:)

Please note the :rolleyes: in my previous post

Free will is there to control and moderate what nature dictates us. I was talking about the effects of nature, not nurture. For small kids free will doesn't make much sense anyway.

Cool! So now you've created an exception to free will! That makes no sense at all.

Common sense crew member: for this one you only need to look this phrase up in a dictionary. That's if you believe that a six months old has the mental ability to distinguish between good and evil.

Are doing this on purpose?!

Oh, so now you limit it from "small children" to "six months old."

You change the parameters and some how I'm wrong? :rolleyes:

No, you are always right, my bad. Small children like the two year olds, or the three year olds know good from evil. Next time some of my hair is left in their small hands I'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget.

Again, you change parameters in your theory. :p

Weren't you unhappy when I limited "small children" to "six month olds"?

How about an eight year old who shoots his classmate with the daddy's gun? Does he really know what he is doing? Why don't they let these kids carry guns anyway, they all can take responsibility for what they do. :rolleyes:

In case you didn't notice, I changed the parameters in my theory again. Now if by small children you mean 18 year olds... :p

So now its 1-8 years old. Why not 9 or 10? Sure, raise it to 18, then 21 and then 40. Pretty soon you'll realize you can't make generalities like that and state them as truth. I also notice you're using white Americans for your examples (at least it seems that way to me). Because in many other cultures throughout time (wait, your theory doesn't include dead people) males by age 8 have/had many "adult" responsibilities.

What about a squire? Or a drummer boy? Did they not face battle at a young age along with full grown adults? Didn't women get married at an early age? Didn't boys become kings of great power?

By limiting yourself to modern white America, your theory is flawed.

I don't have to raise the age for my examples any longer because what I said and believe is that "free will" doesn't make much sense for small children. They act according to their nature and they don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, so they can't be held responsible for what they do according to "free will".

You've stopped making sense, dragging the discussion to things that is not even remotely related to the topic as if an eight year old white American boy acts any different than other children of his age if they have their hands on a real gun.

Free will exists.

I only responded to comments you made (example: 8 year olds and guns was something you brought up that I expounded on)

What a shocker. Duh! :p Still it doesn't make sense for small children or animals or those who cannot distinguish between good and evil.
That's what it makes no sense. So what if they abused underaged girls into marriage and pregnancy and as Jon Stewart puts it kids who came out of the right vagina were appointed to be kings for lack of a more mature royal blood? Do these make small kids anymore responsible for their actions? :p

OK, I think this has gone far enough because we're both expanding this debate way too far

Next time someone take their ball and go home, don't assume they ran and hide or couldn't continue a pointless argument. They might just want to save their own time. *Yawn*

Because, after all, being on a message board is really productive and not a time wasting effort? :rolleyes:

No, some arguments are constructive and informant. It also gives you an opportunity to discuss matters with people around there world and get to know some situations first hand. It can help you make friends with people you might never have the chance if not for a message board. And sometimes, it just gives you pleasure to see people you've hung out with on this virtual bar, have made new accomplishments and share it with us.

There are a lot of reasons I'm addicted to spend some of my time here. Statistics of my experiences shows arguing with you is not one of them. :p

Well, its not surprising. Your butt is probably sore from all the kicking. :p

Not really. You answered my argument with a smily of "Blah blah blah".

So that's why you'll be getting "blah blah blah" from now on as your answer, only I save my time by not posting it. :p

I said from this post on so I can say it here I guess:

Blah blah blah...

THANK YOU!

Sincerely,
Double-J

I only wanted to stop this because you keep changing and wiggling around; making clear debate impossible.

Pointless? This debate became pointless as you dragged more and more outside examples in to "prove" your argument.

I simply can discuss anything with you without you flying off on weird tangents. And when you fly off, I have to respond to each example to debunk the whole thing. And you respond to that by flying off even more to keep yourself from being wrong each time I point out a hole in your theory.

Knock it off.

svsg- Thanks for the info on the study. I'm going to see if I can find that book you mentioned. I'd be interested to find out more.

Mad Johnny- you gave me alot to think about. I didn't agree with alot you had to say, but I also think we were discussing different things. I wasn't trying to establish what was normal/abnormal, just what naturally occurs without human intervention.

Tis- I really liked your point about one of two siblings being more aggressive. I guess that's true in every situation, not just in a family setting. I could see that then going into a leadership vs. follower debate too. I'm so glad your daughters are so close. Family is so important. I get along great with my siblings and I really hope the twins are close. Nothing would make me happier.

Asf- Hey hon, I haven't chatted with you in a long time. As usual I agree with the majority of what you've said although you lost me on the mathmatical part. I haven't thought that way since college and it was sending me into painful flashbacks.

DJ- Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing. Job well done.

So glad that I've earned your approval. :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Double-J

Afsaneh - As usual, I agreed with you, in general.

Mad Johnny - I sometimes agree with you, I respect your common sense ability, but you totally didn't convince me on this.

DJ - I almost never agree with you, but I appreciate your willingness to spend lots of time and effort on these debates and I respect the fact that you always argumentate your POV. In this however, you only tried to find a pointless argument with Afsaneh, that you knew would end up with lots of 'blah blah :rolleyes: '. Not really on level...

Hey Kris! I'm really sorry about giving you painful mathematical flashbacks and about my other pointless arguments. I should've just ignored some remarks. Anyway, it is always great to see you around Mr. Blonde! Please give kisses to your lovely children for me.


Thanks Enzo!

Krlea, I forgot to mention about another book called Genome by Matt Ridley. I found it far more interesting than "The selfish gene", though the latter covers far more complex topics.