[Layke1123]

We can't fight it unless it happens right in front of us? We can donate to organizations that do have the stated purpose. We can vote for politicians who propose laws and policies that make it extremely difficult for it to happen. How are you powerless to do anything about it unless it happens "right in front of you"?

And I'm pointing out how in my capacity I am doing everything I can to fight it. Part of that is convincing your (or more likely others reading this), that your position is wrong.

[pdonis]

> We can donate to organizations that do have the stated purpose. We can vote for politicians who propose laws and policies that make it extremely difficult for it to happen.

Sure, if we think such organizations and politicians actually exist. (I'm skeptical that they actually do, but I'm willing to assume they do for the sake of this discussion.) But to me, that doesn't count as "drop everything you're doing and fight", which is what you said earlier that everyone should be doing. If what you meant by "drop everything you're doing and fight" is just "support organizations and leaders that you think will improve the situation", then I don't disagree with your suggestion as a general thing (though I might disagree with your specific selection of which organizations and politicians to support), but I think your choice of words was a very poor one. To most people, "drop everything you're doing and fight" means "completely rearrange your life so you are spending all of your time and effort fighting this problem".

[Layke1123]

Exactly how redefining what most people take to mean free will and changing the definition of it is poor wording?

[pdonis]

I have already said elsewhere that I disagree with you about "what most people take to mean free will".

I will agree that "poor wording" was just my opinion and you are free to simply ignore it.

[Layke1123]

And you would be wrong then, as most people define free will as the ability to actually control one's own actions rather than participate in a false world view where those "choices" are viewed as the important part of defining free will.

And I do ignore it. Not it of spite, but because it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

[pdonis]

> you would be wrong then

I disagree. And I see no point in continuing to argue about it. We simply do not agree on how "most people define free will".

> it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

You are apparently ignorant of the extensive literature on free will and cognitive science in which the view I am defending does hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

[Layke1123]

At any point you could link to any scientific study that established the rigor of your arguments. The fact that you do not indicates you are unable to, or you are aware of the latest scientific evidence that shows contradictory evidence to your claims.

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will