Free Will

Quote:

As many as 1 to 2 million Americans can't urinate at all if there is someone else in the restroom. These people, mostly men, suffer from an anxiety disorder known as "avoidance paruresis" (sometimes called shy bladder, bashful bladder, or bladder shyness). By some estimates, 15 million more "low level paruretics" have some difficulty urinating when there is someone else at the next urinal or in the next stall.

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/anxietypanic/a/pee.htm

If free means unencumbered and will means the force by which an accomplishment is enabled, then there can be no free will within the context of the limitations of human physicality: case closed - not that it was ever open except in the minds of those that must adhere to the fallacy of needing to believe that there must be or must not be free will.

The free will argument itself has no validity in the demonstrable sense nor in the abstract sense. But I'd bet CI's bladder does not appreciate your ministrations.

The following post contains course language and mature subject matter. Viewer indiscretion is advised.

Since there is such a thing as shy balder one wonders if there is such a thing as aggressive bladder and if so how this would play into the anthropomorphic argument of a bladder's free will.

Oh, wait.

You were not quoting your source when you pontificated on the subject of free will.

So how do you relate your perception of free will to the application of criminal justice?

In order to demonstrate that there is free will in the context you argue as per crime and (so-called) justice you are going to have to prove a negative: "There is no master puppeteer controlling us all behind the scenes".

If trying to prove this negative does not illumine the absurdity behind free will then by all means carry on with anthropomorphizing the bladder's free will.

As to your curt query "Functional?" yes show me that justice exists beyond the conceptual.

Chumly wrote:

In order to demonstrate that there is free will in the context you argue as per crime and (so-called) justice you are going to have to prove a negative: "There is no master puppeteer controlling us all behind the scenes".

If trying to prove this negative does not illumine the absurdity behind free will then by all means carry on with anthropomorphizing the bladder's free will.

As to your curt query "Functional?" yes show me that justice exists beyond the conceptual.

By your definition an atheist would believe in free will.

Or am I wrong again?

Well there could be or perhaps there could not be.

OK you made the claim, now substantiate it:
Why could there be free will?
Why could there not be free will?.

There can't be congruency and logicality unless or until you respond in kind to the particulars of my posts Pete. As such there are a few additional points you have failed to respond to Fred:

1) You keep trying to rephrase the question in such a manner as to give the argument of free will conceptual substance and/or actual substance. The problem is there is nothing you have put forward to substantiate the question of free will as more than an absurdity, hence my bladder jokes

2) As discussed, you would need to first argue that the question of free will is something more than an absurdity outside of the minds of those that need to believe in free will / no free will; this you have not done Dude.

3) If you want to argue that the presumption of free will is a cornerstone of so-called "criminal justice" have at 'er, however presumption is neither fact nor proof nor argument in and of itself. In this case the best that one could say is that free will is a cornerstone of "criminal justice". However even within this myopic proof-exempt marriage, there are legitimate arguments such as peer pressure, social status, racial status, temporary insanity positions, youth, etc that are counter to the marriage of free will and "criminal justice".

4) As to your curt query "Functional?" yes show me that justice exists beyond the conceptual Clem. Else how can I rationally dialog on justice and free will even if the presumption of free will within our justice system is on record.