Originally posted by inimalist
There is nothing about the nature of human decision making that removes personal responsibility.Regardless of the motivating factors, a person is still responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Is a drunk driver not responsible for those they injure?
I brought up alcohol (and other drugs) previously to eventually lead him to that very question, he dodged it multiple times.
Originally posted by BackFire
I answered your question. Please read properly -- " And you can win big in gambling without taking much risk, where as to lose everything you have in gambling you have to make a series of increasingly bad choices."
but im talking about the INDIVIDUAL who TAKES the same risks and INSPITE of them comes out the winner, rare as it may be. it happens. WOULD you extend him the same courtey and say that it was all HIS doing and he was responsible for it. just give me an answer to thi, becasue you really REALLY havent.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but im talking about the INDIVIDUAL who TAKES the same risks and INSPITE of them comes out the winner, rare as it may be. it happens. WOULD you extend him the same courtey and say that it was all HIS doing and he was responsible for it. just give me an answer to thi, becasue you really REALLY havent.
I didn't say it was all his doing, but he's responsible if he loses everything because he knows that's what is very likely going to happen. He can't ***** if it happens, it's his fault and no one elses. The person who happens to win in gambling took the same risks and takes the same responsibility, luck just made him devoid of that responsibility because he won.
But it doesn't matter, my point with gambling was simply to point out how stupid the thinking that because something involves a bit of chance that that somehow removes the personal responsibility of a person. Someone winning or losing a bet is chance, but someone deciding whether or not to bet in the first place is not chance, same with smoking. No one for sure is going to get cancer from smoking - it's chance based, but starting smoking to begin with is not chance, it's a choice, and if they want to they can quit. This is factual and provable.
Originally posted by BackFire
I didn't say it was all his doing, but he's responsible if he loses everything because he knows that's what is very likely going to happen. He can't ***** if it happens, it's his fault and no one elses. The person who happens to win in gambling took the same risks and takes the same responsibility, luck just made him devoid of that responsibility because he won.But it doesn't matter, my point with gambling was simply to point out how stupid the thinking that because something involves a bit of chance that that somehow removes the personal responsibility of a person. Someone winning or losing a bet is chance, but someone deciding whether or not to bet in the first place is not chance, same with smoking. No one for sure is going to get cancer from smoking - it's chance based, but starting smoking to begin with is not chance, it's a choice, and if they want to they can quit. This is factual and provable.
so you ADMIT it wasnt all his doing but still maintain that he was 100% responsible for it{even though a great part of it was sumthing ELSE's doing entirely}, WHAT kind of twisted logic is that?????????
Smoking was entirely his doing. Thus getting cancer by proxy was also his fault because it occurred because of something he chose to do. Just because it's possible to smoke and not get cancer doesn't mean the person isn't to blame when they do get cancer from smoking.
It's cute how you are no longer even attempting to argue against smoking itself being a choice, instead trying to create a red herring argument and move focus away from the argument that you've already lost several times.
but cancer wasnt, that was luck's doing. if a man is responsible only for his actions than the responsibility that the man who got cancer had to bear shud be the same responsibility that the man who smoked the same way but DIDNT get cancer should bear. thats where your argument falls apart.
and whats cute is you reposting the same argument and expecting a different result.
And smoking led to the cancer. They are the same. They both have the same amount of personal responsibility. Who said otherwise? The one who didn't get cancer is responsible for his own smoking which could have led to him having cancer. And the one who got cancer is responsible for said cancer because he got it as a result of a choice that he made.
Again, you've failed to prove your argument that something involving any little bit of chance somehow magically negates all personal responsibility. Chance and personal responsibility are not mutually exclusive.
I repost similar things because you have failed to retort them in sound ways. Or even respond to much of them. You really shud try.
leading=/=same AS .
it doesnt negate all personal responsibility, it just negates most of the responsibility that goes to chance from an objective standpoint.
you repost said things because you really have no argument other than the one you have already made and i have proved is not a strong argument. cute, as you said.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
leading=/=same AS .it doesnt negate all personal responsibility, it just negates most of the responsibility that goes to chance from an objective standpoint.
you repost said things because you really have no argument other than the one you have already made and i have proved is not a strong argument. cute, as you said.
It's not objective at all, you just prove now that you don't know what that word means. You think someone isn't responsible if someone does something that gives themselves cancer. That's fine. Funny. Stupid. Baseless, disproven, but fine if you want to think that.
The guy wouldn't have cancer if he didn't smoke. He chose to start smoking. And really since your entire argument is based soley on a theoretical scenario that is extraordinarily unlikely (what if someone smokes their whole life and has no negative side effects) it shows how weak your claim is. If someone smokes they will almost always end up having some kind of health problem down the road. Maybe not cancer, but lung problems, weight problems, coughing, etc. And just like if they were to get cancer, that's their fault because they could have simply not smoked, they could have quit or they could have never started.
And why would I alter my argument in significant ways when it's already defeated yours? There's only so many ways to say that smoking is a choice, and if someone has some health problems because of their long time smoking that is their fault.
^but saying IT IS! IT IS! IT IS! and your stupid and several thesauras entries for stupid isnt an ARGUMENT. and since weve already established that your ORIGINAL argument, which you havent changed, isnt an argument to begin with, i think weve proven that your wrong, atleast until you can make a better argument.
and it is mindboggling how little some people here actually know about the history of the philosophy concerning the mind and free will, youd think i was stating sumthing completely new/original and as yet UNHEARD of when i said free will might not exist in any traditional sense when its one of the oldest schools of thought there is and as yet, unresolved.
Hahaha, we've established that "Smoking is someone's own personal responsibility, and whatever negative side effect they get is as well" isn't an argument? When did that happen? And why would I change my argument when it's still the correct one? What you want me to just change my argument because you're getting sick of getting defeated by the same thing over and over again? And what's this "we've" crap, you're the only person in the thread arguing against me. It's just you, everyone else who has posted in this thread has agreed with me. Is this the 'metaphorical we', the 'royal we'? Or are you actually seeing posts that don't exist? No. If "we've" proven anyone wrong, it's you.
I don't think anyone's mind is boggled by you saying that free will doesn't exist as you've said it before and failed to back it up. What is mind boggling, and what you've failed to provide evidence or even simple reasoning for your initial argument that smoking is not a choice, even though the person has to at some point make the choice to begin smoking before he's even addicted.
And that entire post of yours is you attempting to create a red herring argument to get focus off of the fact that you just totally and completely failed to retort ANYTHING I said in my last post. Instead making goofy and vague claims and expecting them to somehow fly. You really expect to win an argument by ignoring all specific arguments of your opponent and just lazily claim "I've proven you wrong"?
Either actually retort something specific that someone says or just stop posting.
Here, retort this: The guy wouldn't have cancer if he didn't smoke. He chose to start smoking. And really since your entire argument is based soley on a theoretical scenario that is extraordinarily unlikely (what if someone smokes their whole life and has no negative side effects) it shows how weak your claim is. If someone smokes they will almost always end up having some kind of health problem down the road. Maybe not cancer, but lung problems, weight problems, coughing, etc. And just like if they were to get cancer, that's their fault because they could have simply not smoked, they could have quit or they could have never started.
Go on. Do it.