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

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Your point is too thin and shallow.

The numbers I have given are correlated with the numbers killed based on past events & empirical observations, experiences and potentially be killed/tortured/harmed in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Yo! you were teaching science when Newtonian Science was THE Science, i.e. yours is archaic.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Your point is too thin and shallow.

The numbers I have given are correlated with the numbers killed based on past events & empirical observations, experiences and potentially be killed/tortured/harmed in the future.

Oh good, that should sort this cofusion out very quickly. Just show us the formula that gave you the factual numbers that you weren't making up via your personal opinion then.

Your whole thing only measures deaths then? No deaths no bad? Stealing is ok for morality-proper, and so is rape huh?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Your point is too thin and shallow.

The numbers I have given are correlated with the numbers killed based on past events & empirical observations, experiences and potentially be killed/tortured/harmed in the future.

Oh good, that should sort this cofusion out very quickly. Just show us the formula that gave you the factual numbers that you weren't making up via your personal opinion then.

Your whole thing only measures deaths then? No deaths no bad? Stealing is ok for morality-proper, and so is rape huh?

Did you read the part I mentioned, i.e.

"killed/tortured/harmed "
the bolded terms which do not necessary involved death.
It is only for simplicity that I mentioned the above.

There are various other criteria related to what is within the continuum of evil, e.g. sufferings, pains, human rights, basic human dignity, well-being and other necessary factors in combination within the definition of what is 'evil_ness'.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your point is too thin and shallow.

The numbers I have given are correlated with the numbers killed based on past events & empirical observations, experiences and potentially be killed/tortured/harmed in the future.

Oh good, that should sort this cofusion out very quickly. Just show us the formula that gave you the factual numbers that you weren't making up via your personal opinion then.

Your whole thing only measures deaths then? No deaths no bad? Stealing is ok for morality-proper, and so is rape huh?

Did you read the part I mentioned, i.e.

"killed/tortured/harmed "
the bolded terms which do not necessary involved death.
It is only for simplicity that I mentioned the above.

There are various other criteria related to what is within the continuum of evil, e.g. sufferings, pains, human rights, basic human dignity, well-being and other necessary factors in combination within the definition of what is 'evil_ness'.

Cool. So you can give us your numerical formula for harm, in which case the harm caused by pissing in the baptismal font can be measured.

Or else you are using made up numbers.


You are making the numbers up after all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh good, that should sort this cofusion out very quickly. Just show us the formula that gave you the factual numbers that you weren't making up via your personal opinion then.

Your whole thing only measures deaths then? No deaths no bad? Stealing is ok for morality-proper, and so is rape huh?

Did you read the part I mentioned, i.e.

"killed/tortured/harmed "
the bolded terms which do not necessary involved death.
It is only for simplicity that I mentioned the above.

There are various other criteria related to what is within the continuum of evil, e.g. sufferings, pains, human rights, basic human dignity, well-being and other necessary factors in combination within the definition of what is 'evil_ness'.

Cool. So you can give us your numerical formula for harm, in which case the harm caused by pissing in the baptismal font can be measured.

Or else you are using made up numbers.

You are making the numbers up after all.

In the first place, I did not agree 'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is a moral element re evil_ness.
I define morality as,
-morality promotes good and avoiding evil,
-what is good is not-evil.
'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is not an evil act within the above definition of morality.

I stated because you insisted, I will just rate it [made up but make sense] at 1/100 [I should have rated in 0.001/100], i.e. it is so insignificant that no normal person will bother with it re the case of morality as defined.
It is only an issue of perversion within a social, criminal, psychological, psychiatric, and the likes problem.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you read the part I mentioned, i.e.

"killed/tortured/harmed "
the bolded terms which do not necessary involved death.
It is only for simplicity that I mentioned the above.

There are various other criteria related to what is within the continuum of evil, e.g. sufferings, pains, human rights, basic human dignity, well-being and other necessary factors in combination within the definition of what is 'evil_ness'.

Cool. So you can give us your numerical formula for harm, in which case the harm caused by pissing in the baptismal font can be measured.

Or else you are using made up numbers.

You are making the numbers up after all.

In the first place, I did not agree 'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is a moral element re evil_ness.
I define morality as,
-morality promotes good and avoiding evil,
-what is good is not-evil.
'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is not an evil act within the above definition of morality.

I stated because you insisted, I will just rate it at 1/100 [I should have rated in 0.001/100], i.e. it is so insignificant that no normal person will bother with it re the case of morality as defined.
It is only an issue of perversion within a social, criminal, psychological, psychiatric, and the likes problem.

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cool. So you can give us your numerical formula for harm, in which case the harm caused by pissing in the baptismal font can be measured.

Or else you are using made up numbers.

You are making the numbers up after all.

In the first place, I did not agree 'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is a moral element re evil_ness.
I define morality as,
-morality promotes good and avoiding evil,
-what is good is not-evil.
'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is not an evil act within the above definition of morality.

I stated because you insisted, I will just rate it at 1/100 [I should have rated in 0.001/100], i.e. it is so insignificant that no normal person will bother with it re the case of morality as defined.
It is only an issue of perversion within a social, criminal, psychological, psychiatric, and the likes problem.

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

The number I assigned is not a verified and justified fact per se like a scientific fact.

How many out of the current 7.9 billion people had been caught pissing into a baptismal bowl?
It is my very strong personal belief with personal objectivity based on my extensive research and readings, the number of such perverts are very very low, perhaps at most hundred or so.

If you compare the number of such perverts [100, 1000 or even 10,000] to 7.9 billion people, or number of people who had committed various evil acts or potential numbers, the % would be very insignificant perhaps at 0.001%, thus my 1/100 would have provided loads of room for error if necessary.

The above is the approach to estimate the %s as with other types of evil.

But note, I do not regard 'pissing in a baptismal bowl' as an act of evil.

[Terrapin Station]

Cool. So you can give us your numerical formula for harm, in which case the harm caused by pissing in the baptismal font can be measured.

Or else you are using made up numbers.

You are making the numbers up after all.

In the first place, I did not agree 'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is a moral element re evil_ness.
I define morality as,
-morality promotes good and avoiding evil,
-what is good is not-evil.
'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is not an evil act within the above definition of morality.

I stated because you insisted, I will just rate it at 1/100 [I should have rated in 0.001/100], i.e. it is so insignificant that no normal person will bother with it re the case of morality as defined.
It is only an issue of perversion within a social, criminal, psychological, psychiatric, and the likes problem.

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

Gee, I'm surprised he's not really answering your question.

Not.

[Sculptor]

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

Please refer to the comments I made above

Yo! you were teaching science when Newtonian Science was THE Science, i.e. yours is archaic.

Gosh are you trying to make a joke!! I nearly laughed, not.

[Sculptor]

Cool. So you can give us your numerical formula for harm, in which case the harm caused by pissing in the baptismal font can be measured.

Or else you are using made up numbers.

You are making the numbers up after all.

In the first place, I did not agree 'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is a moral element re evil_ness.
I define morality as,
-morality promotes good and avoiding evil,
-what is good is not-evil.
'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is not an evil act within the above definition of morality.

I stated because you insisted, I will just rate it at 1/100 [I should have rated in 0.001/100], i.e. it is so insignificant that no normal person will bother with it re the case of morality as defined.
It is only an issue of perversion within a social, criminal, psychological, psychiatric, and the likes problem.

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

Nice one.
Slam dunk I think.

[FlashDangerpants]

In the first place, I did not agree 'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is a moral element re evil_ness.
I define morality as,
-morality promotes good and avoiding evil,
-what is good is not-evil.
'pissing into the baptismal bowl' is not an evil act within the above definition of morality.

I stated because you insisted, I will just rate it at 1/100 [I should have rated in 0.001/100], i.e. it is so insignificant that no normal person will bother with it re the case of morality as defined.
It is only an issue of perversion within a social, criminal, psychological, psychiatric, and the likes problem.

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

The number I assigned is not a verified and justified fact per se like a scientific fact.

How many out of the current 7.9 billion people had been caught pissing into a baptismal bowl?
It is my very strong personal belief with personal objectivity based on my extensive research and readings, the number of such perverts are very very low, perhaps at most hundred or so.

If you compare the number of such perverts [100, 1000 or even 10,000] to 7.9 billion people, or number of people who had committed various evil acts or potential numbers, the % would be very insignificant perhaps at 0.001%, thus my 1/100 would have provided loads of room for error if necessary.

The above is the approach to estimate the %s as with other types of evil.

But note, I do not regard 'pissing in a baptismal bowl' as an act of evil.

Lol, "personal objectivity"
Shall we call that objectivity-proper?

[Skepdick]

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

What number do you actually get when you measure the boiling point of water?

"100 degrees!", said Anders Celsius without showing us the working for his maths.
"373 degrees!", said William Thomson without showing us the working for his maths.
"212 degrees!", said Daniel Fahrenheit without showing us the working for his maths.

And the cargo-cult army of retards rejoiced!

Nice one.
Slam dunk I think.

Idiot Philosophers do not seem to understand what measurement actually is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's a number you assign via opinion, what number do you get via actual measurement? Show us the working for your maths.

The number I assigned is not a verified and justified fact per se like a scientific fact.

How many out of the current 7.9 billion people had been caught pissing into a baptismal bowl?
It is my very strong personal belief with personal objectivity based on my extensive research and readings, the number of such perverts are very very low, perhaps at most hundred or so.

If you compare the number of such perverts [100, 1000 or even 10,000] to 7.9 billion people, or number of people who had committed various evil acts or potential numbers, the % would be very insignificant perhaps at 0.001%, thus my 1/100 would have provided loads of room for error if necessary.

The above is the approach to estimate the %s as with other types of evil.

But note, I do not regard 'pissing in a baptismal bowl' as an act of evil.

Lol, "personal objectivity"
Shall we call that objectivity-proper?

Note Skepdick's response, i.e. 'idiot' is most appropriate in this case.

[FlashDangerpants]

The number I assigned is not a verified and justified fact per se like a scientific fact.

How many out of the current 7.9 billion people had been caught pissing into a baptismal bowl?
It is my very strong personal belief with personal objectivity based on my extensive research and readings, the number of such perverts are very very low, perhaps at most hundred or so.

If you compare the number of such perverts [100, 1000 or even 10,000] to 7.9 billion people, or number of people who had committed various evil acts or potential numbers, the % would be very insignificant perhaps at 0.001%, thus my 1/100 would have provided loads of room for error if necessary.

The above is the approach to estimate the %s as with other types of evil.

But note, I do not regard 'pissing in a baptismal bowl' as an act of evil.

Lol, "personal objectivity"
Shall we call that objectivity-proper?

Note Skepdick's response, i.e. 'idiot' is most appropriate in this case.

Hiding behind Skepdick again? Do you really want to do that?

Do you think that the relationship between the temperature of a substance and the reading on a thermometer is subjective just because the numbers that are on the outside of the thermometer could have been other numbers?

Explain something equivalent to how temperature moves the mercury in a thermometer to justify how you pick a number of badnesses for kicking a horse in the balls. Give us the mechanism that causes the number to be true mister Personal Objecivity.