Rick Horton

I totally understand, am I'm not forcing you to participate. I won't though, apologize "again". The cards are on the table. If you'd like to converse that's fine, and if you are uncomfortable with me, I'm sure you won't want to have a conversation with me. I get that. But I'm just not going to define a word that I'm going to allow you to choose any one of the dictionary's definition for. I think that's fair at this point on with this thread. I'm not limiting anybody, here. I'm opening up my arguments to all dictionary definitions of the word, "choice" and also, I'm allowing everybody to also do the same with any word in my vlog. You can argue on your choice of definitions from any dictionary with any of my words in the vlog that you need to to further the conversation, or possibly steer it somewhere else. At the point where some definition of some word, calls an argument into question, we can establish an error in my argument. So far there is no error.

That's fine. You can start with any one of those definitions you want, okay?

Look. I must apologize if I'm coming across curse. I would absolutely love a gentlemanly debate, and I'd rather have that one than one about the definition of the word "choice" Admittedly, it's somewhat frustrating to try to solve what a person would need to move the discussion further, than what I've offered. I mean totally feel free to use whichever definitions of any of the words I use, in this conversation, but let's start actually conversing about the topic at this point.

If you can, than you can use that one, and we can move forward. I don't see any problem with that. Do you?

Just use the definition of choice "of your choice". Just make sure it's a definition of choice, in an English dictionary. That is my new bar, okay. You can reach that bar, no?

It's true. If you "really" don't know what the word choice means, you should be learning more basic English before conversing.

In other words, I don't need to define them. YOU can use whatever defintion you find in a dictionary you want. The arguments will stand, either way.

We are not single cell organisms, thus we don't have the same limitations as amoebas. That much is clear about choice, and we all "should" know the difference. I don't doubt the sincerety of your question, in which I would just suggest a trip to a dictionary, and you can argue my point with "whichever" definitions you want. My arguments will stand on all of them, and furthermore, I argue in a way that tries as hard as possible to ensure that.

I mean it's a philosophy forum, not grade school. I'm supposed to define the word , "choice"? If you don't know what the word, "choice" means, you have problems bigger than philosophy.

If you don't know the meaning of the word choice, "and I'm not talking about the grade of beef" then I wont play that game of definitions with you. Defining terms is necessary when there could be possible confusion of the definition. Since choice is a word that has no confusion in it's definition, "unless you have a deficiency" it doesn't warrant a copy and paste Merriam Webster dictionary result to satisfy a person who is worth talking to. If you don't know the term, then I'm sorry but I can't waste anymore time with you. For anybody else, I welcome your thoughts, but the define the word "choice" game is not a game I will play.

Yes, it is rational to define terms. It is not rational to try and have a debate with a person who wants the word, "choice" to be defined. A person can keep asking for various words in a sentence to be defined all day long. Sometimes it is very important to define a word, but there are some words that if a person doesn't already know what it means, they aren't worth the time to debate. We have to at least be able to converse without pretending we don't know English, guys. I haven't brought up any terms that aren't "pretty" well understood, and like I said, if you need them defined, google is your buddy.

This is a vlog on the topic and I welcome discussion if you have anything to add to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvMszDgFgzg

Now, I will in fact debate the points with others on the forum who choose to be rational. As far as those who have self excluded themselves, I will not.

Then we won't, but it's a cop out. The premise is understood.

It's not necessary to define choice. Come on... I believe definitions are very important, too, but not purely to justify distraction, or to make the already simple overly complex.

Amoebas? Really? You're going to have to be more persuasive than that. We aren't Ameobas. And I haven't read where Amoebas are incapable of choice, but feel free to link me to that. And you need to give those reasons, why senses are useful other than choice making instruments. Give a reason and we can go from there. Now, let me define senses so we don't go out on a less than useful tangent. Sight, Sound, Smell, Touch, Taste. I'm pretty positve I won't get a persuasive rebuttal, but I'm open to hear it. I mean, free will exists...

How "would" senses be useful in a deterministic world? First you have to answer that. I argue they serve no purpose other than as choice making instruments. I pointed out why in the video, but you can rebutt that point. You have to have a counter argument to explain the purpose of the senses in a deterministic world. That is the bar I set. State your case!

rebuttals are welcome. I'm not finding it useful to hear about fallacies and dichotomies without a rebuttal on a specific point. I'd like the points addressed, along with the rebuttal to the points. I'm working with the definition of determinism that states that there is no free will, obviously. Thanks.

At the heart of it, it is because I am behind in child support. I pay what I can, and my work checks get garnished, but I'm putting together a child support modification petition to lower the amount I owe every month because what gets garnished doesn't fulfill the current court ordered obligation. So, I am 20,000.00 in debt. My oblgation is 1300 a month, but I only make about 900.00 in total a month. I'd make more, but due to the arrearages, my ex had the court suspend my drivers license. I have to bike ride to my "near minimum wage" job at a BBQ restaurant instead of working in my proffesional trade of pool maintanence. You have to have a drivers license to do that. So, she had my license removed, and therefore gets less money per month than she did before, and I lost my ability to work in my profession. EVEN when I worked at my profession, I couldn't swing 1300 dollars a month, and therefore my arrearages built up and she took my license. A was consistently (before I had to change jobs) paying around 800.00 a month, or so, but she wanted more. So, now that she is getting only about 200.00 to 300.00 a month, she is just angry. Look, though. As far as my behavior in the marriage, there wasn't any domestic violence, physical, or mental abuse to her or the children. The children had SUCH a positive bond with me, and they always feel free to talk to me about anything and everything without me being abusive. I never talk bad about their mother, but she is doing a really awful thing by alienating the children from me and me from them. They must have so much inner conflict. They must think I abandoned them. They must hear their mother belittling me, and that must make them feel less human too, since they are "of" me. They must be harboring so much sadness, and hatred, fear, and aggression. I mean, where did Daddy go? Why doesn't he love us? She won't even let a call, or letters reach the children. So what should I do?

If this intrigues you, I have a story I'd like to share about myself. I'm a divorced father who has been run through the mill. I don't have a solution, but my ex wife will NOT let my children communicate with me or me with them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'd be willing to be on the show, too, if you are interested. I don't know how to proceed because I'd have to use the force of courts to resolve this. She is immovable! and they are my children, too. I believe the children are going to suffer SO greatly because she is doing this to them.

I'll add that I know this debate has ended here, as far as discussing it with determinists, but just between us folk, I was wondering if you find it compelling.

Hey, guys. I'm a newby! I've watched a TON of FDR podcasts and everyday I watch a few Stefan Molyneux videos. I've been into Philosophy as long as I can remember and I have a lot of really solid concepts that I've reached through a lot of rigor, so I've ended up finding y'all. The creme rises to the top! Anyhow, I'd like you to watch my vlog and let me know what your thoughts are, from whether it makes sense, to the general presentation qualities. Thanks. Here's the linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVoYSFprqH8