• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The best rules for society

Do we know the best rules?


  • Total voters
    28
The word "best" is itself subjective. There's no such thing as an objective "best".

"Best" = that which most enables and empowers healthy biological imperatives and social structures.
 
Hinduism has a different set of rules. Stop being so colloquial. :roll:

The south seem to think they have a different set of rules, but they're still part of the United States.

Using examples of sub-cultures will not serve you because they are not sovereign apart from God.
 
Last edited:
That's your subjective interpretation.

In your opinion.

See I can play that game too. Did you want to have a real conversation of just keep on with the same 'oll same 'oll?
 
The south seem to think they have a different set of rules, but they're still part of the United States.

Using examples of sub-cultures will not serve you because they are not sovereign apart from God.

God can be interpreted from more than one context. Thus different rules.
 
In your opinion.

True. But the fact that you think that that is the best description of what best is, and the fact that I disagree with your thinking that that is the best description of what best is proves my opinion to be correct in this instance. :)
 
God can be interpreted from more than one context. Thus different rules.

More than one sub-culture, absolutely.

The existence of many sub-cultures within the United States in no way negates the existence of the United States, for example. Even when we create states within the Union, counties within the states and districts within the counties, or when we passionately disagree on the interpretation of law, we are all still citizens of the same country and subject to the same federal title code.

I never claimed everyone was exactly uniform. I claimed that everyone was apart of the greater over-arching social organism.
 
Last edited:
you know, if ya ignore all the problems, my society is damn near perfect :mrgreen:
 
More than one sub-culture, absolutely.

The existence of many sub-cultures within the United States in no way negates the existence of the United States, for example. Even when we passionately disagree on the interpretation of law, we are all still citizens of the same country and subject to the same federal title code.

I never claimed everyone was exactly uniform. I claimed that everyone was apart of the greater over-arching social organism.

But people in India are not part of the social organism in the US and vice versa.
 
True. But the fact that you think that that is the best description of what best is, and the fact that I disagree with your thinking that that is the best description of what best is proves my opinion to be correct in this instance. :)

The fact that you agree with me that your opinion is only what you personally believe proves my claim that your statement was just your opinion to be correct.

My claim has empirical exposition, your opinion does not.
 
But people in India are not part of the social organism in the US and vice versa.

Neither is the kidney a part of the foot, but both are part of the same body.

As a whole body, there are behaviors which are "best" for the body for it to be as healthy as it can be.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you agree with me that your opinion is only what you personally believe proves my claim that your statement was just your opinion to be correct.

My claim has empirical exposition, your opinion does not.

Your claims about what "best" is can be objectively proven false, and therefore, my opinion becomes elevated from mere opinion to undeniable fact.
 
Sure we do:

Everyone lives and acts within their rights.

But, this will never happen.
 
Your claims about what "best" is can be objectively proven false, and therefore, my opinion becomes elevated from mere opinion to undeniable fact.

A uniform biology and other elements of cultural universal prove mine correct. Every healthy human needs social ties, language and common basic nutrition, for example.

If your opinion were correct then you would be able to point to a few major societies who have no social ties of any sort and eat only stale beach sand (for example).
 
A uniform biology and other elements of cultural universal prove mine correct. Every healthy human needs social ties, language and common basic nutrition, for example.

If your opinion were correct then you would be able to point to a few major societies who have no social ties of any sort and eat only stale beach sand (for example).

the common basic nutrition ain't true, different societies and cultures have different base nutrition needs that they have evolved to in their area, you try feeding a white person on the basic diet of an asian, and they will starve, for example.
 
Neither is the kidney a part of the foot, but both are part of the same body.

As a whole body, there are behaviors which are "best" for the body for it to be as healthy as it can be.

What makes you think it is the Christian rule set?
 
the common basic nutrition ain't true, different societies and cultures have different base nutrition needs that they have evolved to in their area, you try feeding a white person on the basic diet of an asian, and they will starve, for example.

You're arguing that there is no longer a control group by which to compare the multitude of human breeds, and I don't know that you're wrong.

I offer this example to test your position by: Which breed of human can live without ingesting water in any way? Protein? Minerals?
 
You're arguing that there is no longer a control group by which to compare the multitude of human breeds, and I don't know that you're wrong.

I offer this example to test your position by: Which breed of human can live without ingesting water in any way? Protein? Minerals?

zombie humans, all they need is the occasional brain:lol:

i get what you're saying, but you can't really apply a single condition over the entire human race, especially not one based in religion, as you said in previous posts
 
zombie humans, all they need is the occasional brain:lol:

i get what you're saying, but you can't really apply a single condition over the entire human race, especially not one based in religion, as you said in previous posts

I look at the species and observe condition already applied. I had nothing to do with it.

Every culture on earth needs it's members to refrain from needlessly killing or taking anther's property without just cause in order for those cultures to be most successful.
 
I look at the species and observe condition already applied. I had nothing to do with it.

Every culture on earth needs it's members to refrain from needlessly killing or taking anther's property without just cause in order for those cultures to be most successful.

fair enough
 
fair enough

Thus we know that 2 of "The best rules for society" are 'don't murder' and 'don't steal'; and if we know these rules then we also know that it's not as subjective to the society as others originally argued.
 
You can't define murder without its opposite, justifiable homicide, and and you can't define theft without defining property. Both of these concepts are wholly subjective across cultures.
 
A uniform biology and other elements of cultural universal prove mine correct. Every healthy human needs social ties, language and common basic nutrition, for example.

You have to define precisely what a "healthy" biological imperative is, as well as what "healthy" social structures are before you can even pretend there is something that can "most enable" these things.

No single set of rules can exist which achieves "healthy" for everyone because everyone's idea of which imperatives and structures are healthy is different.

An objective "best" set of rules could only be achieved if there could exist a single set of rules that could most achieve those needs universally.

But because of the differences in what is considered healthy and what is needed, no single set can exist. Only multiple sets of optimal rules for a group and/or individual.

Since there is no single one greater than all the others, no best can exist.

Since the thing that defines which one is optimal for a particular group is their view of which imperatives and structures are preferred, it is subjective.



If your opinion were correct then you would be able to point to a few major societies who have no social ties of any sort and eat only stale beach sand (for example).

Actually, all I need to do is prove that there cannot be a single set of rules that would achieve your definition. That excludes any and all possibility of their being an objective "best".

You need to prove that there can exist a single set of rules that would achieve your stated definition of "best" universally for their to exist an objective best.
 
What makes you think I think the Christian rule set is "the" rules?

There is only one society: the society under God.

Everyone is a part of it, every saint and sinner, every angel and demon, and the rules are already available to all. Whether any particular individual is still trying to figure that out is subjective to the individual.

My apologies, you were talking about the universal rules of society under God. Same difference as the conception of God in Hinduism is different than the conception of God under Judaism and Christianity and Islam. I agree they are the same God but the rules are different.
 
Back
Top Bottom