> It presumes people do not have choices.

No, there are choices. It states that given the exact same starting parameters and sequence of events, you would make the same choice.

You're denying free will.

If everyone would make the same choice, then free will doesn't exist. It's only one step away from what you said.

And sure what you said is irrefutable in the sense that it's impossible to collect evidence about it. That's generally a bad sign for theories.

The role of cause and effect is unshakeable.

> If everyone would make the same choice, then free will doesn't exist. It's only one step away from what you said.

I didn't say anything about free will. "One step away" is where you went, not me.

If you believe free will and determinism are logically incompatible, that's your own theory to prove.

I'm simply saying that everyone would make the same choice given the exact same circumstances and starting conditions.

To believe anything otherwise is magical thinking, and basically implies a moral superiority to someone else.

Let my try another angle.

If someone else in the "exact same circumstances and starting conditions" implies they're identical down to every single molecule, how is that someone else?

If they're not identical at that level, they wouldn't make the same decisions. Put two almost-perfect clones into two exact copies of the world and a week later they'll be on diverging paths.

So if the argument is not to judge anyone as a person because everyone would act the same if they had the exact same life circumstances and environment, and everything that affects their decisions fits into life circumstances and environment, what else is left that it would be unfair to judge?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says otherwise.

> implies a moral superiority to someone else

Some moral systems are superior to other moral systems.