It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
All you, or anyone needs to do, if they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP (which amounts to the negation of free will) is raise your hand...
originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: akushla99
There are two possibilities here:
1. You're lazy and don't want to put forth the effort to communicate effectively.
2. You think that being ambiguous and hard to understand will make you look smarter by making others struggle to understand what the fug you're saying.
Let's break down this sentence for fun:
All you, or anyone needs to do, if they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP (which amounts to the negation of free will) is raise your hand...
"All you, or anyone needs to do," is a little redundant. Since "you" is part of "anyone," let's just cut "you" out entirely. Moving along now...
"If they credit the gaucheness esposed in the OP" is fugging awkward as all hell... ironically. So lets just change that to, "if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility."
Next, the fragment in parenthesis is redundant not to mention treats us like we are idiots. Cause the thread title alone covers what the article proposes, saying "The concept of free will could all be an illusion." That's pretty straight forward and I'm going to dare to assume that most of us understood it. However, you seem to think that we didn't "get it" so you must re-iterate it for us? You must think so lowly of us!
Now let's put this sentence back together and it reads: All anyone needs to do, if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility, is raise their hand...
Still, that's a little awkward so I would re-arrange it to read: All anyone needs to do is raise their hand if they think that the article in the OP has any credibility.
You gotta admit, that's a smoother, chiller sentence and real easy to read. But then, I still don't know why anyone needs to raise their hand if they are calling the OP a bunch of BS? I had hoped that maybe you'd answer that question of mine in the last paragraph. However, the last paragraph is the MOST gauche, and it's still talking about raising hands but this time because you're not fooled and you didn't choose "it" whatever that means.
If you continue to persist like this, I will cease all communication until you show signs of actually wanting to communicate.
Thank you in advance for making yourself clear (if you choose to do so), and have a good night now.
originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: akushla99
I have given you the opportunity to explain your most gauche syntax, but instead you are now trying to engage me in some kind of dialogue in which you clearly plan to squash my intelligence and make yourself feel big? I guess you don't know how to say what you want to say (why would you quote 'is' like that? lawl), but I do hope that you learn how to communicate more effectively for your own sake. Until then, good luck and have a good one.
Btw, I aintcho mama.
originally posted by: FlyingFox
wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
en.wikipedia.org...(rhetoric)
Such a formula can be made either true or false based on the values assigned to its propositional variables
Am I right?
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason
What you believe is not relevant to the conversation, I'm afraid. We are trying to identify, if possible, what is real.
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
It's undeniable. We have no real control over our lives, every descision we make was a descision we were always going to make. Every change we make in ourselves was a change destined since the beginning of time.
originally posted by: AllIsOne
a reply to: neoholographic
How do you square free will with causal determinism? In our universe nothing moves without an "agitator", so if you believe in free will what creates free will? Or do we possess a god-like power to create something out of nothing?
originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
originally posted by: AllIsOne
a reply to: neoholographic
How do you square free will with causal determinism? In our universe nothing moves without an "agitator", so if you believe in free will what creates free will? Or do we possess a god-like power to create something out of nothing?
Hate to be captain obvious here... but the space for your post conceptually existed but until you made the post it didnt exist and to other posters your post didnt exist until you made it... so you moved some matter from one empty space to another and viola! Something from err nothing, even though that wasnt the case as you simply filled empty space... but that empty space went somewhere so now it has the potiential to now be moved elsewhere once someone somewhere at some time creates something and then it moves elsewhere once again.