the problem for me is, you just don't seem to get it. you're getting really angry and shouting 'scum' and 'fascist' at people when there is no real reason to, and you seem to be refusing to acknowledge people correcting your false impression. Seriously, your getting angry over things people haven't even said.
a man can do what he wills but cannot choose what he wills
OK - here's what I've decided. If you make a video apologizing to all the people whose responses you've misrepresented, straw-manned and/or purposely ignored; admitting that you're a mere creationist with respect to the issue of determinism/free will; and promising not to speak about the subject again until you have at least a basic understanding of it, then I'll begin to listen to what you have to say again. Otherwise, goodbye.
Your taking yourself and your youtube videos and youtube itself too seriously. Calm the hell down, seriously. And you should probably stop associating with teenage Asian girls too, just sayin..
oyvey one massive strawman followed by appeals to emotions, and not understanding a thing about whats being said. Determanism just means outcomes are going to be the same no matter what, but NO ONE knows what these outcomes are, and you make my argument here, punishing people for their actions is archaic and barbaric, fixing the source and finding what causes it is the real solution. We shouldn't lock up someone because they killed, but because they will again.
just sentimental bullshit. punishment is a real factor in deciding the outcome of one's actions. as long as this is the case, we are correct in punishing people for killing other people.
@ufster81 Punishment is nothing more then revenge, and nothing that gains anything, shown time and time again punishing doesn't change things or fixing them, finding the root of the problem does. People should be locked up because they are a danger to others, not because we have a vindictive need to hurt them for what they did.
no it's not... it's an environmental variable just as other variables in determining the outcome, in this case the behavior of an individual.
"punishing doesn't change things or fixing them"
people who don't commit crimes are an overwhelming majority of the population. i rather think it does, at least to an extent. this is not to say i don't agree with you in that we should also tackle the root causes of complex social issues etc. but facts are facts.
@ufster81 People that do crime don't think they will be caught, punishing them doesn't deter, if it did why are there so many repeat offenders? Not to mention you then get into idiocy of locking people up for every single petty crime because your supposed to punish them so they won't do it again. People do drugs, steal, and many other things despite the penalties for them. Punishing them doesn't help, sentencing shouldn't be seen as a way to punnish, but to help them or others.
people also don't do crime for fear of getting caught and being punished. if they didn't why are there repeat non-offenders that outnumber repeat offenders by a factor of 50. this is not up for dispute... you're just being ridiculous.
"People do drugs, steal, and many other things despite the penalties for them."
and people don't do drugs, steal and many other things because of the penalties for them.
He starts by saying about how people can still be held accountable even without freewill and then gives an example of someone who basically has no free will BUT he even says why they are hospitalised to "minimize the harm they may cause to society." NOT because they are being held accountable for their actions
He wrote one paragraph where he starts arguing and them promptly refutes his own arguement in that very same paragraph...
Look up the word accountable. One of it's synonyms is responsible. He obviously meant accountable in that sense. We don't hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but we still do, and are, justified in taking action to prevent them from causing harm. There is nothing contradictory about that statement except in your mind.
Oh, and BTW, both you, and James would understand that if you had bothered to watch the video responses, or comments in response to his video, where that concept was explained ad nauseum. If English is your second language you may simply not understand the subtleties of the language. For example one might say a tornado was accountable, or responsible for 10 deaths, but we would understand it wasn't responsible in the sense that it chose to kill people.
You know, you'd sound like less of an idiot, if you'd watched some of the videos that people responded to you with. You make the same mistake in this video that you made in the last one (and maybe the first one, I don't remember) conflating the ability to choose with the concept of free will. Yes, we can make decisions. That is observably obvious. Determinism simply says that the choices that we make are made because it is within our nature to make them.
You sound like a condescending prick in this video. Oh, and well done for not actually taking the time to learn up on the subject by watching any of your responses.
I can't say I'm a big expert on determinism by any means, but couldn't there still be intent in a deterministic universe? If someone murders someone else, they could still want that to happen even if he had no choice in the matter. Not that we, or anyone else, would know that.
wow. I can't say I've felt this level of venom thrown upon james nore this level of dislikes. I myself am not getting into a pointless argument here so I'll simply say I tend to agree with james on this and move on.
@TheBadcop69 A man who frequently talks about issues of which he has so small of an understanding of that describing his understanding as a less than basic understanding would be a generous statement e.g. philosophy, ethics, economics and political theory. The reason why he gets so much flack is because he deserves it.
@Frasssaanarchy well that is putting it better then your friend above. But from my research james tends to be more on target then off so I don't feel he deserves it here through I agree in most that debate is still open since you have physicists who say that physics ends the debate of free will while others say not so fast.
@TheBadcop69 "...I tend to agree with james on this..."
I probably would too if I hadn't learned what I currently know about the free will/determinism debate. He makes it sound as if determinists are holding to a position that they don't actually hold. Weather it's intentional or not, that's a straw man argument.
I favourited this video because you are displaying symptoms of butthurt in addition to being MAD. I think youre suffering from a rare condition know as "buttmad".
You pointing out the "inconsistency" of bringing up "choice" shows you havent listened to my video, havent listened to the other video responses and comments and havent so much as picked up a book on the subject of determinism in your life.
And youre no longer asking to provide a basis for justice, but a basis for contemporary justice
I was going to make another video, but if you don't watch it anyway there's little value to it. Anyway, right now, your arguments are:
1. The world would be so awful without free will
2. You're all idiots and
3. Lalalala I can't hear you.
added to that, you either don't understand or don't want to understand the arguments we are making. And then you have the balls to call us hypocrites and tantamount to a religious cult? Bullshit doesn't begin to describe the putrid mess coming out of your mouth
No idea why you keep telling everyone what you've studied/are studying, it's not like it adds to the truth value of your statements, keep your ego in check.
If an individual has a desire to inflict harm then different policies need to be implemented to mitigate that threat. A desire to inflict harm poses a dangerous and easily predicted risk so this motive is punished more severely. If a competent driver accidently kills an individual with a car the odds of it repeating are low; but if an individual actively tries and desires to kill then the threat is far more serious.
Administering different punishments is reasonable in the absence of free-will.
@IdaMiaDot But once again... the goal is minimization of harm.
The different degree of punishment is justified because it is in proportion to what is statistically likely to reduce damage (and not because of "choice"). Restraining people who desire to cause serious harm is not the same as restraining those who accidently do so. The former individual has a substantiated likelihood of causing further harm; the latter does not.
I haven't followed this discussion on determinism so I don't wish to comment on it. I do want to say this, though: If someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a "sack of dogshit". Is that truly how you vision those who disagree with you? An entire person is wholly a sack of shit just because they disagree with you on this issue or even several issues? Dehumanizing (as in seeing others as excrement) those who disagree with you in your mind is not a good path to travel on.
@Ravenkeep Indeed - I miss the James of about a year ago, who responded rationally to those who disagreed with him, instead of automatically going into 'pwnage mode'. I ended up unsubbing from his old channel because I'd run out of patience for this kind of thing.
I re-subbed when he set up his new channel, giving him a second chance in the hope that "a fresh start" would mean that he'd stop dehumanizing his opponents, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Btw no, you're still missing the point. Free will is not required for intent. I can make a computer program that is absolutely deterministic but still has intentions and even fail to act in accordance with those intentions.
Oh and just because we choose things doesn't mean the choice wasn't predetermined.
could you respond to my comments then, please?
volound 1 month ago
the problem for me is, you just don't seem to get it. you're getting really angry and shouting 'scum' and 'fascist' at people when there is no real reason to, and you seem to be refusing to acknowledge people correcting your false impression. Seriously, your getting angry over things people haven't even said.
a man can do what he wills but cannot choose what he wills
kingOFtheFISHpeople 1 month ago
Psychology & Law? Where's you Philosophy doctorate at chief?
Adroitism 1 month ago
OK - here's what I've decided. If you make a video apologizing to all the people whose responses you've misrepresented, straw-manned and/or purposely ignored; admitting that you're a mere creationist with respect to the issue of determinism/free will; and promising not to speak about the subject again until you have at least a basic understanding of it, then I'll begin to listen to what you have to say again. Otherwise, goodbye.
KingsIndianCR 1 month ago
Why do you sound like your nose is absolutely filled to the brim with snot? It's distracting. Also, you're stupid.
zalmanusa 1 month ago
Your taking yourself and your youtube videos and youtube itself too seriously. Calm the hell down, seriously. And you should probably stop associating with teenage Asian girls too, just sayin..
DarkFantasyvids 1 month ago
The stupidity seems to come only from you.
MinotawrTV 1 month ago 3
How did you get popular? You have nothing to say.
MinotawrTV 1 month ago
Ha! So glad I unsubbed a year ago.
philateliceun 1 month ago
oyvey one massive strawman followed by appeals to emotions, and not understanding a thing about whats being said. Determanism just means outcomes are going to be the same no matter what, but NO ONE knows what these outcomes are, and you make my argument here, punishing people for their actions is archaic and barbaric, fixing the source and finding what causes it is the real solution. We shouldn't lock up someone because they killed, but because they will again.
wolfwing1 1 month ago
@wolfwing1
just sentimental bullshit. punishment is a real factor in deciding the outcome of one's actions. as long as this is the case, we are correct in punishing people for killing other people.
ufster81 1 month ago
@ufster81 Punishment is nothing more then revenge, and nothing that gains anything, shown time and time again punishing doesn't change things or fixing them, finding the root of the problem does. People should be locked up because they are a danger to others, not because we have a vindictive need to hurt them for what they did.
wolfwing1 1 month ago
@wolfwing1
no it's not... it's an environmental variable just as other variables in determining the outcome, in this case the behavior of an individual.
"punishing doesn't change things or fixing them"
people who don't commit crimes are an overwhelming majority of the population. i rather think it does, at least to an extent. this is not to say i don't agree with you in that we should also tackle the root causes of complex social issues etc. but facts are facts.
ufster81 1 month ago
@ufster81 People that do crime don't think they will be caught, punishing them doesn't deter, if it did why are there so many repeat offenders? Not to mention you then get into idiocy of locking people up for every single petty crime because your supposed to punish them so they won't do it again. People do drugs, steal, and many other things despite the penalties for them. Punishing them doesn't help, sentencing shouldn't be seen as a way to punnish, but to help them or others.
wolfwing1 1 month ago
@wolfwing1
people also don't do crime for fear of getting caught and being punished. if they didn't why are there repeat non-offenders that outnumber repeat offenders by a factor of 50. this is not up for dispute... you're just being ridiculous.
"People do drugs, steal, and many other things despite the penalties for them."
and people don't do drugs, steal and many other things because of the penalties for them.
"Punishing them doesn't help"
well, the record disagrees.
ufster81 1 month ago
That comment had me facepalming.
He starts by saying about how people can still be held accountable even without freewill and then gives an example of someone who basically has no free will BUT he even says why they are hospitalised to "minimize the harm they may cause to society." NOT because they are being held accountable for their actions
He wrote one paragraph where he starts arguing and them promptly refutes his own arguement in that very same paragraph...
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky
Look up the word accountable. One of it's synonyms is responsible. He obviously meant accountable in that sense. We don't hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions, but we still do, and are, justified in taking action to prevent them from causing harm. There is nothing contradictory about that statement except in your mind.
TheNakedAtheist 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 1 month ago
Continued...
Oh, and BTW, both you, and James would understand that if you had bothered to watch the video responses, or comments in response to his video, where that concept was explained ad nauseum. If English is your second language you may simply not understand the subtleties of the language. For example one might say a tornado was accountable, or responsible for 10 deaths, but we would understand it wasn't responsible in the sense that it chose to kill people.
TheNakedAtheist 1 month ago
Word.
bassmanco 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here, James. This might be of help to you.
┣▇▇▇═─
RaymondDundas 1 month ago
You know, you'd sound like less of an idiot, if you'd watched some of the videos that people responded to you with. You make the same mistake in this video that you made in the last one (and maybe the first one, I don't remember) conflating the ability to choose with the concept of free will. Yes, we can make decisions. That is observably obvious. Determinism simply says that the choices that we make are made because it is within our nature to make them.
ChuckMeIntoHell 1 month ago
You sound like a condescending prick in this video. Oh, and well done for not actually taking the time to learn up on the subject by watching any of your responses.
I can't say I'm a big expert on determinism by any means, but couldn't there still be intent in a deterministic universe? If someone murders someone else, they could still want that to happen even if he had no choice in the matter. Not that we, or anyone else, would know that.
StanMarsh1 1 month ago 2
LOL, this nigga is mad as FUCK!
CUTWEST 1 month ago 2
BLOW YOUR NOSE.
Hritzness 1 month ago
None of the bullshit you just spewed has fucking anything to do with what the fucking comment was talking about! By the way, calm the fuck down!
cscraigomyeggo 1 month ago 4
And who is sounding more like a creationist now ???
jmm1233 1 month ago
wow. I can't say I've felt this level of venom thrown upon james nore this level of dislikes. I myself am not getting into a pointless argument here so I'll simply say I tend to agree with james on this and move on.
TheBadcop69 1 month ago
@TheBadcop69
if you agree with james on this subject then you know nothing abou this subject.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist and I need to care about your view on this subject because?
TheBadcop69 1 month ago
@TheBadcop69 A man who frequently talks about issues of which he has so small of an understanding of that describing his understanding as a less than basic understanding would be a generous statement e.g. philosophy, ethics, economics and political theory. The reason why he gets so much flack is because he deserves it.
Frasssaanarchy 1 month ago
@Frasssaanarchy well that is putting it better then your friend above. But from my research james tends to be more on target then off so I don't feel he deserves it here through I agree in most that debate is still open since you have physicists who say that physics ends the debate of free will while others say not so fast.
TheBadcop69 1 month ago
@TheBadcop69 "...I tend to agree with james on this..."
I probably would too if I hadn't learned what I currently know about the free will/determinism debate. He makes it sound as if determinists are holding to a position that they don't actually hold. Weather it's intentional or not, that's a straw man argument.
ChuckMeIntoHell 1 month ago
Do you always talk through your nose?
realman1000000000000 1 month ago 2
u y mad tho.
Wasserrauschen 1 month ago
I favourited this video because you are displaying symptoms of butthurt in addition to being MAD. I think youre suffering from a rare condition know as "buttmad".
You pointing out the "inconsistency" of bringing up "choice" shows you havent listened to my video, havent listened to the other video responses and comments and havent so much as picked up a book on the subject of determinism in your life.
And youre no longer asking to provide a basis for justice, but a basis for contemporary justice
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago 25
I was going to make another video, but if you don't watch it anyway there's little value to it. Anyway, right now, your arguments are:
1. The world would be so awful without free will
2. You're all idiots and
3. Lalalala I can't hear you.
added to that, you either don't understand or don't want to understand the arguments we are making. And then you have the balls to call us hypocrites and tantamount to a religious cult? Bullshit doesn't begin to describe the putrid mess coming out of your mouth
ANameIsChosen 1 month ago
Oh, btw you're a close minded bigot.
CountHektor 1 month ago 4
Because Ujames has NEVER made a video on a topic he has minimal or no understanding of "/
Frasssaanarchy 1 month ago
No idea why you keep telling everyone what you've studied/are studying, it's not like it adds to the truth value of your statements, keep your ego in check.
CountHektor 1 month ago 3
Perhaps "free will" is the wrong term. Perhaps "control" is a better term?
Coquipirate 1 month ago 2
If an individual has a desire to inflict harm then different policies need to be implemented to mitigate that threat. A desire to inflict harm poses a dangerous and easily predicted risk so this motive is punished more severely. If a competent driver accidently kills an individual with a car the odds of it repeating are low; but if an individual actively tries and desires to kill then the threat is far more serious.
Administering different punishments is reasonable in the absence of free-will.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago 2
@IdaMiaDot But once again... the goal is minimization of harm.
The different degree of punishment is justified because it is in proportion to what is statistically likely to reduce damage (and not because of "choice"). Restraining people who desire to cause serious harm is not the same as restraining those who accidently do so. The former individual has a substantiated likelihood of causing further harm; the latter does not.
IdaMiaDot 1 month ago
So this is basically "lalala I can't hear you" then.
ANameIsChosen 1 month ago
@ANameIsChosen Almost. It's more like "Lalala, I can't hear you, you hypocritical fucking CUNT!".
KingsIndianCR 1 month ago
@KingsIndianCR I think the word "bigot" would be thrown in there, somewhere...
ianmathwiz7 1 month ago
I haven't followed this discussion on determinism so I don't wish to comment on it. I do want to say this, though: If someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a "sack of dogshit". Is that truly how you vision those who disagree with you? An entire person is wholly a sack of shit just because they disagree with you on this issue or even several issues? Dehumanizing (as in seeing others as excrement) those who disagree with you in your mind is not a good path to travel on.
Ravenkeep 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Ujames1978Forever 2
@Ravenkeep Indeed - I miss the James of about a year ago, who responded rationally to those who disagreed with him, instead of automatically going into 'pwnage mode'. I ended up unsubbing from his old channel because I'd run out of patience for this kind of thing.
I re-subbed when he set up his new channel, giving him a second chance in the hope that "a fresh start" would mean that he'd stop dehumanizing his opponents, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.
KingsIndianCR 1 month ago
@KingsIndianCR Unfortunately, when people start to go down on this path, it usually just gets worse with time, or so I've found.
Ravenkeep 1 month ago
I understand; it's not really worth discussing that much anyway.
Gunderson002 1 month ago
Why thank you for all the compliments :D.
Btw no, you're still missing the point. Free will is not required for intent. I can make a computer program that is absolutely deterministic but still has intentions and even fail to act in accordance with those intentions.
Oh and just because we choose things doesn't mean the choice wasn't predetermined.
LaserBlowFish 1 month ago 2
@LaserBlowFish
lalalala, James cant hear you.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago 9