Not everyone is limited/contrained by hazy definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism" like you are.
Get over your limited/dogmatic thinking (I know you can't - it's not in your character).
Trying to place people into neat "black-boxes" and pigeon-holes of "isms" doesn't work - humans and humanity are too complex for such simplistic thinking.
Humans first (regardless of ideology). Live and let live (instead of trying to control everyone's actions and freedoms - even when they have no impact on you).
That is the problem with people like you - you want to make the world in YOUR IMAGE and follow your dictates/dictum (this would make the world even more fucked-up than it already is).
Thank God sociopathic and fascistic people like you are a minority in this world!
I think you misunderstand that part of my comment. By Humans first - it means humanity. i.e. think of humans as humans (without ideologies superimposed on them). Another way of phrasing it is "think of the humans as humans first and foremost". (The statement is not a comparison of humans with any other species in any context).
Fair enough, though it seems to be poorly used language, as 'Aryans first' or 'America first' as comparisons give an idea of how that type of phrasing comes across.
Words and paragraphs depend on context. The context can change how a word is interpreted. Nothing in the context of my comment suggests ANY comparison of species or superiority of any species. It should be clear enough, though I understand what you mean.
Thanks; I roughly understand how language and communication works. I was holding back from saying 'it's poorly written so don't be surprised at the misunderstanding'. Nothing in the context transforms 'Humans first' into what you say it was intended to convey. Different words would have been needed to do that. My reading may seem a leap but is based upon the dominant context of anthropocentrism, but yours requires grammatical transmogrification!
Sent in good faith, if somewhat annoyed at your condescension.
Maybe check your own biases when understanding things?
What does "Humans first (regardless of ideology)" in the context of the paragraph mean to you? If you ask most people, there would be no misunderstandings about what is meant.
That YOU decided it meant something else may be because of YOUR internal beliefs, triggers, biases, etc.
If you are so concerned about this (as to have such a useless conversation over nothing), then maybe conduct your own poll/research to see if other people think like you do?
Not everyone is limited/contrained by hazy definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism" like you are.
Get over your limited/dogmatic thinking (I know you can't - it's not in your character).
Trying to place people into neat "black-boxes" and pigeon-holes of "isms" doesn't work - humans and humanity are too complex for such simplistic thinking.
Humans first (regardless of ideology). Live and let live (instead of trying to control everyone's actions and freedoms - even when they have no impact on you).
That is the problem with people like you - you want to make the world in YOUR IMAGE and follow your dictates/dictum (this would make the world even more fucked-up than it already is).
Thank God sociopathic and fascistic people like you are a minority in this world!
Well said, though I disagree with the 'Humans First' mantra. The Humans First monoculture is not looking great, tbh.
That's Ibrahamic 'God's chosen species' bullshit.
'Live and let live' suffices.
I think you misunderstand that part of my comment. By Humans first - it means humanity. i.e. think of humans as humans (without ideologies superimposed on them). Another way of phrasing it is "think of the humans as humans first and foremost". (The statement is not a comparison of humans with any other species in any context).
Fair enough, though it seems to be poorly used language, as 'Aryans first' or 'America first' as comparisons give an idea of how that type of phrasing comes across.
Anyway, I now get what you mean.
Words and paragraphs depend on context. The context can change how a word is interpreted. Nothing in the context of my comment suggests ANY comparison of species or superiority of any species. It should be clear enough, though I understand what you mean.
Thanks; I roughly understand how language and communication works. I was holding back from saying 'it's poorly written so don't be surprised at the misunderstanding'. Nothing in the context transforms 'Humans first' into what you say it was intended to convey. Different words would have been needed to do that. My reading may seem a leap but is based upon the dominant context of anthropocentrism, but yours requires grammatical transmogrification!
Sent in good faith, if somewhat annoyed at your condescension.
Maybe check your own biases when understanding things?
What does "Humans first (regardless of ideology)" in the context of the paragraph mean to you? If you ask most people, there would be no misunderstandings about what is meant.
That YOU decided it meant something else may be because of YOUR internal beliefs, triggers, biases, etc.
If you are so concerned about this (as to have such a useless conversation over nothing), then maybe conduct your own poll/research to see if other people think like you do?