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

First, there is no argument. There are only my posts on how I see things. Opinion. Second, I "claimed" nothing. I did say that I think people do not deep down believe that someone like Natalee is a more worthy person than someone who was more average at that age, since most people are in fact "average", and they would essentially be believing people like Natalee are better than THEY are. And yes, I think most people are too self absorbed to really believe that.

I also do not think that measuring a person's worth based on fame and money even works in relation to this case, as we're talking about an 18 year old girl. I think her story is more "interesting" to the public and therefore more sellable for several reasons, including the fact that she was pretty, blond, smart, white, and disappeared in a tropical location under suspicious circumstances.

It's not that complicated, nor is it an argument, and as I've said, this is not something I can or do look at objectively. I absolutely do not claim that my "inside knowledge" makes my viewpoint unique. I do not have "inside knowledge", I simply knew Natalee and her friends. This only matters in relation to this thread because it means I am not an objective observer, and is certainly not "unique".

I'm not trying to do anything. You are making this 547389574839578349 more complicated than it actually is, because what this boils down to is my posting my opinions. I am not trying to make an argument, look at this objectively, make an informed point, or find some sort of great truth. I am simply saying that I do not believe almost everyone genuinely thinks at their core that it is less of a loss of life when the missing person isn't blond, pretty, or smart. That's all there is to it.

"Argument" does not mean "fighting over who is right."

Your opinions are making a point - you are arguing in favor of your opinions. Your process of reasoning is an argument by definition.

We are clearly having language difficulties.

Why? Support this, because all available information points the other way (information which you seem to be ignoring).

Why is the case more "sellable" than others? Go a level deeper than you are now - why are those factors sellable?

You took "insider knowledge" as a bad thing. It isn't. And it's likely more unique than universally applicable - again, running away from it.

So your opinions are so simple that they don't apply to the argument?

The "IT'S JUST MY OPINION!" defense is, and always will be, assailable and (frankly) wrong. There are no exceptions for opinions - they still have to make sense, still have to be logical, still have to be rooted in fact.

That's good (because we're not approaching any of those things). But my confusion comes in because it seems like you are - or were, at least. That could well be my bad, or not.

Then defend this point, because heck, it sure appears we've provided a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

You can't just say "I believe ______ to be true" then just smile, wave and we'll go "that's an interesting opinion!" Your point doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Now, my nose is well-shaped and generally effective, but it's been wrong before - colossally wrong on rare occasions. I'm genuinely interested in hearing other viewpoints, but you don't seem interested in providing them.

In fact, you're arguing over the definition of "argument" instead, and telling more about what you're NOT saying than what you ARE.

Buddy, there is no discussion from my side. I believe what I believe, and do not feel the need to spend the afternoon responding by writing a novel to counter the novel you just wrote. You need to have this debate with someone else, because I'm simply not interested. Opinions do not HAVE to be anything but opinions, and you can think they're stupid, misinformed or what have you, but hey...we still all have the right to them.

I just want you to understand what you're doing here, because I have no beef with you otherwise, and you seem like a fine contributor and all that:

You're taking your ball and going home.

Um...what am I doing here? Posting, like everyone else? Damn. Show's over dude, move on.

BOY YOU SURE ARE SO ABOVE THIS!!!!!

PROTIP: Everything I posted was in response to you. Punch yourself in the ovary and get over it.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WxlN78MfKy...to+douglas.jpg

I'm not above anything, I just explained repeatedly I was posting opinion, and it was simple as that. You just had to keep it going, and then question why I'm here, because I didn't wish to have a discussion with you. It's GreekChat. I have as much right to be here as you.

Also, you're kind of a dick.

I don't want you to leave, I'm not saying you're not worthwhile or whatever (in fact I said the opposite). No idea where that's coming from, but it's worth clarifying - I have no problem with you and never questioned your right to be here.

This is some internet drama, because I had the audacity to challenge your opinion?

QED, clearly.

Yeah, yah did. And finished it with your eloquent ovary punching line. So "QFP" all you want. I still think you're kind of a dick.

Does QED = QFP? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

I hope for the sake of her family that the remains that they have found are hers. It will be comforting to be able to lay her to rest both literally and figuratlively.

Only if you're not a dick.

Nope lol

Yeah, I didn't think so, LOL. QFP was not discussed in any classes I took, but QED was.

Well, she did announce it instead of just ignoring you. LOL. You're not surprised.

There are some discussions that are best had only with people who do not need to be able to personally attest to something; and with people who don't need every assessment to match their personal opinion.

Why do I feel like I wandered into the Argument Clinic?

Is that your way of saying that you feel as though people were picking a pointless "argument" in this thread?

It's my way of commenting on people arguing about whether they're having an argument -- particularly certain people denying that they're having an argument.

I think it is because you are the fourth from the left.

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Funny/horses-ass.jpg

And, as always, Ghostwriter comes late to ride someone's nuts and fight a battle that is already over.

This made me dizzy. LOL.

************

I don't understand (well, I do, and that's what the last pages of this thread have been about) all of the articles announcing that there will be an announcement this afternoon, but here goes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...72-504083.html

Lollerskates.

Also, I really freaking hate Nancy Grace. Like, a whole lot. That's neither here nor there in NH's case though.

Has Nancy Grace been talking about Natalee Holloway a lot? I thought she was obsessed with this case (and other cases). I haven't watched or listened to her in a while so I don't know if she's still covering this case.

(I never liked Nancy Grace's original show or her new court show. I could rant about that in another thread. LOL.)

They're presenting as we speak. One of my friends is a forensic researcher and is at the presentation (but doesn't work on the case)


On a different note, I find it weird they still call Aruba a Dutch Island. It's like calling Scotland English.

I'm not really sure - I sort of tuned out during her first frenzy over this case but I decided never to watch it again when I saw the way she treated Elizabeth Smart in an interview (not related to this case).

I can't see how she wouldn't be, though.

Also, and this is a sidenote, I really don't feel like NH's mom should have gone to see Joran in jail, and I really feel like it shouldn't have been televised. I can't imagine that the media attention is having positive effects, at this point, which makes me really sad.

She and the guy who helped her (a much-hated Dutch TV reporter) are being sued for going in there because it was an illegal action that threatens the case against Joran.

Ah, I didn't see that (sounds heartless, but on the whole this case doesn't really interest me).

I saw the teasers on the news and I was like "Really? This seemed like a good idea to you people?"

It is a spectacle. A spectacle to which only certain demographics of people are able to subject others to.

Show me a distraught and desperate family that is of lower socioeconomic status and/or racial and ethnic minority and I'll show "you" a distraught and desperate family that wouldn't receive as much media attention and definitely wouldn't be able to meet the accused, outside of a courtoom/criminal justice system context, and have it televised.

The case doesn't interest me that much either but Joran lived in the Netherlands for a while so Natalee's mum insist on going on Dutch TV a much as she can, and the aforementioned TV reporter is more than willing to give her a platform.

Thank you. It isn't on CNN right now, so I guess I'll catch it later.

Good.

"When privilege fails miserably," next on Oprah.