there's so many conversations that can come from realizing that human beings aren't great. it immediately calls out so many flaws. it's like 'why are people racist?', 'why are people xenophobic?', 'why do we people intrinsically trust systems that place them at odds with each other?', 'why do people seem to lack empathy for other species, despite their tendency towards pets?'
people even have the nature of thinking we are the last step in the evolutionary ladder. that' logic' simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for human beings.
if you accept this, then you must accept the ego is an invention of the human being. the idea or concept of a 'you' in itself is a fucking creation.
and so i come back to the point, if you have to subscribe to the point that human beings are 'the most amazing things in the universe' then i say fuck you. you as the 'individual' specifically.
Just going on the basic logic of your post: If humans aren't supreme, then we aren't better than other species. In other words, we aren't morally superior, or more evolved or any of that. We are the same as other species other than we have traits that make us human. If you accept that premise then you can't suggest humans are uniquely terrible either. Our infighting is not morally different from lions infighting. Our treatment of other species is not inferior to the way any animal treats other species. So thinking that humans are worse than other species because we have racism and lack empathy is at odds with thinking that humans aren't any better than any other species. Either we're superior in our flaws or our perfections. If we're the ultimate evil, then we are superior. We're just superior in our malice.
i mean, you're not really contradicting anything i'm saying, just stating that we definitely are 'superior' in our heinousness. which i guess i'll concede on.
So the people you're telling to fuck off are correct then, humans are superior.
no, they're heinous for believing that that's a decent way by which to judge things.
You can be heinous and be correct though. And you said in your other post that you're rejecting the idea of superiority. But you're claiming and agreeing that humans are superior in their evil. If we kill all other animals on Earth, and dominate everything, and eachother, then we are superior. It's just not good. You can agree it's not good, and not nice, and not moral. You can say that it will end in ruin. But that doesn't contradict the notion of superiority. It's like you're only accepting the description of superior on the basis that it correlates to something positive. Just like you're now conflating being heinous with being incorrect. This is both a linguistic and conceptual issue with your argument. Not liking a hierarchy doesn't mean hierarchies don't exist.
i guess my criteria for amazing is just a lot different than a kill count
Superior isn't always positive though. It's not a synonym for amazing. And again, you can have different criteria. That's fair. But you have to be aware of how you're using categories and ideas. These things exist outside of what you're feeling at the moment. All I'm pointing out, as others here have done, is that you're probably not thinking this all the way through. It's not a particularly clear idea and it seems to be based on a lot of narrow assumptions and emotions. I'm just trying to approach it by form rather than content, as others have done.
i don't think you've really poked any kind of holes in the actual argument, being that humans are shit, based on a the moral criteria that can be derived from the questions listed.
You're saying a lot more than "humans are shit". I can tell because there's a lot more than three words in your posts. If you don't even know what you're saying, maybe take a beat.
Your argument wasn't just that humans are shit. It's that humans are wrong for thinking they're superior than other species. Which means you think humans aren't superior than other species. Which means you can't think that humans are superior at being evil. Because if we're all just animals, and no better than them, then you're inventing an ego and a moral system just like the people you're criticizing. It's also not a leftist argument to make, as others have pointed out and you can't seem to address. My argument isn't that humans are great or that you shouldn't be be angry, it's just that you want to believe humans are unnaturally evil while using naturalistic assumptions/premises about evolution and other things.