A world designed for only half the population.

[Moral Orel]

If I did....what would that prove?

I don't think there's an "if" about it. You acknowledged that it is true that prisoners are proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. So a group that is predisposed to something is more likely to do that thing than a group who is less predisposed to do that thing. How about you just nail it down and admit that she'd be safer with the guards than the prisoners if you think it's going to prove your point? Why the reluctance?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think there's an "if" about it. You acknowledged that it is true that prisoners are proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. So a group that is predisposed to something is more likely to do that thing than a group who is less predisposed to do that thing. How about you just nail it down and admit that she'd be safer with the guards than the prisoners if you think it's going to prove your point? Why the reluctance?

Because it has nothing to do with your statement.

You said...

Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence.

If you think the important thing is that they're criminals...why did you choose male guards in a prison environment?

If the issue is criminality....then you think a man is in more danger in an open park full of convicted women than a female in a prison full of men who have never been convicted of anything.

Which is ridiculous.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think the important thing is that they're criminals...why did you choose male guards in a prison environment?

Because if you're right, that the only factor is biology and criminality is irrelevant, then it would be exactly as safe to be in a prison full of guards as a prison full of criminals. But clearly, being surrounded by a group that is predisposed to violence is less safe than being surrounded by a group that is not predisposed to violence. You won't admit it because you know I'm right and it makes criminality entirely relevant. You won't deny it either, because it's too self-evident to refute after agreeing that prison populations are predisposed to violence. So you have to sit on the fence and hold up the discussion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because if you're right, that the only factor is biology and criminality is irrelevant, then it would be exactly as safe to be in a prison full of guards as a prison full of criminals.

I'm saying that the design of prisons and physical differences are factors.

You need to remove those from your example, or there's no way of knowing whether it's the criminality of the populations....or the prisons and sex of populations.

Also, in your original statement, you were talking about two populations of criminals...not a population of criminals and non-criminals. Saying that criminals are more dangerous than non-criminals will never validate your original statement.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm saying that the design of prisons and physical differences are factors.

You were saying that they are the only factors, and that criminality is irrelevant. Is criminality now a factor?

 

[Paidiske]

This may or may not be of interest in the discussion, but I did some research recently into the origins of sex-segregated prisons, and found that the reasons cited by the folks who set up the first women's prisons (rather than having the women in the same prison as the men) had nothing to do with the violence of the men and protecting the women.

Rather it had to do with the supposed depravity of the women and keeping the men away from their immorality and sexual temptation.

Now, there may still be good reasons to have sex-segregated prisons, but I'm not sure the one cited by the people who set them up is one I would accept as a good reason!

 

[Ana the Ist]

You were saying that they are the only factors, and that criminality is irrelevant. Is criminality now a factor?

Not between two criminal populations.

We're talking about two populations with two characteristics. One is male (m) and criminal (c) the other is female (f) and criminal (c).

You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they are (c).

Which makes no sense because they are both criminal populations whether we combine them or keep them separate.

I don't think I can explain the flaw in your logic anymore clearly than that...but I could make a chart if you like.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not between two criminal populations.

We're talking about two populations with two characteristics. One is male (m) and criminal (c) the other is female (f) and criminal (c).

You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they are (c).

Which makes no sense because they are both criminal populations whether we combine them or keep them separate.

I don't think I can explain the flaw in your logic anymore clearly than that...but I could make a chart if you like.

Being a criminal doesn't make you more dangerous, it means you're more likely to do something violent. Those aren't exactly the same thing, and I think that's what you're trying to do, conflate them.

I said that there's a higher likelihood for violence, and a desegregated population produces more one sided conflicts. I'm not saying criminality is the only factor, you're saying that biology and architecture are the only factors. If we aren't talking about criminals, then desegregating is fine because there just isn't a very high likelihood of there being a conflict in the first place for those conflicts to be one sided.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Being a criminal doesn't make you more dangerous, it means you're more likely to do something violent. Those aren't exactly the same thing, and I think that's what you're trying to do, conflate them.

Dangerous...more violent...doesn't matter.

I said that there's a higher likelihood for violence, and a desegregated population produces more one sided conflicts.

That's an issue created by the fact that there are biological differences between men and women...not because they are criminals.

Looks like you're done.

 

[Moral Orel]

Dangerous...more violent...doesn't matter.

No, "more likely to be violent" is different from both of those things. Practice your reading comprehension.

That's an issue created by the fact that there are biological differences between men and women...not because they are criminals.

No, you already agreed that it's true that criminals are predisposed to violence, no backing out of that and saying it's a biological only factor now. Come on, man. This is sad.

Looks like you're done.

LOL I'm sorry that this is going right over your head. I'm not sure how to explain it more simply. I dunno... Get smarter?

Maybe we can try looking at how you refute it and compare that to your claim.

Not between two criminal populations.

We're talking about two populations with two characteristics. One is male (m) and criminal (c) the other is female (f) and criminal (c).

You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they are (c).

Which makes no sense because they are both criminal populations whether we combine them or keep them separate.

We're talking about males (m) and females (f). Then we have abundant access to confined spaces, let's call that (c). So there are males with abundant access to confined spaces (mc), and there are females with abundant access to confined spaces (fc).

You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they have (c).

Which makes no sense because they both have abundant access to confined spaces whether we combine them or keep them separate.

Are you seeing how your non-sequitur is nonsense yet? I know you're feeling really smart about all this, but that's how Dunning-Kruger works.

Just because I say that we wouldn't need to keep them separate if they weren't criminals, doesn't mean I'm saying that the sole reason to separate them is "Muh! Because criminality!". I can even say that we wouldn't need to keep them separate if they didn't have any biological differences without creating a contradiction too. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that, but that's the way it is.

So were you ever going to support your claims about confined spaces and their relation to assault with some actual data, or are you planning on ducking out without supporting your claims in the slightest? You realize that even if you proved me wrong, which you haven't come close, that doesn't make your claim right by default, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, "more likely to be violent" is different from both of those things. Practice your reading comprehension.

It doesn't matter....you could describe criminals as just "mean" and it's no more or less valid.

No, you already agreed that it's true that criminals are predisposed to violence, no backing out of that and saying it's a biological only factor now. Come on, man. This is sad.

Because it doesn't matter how you describe criminals...it changes nothing.

LOL I'm sorry that this is going right over your head. I'm not sure how to explain it more simply. I dunno... Get smarter?

Maybe we can try looking at how you refute it and compare that to your claim.


We're talking about males (m) and females (f). Then we have abundant access to confined spaces, let's call that (c). So there are males with abundant access to confined spaces (mc), and there are females with abundant access to confined spaces (fc).

You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they have (c).

Which makes no sense because they both have abundant access to confined spaces whether we combine them or keep them separate.

I said that the fact they have biological differences is a factor as well.

You left that out.

Are you seeing how your non-sequitur is nonsense yet? I know you're feeling really smart about all this, but that's how Dunning-Kruger works.

Ok let's try this again....we'll make your argument and we can replace it with any two populations and any common factor between them. You tell me if you see what's wrong here...

"We can't mix both Peruvians (P) infected with Ebola (E) and Norwegians (N) infected with Ebola....because they have Ebola!"

"We can't mix both tall (T) whites (W) and tall blacks (B)....because they're tall!"

"We can't mix both ugly (U) children (C) and ugly adults (A) ....because they're ugly!"

"We can't mix both extremely violent (V) psychopaths (P) and extremely violent religious zealots (Z)....because they're extremely violent!"

Imagine how colossally stupid one would have to be to make such logically vapid statements. There may be valid reasons why we can't mix any of those populations....but it cannot logically be the same characteristic shared by both populations.

Sorry, I understand that you're desperate to salvage some kind of valid argument from this mess you created, but if you can't understand the basic logical flaw you're arguing, then perhaps you should invest in your education.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, "more likely to be violent" is different from both of those things. Practice your reading comprehension.

No, you already agreed that it's true that criminals are predisposed to violence, no backing out of that and saying it's a biological only factor now. Come on, man. This is sad.

LOL I'm sorry that this is going right over your head. I'm not sure how to explain it more simply. I dunno... Get smarter?

Maybe we can try looking at how you refute it and compare that to your claim.


We're talking about males (m) and females (f). Then we have abundant access to confined spaces, let's call that (c). So there are males with abundant access to confined spaces (mc), and there are females with abundant access to confined spaces (fc).

You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they have (c).

Which makes no sense because they both have abundant access to confined spaces whether we combine them or keep them separate.

Are you seeing how your non-sequitur is nonsense yet? I know you're feeling really smart about all this, but that's how Dunning-Kruger works.

Just because I say that we wouldn't need to keep them separate if they weren't criminals, doesn't mean I'm saying that the sole reason to separate them is "Muh! Because criminality!". I can even say that we wouldn't need to keep them separate if they didn't have any biological differences without creating a contradiction too. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that, but that's the way it is.

So were you ever going to support your claims about confined spaces and their relation to assault with some actual data, or are you planning on ducking out without supporting your claims in the slightest? You realize that even if you proved me wrong, which you haven't come close, that doesn't make your claim right by default, right?

Let's try this another way...I asked why you can't mix male and female prisoners. You said...

Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence.

Let's say that "criminals =more likely to be violent"...or whatever you want it to mean.

Female criminals are more likely to be violent. Male criminals are more likely to be violent. It doesn't matter if we keep them separate or combine them, they are populations that are more likely to be violent. Mixing them together, doesn't change that...you aren't arguing that they'll be even more likely to be violent than they are separately.

So to a 100% certainty....your claim is entirely illogical and completely unnecessary.

 

[Moral Orel]

I said that the fact they have biological differences is a factor as well.

So did I.

You left that out.

No I didn't.
Again, practice your reading comprehension, this is pathetic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So did I.

Oh well, let's take a look...

"Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence."

Nope, nothing in there about biological differences...your statement pretty clearly leaves that out.

No I didn't.

You did.

Again, practice your reading comprehension, this is pathetic.

Let's take a look...

"You said that we cannot combine both (mc) and (fc) because they have (c)."

Nope...I read it correctly the first time. That should read "because of (c) and biological differences between (m) and (w)."

Perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension since you keep mischaracterizing my arguments and don't really understand what you wrote yourself.

You are right about one thing...this is pathetic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh well, let's take a look...

"Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence."

Nope, nothing in there about biological differences...your statement pretty clearly leaves that out.

Now look at the very next sentence in that very post:

Do the biological differences between men and women make it easier for males to inflict violence on females? Sure.

Sounds like I said biology is a factor. If that wasn't explicit enough for you, try these quotes:

If male prisoners are prone to violence, and it's a one-sided fight, then we should separate them, right?

You don't put a bear in an enclosure with a raccoon. Both animals are prone to fits of aggression, but putting them together means that raccoon is going to die. If they happen to be trained or domesticated and therefore not prone to violence, then it's fine for them to share a space together. It's the propensity for violence that dictates separation, not the mere physiological differences.

Biology is a factor, it isn't the issue.

I'm not saying criminality is the only factor

I said that there's a higher likelihood for violence, and a desegregated population produces more one sided conflicts. I'm not saying criminality is the only factor, you're saying that biology and architecture are the only factors.

I can even say that we wouldn't need to keep them separate if they didn't have any biological differences without creating a contradiction too.

Clear enough for you? Is stating "Biology is a factor" explicit enough for you to acknowledge that I said that "Biology is a factor"?

You did.

You're demonstrably wrong. Faking blindness again, I see.

Perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension since you keep mischaracterizing my arguments and don't really understand what you wrote yourself.

You are right about one thing...this is pathetic.

Yes, pathetic. Learn to read.

Now that's cleared up, let's see you start defending your pet theory about confined spaces. Let's see some data. Or did you just go with your gut?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Now look at the very next sentence in that very post:

Yet in the very next sentence, you say....

"But if the reason we segregate them is the biological differences then we should be consistent and segregate everywhere that males and females might come into contact."

Although you clearly acknowledge biological differences, you state they aren't a reason for segregation. You're saying they aren't a factor.

Sounds like I said biology is a factor. If that wasn't explicit enough for you, try these quotes:


Clear enough for you? Is stating "Biology is a factor" explicit enough for you to acknowledge that I said that "Biology is a factor"?

No...you say it's a "factor" but not the "issue".

What does that even mean? Because it looks like you're trying to acknowledge that it exists....but dismiss it as a reason.

You're demonstrably wrong. Faking blindness again, I see.

How so?

Yes, pathetic. Learn to read.

Now that's cleared up, let's see you start defending your pet theory about confined spaces. Let's see some data. Or did you just go with your gut?

Wait....you're just moving on without admitting "criminality" has nothing to do with it? We need to be clear on this point....because I'm not coming back to it later.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet in the very next sentence, you say....

"But if the reason we segregate them is the biological differences then we should be consistent and segregate everywhere that males and females might come into contact."

Although you clearly acknowledge biological differences, you state they aren't a reason for segregation. You're saying they aren't a factor.

Learn to read. "The" =/= "a".

No...you say it's a "factor" but not the "issue".

What does that even mean? Because it looks like you're trying to acknowledge that it exists....but dismiss it as a reason.

Again... "The" =/= "a".

How so?

How are you demonstrably wrong? Allow me to demonstrate:

I said that the fact they have biological differences is a factor as well.

You left that out.

Biology is a factor

See? You are demonstrably wrong.

Wait....you're just moving on without admitting "criminality" has nothing to do with it? We need to be clear on this point....because I'm not coming back to it later.

Yep. You provided no refutation to my argument after all this time because you can't put two sentences together. I'm not going to keep holding your hand. I know, you tried your best. I'll send you a "Participant" trophy in the mail. Let's see your evidence for your pet theory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Learn to read. "The" =/= "a".


Again... "The" =/= "a".

That doesn't really make any difference in that context.

How are you demonstrably wrong? Allow me to demonstrate:


See? You are demonstrably wrong.

All that demonstrates is your ability to flip-flop on your position.

Yep. You provided no refutation to my argument after all this time *snip*.

Post #132 clearly refutes it. You never responded to the refutation.

Think before you write.

 

[Moral Orel]

That doesn't really make any difference in that context.

LOL It does.

All that demonstrates is your ability to flip-flop on your position.

LOL No. My position hasn't changed one bit. That you can't see you are demonstrably wrong after it being demonstrated for you is sad.

Post #132 clearly refutes it.

LOL It doesn't. Everything you've tried is based on your lack of understanding how biology is factored into my argument. It's clearly gone over your head, time for you to move on and support your own argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOL It does.

Doesn't.

LOL No. My position hasn't changed one bit. That you can't see you are demonstrably wrong after it being demonstrated for you is sad.

I don't really care if it makes you sad.

LOL It doesn't. Everything you've tried is based on your lack of understanding how biology is factored into my argument. It's clearly gone over your head, time for you to move on and support your own argument.

It's a valid refutation...the fact that you couldn't respond to it when I posted it, and the fact that you can't respond to it now really just validates it more. What's more is you didn't factor biology into your argument...you factored it out.

I mean seriously, you think criminals are more likely to commit violence? More likely than who?? Other criminals lol???