While I Was Away...

[he_who_is_nobody]

Where in that above quote is hackenslash denying/affirming free will or will? Dandan/Leroy asked a question, hackenslash evaded it, then dandan/leroy asked again, and hackenslash evaded it again. At no point did hackenslash admit to a belief or lack of belief. What dandan/leroy was trying to prove with the above quotes is beyond me. Perhaps, just once again demonstrating the poor reading comprehension that is dandan/leroy's trademark.

Brilliant user Leroy, was simply answering to hackenslash

hackenslash wrote:
Where have I said that I don't believe in will?

Welcome back scum. I knew you could not stay away, like a moth to a flame.

As anyone can plainly read from what you quoted of hackenslash and my rendition of it, he never said I do not believe in free will. He evaded answering that question and said he does not do belief.

Now carry on being scrum, because I am done with you and will only reply to your next user name to point out that you are back again.

 

[back]

Because Suicide implies that you had a choice

It implies that you killed yourself, intentionally, without being pressured by other people into doing so. Free will is irrelevant.

killing yourselfe intentionally implies that you had the choice not to kill yourself.


could you provide an example of something that you woudl call suicide, when the man had no other option?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

killing yourselfe intentionally implies that you had the choice not to kill yourself.

This is wrong.

could you provide an example of something that you woudl call suicide, when the man had no other option?

This is irrelevant.

 

[back]

Welcome back scum. I knew you could not stay away, like a moth to a flame.

As anyone can plainly read from what you quoted of hackenslash and my rendition of it, he never said I do not believe in free will. He evaded answering that question and said he does not do belief.

Now carry on being scrum, because I am done with you and will only reply to your next user name to point out that you are back again.

keep reading

hackenslash
Put simply, I can conceive of other constraints on choice than determinism and, this being the case, the data support no firm conclusions as yet.

he is clearly an unabigously afirming that he doenst grant that we have will.


the point is that by granting suicide, he is implicitly granting will.

 

[back]

This is wrong.

.

well, why? support your assertion.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

This is wrong.

.

well, why? support your assertion.

One intends to act, regardless of whether or not this is a conscious choice on their part or the result of chemicals incited by life experiences beyond their control. One cannot argue that intention is violated if free will doesn't exist, simply because one cannot consciously act without intending to do so.

 

[Jason Boreu]

I hope Tree don't end up sharing the same fate as Dandan/Leroy as i find his projections of his personal prejudices unto reality highly entertaining :lol:

I think Tree wasn't getting his itch scratched, and went to find someone else to hate on.

They aways come back for more though. Dandan/Leroy/back is evidence of this.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Because Suicide implies that you had a choice

It implies that you killed yourself, intentionally, without being pressured by other people into doing so. Free will is irrelevant.

Headsup - this guy's a vicious troll with his hand up a sock puppet.

I recommend that Gnug go for the smash option and delete all his posts as you did with the other vicious bastard Bernie

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Headsup - this guy's a vicious troll with his hand up a sock puppet.

I recommend that Gnug go for the smash option and delete all his posts as you did with the other vicious bastard Bernie

Hey, so long as I won't necessarily be banned for talking to him, I'm up for it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Headsup - this guy's a vicious troll with his hand up a sock puppet.

I recommend that Gnug go for the smash option and delete all his posts as you did with the other vicious bastard Bernie

Hey, so long as I won't necessarily be banned for talking to him, I'm up for it.

Well, yeah but it's like stroking a dog on heat that got sent to the garden - you're just encouraging the behavior that made him unwelcome in the first place!

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Well, yeah but it's like stroking a dog on heat that got sent to the garden - you're just encouraging the behavior that made him unwelcome in the first place!

The only thing I could possibly do that doesn't somehow encourage their bad behavior is to put them down like Ol Yeller, and I'm not too keen on serving a prison sentence.

Best reaction I can think of is to act like they're flat earthers and respond with derision.

 

[back]

Headsup - this guy's a vicious troll with his hand up a sock puppet.

I recommend that Gnug go for the smash option and delete all his posts as you did with the other vicious bastard Bernie

Hey, so long as I won't necessarily be banned for talking to him, I'm up for it.

I am stunned by the fact that atheist are "pro banning" people just because they have a different point of view.


at the very list you should atletas admit that whether if intent imply will or not is an open question worthy of consideration and worthy of commenting.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I am stunned by the fact that atheist are "pro banning" people just because they have a different point of view.

I can hear the derisive snickering.

Hey, so long as you're here, maybe you can clarify something for me: why is this account called "back"?

 

[back]

One intends to act, regardless of whether or not this is a conscious choice on their part or the result of chemicals incited by life experiences beyond their control. One cannot argue that intention is violated if free will doesn't exist, simply because one cannot consciously act without intending to do so.

This is the kind of conversation that will lead to a 100+ dealing with semantics. Yes you could in theory find a creative definition for suicide (or intent) that would avoid free will.


but the way Hack was describing suicide does implies free will, it implies making a decision

Let's be clear here: living takes strength. There's no denying that whatsoever. What also takes strength is taking the decision to end one's suffering and the suffering of others. Suicide is not a decision taken lightly, and even to attempt to cast it in terms of strength and weakness is to trivialise the discussion and make it impossible to have, especially with those most in need of support.
https://www.hackenslash.co.uk/2018/06/selfish-weak.html

to put it clear, one can not make the decision to end his life,(what everybody would call suicide) without free will.


honestly, do you think that this was an absurd question worthy of banning me ?

I am curios, how can you talk about suicide if you don’t believe in free will (or will)?

even if one woudl disagree, it would still be a valid question worthy of discussing.

 

[back]

I am stunned by the fact that atheist are "pro banning" people just because they have a different point of view.

I can hear the derisive snickering.

Hey, so long as you're here, maybe you can clarify something for me: why is this account called "back"?

no special reason, prehaps because came back to the forum

 

[Greg the Grouper]

This is the kind of conversation that will lead to a 100+ dealing with semantics. Yes you could in theory find a creative definition for suicide (or intent) that would avoid free will.

1. Not really, considering that I'm right. You could just concede the point.
2. There's nothing creative about it. The action implies the intent, the intent need not be the result of free will, and nothing else actually matters.
3. I don't care what Hack originally said. Their argument is their own.

honestly, do you think that this was an absurd question worthy of banning me ?

Honestly? Are you sure you want honesty, leroy? I can be pretty damn rude when I'm honest.

no special reason, prehaps because came back to the forum

Oh, so you were banned?
And then you made a new account in an attempt to circumvent that ban?
And that in and of itself doesn't strike you at all as being a bannable offense?

 

[Akamia]

Most forum sites (or any other site for that matter; wikis, live chats...) have a policy of banning for evading an active ban, either via sock accounts or other means.

Just saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[back]

3. I don't care what Hack originally said. Their argument is their own.

well you shuould given that my original comment was a response to what Hack said,


fell free to call it sucide or not, the point is that what hack describes implies free will.............(which is somethign that Hack is not suppose to grant) I was simply showing the contradiction.

Honestly? Are you sure you want honesty, leroy? I can be pretty damn rude when I'm honest.

honety also implies free will BTW.


But yes I am interested in your honest opinion. ....

is sucide, as described in the article written by Hack implies free will?

is it wrong to point out the fact that Hack has manifestly affirmed that he doesn't believe in free will?

in your opinion is it wrong (worthy of being banned) to point out the contradiction?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

well you shuould given that my original comment was a response to what Hack said,

Oh? It was a direct response to Hack? Not the innocent question about whether or not suicide is possible without free will?
You know, Leroy, if you're going to lie about your motivations, you should probably be careful about letting little hints like this drop.

fell free to call it sucide or not, the point is that what hack describes implies free will.............(which is somethign that Hack is not suppose to grant) I was simply showing the contradiction.

Your proof has already been contested by other users, and I frankly don't care either way. If I'm going to answer your question, I'm going to answer it with my own argument. If you're that concerned about relating all this back to Hack, then feel free to stop responding to me.

honety also implies free will BTW.

No, it doesn't. Honesty implies word and action that others can trust, which again doesn't necessitate free will.

is sucide, as described in the article written by Hack implies free will?

Haven't read the article, don't know Hack well enough to get the gist of how he sees the world, don't really care what it implies if it implies anything at all.

is it wrong to point out the fact that Hack has manifestly affirmed that he doesn't believe in free will?

In this context? Where Hack isn't making any argument about the nature of life in regards to whether or not free will is actually real? When you're responding directly to a blog post about struggling with depression and suicide? What the fuck do you think, Leroy?

in your opinion is it wrong (worthy of being banned) to point out the contradiction?

In my opinion, Leroy, your intent wasn't just to point out a contradiction. In my opinion, Leroy, nothing that people do is spontaneous. In my opinion, Leroy, you were banned for a list of stupid bullshit long enough that most of it is lost to time and the more regular posters can think of at least one example that the others cannot, all of which I could probably dig up if I tried. In my opinion, Leroy, even if we were to assume that you were banned unjustly, your reemergence with this new account is testament to your lack of respect for the rules of this forum, for its staff, and for its users. In my opinion, Leroy, I've already seen several instances of your attempts to get a dig in at other users here, such as your previous response to me suggesting that you're being banned because atheists can't handle contrary opinions. In my opinion, Leroy, you spend way too much time here dishonestly framing every situation so that you're somehow the victim of circumstance despite literally setting the events which lead to said circumstances in motion yourself. In my opinion, Leroy, you would be a better person if everyone else was right and you were just an honest to god troll.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

is it wrong to point out the fact that Hack has manifestly affirmed that he doesn't believe in free will?

In this context? Where Hack isn't making any argument about the nature of life in regards to whether or not free will is actually real? When you're responding directly to a blog post about struggling with depression and suicide? What the fuck do you think, Leroy?

in your opinion is it wrong (worthy of being banned) to point out the contradiction?

In my opinion, Leroy, your intent wasn't just to point out a contradiction. In my opinion, Leroy, nothing that people do is spontaneous. In my opinion, Leroy, you were banned for a list of stupid bullshit long enough that most of it is lost to time and the more regular posters can think of at least one example that the others cannot, all of which I could probably dig up if I tried. In my opinion, Leroy, even if we were to assume that you were banned unjustly, your reemergence with this new account is testament to your lack of respect for the rules of this forum, for its staff, and for its users. In my opinion, Leroy, I've already seen several instances of your attempts to get a dig in at other users here, such as your previous response to me suggesting that you're being banned because atheists can't handle contrary opinions. In my opinion, Leroy, you spend way too much time here dishonestly framing every situation so that you're somehow the victim of circumstance despite literally setting the events which lead to said circumstances in motion yourself. In my opinion, Leroy, you would be a better person if everyone else was right and you were just an honest to god troll.