3RU7AL

6.) If the election were held today, would you vote for candidate Wylted, candidate RationalMadman, unsure, or neither?

5.) Do you Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, Strongly Disapprove, or are Unsure about candidate RationalMadman?

4.) Do you Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, Strongly Disapprove, or are Unsure about candidate Wylted?

3.) What issues do you believe are most important in this race for President? Name as many as you’d like.

2.) Have you heard of candidate Wylted, candidate RationalMadman, both, or neither?

1.) Have you heard there is an election going on for the Presidency of DART? Yes or No?

6.) If the election were held today, would you vote for candidate Wylted, candidate RationalMadman, unsure, or neither?

5.) Do you Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, Strongly Disapprove, or are Unsure about candidate RationalMadman?

4.) Do you Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove, Strongly Disapprove, or are Unsure about candidate Wylted?

3.) What issues do you believe are most important in this race for President? Name as many as you’d like.

2.) Have you heard of candidate Wylted, candidate RationalMadman, both, or neither?

1.) Have you heard there is an election going on for the Presidency of DART? Yes or No?

Campaigning would be advocating. This is just data collection

Religion is nothing more than a Sunday morning pastime for most theists....Well, the more dedicated ones.

Nope.

Never been an attention seeker, nor committed suicide.

Failure to commit suicide is attention seeking.

A person with real suicidal  intentions will usually succeed.

Can you please explain how you’re getting finite knowledge from determinism? Determinism describes a process. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything about all of existence. It’s as if you’re treating determinism as an apposing religion. 

you just admitted to being proud of arguing in bad faith and fusing falsehood with genuine historical fact...

Oh, but, no, you may think, he offered two options: life or death. And I respond: just so, but, then, what does he turn to? A walk in the park? A rendezvous with Ophelia? Her prayers, he concludes, contain all his sins. Or, is it another heart-to-heart with his father’s ghost? No, he sleeps, he dreams; meaning… other options than just two… and what, then, but free will’s justification of imagination over what would else be determined for him?

"freedom" in the Constitution

Free will = free agency

Actions are (EITHER) influenced (OR) not-influenced

Yes, by free agency of choice - each of us independenttly.

it is literally an elitist occult who wear golden masks like rothschilds and at the dinner scene, there is a triangle with a checkerboard pattern and two posts. This is a masonic ritual that usually involves blood and well the guards leave behind a knife for that purpose

What do you personally value ?

Self-expression.

It doesn't matter what hypothetical situation you come up with. It doesn't matter if we are talking about humans or gods or ghosts or aliens. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the natural or the supernatural. It doesn't matter if there was a beginning or if there exists an infinite regress. Every conceivable person, thing and force including your behavior is either caused (not free) or uncaused (not subject to will).

Drop two ping pong balls down a pachinko board. Did they go the same way? No? Funny that. Ping pong balls must have free will.

1. Knowledge gained without experience. It happens, and you have not accounted for that variable.

I know because it happens outside of physical experience

a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.

Every decision is either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random)

Determinism =/= free will 

Random acts =/= free will

the main pushers are debt aren't even capitalist in the traditional scale

I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.

I don't think you get the OP. But anyway, when ones sarcasm is so good people think you are serious and debate you.

Why is intrinsic value based one's suffering being mitigated by the participation of others?

My answer mirrors the question. "What is the point" but with no context. I don't know what the point is I am supposed to make but sarcastically said to not offend or hurt peoples feelings.

I don't know, what is the point of anything other than not offending or hurting peoples feelings.

This would suggest that "a human's intrinsic value is only intrinsic value IFF his/her suffering warrants the participation of another in its mitigation." Why is intrinsic value bound by this standard?

I cant be held responsible for what people think my intent is.

Choosing to "ignore" human suffering WHEN you can do SOMETHING to mitigate that suffering = denying that person's intrinsic value.

So this "intrinsic value" necessarily obligates me to "do something" as it concerns another's suffering, whether I'm a willful participant or not?

I always have,

Remember when people used to say exactly what they mean

But trust no one.

Well stated. I'm stealing this.