Recent content by The AntiChris

I'll have a guess at the point I think you may be trying to make (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you). You seem to be saying that because Starmer has appointed a woman who regularly votes along party lines to Chair the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs , he was attempting to ensure that...

How do the numbers show "Trump had little to do with it"? I assume you mean the figures on your World Population Review link? Your comment would make sense if confidence were literally "scraping the bottom". It's not. I don't accept that. 30% of people were still reporting that they had...

You seem to be implying that publicly setup, funded and accountable reports/enquiries should be viewed with the same scepticism as privately funded special interest reports/enquiries. This seems to be taking healthy scepticism into the realms of the conspiracy theorists. Are you really...

I think your reading is suspect. Best to let TVacc speak for his/her self. Of course not. I 'm simply not accepting that I (or TVacc) implied that we would not view a report stipulated to be "generated....to cover up their failures " as either biased or exaggerated. Obviously the point that...

You're clearly wrong. No such thing was suggested. This is unusually sloppy argumentation for you.

You should investigate the Loaded question.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that anyone who believes that a privately sponsored report, initiated by a known ultra right wing nutjob, might not be biased and might not make exaggerated claims is, in my view, more than a little gullible.

My objection is not an ad hom. I'm simply pointing out that your refererence is unlikely to be reliable - I'm not saying that your reference is totally untruthful. Expecting Rupert Lowe to provide reliable data about pakistani rape gangs is about as sensible as asking Pete Hegseth for a reliable...

Questionable? That's putting it mildly. It's highly partisan right wing propaganda masquerading as an independent investigation.

Are you simply claiming that, in your view, the world is not deterministic? Or, are you saying that determinism does not necessarily mean that 'the same initial conditions' will entail 'the same outcomes'? I'm struggling to understand what this has to do with compatibilism. :shrug:

Of course it is! It would be remarkable if it weren't! However, the whole point is that the compatibilist does not use the incompatibilist definition of free will! Of course it is! It would be remarkable if it weren't! However, the whole point is that the compatibilist does not use the...

You're mistaken. Anyone who who made this claim would not be a compatibilist by definition.

No matter how they frame it, it seems to me they're basically saying the same thing - determined actions cannot be free actions. :shrug:

We'll have to agree to disagree. :) The way I see it is that both compatibilists and incompatibilists agree that, given determinism, the same set of circumstances will always result in the same outcome. Compatibilists say that this does not negate freedom. In contrast, incompatibilists say...

It seems you're still struggling with this. To recap: and: