Is a human's life more valuable than an ant's life?

[Sociobiology]

If you believe in equality you have to believe in consistency otherwise you have demonstrated a performative contradiction. To elaborate on this point, if you treat men equally to yourself but treat women lower to yourself this is seen as unequal, although equality is being practiced in this scenario the inconsistency of the equality shows that you are being unequal rather than equal. Therefore, if you believe in real equality you believe all life has equal value. This means your life has equal value to that of an ant or a worm. However, humans do not acknowledge this to be true yet will still demand equality, and thus are hypocrites. This can be shown by the fact that if you kill an ant nobody cares, but if you kill a human everyone will see you as a monster and you will be thrown into prison. Another example can be seen when a person eats a cow they're called being a meat eater and is seen as normal but when a person eats another person it's called cannibalism and is seen as evil and will get them thrown in prison. Whenever I question people on this dilemma they show the cruelty of mankind through the ignorance of their answers. To justify why it's just to treat an ant differently to themselves they proclaim bullshit answers like: "a human is more intelligent than an ant", "humans know right from wrong", "humans feel pain", "A human will achieve more than an ant". All these justifications are things an ant cannot control yet will be judged by. Essentially all the justifications given by humans boil down to humans are superior based upon gifts given to them by birth: a large brain, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to communicate, etc. Now, the question I want to ask is that if it is okay to judge an ant based upon it's birth why is it not okay to judge humans based upon their birth? One human may be more intelligent than another human or have a greater ability to feel pain or know right or wrong better or will achieve more in life. So why can't we do it humans if we judge animals by their birth?

TL;DR: Equality is a myth.

 

[Sanguinius]

I do not believe in equality, I have a hierarchy of importance based on my personal interests, values and emotional sympathies

 

[got.daim]

no one is equal, this all ties into the female hive mind

THE FEMALE HIVE MIND IS REAL AND THEY'RE SUCKING OUR SOULS DRY

READ CAREFULLY.. the TRUTH has been in our faces all this time, we've been too busy jerking to foids succubi to see it. everytime you go out and buy something these demonic females are laughing at you, THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING they're more evil, and more deceptive than Jews, the hypergamous...

looksmax.org

 

[6ft4]

This is why Europeans viewed non Europeans as subhumans who it was okay to kill because they had lower sentience levels closer to that of animals than to themselves in their eyes

 

[Darkeningstar]

Shit thread ngl
Mirin

 

[Sociobiology]

Shit thread ngl
Mirin

why is it shit?

 

[Sanguinius]

This is why Europeans viewed non Europeans as subhumans who it was okay to kill because they had lower sentience levels closer to that of animals than to themselves in their eyes

Do you believe we are all equal?

 

[Darkeningstar]

why is it shit?

Just kidding, I wanted to give a bump, however I think this talk should be shared more with the "normies."

 

[optimisticzoomer]

No. It's all subjective. What is value? An Indian might value a random white woman's life, but I could not care less if she was slain

Similarly, if the entirety of Asia was nuked, I would not feel pity, save for the other animals, because I pity them. Again, subjective

 

[Sociobiology]

Just kidding, I wanted to give a bump, however I think this talk should be shared more with the "normies."

they're too close-minded to understand.

 

[SeiGun]

no, my life is more valuable than all living things

 

[Deleted member 45794]

Equality doesn't exist, it's a man-made concept we apply whenever it gives us justification for something.

Though, I like to treat people nice and with respect.

 

[6ft4]

Do you believe we are all equal?

No I believe that people with higher levels of sentience and beauty (interlinked) are intrinsically more valuable

 

[shia.jihadist]

yes because humans are the most superior creation of God

 

[Sociobiology]

No. It's all subjective. What is value? An Indian might value a random white woman's life, but I could not care less if she was slain

Similarly, if the entirety of Asia was nuked, I would not feel pity, save for the other animals, because I pity them. Again, subjective

The idea that there is no such thing as objectivity and there is only subjectivity is wrong. Subjective experience arises from the fact we have limited means to understand the objective and therefore subjective experience is an imperfect recreation of an objective phenomenon.

 

[Sociobiology]

no, my life is more valuable than all living things

why?

 

[Deleted member 62816]

Depends on if you’re a human or an ant

 

[NZb6Air]

Low iq post, confused too many things

 

[maarda]

No. It's all subjective. What is value? An Indian might value a random white woman's life, but I could not care less if she was slain

Similarly, if the entirety of Asia was nuked, I would not feel pity, save for the other animals, because I pity them. Again, subjective

Fr,idea of universal value is a naive fantasy. In reality people only care about lives that impact them directly or align with their personal or group interests

 

[Sociobiology]

Depends on if you’re a human or an ant

why does it depend? If you believe in equality then it shouldn't matter.

 

[Sociobiology]

Low iq post, confused too many things

Elaborate what I got wrong?

 

[optimisticzoomer]

The idea that there is no such thing as objectivity and there is only subjectivity is wrong. Subjective experience arises from the fact we have limited means to understand the objective and therefore subjective experience is an imperfect recreation of an objective phenomenon.

Just words
Maybe if you believe in some cope religion

 

[Shkreliii]

If you believe in equality you have to believe in consistency otherwise you have demonstrated a performative contradiction. To elaborate on this point, if you treat men equally to yourself but treat women lower to yourself this is seen as unequal, although equality is being practiced in this scenario the inconsistency of the equality shows that you are being unequal rather than equal. Therefore, if you believe in real equality you believe all life has equal value. This means your life has equal value to that of an ant or a worm. However, humans do not acknowledge this to be true yet will still demand equality, and thus are hypocrites. This can be shown by the fact that if you kill an ant nobody cares, but if you kill a human everyone will see you as a monster and you will be thrown into prison. Another example can be seen when a person eats a cow they're called being a meat eater and is seen as normal but when a person eats another person it's called cannibalism and is seen as evil and will get them thrown in prison. Whenever I question people on this dilemma they show the cruelty of mankind through the ignorance of their answers. To justify why it's just to treat an ant differently to themselves they proclaim bullshit answers like: "a human is more intelligent than an ant", "humans know right from wrong", "humans feel pain", "A human will achieve more than an ant". All these justifications are things an ant cannot control yet will be judged by. Essentially all the justifications given by humans boil down to humans are superior based upon gifts given to them by birth: a large brain, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to communicate, etc. Now, the question I want to ask is that if it is okay to judge an ant based upon it's birth why is it not okay to judge humans based upon their birth? One human may be more intelligent than another human or have a greater ability to feel pain or know right or wrong better or will achieve more in life. So why can't we do it humans if we judge animals by their birth?

TL;DR: Equality is a myth.

this is a shit retard argument which im not going to read.

It's the same as complaining about muh equality, and how military is primarily men.
It's natural laws.
Dog eat dog, don't read into it.
The mog never ends.

 

[Sociobiology]

this is a shit retard argument which im not going to read.

It's the same as complaining about muh equality, and how military is primarily men.
It's natural laws.
Dog eat dog, don't read into it.
The mog never ends.

Explain the point of my argument in your own words.

 

[Dendoni]

You will always look superiority and value based on your own species

For an ant, it's life is more valueable or it's queen

For human, it is ultimately his/her own, since your experience on earth ends with you, you and your species are more valueable

It takes enormous belief in greater good or for next generation, for a human to sacrifice for something other than himself

This belief is so high, that even if AI is smarter than all people combined, people would disregard it as inferior for not having free will or soul

The same excuses would be with aliens, etc

 

[maarda]

The idea that there is no such thing as objectivity and there is only subjectivity is wrong. Subjective experience arises from the fact we have limited means to understand the objective and therefore subjective experience is an imperfect recreation of an objective phenomenon.

It doesn't matter.The reality is that we’re stuck in our subjective bubbles and objective truth, if it even exists is beyond our grasp.

 

[Sociobiology]

It doesn't matter.The reality is that we’re stuck in our subjective bubbles and objective truth, if it even exists is beyond our grasp.

Truth is accessible to humans otherwise we would not be able to operate in the world. Could you imagine if EVERY single choice or prediction you made in your life was wrong? This is what it means for truth to be inaccessible to humans.

 

[Sociobiology]

You will always look superiority and value based on your own species

For an ant, it's life is more valueable or it's queen

For human, it is ultimately his/her own, since your experience on earth ends with you, you and your species are more valueable

It takes enormous belief in greater good or for next generation, for a human to sacrifice for something other than himself

This belief is so high, that even if AI is smarter than all people combined, people would disregard it as inferior for not having free will or soul

The same excuses would be with aliens, etc

But humans acknowledge that some animals are stronger, faster, hardier, more colorful than our own species. We are still able to acknowledge superiority in animals even if the way the superiority is unique to that species.

 

[NZb6Air]

Elaborate what I got wrong?

You're talking bout moral worth specifically which is only intrinsic to rational beings (the higher IQ you are the more empathy and moral sensibility you have), irrational beings don't have moral worth (giga low iq or unconscious niggas/beings don't give a shit about other beings).

However, mistreating animals is still wrong since it can lead to a decay of our own moral sensibilities which could affect us and other sensible beings.

This has been proven by Kant to the max, just read his works

will be judged by

doesn't matter to unconscious beings LOL

 

[Sociobiology]

You're talking bout moral worth specifically which is only intrinsic to rational beings (the higher IQ you are the more empathy and moral sensibility you have), irrational beings don't have moral worth (giga low iq or unconscious niggas/beings don't give a shit about other beings).

This statement is the very thing I am arguing against. It is hypocrisy.

 

[maarda]

Truth is accessible to humans otherwise we would not be able to operate in the world. Could you imagine if EVERY single choice or prediction you made in your life was wrong? This is what it means for truth to be inaccessible to humans.

Just because we can navigate and survive doesn't mean we’re grasping objective truth. Our ‘truths’ are based on limited and often flawed perceptions, and we build models and systems that work in our context, not because they reveal an ultimate reality.

In reality, our perceptions are deeply biased and constructed, often making our so-called truth more about survival and convenience than an accurate reflection of an objective reality

 

[NZb6Air]

This statement is the very thing I am arguing against. It is hypocrisy.

You don't understand any word you're typing

 

[NZb6Air]

Just because we can navigate and survive doesn't mean we’re grasping objective truth. Our ‘truths’ are based on limited and often flawed perceptions, and we build models and systems that work in our context, not because they reveal an ultimate reality.

In reality, our perceptions are deeply biased and constructed, often making our so-called truth more about survival and convenience than an accurate reflection of an objective reality

Objective truth isn't accessible to an individual(limited) by definition, proven already 500 times (veil of maya, noumenon, etc) it's not a case to argue

 

[Sociobiology]

Just because we can navigate and survive doesn't mean we’re grasping objective truth. Our ‘truths’ are based on limited and often flawed perceptions, and we build models and systems that work in our context, not because they reveal an ultimate reality.

In reality, our perceptions are deeply biased and constructed, often making our so-called truth more about survival and convenience than an accurate reflection of an objective reality

You can experience truth without understanding truth. If you are experiencing truth you are therefore accessing truth.

In order for there to be a flawed perception there must be something to be perceived, which is truth. Even though are perceptions are often flawed there is still truth in our perception. In order for there to be a subjective reality there must be an objective reality to copy.

Also, you are relying on the western cuckloisphers definition of truth which is basically the idea that truth (is god) is a concept universal transcendent divinity. What truth actually is, is a word to describe that an explanation of the event is the same as the order or occurrence of an event. Truth is not transcendent.

 

[maarda]

You can experience truth without understanding truth. If you are experiencing truth you are therefore accessing truth.

In order for there to be a flawed perception there must be something to be perceived, which is truth. Even though are perceptions are often flawed there is still truth in our perception. In order for there to be a subjective reality there must be an objective reality to copy.

Also, you are relying on the western cuckloisphers definition of truth which is basically the idea that truth (is god) is a concept universal transcendent divinity. What truth actually is, is a word to describe that an explanation of the event is the same as the order or occurrence of an event. Truth is not transcendent.

We've strayed from the main topic
I don't think there's any point in discussing this

 

[Gonthar]

If you believe in equality you have to believe in consistency otherwise you have demonstrated a performative contradiction. To elaborate on this point, if you treat men equally to yourself but treat women lower to yourself this is seen as unequal, although equality is being practiced in this scenario the inconsistency of the equality shows that you are being unequal rather than equal. Therefore, if you believe in real equality you believe all life has equal value. This means your life has equal value to that of an ant or a worm. However, humans do not acknowledge this to be true yet will still demand equality, and thus are hypocrites. This can be shown by the fact that if you kill an ant nobody cares, but if you kill a human everyone will see you as a monster and you will be thrown into prison. Another example can be seen when a person eats a cow they're called being a meat eater and is seen as normal but when a person eats another person it's called cannibalism and is seen as evil and will get them thrown in prison. Whenever I question people on this dilemma they show the cruelty of mankind through the ignorance of their answers. To justify why it's just to treat an ant differently to themselves they proclaim bullshit answers like: "a human is more intelligent than an ant", "humans know right from wrong", "humans feel pain", "A human will achieve more than an ant". All these justifications are things an ant cannot control yet will be judged by. Essentially all the justifications given by humans boil down to humans are superior based upon gifts given to them by birth: a large brain, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to communicate, etc. Now, the question I want to ask is that if it is okay to judge an ant based upon it's birth why is it not okay to judge humans based upon their birth? One human may be more intelligent than another human or have a greater ability to feel pain or know right or wrong better or will achieve more in life. So why can't we do it humans if we judge animals by their birth?

TL;DR: Equality is a myth.

 

[Sociobiology]

I have not quoted a single one of those one liners.

 

[Gonthar]

I have not quoted a single one of those one liners.

But you talk exactly like that, with big words, complicated phrases and shit.

 

[maarda]

Yeah lets make threads about male models

 

[Dendoni]

But humans acknowledge that some animals are stronger, faster, hardier, more colorful than our own species. We are still able to acknowledge superiority in animals even if the way the superiority is unique to that species.

Yes, but not equal, it is pretty, like some pretty rocks like ametyst, is it equal to you?

 

[Sociobiology]

But you talk exactly like that, with big words, complicated phrases and shit.

The only phrase I have used that could be seen as complicated is the term "performative contradiction". You could just ask me what it means or search it up on google.

 

[Sociobiology]

Yes, but not equal, it is pretty, like some pretty rocks like ametyst, is it equal to you?

If a amethysts purpose is to be pretty and my purpose is to be moral (as a random example). Is equality determined by being as beautiful as the amethyst or as moral in the same proportion as the amethyst is beautiful?

 

[Haseeb]

To humans a human life is more valuable and to an ant an ant's. Specieism pill

If you believe in equality you have to believe in consistency otherwise you have demonstrated a performative contradiction. To elaborate on this point, if you treat men equally to yourself but treat women lower to yourself this is seen as unequal, although equality is being practiced in this scenario the inconsistency of the equality shows that you are being unequal rather than equal. Therefore, if you believe in real equality you believe all life has equal value. This means your life has equal value to that of an ant or a worm. However, humans do not acknowledge this to be true yet will still demand equality, and thus are hypocrites. This can be shown by the fact that if you kill an ant nobody cares, but if you kill a human everyone will see you as a monster and you will be thrown into prison. Another example can be seen when a person eats a cow they're called being a meat eater and is seen as normal but when a person eats another person it's called cannibalism and is seen as evil and will get them thrown in prison. Whenever I question people on this dilemma they show the cruelty of mankind through the ignorance of their answers. To justify why it's just to treat an ant differently to themselves they proclaim bullshit answers like: "a human is more intelligent than an ant", "humans know right from wrong", "humans feel pain", "A human will achieve more than an ant". All these justifications are things an ant cannot control yet will be judged by. Essentially all the justifications given by humans boil down to humans are superior based upon gifts given to them by birth: a large brain, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to communicate, etc. Now, the question I want to ask is that if it is okay to judge an ant based upon it's birth why is it not okay to judge humans based upon their birth? One human may be more intelligent than another human or have a greater ability to feel pain or know right or wrong better or will achieve more in life. So why can't we do it humans if we judge animals by their birth?

TL;DR: Equality is a myth.

 

[beefliverontop]

 

[sub5outsider]

when i was a kid i was destroying their house i was a shit person

 

[MoggerGaston]

when i was a kid i was destroying their house i was a shit person

cuz its an incel hobby/activity. not because ants have value

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

If you believe in equality you have to believe in consistency otherwise you have demonstrated a performative contradiction. To elaborate on this point, if you treat men equally to yourself but treat women lower to yourself this is seen as unequal, although equality is being practiced in this scenario the inconsistency of the equality shows that you are being unequal rather than equal. Therefore, if you believe in real equality you believe all life has equal value. This means your life has equal value to that of an ant or a worm. However, humans do not acknowledge this to be true yet will still demand equality, and thus are hypocrites. This can be shown by the fact that if you kill an ant nobody cares, but if you kill a human everyone will see you as a monster and you will be thrown into prison. Another example can be seen when a person eats a cow they're called being a meat eater and is seen as normal but when a person eats another person it's called cannibalism and is seen as evil and will get them thrown in prison. Whenever I question people on this dilemma they show the cruelty of mankind through the ignorance of their answers. To justify why it's just to treat an ant differently to themselves they proclaim bullshit answers like: "a human is more intelligent than an ant", "humans know right from wrong", "humans feel pain", "A human will achieve more than an ant". All these justifications are things an ant cannot control yet will be judged by. Essentially all the justifications given by humans boil down to humans are superior based upon gifts given to them by birth: a large brain, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to communicate, etc. Now, the question I want to ask is that if it is okay to judge an ant based upon it's birth why is it not okay to judge humans based upon their birth? One human may be more intelligent than another human or have a greater ability to feel pain or know right or wrong better or will achieve more in life. So why can't we do it humans if we judge animals by their birth?

TL;DR: Equality is a myth.

Depends on the color of the ant and the gender of the human

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

It’s called the food chain, there are prey and predators. I just so happen to be a predator, na wa m sayin

 

[anthony111553]

yes humans are superior

 

[ShowerMaxxing]

Human lives are more valuable to humans cuz like every animal our own come first and foremost. I can’t continue my species if I protect ants boyo

Orca hunt sometimes just for fun, they don’t care for the lives of other species and why should they? Others are competitors in the animal kingdom