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