Quote:
Originally Posted by Alumiyum
Easy tiger. No need to be rude. I do not feel they are necessarily tied together. I do not think that because someone is famous, they are more valuable than I am as a human being. They are more attractive, wealthy, and famous, but that doesn't make them a better person than I (or anyone else). I also do not believe I am the only person on the planet that thinks this way.
|
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just surprised by how you're advancing your argument here.
In fact - restate it for me. Because earlier, you claimed that people are "too self-absorbed" to think that smart white blond girls have more value than other people ... then you moved the goalposts, and said that "value" does not equal "value" in any sense of valuation I provided (and I provided multiple types of valuation). Now "value" means "better person" . . . which seems like an essentially meaningless term, at least for our purposes, because it's impossible to define.
So . . . is it some sort of intrinsic value in people? How can you say it's a different sort of "value" than the commonly-accepted definition of "value" as something that can be counted or expressed in comparison with other things?
Apparently, you can't measure "better person" because it's something different than the actual, value-driven differentiations that I provided.
How did we get here? That's not rhetorical - look back at your posts in this thread. It's kind of bizarre - you're attempting to separate yourself from your own arguments. It's sort of duplicitous (in the literal sense of the term) - you're both arguing that your "inside knowledge" of the situation makes it unique, and that the knowledge is globally or universally applicable. Can it really be both?
I'm so confused. What are you really trying to do here?
Threaded Mode