I suspect you just posted this as an inflammatory way to get a reaction, rather than as a serious attempt at discussion. But in any case we're talking about the best rules for SOCIETY, not the best rules for an individual or the best rules for your god.Originally Posted by Jerry
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
You've created an impossible standard to achieve.
Killing one's violent enemies most enables and empowers one's self to survive, but it has the unfortunate side effect of least enabling and empowering the enemy's survival.A "healthy" social structure is one which most enables and empowers survival.
There are no general rules that can "most" enable or empower survival.The general rule is the basic framework which can be customized to suit specific cultures.
For example, thou shalt not murder can actually decrease one's chance for survival since one cannot commit a preemptive strike upon a potentially deadly enemy.
Why do you feel that the markers that increases teh chance of winning are those that are "best"?In an attempt to add variety to my analogies: Any paint-ball fan will tell you that the "best" markers are those which are the most customizable and adaptable. Tipman has a reputation of being a marker which "most enables" a person's play style.
There's no denying that every team member needs a marker even while each specific marker my very greatly from person to person. A team without markers will not win.
What if one's perspective is that losing and winning don't matter, only the amount of personal effort put into the game?
Then wouldn't they consider the one that makes you do the most work the "best"?
If one values winning as the most important thing, then you might be correct.Sure. We'll have a control pair of teams with identical equipment. Then we'll have 3 other similarly situated teams, except:
- team 1 will have equipment identical to the control team;
- team 2 will have have leeway to customize their gear as much as they desire without limit;
- and team 3 will have no gear of any kind, not even a cup.
Each team will compete 3 times as offense, 3 times as defense, randomly determining who goes first.
I'll put my money on team 2.
But if one values making a go of it despite insurmountable odds more, they might say that team 3 is the "best" of them all.
If there is a "rule" that one needs a paint gun, then Kori did the best by breaking the rule since a trebuchet is not a gun. Thus, "you need a paint gun" is clearly not the "best" rule by the standards you are employing.The basic rule "you need a paint gun" exists even when you are allowed to customize without limit. You bring a stock Spider fresh out of the box. Someone else brings a pair of police training paint pistols and a bandoleer of paint grenades. Another builds a mini-gun.
Well I don't know...Korimyr the Rat built a trebuchet and that's one fat paint filled balloon he's loading onto it...he might put us all to shame here in a minute...
I can't respond to this without knowing the exact definition of marriage you are using.No, not their view, ie; their opinion...but what actually works in the real world when applied.
Polygamy doesn't work well in Capitalist societies and Monogamy doesn't work well in nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, but both have the rule that marriage is needed and marriage serves the same purpose just as the paint-ball guns all serve the same purpose.
Most effective at achieving a specific, subjective goal does not necessarily mean the same thing as "best".My point is actually fairly Darwinian: Like organisms, the most successful (ie; "best") rules are the ones which can adapt to the environment better than the others.
Exactly, so there can exist no "best" set of rules.The rules are not rigid. They bend with the wind.
Evidence suggests that elephants have death rituals. Yet they do not seem to have what one would call a society or societal rules.Another example: Every society needs a ritual to mark the end of life. Having a clean brake from an intimate bond with the support of others serves our mental health and our ability to function within that society.
How can we know if this desire for a form of death ritual is a product of a social "rule" or if it is a purely instinctual drive?
Again, is this a social rule or an instinct?We don't need every human on the planet to observe a funeral in exactly the same way for this to be true. We don't need everyone on the planet to wear the same thing. We don't all need to burn the body. We don't all need to sing. We don't all need to pray. The rule "people need to mark the end of life" is flexible.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
If susceptibility to death is a positive (as per the keeps the population down comment), then it follows that, at least on occasion, death is a positive.
If death is ever positive, even once, survival cannot always be "best".
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.