My comment was an appropriate use of derision given the extremist nature of the original argument. Advocating for the elimination of humanity is a dangerous fringe view that contradicts fundamental moral values. Treating it with intellectual seriousness would legitimize an abhorrent position.
Suggesting OP volunteer to go first, I exposed the glaring ethical contradiction in their argument. If they truly believe in eliminating humanity, logically they should be willing to start with themselves.
In extreme cases involving manifestly unethical ideas, derision is justified to decisively reject the premise, highlight its incoherence, and affirm community values. Engaging respectfully would be counterproductive by dignifying an view that deserves no respect.
Suggesting OP volunteer to go first, I exposed the glaring ethical contradiction in their argument. If they truly believe in eliminating humanity, logically they should be willing to start with themselves.
In extreme cases involving manifestly unethical ideas, derision is justified to decisively reject the premise, highlight its incoherence, and affirm community values. Engaging respectfully would be counterproductive by dignifying an view that deserves no respect.