Your a bit of an arrogant s**t aren't you. There is no cognitive dissonance here, I am not conflicted in my opinions it is because I have a myriad of options open to me that I could never be conflicted in this matter.
That wasn't a personal jab, it was a comment about how intellectual thought proceeds when two incompatible beliefs are held simultaneously and new information is provided.
Yet! You still have the arrogance to suggest again, that I have conflicting beliefs. Whereas I have stated I haven't. So I can only take it as personal jab. as you seem to be ignoring what I saying.
As I said in post# 32 "I agree we live in a derministic universe. And as such our life’s are ruled by it. But I'm sorry it has only some effect on the choices we make." If I have no will to chose then according to you, I am the way I am and hold the views I express, because it is part of my genetic makeup, You are the way you are for the same reasons, you used the word choice. Where is the choice? The fact that our opinion differ means we are not all running on simply our genetic make up, to say we have no will whatsoever is ludicrous to me. It would mean I didn't chose my wife, I didn't chose by home. It would renders it all meaningless. How infantile! Yes I agree. The way in which you describe this is nonsensical.
A person could kill with impunity as it would not be their fault, there would be no point in rehabilitating them either, as they are not incontrol of their lives so could happily do it all again and it still would not be their fault. That is nonsensical.
This reply can be take as a jab too. You make it sound like, only I could see it that way.
I like Vanilla Ice Cream - but I did not start liking it because I wanted to. I don't even know when I started liking it. But I enjoy eating it. (However, whenever/wherever Vanilla Ice Cream is offered to me I may not always accept it.
I have that "choice" which most animals lack.)
Your brain made that determination quite without your input. That's how it all works, albeit in very minute ways.
Please don't quote mine. And this is patronising. I've fixed it for you. I've replaced the part you omitted in blue.
I'm not an automaton, I'm not simply an animal, I am sapient.
You are both an sapient, and an animal. Nothing simple about any animal. All fascinating and fantastic and fabulous.
Again patronising, and facetious. it's clear from what I said that I'm aware I'm an animal, but I'm not simply a sentient animal but a sapient one.
I have to agree with those who say that if we do have "free will" it is very limited.
Hurrah! Someone with good sense that's all we need, we make all choices period. Thanks for the concession.
That's just it. How are murderers/child murderers being judge fair and reasonable? Fair to whom the victim or the perpetrator? I would say the latter.What you're talking about is "eye for an eye" and the like.
How so! I merely asked who it was fair for, tis all.
Someone who commits a crime deserves to be hurt just as badly (if not more badly) as the victim of the crime.
Never said that, all I said was they should not have it easy why should they get to have friends, read books, watch tv, play games, etc.. Why shouldn't they get hard labour. Why should they get perks for killing. They never considered their victims future why should we give them better than they gave their victims. That's the fairness I'm talking about, harming them would only make you like them.
Yes I said "feel similar pain" and "suffer. However you assumed I meant hurt as in cut/beat etc.
Depriving them of the things they deprived their victims, is fairness.