> wrong again. it's my argument against your interpretation of free will > you don't think consequences play a role in "free will" and part of my argument is that consequences negate free will to begin with. > you also think having th ability to make a choice = free will and i don't because you don't arrive at these choices freely free will, in essence, is the ability to choose. of what relevance to free will is the existence of consequences? > you said these before and failed to articulate it then too lol > said these before and failed to articulate > said... failed to articulate
United States