[pdonis]

> I am debating against someone who claims free will is what will stop child trafficking.

I have made no such claim. I have said that, on net, a society where people's right to make free choices is respected will have less suffering and more good things than a society where it isn't. But that doesn't mean no bad things will ever happen in the former type of society. Nor is respecting others' right to make free choices the same as "free will" by itself.

If you can't see why respecting other people's right to make free choices is inconsistent with child trafficking, isn't it obvious? Child traffickers don't respect the right to make free choices of the children they traffic in. So getting more people to respect other people's right to make free choices would obviously reduce the prevalence of child trafficking.

[Layke1123]

Not it wouldn't and our society is largely a result of your way of thinking. We have yet to see how a society that advocates determinism would turn out.

[pdonis]

> our society is largely a result of your way of thinking

It most certainly is not. Our society refuses to respect people's right to freedom of choice in all kinds of ways. And most of those ways can't even be justified on the grounds of harm to others, which is where your big sticking point seems to be. Our society throws people in jail just for having drugs in their possession, even if they haven't harmed anyone and are not threatening anyone. The poster I originally responded to in this thread had therapy they didn't want forced on them by their family, for something they didn't even think was a problem and which certainly didn't make them a threat of harm to anyone, and our society was just fine with that. From what I can see, in your vision of the ideal society, that would be happening all over the place.

> We have yet to see how a society that advocates determinism would turn out.

Sure we have. The Soviet Union was based on ideas like the ones you are advocating. So is Communist China today. Perhaps you want to live in Communist China; if so, you're welcome to move there (unless of course you already live there). I don't.

[Layke1123]

No, in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them. A parent thrusts their choices onto their children often to much detriment as the aforementioned person.

In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because the idea that you can choose for someone is removed. It simply is behavior that is exhibited, and we understand that behavior enough to change it or we need to learn more to understand the behavior. Your reality, the current one we live in, is the nightmare for some people.

The Soviet Union and Communist China, terms you want to use to describe them, do not sound like what I am advocating in the slightest. I'm advocating that we acknowledge the underlying reality that we are not free to make choices. There is only the illusion our brains create. How you interpret that is on you. It has nothing to do with other countries or systems of government. Stop trying to drag in straw mans because your ideas lack substance.

[pdonis]

> in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them.

Oh, for goodness' sake. I've already agreed that this is the case. I just don't think it means our society is based on respecting other people's freedom to choose. Are you not even reading what I post?

> In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because the idea that you can choose for someone is removed.

Since you and I don't even agree on what "choice" means, I think we need to taboo that word for this discussion, because to me, what you are saying here looks like pure sophistry given as an excuse to allow you to do whatever you want to people without their consent--in other words, as I said, tyranny worse than the worst tyranny in history. The rest of your post has the same problem.

Elsewhere in this discussion, you said that if I had cancer, you would rearrange my brain if you thought it would cure the cancer. And I asked you a question in response. Your answer to that question will help me to understand whether the issue we are having here is just a matter of a difference in terminology, or a fundamental difference in viewpoint. You can respond where I asked the question, or here.

[Layke1123]

I did there. Let's consolidate our discussion to just a back and forth on that thread if you want to continue the discussion, which I thoroughly hope you do.

[pdonis]

Fair enough, I'll respond there.