The response to that argument is pretty much: "Yes, so?" The irony is that if one truly believes that position, then it is also pointless to try and persuade p

The response to that argument is pretty much: "Yes, so?" The irony is that if one truly believes that position, then it is also pointless to try and persuade people to also believe it. Because if free will does not exist, then whether or not people are going to hold criminals culpable is also pre-determined. I'm either someone who does or someone who doesn't. Now, if you truly believe that position, then you also can't fault her for writing that piece. Because she was going to do that regardless. She didn't have the choice to not. And it could convince people. Because they were going to be convinced by that argument the minute they came across it. It's turtles all the way down. If free will doesn't exist, nothing actually changes. Because we can't choose to defy our inclinations. So that piece is either written by someone stupid or someone who thinks other people are stupid. Someone moderately intelligent can reason to the turtles and realize that you can't really change people if that were the case. Enough people in the right places just can't be convinced and your work is in vain. So this has to be someone who either doesn't see the full implications of their position. Or doesn't expect anyone else to see it. The first is ignorance. The second is hubris.