Abenologija

Gnječ wrote:no dakle krenimo. zanemarimo sociopatsku štracu koja je prije lizala petokraku a sada liže raspelo.

dakle, ne preostaje nam ništa drugo nego čitati štracu koja je titovu sliku pokrila hrvatskim grbom.. znamo da to nisi bio ti jer o hrvatskom grbu misliš kao i o meni ali na tvom je avataru pa je očigledno podržavaš.. i gle. to je sve što ću ovdje razmijeniti s tobom. punctum. točka. zauvijek. amen!

evo jedna crtica stvarno se desilo nije izmišljeno kako funkcionira sofizam i sofisti u neka daleka vremena ali isti kurac ko da je danas:

The famous case of ‘Corax and Tisias’ …

Corax, a teacher of Rhetoric in Syracuse, Sicily around 476 BCE sued his pupil, Tisias, for not paying his tuition.
In court, Tisias argued that he should not have to pay, regardless of outcome, because:

Either he will prove his case, and therefore not have to pay as the result of winning the suit; or he will lose the suit and that will be proof that Corax did not teach him well enough to deserve being paid his tuition.

Corax argued that he should be paid, regardless of outcome, because:

If he wins the suit, then the court will require him to be paid, and if he loses the suit, that will be proof that he taught Tisias well enough to beat him and therefore he deserves to be paid his fee.

Who is right?

The judge shook his head in disdain and ruled, “Mali corvi, mali ovum.” — One bad thing (the bad crow, malus corvus) can only gives rise to something else bad (the bad egg, malum ovum).

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:no dakle krenimo. zanemarimo sociopatsku štracu koja je prije lizala petokraku a sada liže raspelo.

dakle, ne preostaje nam ništa drugo nego čitati štracu koja je titovu sliku pokrila hrvatskim grbom.. znamo da to nisi bio ti jer o hrvatskom grbu misliš kao i o meni ali na tvom je avataru pa je očigledno podržavaš.. i gle. to je sve što ću ovdje razmijeniti s tobom. punctum. točka. zauvijek. amen!

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:no dakle krenimo. zanemarimo sociopatsku štracu koja je prije lizala petokraku a sada liže raspelo.

dakle, ne preostaje nam ništa drugo nego čitati štracu koja je titovu sliku pokrila hrvatskim grbom.. znamo da to nisi bio ti jer o hrvatskom grbu misliš kao i o meni ali na tvom je avataru pa je očigledno podržavaš.. i gle. to je sve što ću ovdje razmijeniti s tobom. punctum. točka. zauvijek. amen!

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:no dakle krenimo. zanemarimo sociopatsku štracu koja je prije lizala petokraku a sada liže raspelo.

dakle, ne preostaje nam ništa drugo nego čitati štracu koja je titovu sliku pokrila hrvatskim grbom.. znamo da to nisi bio ti jer o hrvatskom grbu misliš kao i o meni ali na tvom je avataru pa je očigledno podržavaš.. i gle. to je sve što ću ovdje razmijeniti s tobom. punctum. točka. zauvijek. amen!

nemoć.

iden posudit jaketu kod susida. njemu ne triba jer ima dvi.

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

metilda wrote:

Gnječ wrote:no dakle krenimo. zanemarimo sociopatsku štracu koja je prije lizala petokraku a sada liže raspelo.

dakle, ne preostaje nam ništa drugo nego čitati štracu koja je titovu sliku pokrila hrvatskim grbom.. znamo da to nisi bio ti jer o hrvatskom grbu misliš kao i o meni ali na tvom je avataru pa je očigledno podržavaš.. i gle. to je sve što ću ovdje razmijeniti s tobom. punctum. točka. zauvijek. amen!

nemoć.

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
apsolutna odgovornost pojedinca nemo veze s apsolutnošću slobodne volje. slobodna volja se vode more uzesti u uobičajenoj dozi, we act as if we are free. apsolutna odgovornost ne proizlqziniz apsolutnosti volje, nego iz definicijske nužnosti. mi smo apsolutno odgovorni, i zoto jer niko drugi ni ne more biti. 
...
društvo nije čovik, samo ljudi imaju odgovornost. društvo more biti uzrok smanjenja pojedinčeve autonomije, pa će tako totalitarna, socijalistička društva smanjivati pojedincu izbore

O da, apsolutna odgovornost itekako ima veze sa apsolutnošću slobodne volje. Nemaš apsolutno slobodnu volju, ne možeš imati niti apsolutnu odgovornost. Uvijek je dijeliš sa nekim, kao što netko drugi uvijek utječe na broj stupnjeva slobode po kojima se prepoznaje djelovanje slobodne volje, samo je pitanje u kojoj mjeri.
Ovo posljednje je zapravo čista i neprijeporna fizikalna činjenica.
Nebitno što niti prvi niti drugi koncept po definiciji nama ljudima nisu dostupni. Niti imamo apsolutnu slobodnu volju niti apsolutnu odgovornost.
Ovo u vezi apsolutne slobodne volje je samorazumljivo pa to neću pretresati, a ovaj dio o apsolutnoj odgovornosti sam već pokušao objasniti sa onom pričom o olakotnim okolnostima koje se i u sudskim procesima itekako uzimaju u obzir premda društva odnosno ljudske zajednice doslovce izgaraju od želje pronaći nekoga kao jedino odgovornog krivca za neki nemili događaj. Pokušao sam objasniti i iz kojeg razloga.
Da bi sebe što je više moguće ako ne i apsolutno rasteretilo odgovornosti.
Međutim, znamo da im to baš i ne polazi za rukom i tu se neprestano vuku neko tko zna otkad zaostali repovi koje ponekad pravnim rječnikom nazivamo i presedanima. Kada bi postojala apsolutna odgovornost pojedinca i u praksi, a ne samo kao imaginarni model, tada takvih presedana ne bi niti moglo biti, jer se presedani uvijek pozivaju na neke posebne okolnosti koje izlaze izvan okvira aktualnih propisa odnosno zakona. 
Što se tiče donjeg dijela, postoje različite vrste odgovornosti, tu je priču dobro razradio Karl Jaspers, pa je tako uz kaznenu spomenuo i moralnu, čak i transcendentnu odnosno odgovornost prema transcendentu. Pročitaj.
Dalje, ne samo tebi omiljena socijalistička nego i svaka totalitarna, dapače, doslovce ama baš svaka država, nastoji smanjiti pojedincu izbore. Dapače, u tome svaka i uspjeva, samo je pitanje u kolikoj mjeri. Naravno, uz djelovanje države ide i djelovanje cijelog ili barem određenog segmenta njoj pripadajućeg društva.

pokušati ću biti ča precizniji morin biti.
odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji. sve ako je inkompatibilizam u pravu, i slobodna volja ne postoji, jo bi još uvika osto na liniji odgovornosti. sve ča bi jo učini, to je da bi intervjuiro osobu koja je izvela akciju, i pito bi je jesi li bi pri sebi kad si doni tu i tu odluku. dakle, odluka je mogla biti donesena 300 milisekundi prije nego ča je njegova svijest saznala za odluku, ali to ga ne bi oslobodilo odluke.

ajmo nekoliko primjera.
čovik ki je pijun pregazi čovika, moro prihvatiti odgovornost iako je bi potpuno nesvjesan čina, samo zoto ča je pošo piti. ne more cesta, auto, društvo koje podržava lokanje, prijatelj ki mu je ulivo vino, ni genetska sklonost lokanju biti odgovorna. to okolo samo znoči da je ot čovik imo velika iskušenja pred sobon. to mu sud more priznati prilikon izricanja kazne, ali ne more reći da je manje odgovoran jer ni manje pregazi nekoga.
čovik kome pritu da će ubiti njegovu ženu ako un ne ubije nekoga drugoga (i un poslušo) se zatvorska kazna more umanjiti je je bi prisiljen, ali ne i odgovornost.
narkomana komu je djetinjstvo bilo teško, i ki se ni imo snoge odupriti čarima narkoeskapizma jer je i genetski podložan, samo tribo pitati je li sun nazvo dilera.
ako su ga uvatili i izdrogirali, unda ni odgovoran, sve dokle se prvi put ne probudi van zatočeništva. pod uvjeton da mu je funkcija neoštećena, jel.

dakle, po meni je odgovornost on/off izjava o nekoj voljnoj akciji, ča otvaro mesto apsolutizaciji. ni pitanje pod kakovin si utjecajen, nego jesi li u trenutku donošenja odluke misli da si slobodan čovik.

i, još nešto, odgovornost je puno bolje prihvatiti, nego neprihvatiti. svaki put kad te neko prevari, kad padeš pod utjecaj svjetlucavih stvori, kad odreagiroš nagonski, prvoloptaški, uvika je bolje prihvatiti apsolutnu odgovornost za svoja djela. kod prihvaćanja je riječ o ideji koja more znočiti bolju budućnost.

Devil’s advocate — Rise of the modern Sophist!

Sophism is dead! Long live Sophism!!

The original Sophists may have lived in 5th century BCE but it will be a great mistake to suppose that Sophism is dead. On the contrary, today, the popular modern culture reeks with the ideas of the Sophists, more than ever.

In 5th century Greek-speaking world, particularly at Athens, Sophists were travelling intellectuals who taught ‘Arête’ (excellence or virtue) to anyone who could pay the right fee. They were not a school of philosophers and they did not invent or follow any system of philosophy but they excelled in the art of logical argument : ‘Dialectic’ and the art of persuasive speaking : ‘Rhetoric’.

The Sophists were splendid orators, public speakers and mouths for hire!
Completely ignorant of any morality or ethics, these charismatic men dazzled everyone with their clever reasoning but usually fallacious arguments. They earned reputations as the crowd pullers who could convince anyone that good could be bad or vice versa or even that day was night!

The famous case of ‘Corax and Tisias’ …


Corax, a teacher of Rhetoric in Syracuse, Sicily around 476 BCE sued his pupil, Tisias, for not paying his tuition.
In court, Tisias argued that he should not have to pay, regardless of outcome, because:
Either he will prove his case, and therefore not have to pay as the result of winning the suit; or he will lose the suit and that will be proof that Corax did not teach him well enough to deserve being paid his tuition.
Corax argued that he should be paid, regardless of outcome, because:
If he wins the suit, then the court will require him to be paid, and if he loses the suit, that will be proof that he taught Tisias well enough to beat him and therefore he deserves to be paid his fee.
Who is right?
The judge shook his head in disdain and ruled, “Mali corvi, mali ovum.” — One bad thing (the bad crow, malus corvus) can only gives rise to something else bad (the bad egg, malum ovum).

Eventually, their attitude, coupled with unscrupulous pursuit of wealth, led to popular resentment against sophists and their ideas. With the rise of the philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, they slowly sank into oblivion and faded away.
1st century CE witnessed a very short lived resurgence of Sophism known as the ‘Second Sophistic’.

And so it was presumed that Sophism died an unceremonious death after that. But to everyone’s astonishment, fed by a capitalist society and market driven higher education, Sophistry has risen like a phoenix from the ashes.

As described in a Financial Times article by Janan Ganesh, the elite professions in a modern society - lawyers and management consultants, political advisers and advertising executives, public-relations strategists and even certain types of investment banker: all trade on the same skill of Sophistry!



In today’s society, lawyers are the true modern Sophists — arguers for hire. And the court is their battleground where they try to outshine each other in a dazzling show of Sophistry! An attorney is even legally obligated to argue as persuasively as they can for their client’s best interests, irrespective of his or her innocence!


As we all know, our politicians spend most of their time performing Sophistry by ‘selling themselves.’ More often than not, every politician has to resort to launching verbal attacks with wild accusations, rumors and innuendo against their rivals, persuasive ads, spin doctors, and damage control in his or her carrier.

Advertising world excels in Sophistry! An advertiser’s job is to convince the public to spend money on their products. While a few advertisers even rely on blatant lies and fraud, most of them simply rely on persuasion like a true sophist.



Modern history is full of examples where a sect maligns a rival group through rhetoric and propaganda. Even today, many religious groups gain power and even cultural approval through false propaganda to kill or torture someone who offends their religious sensibilities.

“Freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth. It is Sophistry, which is used today unabashedly for propaganda, lobbying, and salesmanship, to deceive a fellow man, to swindle, to cheat, or to pick pockets.” (Walter Lippmann, Essays in the Public Philosophy, 1955)

‘Edward Louis Bernays’ an Austrian-American sophist, referred to as “the father of public relations” was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine. The new age Sophist succeeded in manipulating public opinion worldwide. He renamed the practice of sophistry “propaganda,” and then “public relations,”. Hitler’s minister of propaganda, used Bernays book as a primary reference to built a personality cult around the Führer for molding the public mind!


He created many successful ad campaigns using fallacious arguments and helped to shape many major events of the 20th century through sophistry; making the illusory appear to be what it wasn’t and selling people their own death and undoing.


In today’s high-tech world, the sophists’ influence has reached dazzling heights; they now have limitless tools at their disposal. Media is the most powerful of them! Television and the Internet are filled with dubious sources which appear to be honest and trustworthy at the first glance but usually have a hidden agenda. ‘Fake news’ websites, are aimed specifically at spreading misinformation with the end goal of propagating a certain viewpoint or political agenda.
Political parties, Presidents, police, Corporates and even religious groups employ agents to arrange press conferences for the media giving a favorable account of their actions and policies. These ‘spin doctors’ practice Sophistry to fool the public because persuading people to accept your version of truth is at the very heart of ‘Dialectic’ and ‘Rhetoric’.

Evil that everyone thought was defeated and destroyed has risen again: stronger and fiercer than before.

A good argument cannot rest on untrue premises! The society should wake up and recognize the new age Sophists and treat them as liars. Because, these men are nothing but conmen and liars, infesting our thoughts with ideas to make us to act in ways from which their clients could benefit.
May be the ‘persuasion’ and the ‘rhetoric’ or even the core idea of ‘argument’ of the original Sophism were not bad but the Sophists have long misused their ability to speak persuasively to manipulate the people and have their way at the expense of reality and truth!

Let us chose carefully! We have to change as a society and accept the fact that flowery language and Charisma is only the covering and not the essence. Perhaps if we could learn to look past this attractive covering of propaganda and persuasion and search a bit deeper into the moral and ethical essence of things, then may be in doing so we will escape a Sophist’s charms!

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:
apsolutna odgovornost pojedinca nemo veze s apsolutnošću slobodne volje. slobodna volja se vode more uzesti u uobičajenoj dozi, we act as if we are free. apsolutna odgovornost ne proizlqziniz apsolutnosti volje, nego iz definicijske nužnosti. mi smo apsolutno odgovorni, i zoto jer niko drugi ni ne more biti. 
...
društvo nije čovik, samo ljudi imaju odgovornost. društvo more biti uzrok smanjenja pojedinčeve autonomije, pa će tako totalitarna, socijalistička društva smanjivati pojedincu izbore

O da, apsolutna odgovornost itekako ima veze sa apsolutnošću slobodne volje. Nemaš apsolutno slobodnu volju, ne možeš imati niti apsolutnu odgovornost. Uvijek je dijeliš sa nekim, kao što netko drugi uvijek utječe na broj stupnjeva slobode po kojima se prepoznaje djelovanje slobodne volje, samo je pitanje u kojoj mjeri.
Ovo posljednje je zapravo čista i neprijeporna fizikalna činjenica.
Nebitno što niti prvi niti drugi koncept po definiciji nama ljudima nisu dostupni. Niti imamo apsolutnu slobodnu volju niti apsolutnu odgovornost.
Ovo u vezi apsolutne slobodne volje je samorazumljivo pa to neću pretresati, a ovaj dio o apsolutnoj odgovornosti sam već pokušao objasniti sa onom pričom o olakotnim okolnostima koje se i u sudskim procesima itekako uzimaju u obzir premda društva odnosno ljudske zajednice doslovce izgaraju od želje pronaći nekoga kao jedino odgovornog krivca za neki nemili događaj. Pokušao sam objasniti i iz kojeg razloga.
Da bi sebe što je više moguće ako ne i apsolutno rasteretilo odgovornosti.
Međutim, znamo da im to baš i ne polazi za rukom i tu se neprestano vuku neko tko zna otkad zaostali repovi koje ponekad pravnim rječnikom nazivamo i presedanima. Kada bi postojala apsolutna odgovornost pojedinca i u praksi, a ne samo kao imaginarni model, tada takvih presedana ne bi niti moglo biti, jer se presedani uvijek pozivaju na neke posebne okolnosti koje izlaze izvan okvira aktualnih propisa odnosno zakona. 
Što se tiče donjeg dijela, postoje različite vrste odgovornosti, tu je priču dobro razradio Karl Jaspers, pa je tako uz kaznenu spomenuo i moralnu, čak i transcendentnu odnosno odgovornost prema transcendentu. Pročitaj.
Dalje, ne samo tebi omiljena socijalistička nego i svaka totalitarna, dapače, doslovce ama baš svaka država, nastoji smanjiti pojedincu izbore. Dapače, u tome svaka i uspjeva, samo je pitanje u kolikoj mjeri. Naravno, uz djelovanje države ide i djelovanje cijelog ili barem određenog segmenta njoj pripadajućeg društva.

pokušati ću biti ča precizniji morin biti.
odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji. sve ako je inkompatibilizam u pravu, i slobodna volja ne postoji, jo bi još uvika osto na liniji odgovornosti. sve ča bi jo učini, to je da bi intervjuiro osobu koja je izvela akciju, i pito bi je jesi li bi pri sebi kad si doni tu i tu odluku. dakle, odluka je mogla biti donesena 300 milisekundi prije nego ča je njegova svijest saznala za odluku, ali to ga ne bi oslobodilo odluke.

ajmo nekoliko primjera.
čovik ki je pijun pregazi čovika, moro prihvatiti odgovornost iako je bi potpuno nesvjesan čina, samo zoto ča je pošo piti. ne more cesta, auto, društvo koje podržava lokanje, prijatelj ki mu je ulivo vino, ni genetska sklonost lokanju biti odgovorna. to okolo samo znoči da je ot čovik imo velika iskušenja pred sobon. to mu sud more priznati prilikon izricanja kazne, ali ne more reći da je manje odgovoran jer ni manje pregazi nekoga.
čovik kome pritu da će ubiti njegovu ženu ako un ne ubije nekoga drugoga (i un poslušo) se zatvorska kazna more umanjiti je je bi prisiljen, ali ne i odgovornost.
narkomana komu je djetinjstvo bilo teško, i ki se ni imo snoge odupriti čarima narkoeskapizma jer je i genetski podložan, samo tribo pitati je li sun nazvo dilera.
ako su ga uvatili i izdrogirali, unda ni odgovoran, sve dokle se prvi put ne probudi van zatočeništva. pod uvjeton da mu je funkcija neoštećena, jel.

dakle, po meni je odgovornost on/off izjava o nekoj voljnoj akciji, ča otvaro mesto apsolutizaciji. ni pitanje pod kakovin si utjecajen, nego jesi li u trenutku donošenja odluke misli da si slobodan čovik.

i, još nešto, odgovornost je puno bolje prihvatiti, nego neprihvatiti. svaki put kad te neko prevari, kad padeš pod utjecaj svjetlucavih stvori, kad odreagiroš nagonski, prvoloptaški, uvika je bolje prihvatiti apsolutnu odgovornost za svoja djela. kod prihvaćanja je riječ o ideji koja more znočiti bolju budućnost.

ja te ubijem. ti si odgovoran za svoju nasilnu smrt. ja sam nevin i točka. amun ra!

aben wrote:

odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji.

Ne ovisi. Slobodna volja i odgovornost su objektivne kategorije, čak bih rekao i fizikalne i ne ovise o našim percepcijama i intepretacijama.

"If there is a dividing line between liberty and license, it is where freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit the ignorance, and to incite the passions, of the people. Then freedom is such a hullabaloo of sophistry, propaganda, special pleading, lobbying, and salesmanship that it is difficult to remember why freedom of speech is worth the pain and trouble of defending it. . . . It is sophistry to pretend that in a free country a man has some sort of inalienable or constitutional right to deceive his fellow man. There is no more right to deceive than there is a right to swindle, to cheat, or to pick pockets."
(Walter Lippmannm, Essays in the Public Philosophy, 1955)

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji.

Ne ovisi. Slobodna volja i odgovornost su objektivne kategorije, čak bih rekao i fizikalne i ne ovise o našim percepcijama i intepretacijama.

naravski, ali da bi se utvrdila slobodna volja mi ne moremo nišće drugo nego pitati subjekta kako se osićo. ako to ne prihvatimo, unda moromo prihvatiti da nišće ne znomo i da tomu ne moremo govoriti.

od sto sociopata sociopata čuti nije.

aben wrote:ajmo nekoliko primjera. 
čovik ki je pijun pregazi čovika, moro prihvatiti odgovornost iako je bi potpuno nesvjesan čina, samo zoto ča je pošo piti. ne more cesta, auto, društvo koje podržava lokanje, prijatelj ki mu je ulivo vino, ni genetska sklonost lokanju biti odgovorna. to okolo samo znoči da je ot čovik imo velika iskušenja pred sobon. to mu sud more priznati prilikon izricanja kazne, ali ne more reći da je manje odgovoran jer ni manje pregazi nekoga. 
čovik kome pritu da će ubiti njegovu ženu ako un ne ubije nekoga drugoga (i un poslušo) se zatvorska kazna more umanjiti je je bi prisiljen, ali ne i odgovornost.
narkomana komu je djetinjstvo bilo teško, i ki se ni imo snoge odupriti čarima narkoeskapizma jer je i genetski podložan, samo tribo pitati je li sun nazvo dilera. 
ako su ga uvatili i izdrogirali, unda ni odgovoran, sve dokle se prvi put ne probudi van zatočeništva. pod uvjeton da mu je funkcija neoštećena, jel.

uzeo si nekoliko rekla bih školskih primjera odgovornosti..
hajd'mo jedan kompliciraniji..
svaki dan u susjedstvu muž tuče ženu.. susjed ne poziva policiju..
na kraju muž zatuče ženu..
tko je odgovoran? susjed koji nije reagirao ili muž koji ju je zatukao ili su podijelili odgovornost..

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji.

Ne ovisi. Slobodna volja i odgovornost su objektivne kategorije, čak bih rekao i fizikalne i ne ovise o našim percepcijama i intepretacijama.

naravski, ali da bi se utvrdila slobodna volja mi ne moremo nišće drugo nego pitati subjekta kako se osićo. ako to ne prihvatimo, unda moromo prihvatiti da nišće ne znomo i da  tomu ne moremo govoriti.

subjekta možeš pitati samo kako se osjeća, a svaki će ti zločinac izjaviti da nije kriv.. prema tome i slobodna volja i odgovornost su objektivne kategorije

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji.

Ne ovisi. Slobodna volja i odgovornost su objektivne kategorije, čak bih rekao i fizikalne i ne ovise o našim percepcijama i intepretacijama.

naravski, ali da bi se utvrdila slobodna volja mi ne moremo nišće drugo nego pitati subjekta kako se osićo. ako to ne prihvatimo, unda moromo prihvatiti da nišće ne znomo i da  tomu ne moremo govoriti.

Zapravo ne. Sam osjećaj je tu jednostavno irelevantan jer je pretjerano subjektivan. Dovoljno je utvrditi postojanje određenog broja stupnjeva slobode. Čak ne moramo ni znati koji je to broj.

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

odgovornost o koj govorin ovisi o našen osjećaju, o našoj karakterizaciji slobodne volje a ne o slobodnoj volji.

Ne ovisi. Slobodna volja i odgovornost su objektivne kategorije, čak bih rekao i fizikalne i ne ovise o našim percepcijama i intepretacijama.

naravski, ali da bi se utvrdila slobodna volja mi ne moremo nišće drugo nego pitati subjekta kako se osićo. ako to ne prihvatimo, unda moromo prihvatiti da nišće ne znomo i da  tomu ne moremo govoriti.

Zapravo ne. Sam osjećaj je tu jednostavno irelevantan jer je pretjerano subjektivan. Dovoljno je utvrditi postojanje određenog broja stupnjeva slobode. Čak ne moramo ni znati koji je to broj.

ali ne moremo znati ni je li veći ili je manji. ni je li se more stupnjevati.

How to "Win" Arguments and Infuriate Opponents (with examples!)

Note: This has absolutely nothing to do with programming or development but I just really wanted to write it.

I consider myself a well accomplished devil's advocate. I enjoy arguing. I routinely take positions that I don't even agree with just because the person who I've decided to argue with is right, but for the wrong reasons. My willingness to engage in argument (especially when I'm choosing the battles) has given me an awesome repertoire of go-to moves that I've learned from others. I present to you the 10 concepts you must grasp to be an absolutely infuriating argument opponent, with examples from the absolute masters.

1. Sophistry

I am using a very narrow (and perhaps the original) definition of sophistry. Sophistry is act of using an argument not to prove your position's truth, but to persuade the crowd that it is true, regardless of its soundness. So the first key step is that you must always imagine (even if it's not true) that there is a crowd of people who will listen to this argument and vote after the fact to determine the winner. It's even better if you can actually gather that crowd (that internet thing is great for this). Sympathetic crowds are very powerful. If you take nothing else from this, take this: appearing to be right is more important than actually being right. From that little maxim, all else follows.

Use everything below for this singular purpose.

2. Shifting the Burden of Proof

Normally, the burden of proving a claim rests with the asserter. Ignore that rule. Start asserting things. When the other person challenges, ask him to prove you wrong. A word of caution: sophisticated debaters won't fall for this one. If he can't or won't disprove you, claim victory.  Bonus tip: if you get called out for not proving assertions, flip it on him, and tell him he's not proven -his- assertions. Even if he has. Demand more proof (and keep raising the bar)!

The classic and obvious example is: "You can't disprove God."
Or this guy (warning: conspiracy theorist)

3. Proof by Overwhelming Gibberish

Now we flip it on our opponent and instead of proving our points we overwhelm him with evidence. Our goal now is exhaustion. This requires a bit of preparation and research, though, but it's substantially more effective. An excellent way to execute this fallacy is after compiling a large list of apparent problems in your opponent's theories. Present them all at once to anyone who wants to argue with you. Demand the other person explain to you, right now, all 413 things you've listed that are wrong with his theory. Here's the important part: even if someone is able to give a satisfactory answer to one item on your list, don't remove it. The list only grows one way. You may need that item for the next guy.

How can anyone hope to argue with 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'? It can't be done! Case closed!
Here's 50 disproofs of the theory of evolution

4. Affirming the Consequent & Circular Reasoning

These are two different fallacies that end up looking very similar in practice. Circular reasoning involves presupposing in some fashion that which you want to prove. Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy:

A implies B
B is true
Therefore, A is true
Virtually all conspiracy theories hinge upon circular reasoning and they are notoriously impossible to dislodge from people's mind. Affirming the consequent is sort of like convicting someone because of circumstantial evidence. If A was guilty, then it's highly likely he'd have no alibi, and so since he has no alibi, he must be guilty. This is devilishly subtle when you pull it off correctly. If you can master its use, you'll be quite convincing.

God put those dino-bones there to test our faith!
Side-by-side video of building 7 on 9/11, compared to another controlled demolition. If it looks just like it, it must be just like it!

5. Appeal to Intuition / Argument from Personal Incredulity

Their position is obviously wrong when you phrase it the right way and appeal to people's gut instincts.

"But you know, if anybody wants to believe they're the descendants of a primate, they're welcome to do it." --Mike Huckabee
Did we evolve from rocks?

6. Appeal to Authority

Appealing to expert analysis is sound logic but can be cumbersome. That would mean you'd need to understand it. It's much less work, though, to just assert that Dr. X believes something is true, and therefore it must be. This can be especially effective if he's not even an expert! By far the best example of an appeal to authority is: petitions or mass signatures. You don't need to go through all the trouble of presenting an argument. Just collect names and credentials and then BAM! Who can argue with that?

9000 people with PhDs have signed my petition: global warming isn't true.

7. False Premise

Creating a logically sound argument based on a false presumption. In other words: make up evidence! Getting the facts correct is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for finding truth. There are other subtler ways of introducing false premises than just making up evidence. Presenting someone as an expert when they aren't is one way. One of the most commonly used and most subtly false premise fallacies is to paraphrase a quote incorrectly.

The reason this is so incredibly effective is because it puts the onus on your opponent to disprove something that it's incredibly unlikely for him to have ever heard before. That's just golden. Bonus Tip: When he asks you to back up your claim with some documentation, tell him that you can't believe he's never heard of this before and that it's clear he needs to do much more research to intelligently discuss this with you any further. Yes, sure, eventually, he'll realize you were lying, but not before you've won the day.

Homeopathically prepared water has a different molecular structure than normal water.

8. Equivocation

The equivocation fallacy is really about preying on the poor precision in language. Essentially, an equivocation fallacy means that you have shifted the definition of a word in the middle of an argument. This is incredibly powerful in politics and other games where labeling things is effective. The way it works is you use and re-use a particular label with strong connotations and defend the label by using a 'weaker' definition of the word. Think how this might work with the word "liar", for example. This is also an excellent fallacy for "hijacking" discussions that aren't going so well. If you are losing, resorting to this fallacy can be used to change the subject of discussion to word definitions and other uninteresting nonsense. Consider that as a route of last resort.

A more subtle way to use the fallacy is to convert mathematical or numerical ideas into qualitative and/or subjective ones. Turn numbers into labels. And then massage the "English" version.

"The towers fell at virtually at free-fall speed! Newton's laws tell us that means the building put up nearly no resistance!" source -- warning: conspiracy theories

9. Strawman

A strawman is a phantom argument. It is, in essence, arguing with a position your opponent does not hold. This is most effective if the strawman position is subtly different from his actual position, but substantially easier to argue against. The strawman is the queen-mother of politics because the two people are so rarely in the same place to correct their position. Caricatures of political positions can last for years (pro-life is anti-woman. anti-war is anti-soldier)! It's much easier to win an argument if you've invented the opponent.

A more subtle form of the argument is to attribute to your opponent things that his allies have said. This often comes up in politics and other similar discussions with obvious "camps". If someone represents a "camp" in an argument, find the most glaringly awful things said by members of that camp, and attack those points.

Bonus tip: If you ever feel like you are using, accuse your opponent of using a strawman. Tell him he's being intellectually dishonest. It's pretty much a get out of jail free card.

Like, "Opponents of homeopathy often refer to the simplicity of the water molecule as a key argument why homeopathy cannot work."
Or... "But students are already being indoctrinated in evolution at younger and younger ages, which is indoctrination in the foundations of atheism."

10. Correlation implies Causation

The essential idea here is that because two events happen together, or two variables track together, that one must be the cause of the other. This powerful cheating mechanism essentially allows you to take credit (or assign blame) in incredibly powerful ways.

For example, "While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, [Stalin] began to read the works of Charles Darwin.... Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas thus powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society. "

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:ajmo nekoliko primjera. 
čovik ki je pijun pregazi čovika, moro prihvatiti odgovornost iako je bi potpuno nesvjesan čina, samo zoto ča je pošo piti. ne more cesta, auto, društvo koje podržava lokanje, prijatelj ki mu je ulivo vino, ni genetska sklonost lokanju biti odgovorna. to okolo samo znoči da je ot čovik imo velika iskušenja pred sobon. to mu sud more priznati prilikon izricanja kazne, ali ne more reći da je manje odgovoran jer ni manje pregazi nekoga. 
čovik kome pritu da će ubiti njegovu ženu ako un ne ubije nekoga drugoga (i un poslušo) se zatvorska kazna more umanjiti je je bi prisiljen, ali ne i odgovornost.
narkomana komu je djetinjstvo bilo teško, i ki se ni imo snoge odupriti čarima narkoeskapizma jer je i genetski podložan, samo tribo pitati je li sun nazvo dilera. 
ako su ga uvatili i izdrogirali, unda ni odgovoran, sve dokle se prvi put ne probudi van zatočeništva. pod uvjeton da mu je funkcija neoštećena, jel.

uzeo si nekoliko rekla bih školskih primjera odgovornosti..
hajd'mo jedan kompliciraniji..
svaki dan u susjedstvu muž tuče ženu.. susjed ne poziva policiju..
na kraju muž zatuče ženu..
tko je odgovoran? susjed koji nije reagirao ili muž koji ju je zatukao ili su podijelili odgovornost..

za tučenje je odgovoran muž, a za ne zvonje policije susid.