Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.
Nope, looks right to me. Yes, it is more complicated, and there are variations, but I would argue that that falls under compatabilism. You have brought up both determinism and free will, and supposed that your reasoning from determinism supports free will. Unless I misunderstand you? Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.
No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?
A would natural thing is subject to some extent to determinism - if even on a statistical level. I am going to use "non-natural" rather than supernatural, as the second term is a bit loaded. Suppose, however that an "non-natural" thing does not inhabit the same rules or even perhaps logic as the natural thing. The reason to bring up the non-natural is that it can perhaps have some independence from it's circumstance(natural or unnatural). If we are to suppose that only the natural exists, then we could extrapolate that all that occurs is a result of what came before. In other words, the will is not "free" to do other than what it must by either statistical probability or perhaps linear causation. The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.
The assumption is, that the natural and non-natural are not alike, otherwise we may as well, as you argue, just use "natural". The other assumption is, of course, that there can be no independence from circumstance in the natural (without being random). That seems a reasonable assumption based on observation, but it still is one.
No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
As I see it, there are two broad categories, and, yes you can be an incompatibilist and reject or accept free will. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here. Yes, this is a generalization, and yes, I am well aware that there are sub-categories here, but I have never read of any further categories? Do you have a reference I could look at?
Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.
It is possible to be polite about these things, yes, this is slashdot, and I must be new around here. It is also possible to actually do some pointing. I don't claim to be infallible here either, but while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.