How on earth can you make a decision without thinking about the conditions that are relevant to the decision? Please explain that to me. And I mean I really want an explanation.
Do you know how many times I've quoted definitions of free will that tell you that making a decision does not indicate free will. I'll not comment on anything that repeats that fallacy. Are we clear?
Do you mean
the definition you pulled from a philosophical worldview?
I already responded to that.
Free will is not defined based on a philosophical view, or doctrine.
Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of the determining factors... whether past, present, or future.
Again I have to ask how many times I've explained the difference between you wanting to do something and you preferring to do it. I've really lost count. So you are either not reading what I'm writing or ignoring it. Either way, you're wasting my time and I'm not repeating myself again.
You did not explain anything.
You merely made assertions which you cannot support, and it's obvious you still can't by this response.
I am not asking you to repeat your assertion, which I responded to. I'm pointing out to you how your assertion is misplaced - a fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
It does not matter the amount of times you repeat yourself, you can never change the fact that thousands who prefer to be with their family, rather than out there facing death, and killing, and seeing dead bodies, and exploding limbs.
They do not choose what they prefer, and so, it is a fact people
do not always do what they prefer, contrary to your assertion.
If I am wasting your time by clearly showing that your OP and argument is flawed, that would only be due to your wanting to run your thread forever, without admitting that it's a red herring.
One hundred and fifty pages, is enough time to wrap it up, don't you think... especially in light of the fact that it's been repeatedly shown up for what it is.