Re: Unusual line of reasoning in Kant's response to the antinomy of free will

On Nov 13, 12:28 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 4:41 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > When you said;
>
> > Irresponsibility is created as responsibility is
> > removed.
>
> I was of course referring to the dopey evil anti-human socialist's
> idea of removing the individual from the responsibility of providing
> for himself and thereby creating irresponsible human individuals.
>

Are you saying that situations have no part in human choices. Social
scientists often talk about dispositional and situational influences.
Some experiments show that when someone else does something we
interpret it as dispositional or his thinking but if we do the same
thing we are biased towards seeing it as the fault of the situation.

> > the laws that protect individual right should
> > still be enforced.
>
> Upheld not enforced there's a HUGE difference.
>

I can go with that since either way it is said it would still apply to
my point.

> In reality man's freedom is his natural state and therefore can only
> be violated.
>

What is this freedom, is it caused by dispositions which are
themselves caused? Or are these freedoms uncaused just dropping out of
thin air.

> The s***bag claiming to be granting man his freedom is the same
> s***bag desiring to violate it.
>
> An entity can not act in contradiction of its nature.
>

If it cannot act in contradiction to its nature how would you show
this since it would never have been observed?

> When man does, and that's because he has an ability to choose and
> because he has no automatic means of survival, then if he acts in
> contradiction of his nature, then it will be at his peril, e.g.
> witness the parasitical masochistical scourge of socialism as more and
> more human individual responsibility is removed.
>

Are those choices caused or determined?

> Michael Gordge