0_0_2518

chicken lives*, not children chicken

1. My arguments have been about how the value of the lives of children chickens and humans are the same, not how the reactions should be the same. 2. MC killed the chicken to see if he would gain soul points. While the chicken would have died quickly either way, MC's involvement was driven by desire for strength, not food or survival. 3. My claim was that human life is equal to chicken life, not that humans see human life as being equal to chicken life. 4. While nothing having inherent value is a philosophical view, that is because I interpreted the original comment ("human isnt equal to a chicken") in a more philosophical way. I did not claim that in order to say that MC's reaction was unrealistic, but in order to explain why I was confused when faced with the original comment. 5. I agree with this point. 6. You should avoid using em-dashes in the future, as most people see them as an indicator of AI being used in your writing.

If your next reply isn't an actual argument, I will assume you are too stupid to hold an actual conversation and stop responding.

Still haven't given any argument whatsoever, idiot

No life has any inherent value. 0 = 0. Therefore, human life is equal to chicken lives. Also, when someone asks a question, a better response than "your opinion is wrong and you're an idiot" would be to explain why you disagree. There are ways to disagree without being rude, and if your immediate response in such a situation is the former, you might be the one that needs to reevaluate your life.

No life has any inherent value. 0 = 0. Therefore, human life is equal to chicken lives. Also, when someone asks a question, a better response than "your opinion is wrong, go outside" would be to explain why you disagree. There are ways to disagree without being rude, and if your immediate response in such a situation is the former, you might be the one that needs to reevaluate your life.

How so?