It would be even more difficult to predict recidivism.
I am claiming that there is less variables involved with gene expression than with predicting how a person behaves.
Experience in law enforcement means nothing if we are talking about predictions. While crimes are similar, criminals are unique. Prediction of recidivism may seem obvious in some cases, but it would take at least a preponderance of proof to indict someone for a future crime.
For gene expression, we can perform unethical experiments to determine cause and effect as opposed to correlation.
For preventative measures like gene modification, I think that is ethically similar to behavior modification in a criminal. Ethics will definitely get blurred as we come up with new techniques.
Since we are rational beings, we can choose to not procreate. We are no longer bound by evolutionary pressure.
The claim that "the purpose of life is to live" is circular. By adding any purpose other than "to live" would resolve the circular nature of the argument.
Since this was a communication between two individuals, you would have show that your transmission was clear in order to infer that I misinterpreted it.
I already pointed out the different between "point" and "summation". Your ball.
http://english.stackexchange.com/
Easier to let someone else explain it to you.
You have your own definitions for morality, conduct, behavior, act, and probably more. It seems like you are twisting words to try and maintain the logic in your claim.
but what would Christianity more likely lead you to?
Ask the Pope.
The Pope is referring to "socialism" in Europe which is social democracy. Means of production are still privately controlled. The "socialism" that he refers to is the welfare state.
This does not really make sense considering all the other statements you have made regarding the fundamental nature of moral reasoning in regards to human behavior
I argued that if you want to convince others to act in a given way, you must invoke moral reasoning. This isn’t to say that people engage in moral reasoning before acting. Usually moral reasoning is done in retrospect in defense of ones actions, and usually only if those actions were a breach of conduct.
You made several statements in support of your original claim which contradict your current claim.
1) Your earlier claim was that all support and development for some economic system must invoke moral reasoning.
To promote one system over another, or to develope a new one, one must invoke moral reasoning.
2) You claimed that social issues are related to human behavior which makes them moral issues.
social: of or relating to society or its organization..
moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character
It's nice that you can look up a definition, though it doesn't constitute an argument, nor refute my position. Since behavior relates to society, moral issues are social issues. Prac Ap.
3) You continue to expand on the relationship between morality and all human behavior.
Pain is an amoral phenomenon. Intentionally causing it has moral implications. Accidentally causing it has different moral implications.
Since most arguments will lead to the preservation of life, it seems we should focus on this issue.
Why do you believe that preservation of life must be a moral one? Why must it belie instinct? Does a newborn consider its only preservation before crying out of hunger?
All arguments would reduce to the preservation or enhancement of life, yes. It’s not the case that it must belie instinct. A persons actions, driven by instinct can still be explained in moral terms.
3a) This all sounds like normative morality, but...
4) Then you claim that you have been talking about morality in the descriptive sense and not the normative one. Descriptive moralities are not universal, but limited to a specific group/society, at least according to your own source for the definition of morality.
Not in the slightest. I never said everyone was the same. I have been talking about morality in descriptive terms. Moral arguments in this sense are not necessarily morally good in the normative sense.
"“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept."
4a) Descriptive morality refers to a subjective code of conduct. Normative morality refers to a universal code of conduct that defines specific behavior as moral or immoral. Are you sure you have been talking about morality in descriptive terms?
5) Now you claim that moral justifications made after an act accurately reflect actual reasoning before/during the act. What about amoral justifications post-act?
Your arguments so far have made no sense in several regards. Why must all people invoke moral reasoning for any type of behavior? I still think you have been talking about normative morality this whole time, yet you claim otherwise. While most "philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept", you seem to think that your specific moral views (universal moral ends) are shared by all rational people.
A rational person can choose a course of action that another rational person would not. This course would not adhere to the theory of normative morality. In order for it to adhere to normative reality, all rational people would be expected to endorse a given course. This is more a statement about the nature of rationality than it is about people.
Yes. This is all true. You should also note that there are varying "codes of conduct" attributed as morally normative. If we go by the Stanford source, this means that your claim of all human behavior belonging to this "code of conduct" is not shared by all normative morality claims.
Non-moral considerations are not irrational, they just aren’t concerned with codes of conduct, or morality (by definition). Any conduct is going to be either outside or inside the scope of a code of conduct. If it is not a breach of a code of conduct, it is not amoral, it’s moral.
First of all, your explanation needs to be adjusted because you have the wrong definition. I think your personal belief in the right answer has skewed the interpretation of morality in your mind. A code of conduct, by definition, considers all within scope to be of a moral issue and all without amoral. A non-breach is only considered moral if the behavior could have led to a possible breach. If the behavior has nothing to do with the particular code of conduct (outside of scope), then it is amoral.
Ignoring the weird definition in your statement, we can consider the following information from your source.
If you are talking about descriptive morality, then: "If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave."
If a person is not a part of the group, then a breach of conduct and a non-breach are both amoral because descriptive morality is basically subjective morality.
If you are talking about normative morality, then that depends entirely on the code of conduct. Many philosophers have proposed many different codes of conduct. Your proposed code seems to include all human behavior. If you want to advocate for your specific claim, then that is fine. So far, you seem to be suggesting that your claim is the standard definition of morality, which is different from supporting a specific normative theory.
If you go by Hobbes, then we would be talking about a code of conduct revolving around a strong central government that has absolute power in order to avoid the state of nature (survival of the strongest).
If we go by Kant, then the code only prohibits harm. All other forms of behavior are considered of an amoral nature.
Both of these men advocated for the correctness of their normative theories, but neither have altered the definition of "code of conduct" to include in-scope and out-scope behavior.
It is true that not all rationale is actually shared by all rational people. This is because people cannot all have equal information. The normative definition is meant to show that, given specific conditions, rationality would demand a given course of action. If rationality demands it, then all rational people who are aware of all the conditions would endorse it. But rational people are not aware of all conditions (this makes them fallible, not irrational). This accounts for the differences in normative theories.
It seems that we agree that people cannot be aware of all conditions. We disagree on the reasons for the differences in normative theories. Many of these theories provide the specific conditions under which they are true. Even with normalized information, rational people have still not agreed on a specific normative morality. Much of the debate is over the validity of the conditions themselves. Rationality is subjective in that it is based on perspective which is subjective. If we all shared the same perspective and the same information, then we will probably arrive at the same conclusions.
You can try and support the specific conditions of your claim and your perspective, but that does not mean it is the definition of morality.
Rape or other crimes of passion can be explained in instinctual terms (I know that’s an inverted answer to the question).
I asked you to explain why A explains B, and you give me why B explains A. If you know it is inverted, why even bring it up?
Also, crimes of passion are different from instinct. Instinct is biological. It has nothing to do with emotion. When you sense danger and the fight or flight response kicks in, that is instinct. Your parasympathetic activates and sets off a cascade of chemical responses. A person defending themselves from a crime of passion could act on instinct. Since we consider ourselves rational beings, we should also be able to overcome those instincts (no fight or flight). If we use moral reasoning to stop our instincts, that does not mean instincts do not exist.
Instincts are explained in moral terms only when a person can be expected to alter the course their instincts or biology have set. Thus, if a person pisses their pants on a bus because they could not possibly hold it any longer, they have not chosen, nor could they stop, this action and it is not a moral concern. If someone realizes they have to piss and decides to go right there on the bus, it was biologically driven, but they could have controlled it and this gives it the act a moral consideration.
You have just stated the moral and amoral aspects of behavior. This directly contradicts your claim that all human behavior is moral.
Most arguments rely on preservation/enhancement of life at the root of their morality. This is why the capacity for moral reasoning evolved in people. Instincts become an insufficient guide to life when the brain is large enough to consider many forms of stimuli, including concepts, and choose between alternatives. Instincts aren’t amoral, they’re pre-moral. The extent to when they can be controlled as necessary is the moral concern.
How is amoral different from pre-moral? Amoral just means not moral. Anything before, after, above, below, outside, etc. of morality is amoral. This is how prepositions are used.
Instincts are still sufficient in the basic functions of life. Rationality is only required for complex situations. If you are hungry, you eat. That is the end you have been talking about. It is completely amoral. How you go about getting that food, the means, could be a moral or amoral issue. If you have access to your own stash of food, there is not much morality concerned with eating something that is yours. If you do not have your own food, then that tends to lead to a moral debate. All of these are a means to an end. Are we still talking about ends or means?
You still have not explained why all behavior is moral and why all social issues must invoke moral reasoning.
PS: I think you are talking the morality of ends in regards to the socialism debate. If not, feel free to clarify.
Of course I believe rationality results in my morality, if I didn’t believe that I would change my mind to fit what is rational. For the record, I haven’t argued about my specific code, I have only argued about the nature of morality as such.
Normative morality means that a person believes there is actually a right answer to moral questions and that rationality can help us know it. I know that rational people can disagree with me, we don’t have equal knowledge or experience. This doesn’t mean that I have the right answer or that the other person does. It just means I believe there is a right answer.
We need to review your argument so far.
I have no idea what your actual argument is anymore. Refer to the numbered sections 1 through 5.
There seem to be some contradictions in your arguments.
From this statement, it still sounds like you are supporting a normative morality, but you claimed you have been talking about a descriptive one.
You have a weird definition for code of conduct that is not even shared by your own source.
The nature of morality that you have defined is not the same that has been described on Wikipedia or the Stanford Encylopedia. Where does it say that even behaviors out of the scope of the code are considered moral?
Pain is not bad in and of itself. Breaking your toe is bad and pain helps you to know this. There are moral and amoral reasons one could feel pain. The moral issue is not the pain, it’s the cause of the pain. There can be natural causes of pain that are amoral, such as a tornado dropping a tree on your leg. The pain is not bad, the broken leg is bad. Neither are concerned with morality because neither are concerned with conduct or actions within the realm of control.
So, how does the behavior of stubbing your toe have moral implications? You still have not answered this. You pointed out some moral scenarios and amoral non-behavior scenarios. I am talking about an amoral human interaction.
That’s incorrect. Calling me egocentric is simple ad hominem.
Considering you believe your personal interpretation of "the nature of morality" is true regardless of what the Stanford Encyclopedia or Wikipedia indicates, egocentric is an adequate description.
Talking about the code of conduct scope which relates directly to your claim that all human behavior is moral.
I think I have answered most of this earlier in the post. Satisfying ones hunger is moral in that it is conduct that is in keeping with moral codes and the purpose thereof. It is not a breach of conduct. If you add context that shows satisfying ones hunger through means that is in breach of a code of conduct, the moral value of the activity changes.
This is all based on your definition of "code of conduct". A code of conduct refers to a code of morals. How is something that is not within the scope of the code considered part of the code (since you qualify out of scope issues as moral)?
I’m not confused. If you look back, you will see that I that I distinguish the supply and demand model from the phenomenon of supply and demand. We have a concept of supply which represents the phenomenon, I was referring to the concept of supply and of demand in the above. The concepts are real though the theory of their interaction can be incorrect. The phenomenon are real though the theoretical model, representing the theory of their interaction, can be incorrect. Please don’t restate this when you tell me I’m wrong.
This is the correct interpretation. I am just saying your earlier comments do not reflect this interpretation.
On that note, I understand that theories can be flawed or incorrect. That doesn’t mean that they we don’t use them to explain things. Think of what people sound like when they focus on the fact that a theory can be wrong. “The theory of evolution is just a theory”. I will continue to talk about the theory of supply and demand, the supply and demand model, and how they explain the phenomenon of supply and of demand using the concepts of supply and of demand. The qualifying word (theory, model, phenomenon, and concept) is meant to let you know if I am talking about supply and/or in the world, on a graph or in one’s head. From now on I will also put “of” in front of each so you know I am not holding them together as a singular concept, or phenomenon.
You cannot even admit that you misused the words concept, theory, model, and phenomenon. I am still of the belief that this was a conceptual issue and not a semantics issue on your part.
This is the concept of “supply and demand”. This is not the concept of supply and demand. Does it help if I say “The concept of supply and of demand”?
There is no concept of supply or concept of demand. They are phenomenon. They exist like the rain. The process by which it rains or the process by which supply affects the economy are concepts.
Is this still a semantics issue?
To say the model actually represents the phenomenon involved would be to advocate for the legitimacy of the model. It is to say you believe the theory is true (even while recognizing it as a theory). This is distinct from the actual phenomenon involved. No one would say “markets should have supply as well as demand”.
Let's analyze your statement from earlier. "The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
1) "The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon"
You use the word model when regarding supply and demand so you must be referring to the "supply and demand" model.
2) "the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
3) "This is distinct from the actual phenomenon involved. No one would say “markets should have supply as well as demand”."
The model of "supply and demand" does not represent the phenomenon of "supply" and "demand" at all. There is no accuracy to contest because the existence of "supply" and "demand" are factual.
Either you misused words again or you do not understand basic economics.
They do differ. One is a mathematical representation and the other is a language representation.
How do they differ in the context of your previous statements?
You claimed that Adam Smith did not use the model of "supply and demand" even though you accept that he used the concept of "supply and demand".
The definition of a economic model includes: "The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques."
A model explains the concept. There is no actual difference if Smith used a graph or a paragraph as long as both referred to the same concept.
GPA is heavily weighted in terms of admission. It is still the most important factor by far. Standardized tests cannot compare, at least not in the US. This is true for SAT/ACT, GRE, MSAT, LSAT, etc.
The girl speaks of the full package but wants to remove test-taking ability from that package. The point of the GPA, the personal statements, the tests, the extra-curriculars, and more are to provide a complete picture of a student.
To be frank, it sounds like the girl is just not good enough. Not everyone is meant to get into Harvard (or any college for that matter). Complaining that something is too hard means that she has not tried hard enough or she is just not capable enough.
Sometimes, it is just fate. You get no opportunities for some reason or other, so you just have to try that much harder to make up the gap.
Vaccines are more dangerous than Poisonous Snakes, Sharks, Lightning and Monkeys combined.
If all you care about is your life which is probably the most rational view, then the question can be reduced down to "what created my life?". Since perception is subjective, I do not think that there is an absolute perspective regarding life, so there is no reason to limit the objective purpose to one rationale.
A form of love? Not all sex can be declared in the name of love.
Well, we were talking about consensual sex earlier. I figured that would be extended to my previous comment as well.
I am not familiar with the Bible, but I do not recall anything about sex with God = defile.
I am not claiming that people actually engage in moral reasoning before they take any given action. People usually don’t.
This does not really make sense considering all the other statements you have made regarding the fundamental nature of moral reasoning in regards to human behavior.
Read again. What it said was rational people need not claim that other societies are rational. It goes on to explain that even rational societies with enough features to qualify as having normative morality may be flawed, and thus would not be endorsed by rational people in their entirety. It’s saying that a departure from normative morality is a departure from rationality. We need not expect that all people are rational.
Actually, it does not claim that people are irrational for not following some universal form of conduct. It does note the lack of endorsement by all rational people of various features of society.
From what I can tell, you are claiming that all rational people use morality as the sole form of reasoning in regards to human behavior. Since human behavior relates to society, all social systems are based on moral reasons.
"In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations."
Your source does not claim that non-moral considerations are irrational. They just claim that the "right" thing to do is always the moral one.
In fact, the many variations of normative theories indicates that not all rationale are shared by all rational people.
"All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories. Related to these differences, moral theories differ with regard to those to whom morality applies, that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have those features of human beings that make it rational for all of them to endorse morality, viz., fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God."
All arguments would reduce to the preservation or enhancement of life, yes. It’s not the case that it must belie instinct. A persons actions, driven by instinct can still be explained in moral terms.
How are instincts, biological reactions to stimuli, explained in moral terms? The only way for that to be logical is if you ascribe to a divine morality which created human instincts.
Most arguments to provide moral justification relies on the preservation or enhancement of life. This is what morality is supposed to be about (though I don’t believe that everyone is rational). An argument that socialism should be adopted because it would lead to prosperity, is an argument based on the preservation or enhancement of life. This makes it a moral argument. Some moral arguments are concerned with the afterlife, but as Cartman will tell you, this still amounts to an argument for well-being (which is similar enough).
You still have not explained why preservation of life must be moral and why biological instincts are somehow not amoral.
Not in the slightest. I never said everyone was the same. I have been talking about morality in descriptive terms. Moral arguments in this sense are not necessarily morally good in the normative sense.
Normative morality just means a person believes in a universal code of conduct, not that they believe their universal code is the only rational one. Since you claim that people who do not subscribe to your specific code (all human behavior has a moral basis) are irrational, that would suggest that you believe all rationality must result in your morality.
I’m not confused, you restated what I said. Adam Smith used the concept of supply and the concept of demand to explain price determination. They are the same concepts that are used in Marshall’s Supply and Demand model. But using concepts to explain something is not the same as building an economic model
You must be thinking of those markets where there’s nothing for sale but nobody wanted anything anyway…If that’s the market you mean, I guess I am confused.
This line is why you are confused. The concept of supply and demand is not a truth. It is a theory. The Marshallian model combines the various theories regarding the relationship between S and D into what Marshall believes to be an accurate representation.
The concept of supply, and the concept of demand are how we understand the existing phenomenon. The model of supply and demand explains another existing phenomenon, price. You may be hung up on my use of the word “explain” but theories are what we use to explain things. I didn’t think I needed to cover that, but since you drone on for a while about my talking about theories in absolute terms, I guess I’ll clarify.
You missed the point entirely.
The theorized part is the relationship between three existing phenomenon. This relationship may or may not exist. The concept of S and D or Marshall's model which is just another way to describe the same concept are not existing phenomenon. They just explain a supposed relationship between S, D, and P.
I know that the supply and demand model used to illustrate the theory of prices is itself, theoretical. Wow.
The theorized part is not the price but how price is determined by supply and demand. This is the concept of "supply and demand". Price is a phenomenon and not a theory.
This might clear up some of your confusion with my explanations. When I say the phenomenon of supply and demand I am talking about them in terms of the phenomenon of each that we observe. When I say the model of supply and demand (perhaps I should have put them in quotes here), I am talking about the actual model that explains the theory of prices. If I ever said the theory of supply and demand (also belonging in quotes), I would have been talking about the theory (such as smith’s) which was lacking what the model presented, a visual framework.
If you re-read what I wrote, and refrain from putting your own quotes around my words in your mind, you will see that what I said make perfect sense. “Phenomenon” is what I use to distinguish the existing from the theoretical.
Let me just quote what you wrote to show why it seems like you believe the concept of supply and demand is an actual phenomenon.
"The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
Me: "The concept of supply and demand does not have to be true in an actual market"
You: "You must be thinking of those markets where there’s nothing for sale but nobody wanted anything anyway…If that’s the market you mean, I guess I am confused."
By refuting my claim that the theory of supply and demand may not exist suggests that you believe it exists absolutely, i.e. a phenomenon.
Pain is not bad. If you were born with some defect and didn’t feel pain, you wouldn’t live well. Pain is a warning of bad things (which can limit your life). If someone is inflicting pain on you, the moral implications come with how this impacts your quality of life.
And... why is pain not bad if our body tells us it is bad?
You keep talking about someone else inflicting pain even though I have been referring to natural causes of pain that are amoral.
This is my perspective based on my rationale. I don’t believe my perspective is the only possible one (here we are), but I do believe it is right. Calling me egocentric is not an argument.
Your argument thus far differs from this claim.
Calling you egocentric is just pointing out the lapse in your rationale.
Adam Smith used the concept of supply and the concept of demand to explain price determination. They are the same concepts that are used in Marshall’s Supply and Demand model. But using concepts to explain something is not the same as building an economic model
Adam Smith used the concepts of supply and demand in describing the workings of capitalism with regards to price determination. This is not the same as a supply and demand model which has an X and Y axis.
You are still claiming that a mathematical representation of a concept is somehow different from a language representation of it.
I guess claiming that A increases as B increases must be different from a graph showing a positive slope for B to A.
You also have not responded to several parts in my comments about natural behavior being amoral like satisfying hunger, quenching thirst, and avoiding pain.
Also the link between value, values, and morals does not seem to exist.
Maybe it's because the state taking the wealth of production and sharing it with the people is similar to a kind of ownership of production by the state or the people (maybe a stretch). Maybe it's because people who identify as socialists no longer promote total communism, but do support expanded welfare policies.
Shared production means shared responsibility for production. A welfare state means one group bears the responsibility for another. Completely different.
I think it is just people bandwagoning with misnomers. Like how most people think of peanuts as nuts...
The immediate need for actionable intelligence was the proximate cause.
I actually explained this earlier. Terror (fear) makes people give up their values.
I know a lot of things are declassified all the time, but the actual means by which we successfully collect intelligence is released more rarely.
Actually... pretty much everything becomes declassified after some period of time, by EO. The longest held secrets are only 75 years old if there is some super special reason to keep it a secret.
Catching criminals is only the police part of law enforcement, not the primary responsibility. What about the prosecutors, judges, trials, and prisons?
The primary responsibility is probably enforcing the laws of society, hence the name. I am asking what should be the purpose of those laws?
What is this justice that you speak of administering?
God's plan involves taking his children to Heaven to dwell in Heaven forever. Sexual relation with God is something that completely defiles his nature. God's nature doesn't change as he is most pure.
What is wrong with sexual relations?
The Bible allows for sexual relations between man and woman. Man was created in the image of God, wouldn't sexual relations be a good way for a woman to become intimate with God?
Basically an ACLU for small businesses.
These types of foundations already exist. From what I can tell, some of these foundations are backed by larger businesses who wish to remove certain legislation by portraying them as discriminatory against small businesses.
Similarly, there are minority group foundations that also have non-altruistic agendas.
At least people are consistent.
The description does not clarify the question.
I am interpreting "Is there such a thing as unconditional love?" as "Does unconditional love exist?"
It would depend on how you define unconditional love.
If we go with the literal meaning of unconditional, then probably not. Love without conditions seems like an unrealistic notion.
Based on my understanding of unconditional love, it refers to platonic love between parent and child. This is technically a conditional love, the condition being the parent to child relationship. This exists in this world even if it is not present in every parent/child relationship.
I think I know where you are going, but that is more like an argument from authority fallacy than being stupid.
I doubt anyone can completely avoid making logical fallacies all the time.
PS: A lot of logical fallacies are misused/misinterpreted. Accusing someone else of a logical fallacy probably means you are making one yourself.
The significance of an event is not lessened simply because the location is nameless. Mountains feature throughout the Bible; some of them already had names, others did not. For instance, The Mount of Olives afforded its name by virtue of its olive groves so it was already an established landmark before Jesus came. This was the location from which He ascended into heaven. On the other hand, Matthew 17 recounts another significant event: the transfiguration of Jesus on a high mount - this time there is no name given for the featured mountain. The distinction exists less in the name and more in the activity conducted there; that said, the documented magnitude in height of the mountain the devil used was most likely noted for reasons I mentioned earlier.
You missed the point entirely. I was referring to your claim that this high mountain was so special that the Devil brought Jesus to it in order intensify the vision. He had been on several mountains, how would being on another mountain suddenly be so different?
This is a semantic argument.
Since we cannot agree on the usages indicated in English, there seems to be no point to continue further.
Even for something basic such as -
A city, town, or world does not have a lengthwise extremity that is longer than it is wide or broad.
Length: the linear extent or measurement of something from end to end.
So not only are spheres not subject to measurement, these three are not either; nor may they afford the usage of its units (i.e. miles, metres/yards). Guess the scope of Rome can never be determined as it has no extremity. Nor may we ever know the distance from town to town due to their lack of length in proportion to their breadth. Got it.
Lengthwise: in a direction parallel with a thing's length.
"halve the potatoes lengthwise"
A city and town do have a lengthwise direction unless if it they happen to be squares. A square is usually not the case for a city or town. A spherical Earth would not have a lengthwise direction.
Those two "end" refer to different definitions. They are not the same principally. It would be like saying "leading a march" and "leading a team" are the same principally. They share the same word, but have different usages based on different definitions.
Not necessarily. A march can refer to a group of people the same way a team can, for instance: if someone was leading a march in protest they would typically be leading a group of however many people. If someone was leading a team again that would be a group of however many.
These two phrases have different meanings. They are not the same. A word can have multiple usages, but a sentence/phrase only allows for one usage (except for intentional multiple entendres). This is the purpose of communication. If you cannot understand that, then you need to go take a language class.
I think if he can win the primaries, he can win the general as well.
Voter turnout depends on how much they like Trump and how much they hate Hilary as well.
Then again, I do not think he will actually win the primaries. I was just trolling Cartman.
