Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How come you are so ignorant?.

How come you do not know what morality is???
You pretend that you have found naturally objective "facts" to build up from, but you do not understand the basic history and purposes of morality. It is not, nor has it ever been determined by human behaviour. It is not genetic, but cultural.

Morality is far from genetically determined.
It's always been culturally generated; rules to assist groups cope with internal conflicts. Early and so-called "primitive" societies develped a wide and disparate range of strategies demonstating that morality was more contingent of the environmental uniqeness and ideosyncratic beliefs an ideologies that were historical and cultural.
By the time "civilisation" came along moralies shifted more to coping with unnaturally large grouping of people, and were generally engineered to overcome "gentically determined" natual tendancies. By in the main morality was devised for the elites to control the masses, and give preferential consideration to the rich and powerful. Such is still the case.
In this way morality restricts the all too human tendancy to violence to the top scum, who may dispense violence at will, whilst punishing the plebs for trying the same thing.
If you want genetically determined human morality look at Chimp society, or better still Benobo.

And you cannot base human morality on Benobos

As usual you are ignorant of reality on this issue.

Here is an analogy.
Do you understand what is intelligence and science?

• ORIGIN OF SCIENCE
  1300–50; Middle English <Middle French <Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia-ia
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t
  
  Fact is ALL humans are programmed with the neural mechanisms and drive "to know" i.e. to gain knowledge for evolutionary progress.
  Note how the concept of 'to know' have progressed since >100,000 ago within humanity to the present state of science and other advanced knowledge.
  In the early years, the drive to know what sort of haphazard but not it is more organized, more efficient and more useful.
  Thus current state of to_know would be classified as to_know-proper.
  
  The same pattern and principles above can be applied to human intelligence.

It is the same with morality, i.e. it is an inherent drive and function to do good and avoid evil.
But the moral function is humans, albeit "programmed" from the beginning is a slow starter but now it is unfolding and is being more active.
This is why the 'moral' manifestation is haphazard and there are loads of evil and violence going on in the past but there is a trend of reduction in evil.
As with the progress with 'to know' to science-proper, there is a necessity to recognize the haphazard activities of morality to progress to what is morality-proper.

When you are not inclined toward morality-proper what you are advocating is the status quo where you are condoning yourself, your relatives and the rest of humans be subjected to terrible evil and violent acts.

There are loads of research in observing animals and primates to understand human behavior. Btw, there is some degree of correlationship, i.e. the higher primates has 98% similarities of human genes.

From whatever inference we make of the above, the critical point is,
whatever is inferred as fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK. I bet you are ignorant of such a critical need.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are no intention to kill but if the babies died [in a way killed] from those acts frequently, then there will be some degree moral issue.
The question wasn't that difficult. Let's try again.

Two men walk into a church where a baptism is about to happen. The first one whips out his penis in front of the whole congregation and pisses in the font, then he has the priest baptise the baby in the piss water. The second man waits politely until the baby has been baptised, then whips out his penis and pisses in the font.

Give us the true and actual number of units of evil that the first man has committed. Now tell us how many fewer evils the second man committed. Explain how this calculation was made.

The above acts are not related to morality-proper.
If any and with an agreed FSK on such rating, it would be 1/100 of evilness relative to a typical genocide at 95/100.

So the actual difference between ans evil act and a non-evil act is that you haven't decided to give the non-evil act a random badness number yet.

And the number itself is nonsense, a subjective opinion between 1 and 100 after a subjective choice has been made to issue a number, which folows no particular rule.

I know the difference between an evil act and a non-evil act. Note I have a large taxonomy of what are evil acts with their related degrees of evil_ness.
Obviously killing of humans is an evil act the the the 'act' [restraining, etc.] of not-killing is non-evil, i.e. good.

It is because you are pestering me on that act of pissing you insisted must be related to 'morality' that I Iobbed it into the pool of 1/100 which is insignificant morally.
To me that case of pissing is not a moral issue but rather more toward a sort of psychiatric or psychological issue taking into account the rarity of such acts.

Those numbers involve subjectivity but as I had argued they are objective when subject to an intersubjective process within a credible FSK as with scientific facts.

As typical, you are ignorant of the following possibility to rate evil_ness;

• Columbia University professor Michael Stone knows evil. He's a forensic psychologist -- the type of expert that provides testimony on the mental state of accused murderers when a declaration of insanity can mean the difference between life and death row.
  Inspired by the structure of Dante's circles of hell, Stone has created his own 22-point "Gradations of Evil" scale, made up of murderers in the 20th century.
  https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =129175964

The above can be further and continually polished and improved to be fool-proof and be useful.

The question of whether it is right to kill people to prevent overpopulation? You always do the same answer for that sort of thing, it's "It'S A GUidE NOt A COmmANd!" every time. Why would you need a new answer when you can just use that to tell you that nobody has the authority to send anyone to their death?

That is not my point.
It is not a question of whether it is moral to kill people to prevent overpopulation.

My point is,
it is moral to maintain the moral standard that 'no human ought to kill humans' because this maxim will promote overpopulation which then could kill masses humans?
This would be a serious dilemma because of the maxim 'no human ought to kill humans' which 'could' end up with overpopulation but that maxim do not allow any humans to kill humans to kill to prevent overpopulation.

In contrast without the maxim, the two World Wars and other wars had actually restrained population increase after the war.

It's not a serious dilemma at all, unless your problem is that you actually want to say yes to all that killing.

It is a serious dilemma to my thesis and argument because what I proposed is self-defeating. So I have to have an answer to counter that self-defeating problem.

The point here you think you know what my problem is but you don't and was mistaken. There is still a lot of points you don't understand [not necessary agree with] with my thesis and as I'd stated I don't want to waste time discussing them. It is MY perogative to discuss whatever I wish to.

Not that that matters, the closest thing to a difficult bit is choosing among all the easy answers to the incredibly simple test that you are setting for yourself.
In case you haven't noticed, every time you investigate the truths that you can discover via DNA, you somehow end up with something that exactly matches the opinion you already had. If you had more imagination you would have realised this was a problem already.

So you should have no difficulty asking DNA what's right and wrong and getting told that there is no legitimate means to decide who to march to their death.
Or you can inspect the genome and find out that everyone largely agrees with Kant's CI and so (via the magic of cherry picking those bits of human nature that suit your ends) it is evil to use millions of other people as means to an end.

All of the normal answers are available to you, because you will find anything you want with your method, it has never told you that you were previously wrong about anything, has it?

Do you think anyone can prove God exists by examining the human DNA?

Obviously I don't believe that, but I don't believe you can prove anything is good or bad by reading DNA either, that is your problem.

There are people who do think DNA proves their religion right. But honestly that's predictable, you're basically one of them. Your appeal to DNA as the arbiter of right and wrong for unquestionable but non-explainable reasons is a brand of fundamentalism right now.

You are off point here.
The question of DNA is to prove whether the claim of human behavior is innate or not.
It is obvious whatever of fundamental human nature physical and mental, e.g. the human body, the drive to breathe, eat and fuck must be embedded in the DNA and RNA.

Then whatever is claimed [God, religion or otherwise] must be verified and justified empirically within a credible FSK.

NO! note I have stated many times, morality proper is not about arbitrating what is right or wrong.
If the moral function is confirmed as innate then it would be effective for all humans to flow in alignment with what is nature.

Note my principle;
what is fact is verified and justified empirically and philosophically specific to a credible framework and system of reality[FSR] and knowledge [FSK].

Why are you so anti-DNA or the genome?
If the DNA or whatever is verified and justified soundly, then it is a fact conditioned to the specific FSK.

So I was obviously right. You have never once used all this science-like method to find anything that contradicted an opinion you already held have you?

I have already clued to you what is a self-evident confirmation for personal conviction and from there it is to be processed with a credible FSK.

[FlashDangerpants]

To me that case of pissing is not a moral issue but rather more toward a sort of psychiatric or psychological issue taking into account the rarity of such acts.

Entirely subjective. As is all the rest of this thing you are doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To me that case of pissing is not a moral issue but rather more toward a sort of psychiatric or psychological issue taking into account the rarity of such acts.

Entirely subjective. As is all the rest of this thing you are doing.

Nah, you are ignorant on this, note the various ways it can be viewed objectively within various FSK, i.e. social, psychological, criminal, etc.

Deviant behavior is any behavior that is contrary to the dominant norms of society. There are many different theories on what causes a person to perform deviant behavior, including biological explanations, sociological explanations, as well as psychological explanations.

While sociological explanations for deviant behavior focus on how social structures, forces, and relationships foster deviance, and biological explanations focus on physical and biological differences and how these might connect to deviance, psychological explanations take a different approach.

Psychological approaches to deviance all have some key things in common.

First

, the individual is the primary unit of analysis. This means that psychologists believe that individual human beings are solely responsible for their criminal or deviant acts.

Second, an individual’s personality is the major motivational element that drives behavior within individuals.

Third, criminals and deviants are seen as suffering from personality deficiencies, which means that crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual.

Finally, these defective or abnormal mental processes could be caused by a variety of things, including a diseased mind, inappropriate learning, improper conditioning, and the absence of appropriate role models or the strong presence and influence of inappropriate role models.
https://www.thoughtco.com/psychological ... or-3026268#:

Pissing into a baptismal bowl is not a critical moral issue of evil_ness of a high or significant degree within morality proper.

[FlashDangerpants]

The reason why you have never learned you were wrong about anything by investigating this FSK thing is that the only actual input it has is your opinions.

• It is your personal choice to pretend there is a "morality-proper" that doesn't have good and bad or right and wrong.

• It's your personal choice to "measure" evilness by applying numbers that correspond to nothing but your opinion to describe how much badness out of 100 genocide scores.

• It's your random belief that DNA provides any basis for any of this stuff.

• It's your opinion that pissing on babies isn't bad enough to merit one of these scores that you completely make up off the top of your head.

• And you are the only person who is impressed by all these folders you sort everything into

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reason why you have never learned you were wrong about anything by investigating this FSK thing is that the only actual input it has is your opinions.

• It is your personal choice to pretend there is a "morality-proper" that doesn't have good and bad or right and wrong.

• It's your personal choice to "measure" evilness by applying numbers that correspond to nothing but your opinion to describe how much badness out of 100 genocide scores.

• It's your random belief that DNA provides any basis for any of this stuff.

• It's your opinion that pissing on babies isn't bad enough to merit one of these scores that you completely make up off the top of your head.

• And you are the only person who is impressed by all these folders you sort everything into

It is definitely NOT something I had plucked out of thin air.

Have you not notice I have supported whatever I claimed with some sort of evidences, references, verifications, justifications and arguments?

One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques.
One of the most necessary, effective technique initial approach in problem solving is to identify common patterns [using fishbone analysis and other tools] then assign the best assessed values to them so that those of higher priority are given attention within limited resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints, linear programming, etc.

The above is what I had applied to the criteria and rating of the degrees of evil_ness within the moral FSK.

Thereafter another effective tool to be used is the 80/20 Pareto Analysis so that where a focus on 20% of the problematic root causes can generate 80% of the positive results and not the other way round.

Note, other than the problem solving techniques perspectives there are loads of other perspectives I have taken into account but not discussed here.

[FlashDangerpants]

The reason why you have never learned you were wrong about anything by investigating this FSK thing is that the only actual input it has is your opinions.

• It is your personal choice to pretend there is a "morality-proper" that doesn't have good and bad or right and wrong.

• It's your personal choice to "measure" evilness by applying numbers that correspond to nothing but your opinion to describe how much badness out of 100 genocide scores.

• It's your random belief that DNA provides any basis for any of this stuff.

• It's your opinion that pissing on babies isn't bad enough to merit one of these scores that you completely make up off the top of your head.

• And you are the only person who is impressed by all these folders you sort everything into

It is definitely NOT something I had plucked out of thin air.

Have you not notice I have supported whatever I claimed with some sort of evidences, references, verifications, justifications and arguments?

One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques.
One of the most necessary, effective technique initial approach in problem solving is to identify common patterns [using fishbone analysis and other tools] then assign the best assessed values to them so that those of higher priority are given attention within limited resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints, linear programming, etc.

The above is what I had applied to the criteria and rating of the degrees of evil_ness within the moral FSK.

Thereafter another effective tool to be used is the 80/20 Pareto Analysis so that where a focus on 20% of the problematic root causes can generate 80% of the positive results and not the other way round.

Note, other than the problem solving techniques perspectives there are loads of other perspectives I have taken into account but not discussed here.

You didn't assign a badness number to the baby pissing thing because you didn't want to. On another day you might have given it 18, the day after maybe 7. It makes no difference because the numbers mean nothing, they measure nothing. They are just something you do to make-believe that what you are up to feels more like science to you. There is no right number for any of this nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reason why you have never learned you were wrong about anything by investigating this FSK thing is that the only actual input it has is your opinions.

• It is your personal choice to pretend there is a "morality-proper" that doesn't have good and bad or right and wrong.

• It's your personal choice to "measure" evilness by applying numbers that correspond to nothing but your opinion to describe how much badness out of 100 genocide scores.

• It's your random belief that DNA provides any basis for any of this stuff.

• It's your opinion that pissing on babies isn't bad enough to merit one of these scores that you completely make up off the top of your head.

• And you are the only person who is impressed by all these folders you sort everything into

It is definitely NOT something I had plucked out of thin air.

Have you not notice I have supported whatever I claimed with some sort of evidences, references, verifications, justifications and arguments?

One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques.
One of the most necessary, effective technique initial approach in problem solving is to identify common patterns [using fishbone analysis and other tools] then assign the best assessed values to them so that those of higher priority are given attention within limited resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints, linear programming, etc.

The above is what I had applied to the criteria and rating of the degrees of evil_ness within the moral FSK.

Thereafter another effective tool to be used is the 80/20 Pareto Analysis so that where a focus on 20% of the problematic root causes can generate 80% of the positive results and not the other way round.

Note, other than the problem solving techniques perspectives there are loads of other perspectives I have taken into account but not discussed here.

You didn't assign a badness number to the baby pissing thing because you didn't want to. On another day you might have given it 18, the day after maybe 7. It makes no difference because the numbers mean nothing, they measure nothing. They are just something you do to make-believe that what you are up to feels more like science to you. There is no right number for any of this nonsense.

You don't seem to be seriously oriented towards problem solving, i.e. for the whole of humanity's future.

Note how earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, and other serious problems [medical, various threats, etc.] are rated in degrees to the best of humanity's ability so that resources are allocated efficiently and they are continually improved for efficiencies.

Regardless of how it is discussed now [18, 7 or whatever], the default is, there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements.

That I rated your sort of pissing as 1/100 or 0/100 to say prevalent corruption at 25-50/100 or genocide at 99/100 mean I will be able to be efficient in allocating limited resources to resolve the more critical problems more efficiently with inherent feedback for continuous improvements.
The above make a lot of difference to humanity!

Imagine if there is a potential or on-going genocide or many serial killers, riots in a location and the government and authorities focus is in hunting for the culprit who has pissed in a baptismal bowl??

[FlashDangerpants]

It is definitely NOT something I had plucked out of thin air.

Have you not notice I have supported whatever I claimed with some sort of evidences, references, verifications, justifications and arguments?

One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques.
One of the most necessary, effective technique initial approach in problem solving is to identify common patterns [using fishbone analysis and other tools] then assign the best assessed values to them so that those of higher priority are given attention within limited resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints, linear programming, etc.

The above is what I had applied to the criteria and rating of the degrees of evil_ness within the moral FSK.

Thereafter another effective tool to be used is the 80/20 Pareto Analysis so that where a focus on 20% of the problematic root causes can generate 80% of the positive results and not the other way round.

Note, other than the problem solving techniques perspectives there are loads of other perspectives I have taken into account but not discussed here.

You didn't assign a badness number to the baby pissing thing because you didn't want to. On another day you might have given it 18, the day after maybe 7. It makes no difference because the numbers mean nothing, they measure nothing. They are just something you do to make-believe that what you are up to feels more like science to you. There is no right number for any of this nonsense.

You don't seem to be seriously oriented towards problem solving, i.e. for the whole of humanity's future.

Note how earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, and other serious problems [medical, various threats, etc.] are rated in degrees to the best of humanity's ability so that resources are allocated efficiently and they are continually improved for efficiencies.

Regardless of how it is discussed now [18, 7 or whatever], the default is, there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements.

That I rated your sort of pissing as 1/100 to say prevalent corruption at 25-50/100 or genocide at 99/100 mean I will be able to be efficient in allocating limited resources to resolve the more critical problems more efficiently with inherent feedback for continuous improvements.
The above make a lot of difference to humanity!

Imagine if there is a potential or on-going genocide or many serial killers, riots in a location and the government and authorities focus is in hunting for the culprit who has pissed in a baptismal bowl??

So you now admit that the number you assign is meaningless and merely reflects to your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

[Sculptor]

How come you are so ignorant?.

How come you do not know what morality is???
You pretend that you have found naturally objective "facts" to build up from, but you do not understand the basic history and purposes of morality. It is not, nor has it ever been determined by human behaviour. It is not genetic, but cultural.

Morality is far from genetically determined.
It's always been culturally generated; rules to assist groups cope with internal conflicts. Early and so-called "primitive" societies develped a wide and disparate range of strategies demonstating that morality was more contingent of the environmental uniqeness and ideosyncratic beliefs an ideologies that were historical and cultural.
By the time "civilisation" came along moralies shifted more to coping with unnaturally large grouping of people, and were generally engineered to overcome "gentically determined" natual tendancies. By in the main morality was devised for the elites to control the masses, and give preferential consideration to the rich and powerful. Such is still the case.
In this way morality restricts the all too human tendancy to violence to the top scum, who may dispense violence at will, whilst punishing the plebs for trying the same thing.
If you want genetically determined human morality look at Chimp society, or better still Benobo.

And you cannot base human morality on Benobos

As usual you are ignorant of reality on this issue.

Here is an analogy.
Do you understand what is intelligence and science?

It's pointless talking to you when you respond like that.
I was teaching science when you were in short trousers.

[Skepdick]

It's pointless talking to you when you respond like that.
I was teaching science when you were in short trousers.

How could you possibly teach science if you haven't done any science?!?!?

That's like teaching others how to ride bicycles, when you can't ride one yourself

[Veritas Aequitas]

You didn't assign a badness number to the baby pissing thing because you didn't want to. On another day you might have given it 18, the day after maybe 7. It makes no difference because the numbers mean nothing, they measure nothing. They are just something you do to make-believe that what you are up to feels more like science to you. There is no right number for any of this nonsense.

You don't seem to be seriously oriented towards problem solving, i.e. for the whole of humanity's future.

Note how earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, and other serious problems [medical, various threats, etc.] are rated in degrees to the best of humanity's ability so that resources are allocated efficiently and they are continually improved for efficiencies.

Regardless of how it is discussed now [18, 7 or whatever], the default is, there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements.

That I rated your sort of pissing as 1/100 to say prevalent corruption at 25-50/100 or genocide at 99/100 mean I will be able to be efficient in allocating limited resources to resolve the more critical problems more efficiently with inherent feedback for continuous improvements.
The above make a lot of difference to humanity!

Imagine if there is a potential or on-going genocide or many serial killers, riots in a location and the government and authorities focus is in hunting for the culprit who has pissed in a baptismal bowl??

So you now admit that the number you assign is meaningless and merely reflects to your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Nope, I do not admit to the above.
You deliberately ignore the general principles of the above.
Just as the relative numbers of earthquakes, storms, and many others ratings, the numbers I proposed are not meaningless.

The exercise of giving a rating [out of 1 to 10 or out of 100] to some event to assess its reality is very common.
When the rating is given by only one person that would be very subjective, but when the ratings are average out [ignoring the extremes] from a large majority it has objectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity.

I believe the majority of people will readily recognize the difference in degree of evilness for genocide at 95/100 as compared to 1/100 for pissing into a baptismal bowl. Even if they come up with their own ratings different from the above, the contrasting relative difference will still be very obvious.

If you have done research or a thesis paper you would be familiar with measurement scales, e.g.

7 Types of Data Measurement Scales in Research
https://www.formpl.us/blog/measurement-scale-type#:

where the qualitative [subjective(s)] are converted to the quantitative [objective].

The above outcomes of objectivity [with awareness of its limitations] can be very meaningful and can facilitate progressive actions for humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How come you do not know what morality is???
You pretend that you have found naturally objective "facts" to build up from, but you do not understand the basic history and purposes of morality. It is not, nor has it ever been determined by human behaviour. It is not genetic, but cultural.

Morality is far from genetically determined.
It's always been culturally generated; rules to assist groups cope with internal conflicts. Early and so-called "primitive" societies develped a wide and disparate range of strategies demonstating that morality was more contingent of the environmental uniqeness and ideosyncratic beliefs an ideologies that were historical and cultural.
By the time "civilisation" came along moralies shifted more to coping with unnaturally large grouping of people, and were generally engineered to overcome "gentically determined" natual tendancies. By in the main morality was devised for the elites to control the masses, and give preferential consideration to the rich and powerful. Such is still the case.
In this way morality restricts the all too human tendancy to violence to the top scum, who may dispense violence at will, whilst punishing the plebs for trying the same thing.
If you want genetically determined human morality look at Chimp society, or better still Benobo.

And you cannot base human morality on Benobos

As usual you are ignorant of reality on this issue.

Here is an analogy.
Do you understand what is intelligence and science?

It's pointless talking to you when you respond like that.
I was teaching science when you were in short trousers.

You keep insulting your intelligence as usual by making noises because you are ignorant.

All you have to do to counter me is to prove human intelligence do not have an 'innate' [nature] component and it is all due to 'nurture'. Thus similarly the same with the moral drive in humans and has no correlation with the higher primates.

Note this argument.

• One of the element of morality is empathy which is even recognized by Hume [he called in sympathy] in the 1700s.
  
  One of the contributing feature of empathy are mirror neurons in the brain.
  [with awareness of its limitations]
  
  Mirror neurons are also found in the higher primates but much more in the human brain.
  
  These mirror neurons are manifested from their respective DNA codes.
  
  Whatever is of DNA is 'innate'.
  
  Therefore the fundamental of morality [moral function and drive] is innate.

[FlashDangerpants]

You don't seem to be seriously oriented towards problem solving, i.e. for the whole of humanity's future.

Note how earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, and other serious problems [medical, various threats, etc.] are rated in degrees to the best of humanity's ability so that resources are allocated efficiently and they are continually improved for efficiencies.

Regardless of how it is discussed now [18, 7 or whatever], the default is, there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements.

That I rated your sort of pissing as 1/100 to say prevalent corruption at 25-50/100 or genocide at 99/100 mean I will be able to be efficient in allocating limited resources to resolve the more critical problems more efficiently with inherent feedback for continuous improvements.
The above make a lot of difference to humanity!

Imagine if there is a potential or on-going genocide or many serial killers, riots in a location and the government and authorities focus is in hunting for the culprit who has pissed in a baptismal bowl??

So you now admit that the number you assign is meaningless and merely reflects to your SUBJECTIVE opinion.

Nope, I do not admit to the above.
You deliberately ignore the general principles of the above.
Just as the relative numbers of earthquakes, storms, and many others ratings, the numbers I proposed are not meaningless.

The exercise of giving a rating [out of 1 to 10 or out of 100] to some event to assess its reality is very common.
When the rating is given by only one person that would be very subjective, but when the ratings are average out [ignoring the extremes] from a large majority it has objectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity.

I believe the majority of people will readily recognize the difference in degree of evilness for genocide at 95/100 as compared to 1/100 for pissing into a baptismal bowl. Even if they come up with their own ratings different from the above, the contrasting relative difference will still be very obvious.

If you have done research or a thesis paper you would be familiar with measurement scales, e.g.

7 Types of Data Measurement Scales in Research
https://www.formpl.us/blog/measurement-scale-type#:

where the qualitative [subjective(s)] are converted to the quantitative [objective].

The above outcomes of objectivity [with awareness of its limitations] can be very meaningful and can facilitate progressive actions for humanity.

The numbers given to storms are based on windspeed measurements. The numbers given to earthquakes represent a measurement of actual physical wobbliness.

Your numbers aren't even a measure of your opinion about a thing, instead of the thing. They're more artificial even than that.

You are trying to obscure the essential subjectivity of everything you are doing by dressing it up to look a bit like some more objective thing.

[Sculptor]

As usual you are ignorant of reality on this issue.

Here is an analogy.
Do you understand what is intelligence and science?

It's pointless talking to you when you respond like that.
I was teaching science when you were in short trousers.

You keep insulting your intelligence as usual by making noises because you are ignorant.

Please refer to the comments I made above