Still seems much simpler and effective to argue that than get into free will.
Unless somebody says we are not responsible because we have no free will, because that is proven by neurology.
I disagree, again it’s just adding confusion, we are and we aren’t responsible depending upon what you mean, we aren’t ultimately responsible which is what the scientists mean and they are right, of course.
Does anybody really think we don’t need rules with penalties? And if so the best thing to do is argue, for consequential reasons, that would be a bad idea. Start by asking if they don’t want speed limits enforced on the roads.
Did you see this b.t.w.