That is of NO importance, and I am NOT sorry.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:33 pmSorry, but mostly off-topic. What do you think of the graph?Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:28 pmIf that is your responsibility, then you are not taking ANY responsibility at all here. This is because you are NOT making sure that your arguments are 'well DISCUSSED' at all.
This is because you BELIEVE that your arguments are irrefutably true, and so, to you, there is REALLY NOTHING AT ALL to be discussed here.
I will suggest to you that if you are saying some 'thing', which "others" NEED to be 'convinced' of, then this could be a sure sign that it is you who is, in fact, who is in denial.
See, if what you are saying does NOT fit in VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY with what is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things, which a lot does NOT, but you BELIEVE wholeheartedly what you say is absolutely and irrefutably true, which you do, then either you are just PLAIN WRONG or it is you who is IN DENIAL.
So, what this PROVES is that you are NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY thing, which objects to or opposes what you ALREADY BELIEVE is the truth.
Without further clarification this makes NO sense at all, well to me anyway.
By your responses.
In relation to some of my comments, no.
With your arguments sometimes I agree with one or both premises but not with the conclusion, sometimes I agree with the conclusion but not with the premises, as well as I might agree with a part of a premise and/or a conclusion. Each and every argument is uniquely different so there is not that I either agree nor disagree wholeheartedly with the whole argument.
Also, I agree sometimes with what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' argue for. This is because I KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you are 'trying to', but I TOTALLY disagree with the way you are 'trying to' argue for that 'thing'.
And I could now ask you AGAIN, what were you asking me was my objection in regards to exactly? But I will NOT be so benign. So I will just answer your clarifying question here.
My fact was, and still IS, "Functional" to 'you' is NOT necessarily functional, with thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
LOL This is a SURE SIGN that you are NOT reading and comprehending what I have been ACTUALLY WRITING and SAYING.
Besides the FACT that human beings range from the age of being one minute old to being over one hundred years old so they could NOT even be equal in relation to 'moral' issues, what does being " equal when it comes "to morality" " even mean?
Also, what does the word 'morality' even mean to you?
Denying what is NOT true is NOT necessarily a bad NOR wrong thing, in and of itself.
Also, denying what is NOT true does NOT mean that I do NOT understand your arguments. For what can be, and will be, CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that 'I' KNOW 'your' arguments BETTER than 'you' do. Which also means, 'I' understand 'your' OWN arguments BETTER than 'you' do.
As is PROVEN in what 'I' and 'you' have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN
ONCE AGAIN, 'you' make the CLAIM that "we ARE minds". So, if this was TRUE, then HOW could 'you' "HAVE A mind"?
Also, when, and IF, 'you' ever find out and thus discover and KNOW what thee ACTUAL 'Mind' IS EXACTLY, then 'you' will also learn that the term "reading minds" is misplaced term and as such is just a plain old misnomer.
Also, I can work out and thus KNOW when 'you' are lying or NOT.
This is because 'I' KNOW who and what 'I' AM and who and what 'you' ARE, ALREADY. Whereas 'you' still have quite a way to go yet.
Now, if you would REALLY like to DISCUSS what you have already written and CLAIMED is true, in ANY of your threads, then I can SHOW you EXACTLY and PRECISELY what is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things and what is NOT. So, would you like to do this? Or, would you prefer to just REMAIN with and in your BELIEF that what you have said and claimed so far is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT?
Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
That is very important. It shows that crime reduced in terms of years.Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:07 amThat is of NO importance, and I am NOT sorry.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:33 pmSorry, but mostly off-topic. What do you think of the graph?Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:28 pm
If that is your responsibility, then you are not taking ANY responsibility at all here. This is because you are NOT making sure that your arguments are 'well DISCUSSED' at all.
This is because you BELIEVE that your arguments are irrefutably true, and so, to you, there is REALLY NOTHING AT ALL to be discussed here.
I will suggest to you that if you are saying some 'thing', which "others" NEED to be 'convinced' of, then this could be a sure sign that it is you who is, in fact, who is in denial.
See, if what you are saying does NOT fit in VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY with what is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things, which a lot does NOT, but you BELIEVE wholeheartedly what you say is absolutely and irrefutably true, which you do, then either you are just PLAIN WRONG or it is you who is IN DENIAL.
So, what this PROVES is that you are NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY thing, which objects to or opposes what you ALREADY BELIEVE is the truth.
Without further clarification this makes NO sense at all, well to me anyway.
By your responses.
In relation to some of my comments, no.
With your arguments sometimes I agree with one or both premises but not with the conclusion, sometimes I agree with the conclusion but not with the premises, as well as I might agree with a part of a premise and/or a conclusion. Each and every argument is uniquely different so there is not that I either agree nor disagree wholeheartedly with the whole argument.
Also, I agree sometimes with what 'it' is that you are 'trying to' argue for. This is because I KNOW what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you are 'trying to', but I TOTALLY disagree with the way you are 'trying to' argue for that 'thing'.
And I could now ask you AGAIN, what were you asking me was my objection in regards to exactly? But I will NOT be so benign. So I will just answer your clarifying question here.
My fact was, and still IS, "Functional" to 'you' is NOT necessarily functional, with thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
LOL This is a SURE SIGN that you are NOT reading and comprehending what I have been ACTUALLY WRITING and SAYING.
Besides the FACT that human beings range from the age of being one minute old to being over one hundred years old so they could NOT even be equal in relation to 'moral' issues, what does being " equal when it comes "to morality" " even mean?
Also, what does the word 'morality' even mean to you?
Denying what is NOT true is NOT necessarily a bad NOR wrong thing, in and of itself.
Also, denying what is NOT true does NOT mean that I do NOT understand your arguments. For what can be, and will be, CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that 'I' KNOW 'your' arguments BETTER than 'you' do. Which also means, 'I' understand 'your' OWN arguments BETTER than 'you' do.
As is PROVEN in what 'I' and 'you' have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN
ONCE AGAIN, 'you' make the CLAIM that "we ARE minds". So, if this was TRUE, then HOW could 'you' "HAVE A mind"?
Also, when, and IF, 'you' ever find out and thus discover and KNOW what thee ACTUAL 'Mind' IS EXACTLY, then 'you' will also learn that the term "reading minds" is misplaced term and as such is just a plain old misnomer.
Also, I can work out and thus KNOW when 'you' are lying or NOT.
This is because 'I' KNOW who and what 'I' AM and who and what 'you' ARE, ALREADY. Whereas 'you' still have quite a way to go yet.
Now, if you would REALLY like to DISCUSS what you have already written and CLAIMED is true, in ANY of your threads, then I can SHOW you EXACTLY and PRECISELY what is ACTUALLY thee Truth of things and what is NOT. So, would you like to do this? Or, would you prefer to just REMAIN with and in your BELIEF that what you have said and claimed so far is absolutely and irrefutably TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT?
Re: Equity and crime
Do you even know what I have written and said?
If yes, then what have I written and said?
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Re: Equity and crime
Nope; not to say that we are anywhere to close to a fair society but even it is was fair, you will find those who find it easier and acceptable to steal from others than do what is necessary to earn for themselves.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:05 amWell, if a society is fair then it provides opportunities for men and women to pick up a proper job each which means that they have given equal rights. The choices are different though. Does this make sense?KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:58 amUh, no; EXACTLY the opposite.
This is because we are unique. There was a recent study showing that woman and men, without any bias, tend to choose different jobs. Hence, equality actually supports inequity. There is no reason to presume that inequity is due to inequality.
It may simply be due to free decisions.
Re: Equity and crime
Are you saying that stealing is fair?KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:38 amNope; not to say that we are anywhere to close to a fair society but even it is was fair, you will find those who find it easier and acceptable to steal from others than do what is necessary to earn for themselves.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:05 amWell, if a society is fair then it provides opportunities for men and women to pick up a proper job each which means that they have given equal rights. The choices are different though. Does this make sense?KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:58 am
Uh, no; EXACTLY the opposite.
This is because we are unique. There was a recent study showing that woman and men, without any bias, tend to choose different jobs. Hence, equality actually supports inequity. There is no reason to presume that inequity is due to inequality.
It may simply be due to free decisions.