Ron, To disagree with someone is not a sign of hate. The word 'hate' is a projection on your part. I have no hate towards anyone.
Marsha On Jul 31, 2011, at 1:37 PM, X Acto wrote: > if you cant > respond in a relevent way to the post. > > take your DMB hate some place else > > I don't remember you or Steve mentioning anything about > the terms or meanings in a philosophical context at all either > > You claim not to care yet continue to post hate regardless > > and Steve claims that it is a meaningless topic of discussion, similar > to locke. > Yet the fact remains it is a relevent topic of discussion regardless. > Especially > when we are speaking about a moral Philosophy it remains a topic for the sheer > reason that it is dissolved by the explansion of the explanation not by a > denial > of there even needing one. > > > .... > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <val...@att.net> > To: moq_disc...@moqtalk.org > Sent: Sun, July 31, 2011 12:47:49 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will > > > > Strange, Ron, I don't remember dmb's explanation addressing compatibilism. > Actually, I don't remember dmb presenting being much of an explanation > either. > > > > > On Jul 31, 2011, at 12:19 PM, X Acto wrote: > >> >> >> Steve: >> Why use a term when you can be nearly guaranteed to be misunderstood >> when you use it? Who outside of the handful of people participating in >> this forum would think you were defending the capacity to respond to >> dynamic quality when you say people have free will? How is that >> shorthand helpful even around here? >> >> Ron: >> Compatibilism in this context has been around for quite some time and >> believe >> it >> >> or >> not would be understood by more than this forum. If you do a quick search on >> the topic you find that there would not be much confusion at all in using >> these >> >> terms. >> >> As Stanford encyclopedia writes: >> ".1 Free Will >> It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will >> since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably >> no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on >> this issue have been hunting for, maybe not exclusively, but centrally, >> is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally >> responsible for their conduct." >> >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ >> >> >> ..... > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
