You can't define "better," that's kind of the thing.

I don't understand your point. Morality is relative because you can't define it. The only way you can end human suffering is to end human existence.

And I really dont know what the Klan has to do with it lol. Wouldnt they just continue to interpret the meaning of "better" to suit them regardless of the Officially Decided Definition of "making the world better?"

There are as many different ways of interpreting "making the world better" as there are genders.

It's lol cause it's self-congratulatory basic bitch entry level ****. Oh wow I'm so smart I figured out how the Holocaust wasn't objectively bad. Like, congrats, now keep wading through the philosophy kiddie pool until you've arrived at at least chest level edge.

Im pretty sure you and I (and most people on this forum) could sit down and come up with a list of things that constitutes "better". At that point we can make objective decisions with respect to the goal. It's not about some absolute definition its about agreeing upon the usage of the word before arguing about it. When we are debating and we each say better, it should mean the same thing otherwise the discussion is futile.

No bill that is signed into law should be allowed to have more than 1000 words.

Refer to Bill 2.0 for more details. Coming soon TM.

Yep

Care to explain? I dont see how im moving any goal posts.

Edit: Where does science come into this exactly? It's debate 101. If you cant agree or accept what a person means when they say something the discussion cant even begin to happen.

That's part of what's so lol

Donny, you're out of your element.

I know, youre anti-logic. What was I thinking.. derp

Why make progress when you can sit there bitching and getting off on your misery?