no one says that. Obviously the freedom to spear someone else in the face isn’t conductive to peace.
it most certainly is… peace is only obtained through superior firepower…
-Imp
Or somtimes through free-trade, but yeah, usually. What I mean is that say the freedom for citizens to go around stabbing each other in the face with a spears, without any legal force enforcing repurcussions, wouldn’t be conductive to peace.
I’d happily defend that free will exists. But I have a feeling that’s not what you mean. Even though I don’t know what you DO mean.
Is the debate going to be decided before there is a debate? I’m new to this, but I thought that once the litigants settled, that was it until the formal presentations.
Or maybe this is just another liberal media skewing the facts thingie?
Trolling?
Free will only exists with in limited choices. You are free to choose from existing choices other than that there is no free will.
My defence is hard determinism in showing how freedom doesn’t exist and I also elaborate how existence is set in motion by interdependencies where nothing is “free” at all.
My arguement for the non-existence of “peace” is that there has never been a moment where the world has been away from conflict or struggle. “Peace” is just a hyperbole word derived from BS politics.
So noone wants to challenge me on the topic of freedom and freewill?
Noone wants to prove that peace exists?
Well peace is not a one level thing. Peace has relative levels. So to say only one type of peace exists or to say peace does not exist would make both sides wrong anyway. Whats to debate?
So typical a person as yourself would say somthing like that.
wow this coming from the kettle, its rather typical of a person like you to say something like that also.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}