I apologize, the major premise should read, “things that are physically possible are things that could happen”.
~Max
This is like talking to a brick wall. “Capability” necessarily implies a range of situations. If being capable of walking up stairs only meant that I did climb a particular staircase the word would be absolutely useless. You wouldn’t even be able to say a ball is capable of rolling.
You’re using a word in a disingenuous way for rhetorical purposes. It’s a pretty low debating tactic.
Sure, but the former is a subset of the latter.
Again, with my chess example; on move 7 I considered playing b5, Be4, Nf6…I have the “capability” of playing any of these moves and more. They were all physically possible.
But, based on my understanding of chess at the time, Be4 seemed the best move to me, as pinning my opponent’s knight seemed the most important principle at this time, so that’s what I played.
BTW, I asked already, and so have others, but I’ll ask again: how do you suppose this situation is different under your libertarian free will model? Don’t just say “could have chosen differently”, how or why would I choose differently?
Indeed, I think the concepts of ‘capability’ and ‘responsibility’ are necessarily useless after assuming Determinism. The whole point of my argument is to show the absurd consequences Determinism has on the justice system - these sentences I quoted do not hurt my position.
You are exploiting a mistake on my part, already addressed in post #321. It should have read “Things that are physically possible are things that could happen - I don’t think that is a controversial assumption”.
Regardless, things that could happen are not a subset of things that are physically possible. Otherwise we would have things that are physically possible which could never happen. This sentence is self-contradictory, and so is your assertion: You are capable of doing things that you can never do.
~Max
“Your attempt to redefine ‘capability’ is stupid”
“Yes, I know Determinism is stupid”
This is beyond infantile. I’m done with both threads.
Also you said:
“That is why jcklpe attempted to argue that restorative justice is compatible with personal responsibility.”
I don’t understand what about my stance means that restorative justice is is not compatible with personal responsibility. You are saying that it is my definition, but what about my definition implies a contradiction between those two?
Also catching up to where the debate has progressed: Max do you think that determinism denies the existence of possibilities in the plural?