JuelzSantana wrote:more people = more CHANCES of crime = undoubtable unquestionable and not fail. and thats just a fact man give it up i really dont care if u believe it or not but thats what it is if u dont like it oh well. if you cant agree with me on that then YOUR logic and reasoning is fail
Ignorance and stupidity at it's best. I don't agree with you because your asking me to accept such a generalize view of society on faith and faith alone, not because of research, studies, and/or any kind of documented work nothing. And I am surprise that you'd manage to figure out what kind of logic and reasoning I have and already deemed it fail wow even when I don't remember mentioning anything of the such in any of my posts. Are you my conscience?
JuelzSantana wrote:more people = more CHANCES of crime = undoubtable unquestionable and not fail. and thats just a fact man give it up i really dont care if u believe it or not but thats what it is if u dont like it oh well. if you cant agree with me on that then YOUR logic and reasoning is fail
Ignorance and stupidity at it's best. I don't agree with you because your asking me to accept such a generalize view of society on faith and faith alone, not because of research, studies, and/or any kind of documented work nothing. And I am surprise that you'd manage to figure out what kind of logic and reasoning I have and already deemed it fail wow even when I don't remember mentioning anything of the such in any of my posts. Are you my conscience?
lol i dont care anymore, ur the philosopher right? get off your high horse.. ignorance and stupidity? since when did this turn into society and faith? what exactly do i have faith in? if u cant accept a general statement then you're living in a bubble where you have to be right all the time lol. and you dont look intelligent when you put down the facts and opinions of others. you look like a person who thinks they know best but in reality doesnt know shit. so w/e im done with you aristotle go preach your shit to people that are as pompous as yourself.
What I don't get is why they brought them in the first place. They're definitly not going to use them. So, were they using this as a front, to make themselves look more powerful?
Would of been the end of that group in a few seconds if one of the guns went off by accident.
What Mr. Doe is trying to say is: life cannot be summed up as 1+1=2. One cannot simply say "more people = crime." The world is not black & white; life does not work like that. A diverse population of different ethnic groups leads to racially & culturally fueled tensions which lead to crime, but if you look at the numbers (just going to have to take my word on this or Google it) people that commit crimes usually (not always) cause harm to those of the same ethnic background so the theory of "diversity + high population = tension = crime" is thrown out. There are to many variables involved to simply say 1+1 = 2 = 3-1. If you were given a physics assignment and you wrote down 42 mg (assuming this is the answer here) without any work shown your professor would be right to give you an F, or question where 42 came from.
tl:dr, where did "x amount of people = x amount of crime" come from?
Barotix wrote:What Mr. Doe is trying to say is: life cannot be summed up as 1+1=2. One cannot simply say "more people = crime." The world is not black & white; life does not work like that. A diverse population of different ethnic groups leads to racially & culturally fueled tensions which lead to crime, but if you look at the numbers (just going to have to take my word on this or Google it) people that commit crimes usually (not always) cause harm to those of the same ethnic background so the theory of "diversity + high population = tension = crime" is thrown out. There are to many variables involved to simply say 1+1 = 2 = 3-1. If you were given a physics assignment and you wrote down 42 mg (assuming this is the answer here) without any work shown your professor would be right to give you an F, or question where 42 came from.
tl:dr, where did "x amount of people = x amount of crime" come from?
yea i understand where hes comin from lol but he also has to understand where im coming from. im merely explaining a fact based on the principle of probability.. and hes trying to call that ignorant well excuse me but its not lol its just a fact lol. this isnt physics class or w/e im not being graded on it. its srf.. and were supposed to be having a casual conversation not a conversation on who can look like a bigger asshole. hes down talkin to me while im simply trying to show him that you cant rule my logic out just because you feel that there are too many variables lol. if he was more classy about it and didnt insult me like he was gods gift to creation maybe we could have had a gentleman's conversation. but i dont care enough to argue with pompous people about something really not that important.
xD SRF is srs bizness. I was just explaining his PoV in a less aggressive manner. I'm not as critical on generalizations (unless they're complete BS) since I use them all the time.
Barotix wrote:xD SRF is srs bizness. I was just explaining his PoV in a less aggressive manner. I'm not as critical on generalizations (unless they're complete BS) since I use them all the time.
Barotix wrote:What Mr. Doe is trying to say is: life cannot be summed up as 1+1=2. One cannot simply say "more people = crime." The world is not black & white; life does not work like that. A diverse population of different ethnic groups leads to racially & culturally fueled tensions which lead to crime, but if you look at the numbers (just going to have to take my word on this or Google it) people that commit crimes usually (not always) cause harm to those of the same ethnic background so the theory of "diversity + high population = tension = crime" is thrown out. There are to many variables involved to simply say 1+1 = 2 = 3-1. If you were given a physics assignment and you wrote down 42 mg (assuming this is the answer here) without any work shown your professor would be right to give you an F, or question where 42 came from.
tl:dr, where did "x amount of people = x amount of crime" come from?
yea i understand where hes comin from lol but he also has to understand where im coming from. im merely explaining a fact based on the principle of probability.. I knew that, useing probability/chance as the basis of logic was the only reason your still afloat cause if chance wan't in their I woulda shot your logic down, that being said using probability just makes your logic seem more like a calculation. and hes trying to call that ignorant well excuse me but its not lol its just a fact lol. What your stating isn't logic its an assumption, Your assuming that if more people are add = there would be more chance for crime, I would also be able to assume the oppisite of such, by stating more people = less chance of crime and you know that is also true. this isnt physics class or w/e im not being graded on it. its srf.. and were supposed to be having a casual conversation not a conversation on who can look like a bigger asshole. hes down talkin to me while im simply trying to show him that you cant rule my logic out just because you feel that there are too many variables lol. Any rational person woulda ruled out your logic by now. if he was more classy about it and didnt insult me like he was gods gift to creation maybe we could have had a gentleman's conversation. Honestly I was civil until you insulted me first. but i dont care enough to argue with pompous people about something really not that important.
Point being is your logic there can go both ways, therefor reducing it to simple assumptions and calculations about trivial things, at best it would only be called reasoning it is no where near being logic. If you have read any of the Sherlock Holmes novels and you would understand why I doubt it.
So are you saying that there are no such things as logical assumptions, that would be called reasoning? I always thought of logic as a process of thoughts that included things like reasoning and facts and valid points.
signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
XemnasXD wrote:So are you saying that there are no such things as logical assumptions, that would be called reasoning? I always thought of logic as a process of thoughts that included things like reasoning and facts and valid points.
No, I just see assumptions/probability in a more mathamatical view.
if it was an assumption how can it be mathematical. The closet you can come to an assumption in mathematics is a theory. Assumptions are intuitive. Probability is mathematical. A person with a mathematical thought process would see assumptions as invalid because it is impossible to look at assumptions from a mathematical perspective...
those are of course my views on something like that...
signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
