Again, we clearly “have”/have a very different set of assumptions regarding what a “no free will John” can and cannot do to a “no free will Jane”.
Since, given my own understanding of determinism, nature allowed for no other option.
And you complain about “the kids”. 
Note to nature:
No, please, not the Stooge again!! 
Please not the hypocrite again.
How many times have I – nature? – managed to reduce you down to retorts of this sort. The points I raised above [just today] are still there for you to take a more substantive crack at.
After all, I’m not arguing that we don’t have the capacity to choose that path here. Only that “here and now” determinism as I understand it still makes more sense.
I make some statements about free-will, determinism and fatalism.
I try to be civil.
I get this “note to nature” crap in return. Over and over. And some variation of “I can’t not do it”. Over and over.
And the … ‘choose’, “choose”, choose, choose … nonsense. Which is basically mocking what people are saying.
And then the pretense that he is being attacked.
I think iambiguous’ problem is that he finds radical free will attractive, and has made a sort of fetish about Rand and Heidegger. but utterly lacks the intellectual skills to understand how to argue for his point of view.
If he had actually read Being and Time he would have uncovered the fact that Dasein is wholly deterministic and that it differs only from the “survival based” determinism of animals, in so much as it involves more interesting determinants that go beyond base purposes, that humans are capable of determining their purposes for themselves.
cit. In Heidegger’s Being-centred project, these are the conditions “which, in every kind of Being that factical Dasein may possess, persist as determinative for the character of its Being” (Being and Time 5: 38).
Dasein, far from being anti-determinism is a theory in which a thicker understanding of human necessesity is revealed.
References to the deterministic quality of Dasein are littered throughout his work. Heideggers is at pains to show the how this work. How the human agent is himself a causative factor of change. Dasein lies between the “throwness” and the “projection” of your selfness.
Wow! We are really stuck, aren’t we?
It’s almost as though it was meant to be!! 
Of course here he’s only paraphrasing nature paraphrasing me.
On the other hand, as I once reminded you, “it’s like shooting fish in a barrel”.
Note to nature:
At least allow me to dream of the days when there were minds here that were actually challenging. 
The difference between me and you is that I have Dasein whereas you are not intellectually competent to utilise Dasein.
I have the ability to exercise and project my will, whereas you just think you are free but do nothing but ape your cultural conditioning.
Nature at its most…enigmatic?
Under the changed conditions, it cannot occur. Why? Because all justification has been removed which would be required for conscience to permit.
This reminds me of the time that I went to return a set of defective Christmas lights and the service rep told me with a straight face that there can’t be anything wrong with it because the company does not make defective products.
Sure. You really seem to believe that people and society can be so perfectly controlled that nobody will do any wrong.
There’s no arguing with that sort of thinking.
Phyllo: This reminds me of the time that I went to return a set of defective Christmas lights and the service rep told me with a straight face that there can’t be anything wrong with it because the company does not make defective products.
Sure. You really seem to believe that people and society can be so perfectly controlled that nobody will do any wrong.
Peacegirl: They won’t desire to strike a first blow when there is no justification. This law is that powerful.
Phyllo: There’s no arguing with that sort of thinking.
Peacegirl: This knowledge is correct not because the author said so, but because the immutable laws that are the basis of his claims, can be proven.
Hey peacegirl, how are you?
Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?
I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.
In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?
And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?
If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?
Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?
Forgive me if I overlook some things in the document you quote, which I did not read because my interest is in your contentions, not someone else’s, and if I overlook things that have been addressed in the course of the thread.
I have said all that I want to say about the book, free-will and determinism.
Enigmatic to one such as yourself who is more of a follower , or just a fan, than a person intellectually capable of understanding.
There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.
The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.
What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.
There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.
I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.