I don’t like this logic. It implies that a person’s value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.
I would say starting an argument from a point of view which the other is guaranteed to agree with is a great tool to convince people.
In this case it’s pretty obvious that people who say shit like “women only exist to bare children” will also look up to people with great achievements to their name. As such these to beliefs can be played against eachother.
If it won’t convince the original bum saying the stupid, it will be a very spectacular way to disarm their logic in front of other people with similar but not so extreme opinions.
But all people aren’t of equal worth. There isn’t an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn’t a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.
The “all men created equal” in the… US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.
I don’t understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don’t really understand this paradigm.
What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.
I’m not saying that there aren’t terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.
I don’t like this logic. It implies that a person’s value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.
It’s two people paying for premium at X. What do you expect 😐
Synthesis: All man is created equal, except those who give money to the richest man in the world for a louder voice on a nazi forum.
I thought that was Threads.
I would say starting an argument from a point of view which the other is guaranteed to agree with is a great tool to convince people.
In this case it’s pretty obvious that people who say shit like “women only exist to bare children” will also look up to people with great achievements to their name. As such these to beliefs can be played against eachother.
If it won’t convince the original bum saying the stupid, it will be a very spectacular way to disarm their logic in front of other people with similar but not so extreme opinions.
But all people aren’t of equal worth. There isn’t an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn’t a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.
The “all men created equal” in the… US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.
Declaring people to have a certain value relative to each other strikes me as uncomfortably close to treating people as things.
I don’t understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don’t really understand this paradigm.
What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.
I’m not saying that there aren’t terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.