chaotic about it.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 04:54:28 PM

Meat in general is disgusting.

No, it isn't, it's just that the process of getting it is morally impermissible. I'm pretty sure I recall you saying something along the lines of "You don't think I'd love some chicken nuggets right now? Chicken products are delicious." The meat industry is fucked but let's not pretend meat doesn't taste good.

Just because they taste good doesn't mean they're not disgusting. They're disgusting. Objectively.

You're overdoing it.

That isn't true. God doesn't exist, so he's not a factor.

which i just said

To say free will is a creation of a god or godlike being is to be religious inherently.

and this is why you have no idea what religion is

Which you are.

nope

i'm the least religious person on this forum--mainly because there is no god and there is no free will

if you believe in free will, you are as religious as you could possibly be

Not only that, religion and God are based off the idea that everything is going according some plan, or what you called soft determinism. None of that exists.

stating the obvious, repeating things that i've already said

People can do whatever they want.

nope

No such thing as destiny or any of that crap.

just because everything is determined doesn't mean that there's "destiny" or some kind of "plan"

when people say god has a plan, they mean that all the bullshit in the world is leading up to something great

but there is no god and there is no plan--your """destiny""" is that you squirm, suffer, and die

how is that religious in any fucking way

you have a very small philosophical mind

The existence of faithless electors is yet another glaring reason to abolish the electoral college.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 05:40:09 PM

Quote from: challengerX on December 19, 2016, 05:38:58 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 05:37:30 PM

Quote from: challengerX on December 19, 2016, 05:33:31 PM

What is hard determinism?

hard determinism = there is no free will
soft determinism = events are predestined on a large scale, but we still have agency

but the thing is, in order for large events to be predetermined, small events must be predetermined as well

hard determinism is the only outlook that makes sense unless you're some kind of religious nut

Wouldn't hard determinism essentially be like being a religious nut?

not even close

seems like the same thing to me

that's because you don't know what religion is

the only thing that could give you free will is a god

there are none of those

It only seems that way because it's actually insane. About as insane as thinking you're the only real person in the universe and everyone else is a figment of your imagination.

Or that this is the matrix and nothing is real.

Come back when you actually have a real argument against it, then.

The idea behind veganism is that it would be morally permissible to exploit animals for food if only they could give their consent first. Since they can't give consent, it is not (and never will be) morally permissible.

The same logic applies to cannibalism. It's perfectly okay if the human subject permits it--but would I personally eat a human? No, that sounds disgusting. Meat in general is disgusting. Not to mention very unhealthy.