Correct, my post was not about me, it was about having never heard someone express that they think one person is more valuable than another. I am responding to your posts, and right now there is no "general discussion of the trends and patterns that are observed in victimology and have been applied to cases such as Holloway's". There are only your posts on the topic, and the responses to those posts. If you think they aren't applicable to the discussion you want to have, you can always just not respond to them.

I have a hard time believing the majority of people, average people, truly believe those that achieve a more stereotypical success in life are more valuable as human beings. That's basically saying they think these people are more valuable than they themselves are. I think people in general are too self absorbed to truly believe that.

You're demonstrably wrong here.

Of course people (in general) believe that successful people are better, more valuable, etc. Just because we don't often put a specific valuation on those people doesn't mean it isn't a value issue (although we do - see: life insurance for literal value, and eBay sales of memorabilia for another form of value).

For other examples, look at sales of books by individuals who people view as successful, deference to "figurehead" success stories (see: Warren Buffett), celebrity weddings and funerals, and proven increased pay and opportunities for attractive people.

People are self-absorbed to the point of wanting to associate themselves with these people who they view as having increased value.

I am talking about worth as a person, not name recognition, monetary value, or fame. Worth as a human being.

If you don't feel those two things are inextricably tied together, you're living on a fantasy planet of your own creation.

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.

They are inextricably tied together which goes back to my very first post.

The thing about studying patterns in victimology is that you and the other people who insist that it doesn't apply to you/them*** don't do away with the larger pattern being observed. There millions of people in this world. That's why I was asking why you kept needing it to either apply to you or to be able to personally attest to it.


***As I previously stated, you can't go based on what people literally say because everyone's an awesome beacon of hope if you let them tell it.

I'm gonna' go out on a limb here and say that if someone who was a complete waste of life (in my eyes) passes away, I don't really care about it. For instance, if someone was a rapist, child molestor, torturer, etc., and that person comes up missing or dead, I personally think to myself, "One less piece of garbage the world has to deal with." I sometimes feel bad for thinking that way because it def. isn't the right thing to say with my religious beliefs but, I think it...sure.

Everybody pretty much knows what many don't want to admit to: Attractive white girls get more media attention than any other minority when it comes to being victimized. It's not a shocker but, I also see what Alumiyum is saying. I don't think she is entirely disputing that fact. She's just saying that, while the Media seems to place more value or emphasis on the life of an attractive white woman, we shouldn't hold it against the person missing. I also don't think she was saying that anyone here was doing that, though.

I apply things to myself to avoid the age old trap of "speaking for others". But at the risk of speaking for others, I just can't believe the majority of people truly believe that Natalee, for instance, is genuinely more important than Suzy Q., who is an 18 year old missing girl that didn't make all As and has brown frizzy hair. Natalee's story might be more interesting and easier to relate to, but does that automatically mean people value her life more than their neighbor's?

Yes, that is true. As I've said, it's a fact that a girl like Natalee will get more media attention than a girl that is average or non white or from a less June Cleaver-esque background. I interpret Dr. Phil and KSig as saying that even when Amy Average does make the news, she isn't as likely to stay there since people don't care as much because she's so average/non white/from a low income family/any other of these factors that make it hard to get media attention, and that on a deep level people do place others on an actual scale of value as humans, which is a whole different point.

Correct.

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?

You really can't believe this?

Even though you've noted that news organizations focus massively more time, effort and attention on cute white girls than random black girls?

Even though the news organization presumably does this because it increases eyeballs on the screen, improving ratings and whatnot?

And with the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of viewers are neither cute nor young (although they may be white and female)?

I mean . . . if you want to pay lip service to the notion of "better-person" intrinsic value, go crazy - but all the evidence points toward a disproportionate societal interest in cute, rich, smart, young white women. Which means we're more interested in them. Which means they're "more important" in that sense. Which is the only way we have to measure "value" to the community at large.

If you don't want to make the leap, fine, but hopefully you can see a.) why others will and b.) that it's just not that short. Sure, individuals don't - but the whole certainly does. 100% does.

Is she wasn't saying that, then the past 5 pages of this thread wouldn't exist.

I can usually keep up with GC hijacks, but this one doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how we got here lol