>>5177>This is about finding and using a method that can demonstrate and prove objectively what is more violent.I can only demonstrate, even evolution isn't proven formally with how many vast resources employed and you expect me to prove this? Fuck off. It's just demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt at this point. Be realistic.
So let me demonstrate this whole thing for the last time:
First we have to define what we mean by violence. Strictly as behaviors that inflict harm (including death) upon others. So real world events that literally meet this description.
Then simply count the times this is met and see which is greater than, equal to, or less than the other.
Now lets say you had a problem with my definition, you can have your own definition of violence and still count the times something happens that meets your description. If you don't catch it it is your error, not the methodology's.
But how do you think poverty is measured, dingus?
It's defined as severe economic disadvantage. It's arguably even more subjective the way it's defined because what's severe? It's not merely disadvantage because the second richest person is disadvantaged to the richest or maybe relatively speaking. Also based on money that has a value which is entirely based on subjective demand. At least with violence measures it's based on a direct physical action. Every time the physical action happens you count it. It's like counting the times the there is a voltage between the nodes.
Now poverty could be defined as getting less than your nutritional needs but that doesn't get the whole picture. Because people also need clothes but is that 1 set or 2 because you need to at least have clothes while you wash? Shelter but designs vary so much and material costs, material access, I guess it could be access to cheapest available.
Lets talk about how money gets its value which all these measures are based on pretty much, I doubt anyone really does the minimum calorie and micronutrients counts, those are at best just estimates based on economic analysis.
Why Do you know Canada is less impoverished than Uganda? Despite all these caveats to measuring poverty?
And we haven't even really discussed these measures. Like where people sit in relative position in income distribution. Doesn't seem like a bad measure, it would meet the definition since being in the 1st quartile is more economically disadvantaged than being in the 3rd. But so is relative position in violent crime offending distribution for violence. If someone killed 7 people they were more violent than someone who killed 3. And someone making 80k is less impoverished to someone making 30k. 80k eventhough money is subjectively valued, 80k is still more than 30k. Just like 8 people dead is more than 3 people dead.
It's simple inequalities.
And saying "go kill them" 10 times is more than saying that 3. Unless you want to be a total Christard right now and say when the book says "go kill" it really means go pet a bunny.
>A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or Friday the 13th (1980)?Which is more impoverished Uganda or Botswana? We know they're impoverished but how?
You've been trying to say all 3 of the desert cults are as equally as violent in their texts, they're all equally retarded but that's another matter. This is your mistake that I think the Christard was trying to get you to understand. Abrahamic is the authors. Slasher flick is a descriptor, it describes a movie involving killing and horrific violence based on the content. Just by using these two films this you're admitting you know when violence happens [and you don't thin it's petting bunnies like in Frozen (haven't seen it) or whatever]. This is your error.
You can't be reasonable and say comparing Spielberg movies is the same to comparing Romantic comedies. These are different types of categories. Even if it was the same author could for one book write it as a gore fest, the second book as a romantic comedy and the third as a horror even in the same series. While romantic comedies will all have the intention of being funny and romantic in some way. But in this case Spielberg was different people in different places at different times merely one set that built on the previous while the third rewrote the books entirely. And just as you can rewrite Frozen into a slasher flick you can rewrite past books and make them even more violent.
>>5178samefag
>A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. Someone actually wrote shit in the book or captured things on film, it's not a skywizard. I know you want it to be some magical man but there is absolutely no evidence for it.
>In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective