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 two 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.
Sure, but it still reinforces the neoliberal view of humanity and ideology by affirming them. And what about all the millions of women who have not made any great scientific or other achievements and never will that did not have children by the age of 24? Have they then indeed failed in life?
The root implication of manversusbaby’s reply is that child birth is not the only thing women can achieve. The purpose of using great examples like Marie Curie is to bury jaicilgin in the ground, not to impose greatness on everyone else.
The “less great” achievements, such as living with endometriosis, being funny, knowing a lot about birds, being able to knit a sweater, while being a woman are not forgotten, they’re just not as punchy.
I’m one of those women and: Yes. What’s he gonna do about it? I’m out here being a happy little failure, living rent free in the minds of alpha bros everyehere.
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.
Edit: I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I didn’t think the “created” part through, and meant that people aren’t “destined” to be equal, their actions separate them. Sorry about that last part.
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.
I want to point out a stronger contention in your favor: Republicans in the US are murdering their own citizens right now. I don’t think they are demonstrating much worth at the moment.
More fuel to add to the fire - compare a factory worker with a capitalist. The capitalist provides negative value to society, by actively stripping the value of others’ labour from them while contributing nothing themselves, whereas the factory worker creates value for those around them. I’d argue that the factory worker has more value than the capitalist.
That is a capitalist, neoliberal attitude at best. It is particularly popular in the USA, where children are taught to evaluate reality in quantitative terms. It is extremely important for US capitalism to promote this view of humanity, because it legitimizes the major social hierarchies in this society. It also legitimizes why children are allowed to go hungry, the poor are denied medical care, and other countries are exploited. After all, they are not worth it, otherwise they would not be in this situation. In the worst case, it is therefore the basis for right-wing ideology in the USA.
But ultimately, it is a normative decision that everyone makes for themselves. I cannot convince you with arguments. If you believe that people are fundamentally worth different amounts, then probably no argument can convince you otherwise. I can only say that I am glad not to have anyone like you in my circle.
I am not sure where anything i said means quantitative evaluation. I despise capitalism, but people’s actions do have impact and i am free to evaluate them on such. For example, my measurement could be the altruism and positive impact of their actions. You have jumped to some very negative conclusions and i am glad i don’t have you in my circle.
Edit: in addition, i never said anything about “fundamentally” being worth different amounts. I very specifically said actions are a good way to determine their value. There is nothing fundamental or intrinsic about that.
Edit 2: Wait, I see it now, sorry. It’s the all men created equal part. I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I’ll make an amendment to the original comment. I didn’t think the “created” part through, and meant that people aren’t “destined” to be equal, their actions separate them.
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 two 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.
Sure, but it still reinforces the neoliberal view of humanity and ideology by affirming them. And what about all the millions of women who have not made any great scientific or other achievements and never will that did not have children by the age of 24? Have they then indeed failed in life?
The root implication of manversusbaby’s reply is that child birth is not the only thing women can achieve. The purpose of using great examples like Marie Curie is to bury jaicilgin in the ground, not to impose greatness on everyone else.
The “less great” achievements, such as living with endometriosis, being funny, knowing a lot about birds, being able to knit a sweater, while being a woman are not forgotten, they’re just not as punchy.
I’m one of those women and: Yes. What’s he gonna do about it? I’m out here being a happy little failure, living rent free in the minds of alpha bros everyehere.
In capitalism you must breed or make profit, nothing else is worthwhile.
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.
Agreed. Don’t try logic. Tell them to “shut the fuck up, you turd”
but there are people of different values.
for example, people who think others are not worth much are themselves worthless.
Karl popper just started spinning in his grave
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.
Edit: I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I didn’t think the “created” part through, and meant that people aren’t “destined” to be equal, their actions separate them. Sorry about that last part.
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.
I want to point out a stronger contention in your favor: Republicans in the US are murdering their own citizens right now. I don’t think they are demonstrating much worth at the moment.
More fuel to add to the fire - compare a factory worker with a capitalist. The capitalist provides negative value to society, by actively stripping the value of others’ labour from them while contributing nothing themselves, whereas the factory worker creates value for those around them. I’d argue that the factory worker has more value than the capitalist.
That is a capitalist, neoliberal attitude at best. It is particularly popular in the USA, where children are taught to evaluate reality in quantitative terms. It is extremely important for US capitalism to promote this view of humanity, because it legitimizes the major social hierarchies in this society. It also legitimizes why children are allowed to go hungry, the poor are denied medical care, and other countries are exploited. After all, they are not worth it, otherwise they would not be in this situation. In the worst case, it is therefore the basis for right-wing ideology in the USA.
But ultimately, it is a normative decision that everyone makes for themselves. I cannot convince you with arguments. If you believe that people are fundamentally worth different amounts, then probably no argument can convince you otherwise. I can only say that I am glad not to have anyone like you in my circle.
I am not sure where anything i said means quantitative evaluation. I despise capitalism, but people’s actions do have impact and i am free to evaluate them on such. For example, my measurement could be the altruism and positive impact of their actions. You have jumped to some very negative conclusions and i am glad i don’t have you in my circle.
Edit: in addition, i never said anything about “fundamentally” being worth different amounts. I very specifically said actions are a good way to determine their value. There is nothing fundamental or intrinsic about that.
Edit 2: Wait, I see it now, sorry. It’s the all men created equal part. I do think everyone should be born with equal rights and should be given opportunities to be healthy and happy. I’ll make an amendment to the original comment. I didn’t think the “created” part through, and meant that people aren’t “destined” to be equal, their actions separate them.