Tom, it is obvious that you are flailing, since your last post resorted to a straw man, and now the post quoted above is resorting to all sorts of contortions, as evidenced below.
(1) Establishment of need is not an issue that I raised. It is largely irrelevant to my point (red herring fallacy).
(2) You state, "You seem to be laboring under some assumption." I have already stated my assumptions (law of identity + your statement = conclusion of no longer able to do otherwise). Your assertion here is arbitrary; you need to point out an actual, real assumption (specific), rather than arbitrarily asserting that there is one (general).
(3) "Otherwise than what?" Did you forget that the "ability to do otherwise" is an essential characteristic of libertarian freedom? You don't seem to be following this discussion very well.
(4) Regarding the comment, "Are you assuming there existed but one possible choice ?" What I am assuming is what has been stated. Please try to deal with what I have stated, rather than just making stuff up. Thanks.
I see nothing that deals with my point. Which is that given your own deterministic assumption--"The chooser is the cause of the choice"--in addition to the law identity applied to the chooser, then it follows that the choice could not be otherwise if caused by only one chooser with only the characteristics possessed at the moment of choice.
Since the discussion has obviously degenerated badly, I'm moving on. It was interesting, but I'm not going to keep dealing with hordes of straw men and arbitrary assertions. God bless.
