On Fri, Jun 1, 2012  Brian Tenneson <tenn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that
> "Free will" is not meaningless.  "Free will" has to mean something before
> it can be attacked.

But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it
because there is nothing to attack, it would be like attacking a duck's
"quack". I'm saying I don't know what the hell you're talking about when
you type the ASCII characters "free will" and neither do you. I'm not
saying the idea is wrong, I'm saying there is no idea there. How do I know
this? Because whenever anybody talks about "free will" the resulting
verbiage  is ALWAYS a blizzard of contradictory statements, circular
definitions, vague illusions, pious speeches, and just plain old idiocy;
there is never any substance there. Never.

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to