AL Teen Missing in Aruba

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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.

[als463]

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by als463

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.

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

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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 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?

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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?

Chiming in here:

It's sometimes not that they value her life over Suzy's, it's just that they are more likely to actually HEAR about the Natalee's lives when they go missing, and thus are able to connect to/relate to who she is.

They very well COULD relate to Suzy, if they ever heard about her being missing. Not everyone's disappearance gains the attention that a Natalee type gets. It's not that they don't care or value the Suzy's. They just aren't aware.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Chiming in here:

It's sometimes not that they value her life over Suzy's, it's just that they are more likely to actually HEAR about the Natalee's lives when they go missing, and thus are able to connect to/relate to who she is.

They very well COULD relate to Suzy, if they ever heard about her being missing. Not everyone's disappearance gains the attention that a Natalee type gets. It's not that they don't care or value the Suzy's. They just aren't aware.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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?

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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?

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

First, there is no argument. There are only my posts on how I see things. Opinion.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

I am not trying to make an argument, look at this objectively, make an informed point, or find some sort of great truth.

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.

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

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